2020-11-05 WE IDIAN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho
Thursday, November 05, 2020 at 6:00 PM
MINUTES
ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE
PRESENT
Commissioner Lisa Holland
Commissioner Rhonda McCarvel
Commissioner Bill Cassinelli -Arrived at 6:52 p.m.
Commissioner Andrew Seal
Commissioner Steven Yearsley
ABSENT
Chairperson Ryan Fitzgerald
Commissioner Nick Grove
ADOPTION OF AGENDA-Adopted
CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] -Approved
1. Approval of the October 22, 2020 Planning and Zoning Commission Special
Meeting Minutes
ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item]
ACTION ITEMS
2. Public Hearing for Oakwind Estates Subdivision (H-2020-0093) by
Engineering Solutions, Located at 5685 N. Black Cat Rd.
A. Request: Preliminary Plat for 94 single family lots, 92 townhome lots, 26
common lots and 3 common driveway lots on 24.54 acres.
Recommended Approval to City Council, Hearing Scheduled for December 15,
2020
3. Public Hearing for Goddard Creek Subdivision (H-2020-0092) by Conger
Group, Located in the Northwest Corner of W. McMillan Road and N. Goddard
Creek Way
A. Request: Development Agreement Modification (Inst. #102012598) to
allow the development of an age restricted community consisting of thirty-
four (34) attached SFR homes instead of offices.
B. Request: A Rezone of approximately 5 acres of land from the R-4 to the R-15
zoning district.
C. Request: A Preliminary Plat for 34 residential lots and 8 common lots in the
proposed R-15 zoning district.
Recommended Approval to City Council, Hearing Scheduled for December 15,
2020
ADJOURNMENT
The Meeting Adjourned at 8:01 p.m.
Item 1.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting November 5, 2020.
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of November 5, 2020, was
called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Vice-Chairman Lisa Holland.
Members Present: Commissioner Lisa Holland, Commissioner Bill Cassinelli,
Commissioner Andrew Seal, Commissioner Rhonda McCarvel and Commissioner
Steven Yearsley.
Members Absent: Commissioner Nick Grove and Chairman Ryan Fitzgerald.
Others Present: Adrienne Weatherly, Andrea Pogue, Bill Parsons, Alan Tiefenbach and
Dean Willis.
ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE
X Lisa Holland X Rhonda McCarvel
X Andrew Seal Nick Grove
_X Steven Yearsley X Bill Cassinelli (Joined at 6:53 p.m.)
Ryan Fitzgerald - Chairman
Holland: Good evening to everyone. Welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission
for November 5, 2020. We are doing a joint virtual and in-person meeting. So, thanks to
Commissioner Seal for being there in person for us, while some of the other
Commissioners are here on Zoom. On your screen you should see Commissioners who
are present for this evening's meeting, as well as some of our staff are at City Hall,
including the city attorney, our city clerk's office and some of the staff from our Planning
Department as well. Everybody else that is participating -- there might be some of you at
City Hall, but others might be on Zoom and you can observe the meeting. We will be able
to see that you are here, but your ability to talk and be seen will be muted while the
meeting is -- is happening. During the public testimony portion of the meeting you will be
unmuted and able to comment. If you have previously sent in a presentation for the
meeting it will be displayed on the screen during the time you are called and the clerk will
run that presentation for you and they can also assist with bringing up a slide from another
presentation if you need it, so just go ahead and ask. If you are just attending and want
to watch the meeting you are certainly welcome to just watch on the city's YouTube
channel, which is at meridiancity.org/live. And we will open up each item individually and,
then, start with the staff report. Staff will report their findings on how the item adheres to
our Comprehensive Plan and Uniform Development Code. After staff has made their
presentation the applicant will come forward and present their case and respond to any
staff comments and they will have 15 minutes to do so. After that becomes finished we
will open up the floor for public testimony and, then, give the applicant a chance to
respond as well after that. Once public testimony is open this evening, the clerk will call
the names of people who have signed up to testify on the website. You will be unmuted
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 5,2020 5
Page 2 of 34
at that point in time and we will call on you individually and remember to state your name
and address for the record for us and you will have three minutes to address the
Commission, unless you are representing a larger group, like an HOA. After that time we
may ask you for any questions for clarification. Once you are done they will mute you
again and you will no longer have the ability to speak. Once all those who have signed
up in advance are called, I will invite any others who would wish to testify and if you wish
to speak on a topic you may press the raise hand button in the Zoom app. You can wave
at Commissioner Seal at City Hall or if you are listening through a cell phone or landline,
you can always press star nine to be unmuted and wait for your name to be called. If you
are listening on multiple devices make sure you mute those devices, so that you don't
experience feedback and everyone can hear you clearly and we won't be able to take
questions until the public testimony portion, so if you have a process question during the
meeting you can always e-mail cityclerk@meridiancity.org and they will attempt to help
you address the question as quickly as possible. So, with that we would like to call the
meeting to order officially and we will start with a roll call, Madam Clerk, if you wouldn't
mind.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Holland: Great. Thank you. Just trying to get the agenda loaded back up here again.
One second. Clicked too many things on my screen. We have a few items on the agenda
tonight. The first is to adopt the agenda. Can I get a motion to adopt the agenda as
presented?
Seal: So moved.
McCarvel: So moved.
Seal: Second.
Holland: Got a motion and a second. All those in favor? Hearing none opposed, motion
passes.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT.
CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item]
1. Approval of the October 22, 2020 Planning and Zoning Commission
Special Meeting Minutes
Holland: Next on the agenda is the Consent Agenda, which is the approval of the October
22nd, 2020, Planning and Zoning Commission special meeting minutes. Can I get a
motion to approve the Consent Agenda?
Seal: So moved.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 5,2020 6
Page 3 of 34
McCarvel: Second.
Holland: Okay. Got a motion and a second. All those in favor. Hearing none opposed.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT.
ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item]
Holland: We will move on. Items moved from the Consent Agenda.
ACTION ITEMS:
2. Public Hearing for Oakwind Estates Subdivision (H-2020-0093) by
Engineering Solutions, Located at 5685 N. Black Cat Rd.
A. Request: Preliminary Plat for 94 single family lots, 92 townhome
lots, 26 common lots and 3 common driveway lots on 24.54 acres.
Holland: To Action Items and the first item on our agenda is the public hearing for
Oakwind Estates Subdivision, H-2020-0093, by Engineering Solutions, on Black Cat
Road and we will begin with the staff report.
Tiefenbach: Good evening, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. Alan
Tiefenbach, Associate Planner with the City of Meridian. This is a request for a
preliminary plat and a development agreement modification. Let's see if I can get this to
work for me here. So, it's a preliminary plat for 94 single family lots, 92 townhome lots,
26 common lots on just a little less than 25 acres. As I said, it also includes a modification
to the existing development agreement, which designates the property for multi-family
and self storage. Give you just a bit of history on this. In 2008 this property received
annexation approval for a large master planned residential development at the time called
Oak Creek. In 2013 the subject property was rezone to the R-15 zoning district as part
of the Ultra North Subdivision. So, this 24 and a half acre property is part of a much larger
295 acre property. So, this subject property, as I mentioned, was approved for multi-
family on the north side and self storage on the south side. The self storage was only to
be customarily incidental to the residential, so it can't be a standalone self storage as a
primary use, it was only to serve the residents of that subdivision. The DA was amended
at the time to allow this. In 2018 the multi-family portion of this property, about 16 some
acres, was proposed to be rezoned to R-8 to develop single family detached. This was
another amendment to the development agreement to remove that multi-family
requirement. This went to the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission
recommended approval, but it never made it to the Council and since has been withdrawn.
That said, the Oaks North plat and the DA for the Oaks North are what still governs this
property. Here are the maps just to sort of show you what -- what is recommended for in
the future land use map is medium density residential, zoned R-15. This is the -- the red
lines represent properties that are being developed presently now and yellow represents
anything that's actively in hearing. So, I will talk a little bit about this plat. Again, as listed
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 5,2020 7
Page 4 of 34
above there has been several rezonings and DAs relating to this property and as part of
the -- as I said, the Oaks North plat. Excuse me. And the property is about 24 and a half
acres of the -- almost 300 acres of the Oaks North plat. The northern 17 and a half acres
is presently zoned to allow multi-family of between eight to 15 dwelling units per acre.
The southern seven, almost eight acres is zoned to allow self storage. This preliminary
plat includes a new development agreement to allow single family -- I'm going to use this
one, because I think it's easier to see this colored one. So, this preliminary plat would be
-- would include a development agreement to allow single family on the northern half and
townhouses on the southern half. The single family would be on lots of approximately
3,000 to 5,000 square foot. The townhouses will be on lots of between 2,100 and 3,200
square feet. The proposed street network stubs two streets, Cherrybrook Drive, which is
here, and West Milano -- or excuse me. And West Daphne Street, which is here. And
those connect to Trident, which you can see here. North Trident terminates up at the
North Oaks and terminates down at McMillan to the west. This proposal would not provide
direct access to the arterial, nor would it increase the number of access points to that
arterial now. There are several internal roads, which you can see here, is Avilla and
Milano and also there are -- there is an alley that you can see here. So, the townhouses
are alley loaded. ACHD has commented that Marysville Street and Palustris, I think it's
called, Avenue, that's these two streets here, are rather long and they are recommending
traffic calming for these streets. That's one of the conditions of approval. And when we
talk about traffic calming we are not saying speed bumps or road signs, ACHD is talking
about things such as islands or narrowing it or doing more curves -- design elements to
actually slow down traffic on those areas. I want to mention that the staff report mentioned
that the applicant would be required to construct curb and gutter along with McMillan.
However, it's been clarified that McMillan is an arterial and curb and gutter is not required.
Another thing I want to clarify is that there was some confusion between the preliminary
plat and the landscape plan. The preliminary plat showed that there would be five foot
sidewalks built along McMillan. The landscape plan scaled out to be ten foot sidewalks.
It's actually five foot sidewalks and if you look to the -- to the Oaks North to the east the
sidewalks there are also five feet. So, the sidewalk would tie at the proper width. Finally,
I guess I want to mention that the UDC states that residential development along the
McDermott Road from Chinden to 84 is required to provide noise abatement and that
would be here and that noise abatement would be by constructing a berm or a berm-wall
combination. It has to be at least ten feet above the centerline of McDermott Road. As
a condition of approval staff's recommending the applicant submit a landscape plan which
meets those requirements prior to City Council. This development proposes 16 -- almost
17 percent of qualified open space. That's almost twice of what they are -- they are
required to provide. This includes several grassy areas that are bigger than 50 by 100.
That includes pathways. You can see one here. You can see pathways here. There are
pathways running along here. There is pathways running along with the townhouses.
There is also a central park, I guess you could call it, that includes like an outdoor picnic
area. It also includes -- let's see. Hold on here. The applicant has provided building
elevations, which I will show you here. These building elevations overall staff thinks to
calling it good, but we did have concerns with these elevations, in particular the length of
these roofs. If you look at this roof here -- we can start with that one. We believe that
that roof should project across the home. We also had some issues with the length of the
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 5,2020 $
Page 5 of 34
roofs of these townhouses. We thought that these roofs should be broken up better. If
you look at our architectural standards manual you will see that you can't have roof lines
longer than 50 feet without having some kind of variation in the roof plain, so that was our
recommendation. We also believe that these little roofs pitch elements that you see here
should be carried around on the -- along the face of the townhouses. A condition of
approval of the staff report was that the applicant revise these elevations prior to Planning
Commission. I received some revised elevations today. This is what you will see. Overall
I think staff supports the ones on the bottom. We still think the ones on the top should
probably include some kind of elements above the garage door. We would prefer the roof
or something like that be carried. If you look at the two on the bottom we think that they
did a very good job of that. There is the roof continuing across on the bottom left. You
can see they did like a -- like an exposed timber frame or trellis type elements above the
garage door on this one. Moving along to the townhouses, they have since broken up
these roofs. You can see how they have broken up the lengths of these roofs. We
certainly like that. Similar to the elevations of single family, we think that these --the little
pitch elements of these overhangs -- there should be something above the garage door,
whether they want to do another overhang like that or whether they do some kind of
exposed timber frame, we think there should be some added visual relief. It would be our
recommendation, looking at these new elevations, that the Planning Commission
consider that and add that as a condition of approval. With that staff recommends that
the Planning Commission approve this. We think that it includes less density than what
was originally approved, but it still contains a diverse housing stock in terms of lot sizes,
house sizes, in detached and detached housing projects. Also the qualified open space
and amenities as proposed exceeds the minimum requirements. The amount of -- of
open space is almost double what is required. It's central to the development and there
is numerous pathways integrated into and out of the development. So, after -- so, with
that staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City
Council with the conditions as listed in the staff report and we still believe that there should
be conditions for more enhancements to the architecture on several of the houses, as
well as the townhouses, and I would entertain questions at this time.
Holland: Sorry, I was on mute. Any questions for staff from the Commission?
Seal: Madam Chair? Madam Chair?
Holland: Go ahead, Commissioner Seal.
Seal: Just a quick question here on the staff analysis, it's a little confusing. I think I
understand essentially what's going on, but in the -- in Item B here it says: However,
since the development agreement applies to the entire Oaks North and South, of which
this property is only a small part, staff believes it would be better to leave the existing DA
as is and create a new development agreement for this property. So, essentially, that
takes -- what that's saying is take just this property out of the rest of the development
agreement and leave that original development alone?
Tiefenbach: Members of the Planning Commission, Madam Chair, that's correct. We
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 5,2020 191
Page 6 of 34
would be removing this portion of the property out of the Oaks North development
agreement and this would be a new development agreement that would -- that would
apply to just this property, the 24 plus acres.
Seal: Okay. Thank you.
Holland: Any other questions for staff before we hear from the applicant? Hearing none,
I believe Becky is with us to talk on the application. And if you wouldn't mind stating your
name and address for the record, we would appreciate it, Becky. Thank you.
McKay: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, Becky McKay, Engineering
Solutions, business address 1029 North Rosario in Meridian. I'm hear representing the
applicant BB Living, which is a division of Toll Southwest. Hang on here. So, the -- the
property that you are looking at is that northeast corner of West McMillan and McDermott
Road. As staff indicated, there is approximately 24 and a half acres there. You can see
the previous phases that we have designed, recorded, or have submitted final plats and
designs to the city on. The project Oaks North is proceeding forward. Oak South is
completely built out now and so in this -- in this corner initially what -- what we had
anticipated is based on the environmental impact study that was prepared by Idaho
Department of Transportation for State Highway 16, phase two and phase three. They
had indicated that McMillan Road would go up over McDermott and so we had -- initially
when this was planned back in 2008 and came through as a pre-plat in 2013, that -- that
we would have an overpass and so we would have significant grade that -- that would --
McMillan would start rising and so we proposed a use that we thought would be
compatible with that, which would be mini storage that would service the Oaks
development in its entirety and, then, we had multi-family buildings on the remainder.
Over the past few years ITD has changed their plan and has submitted a new EIS to the
feds and they are going to have State Highway 16 go over the top of McMillan. So, there
will no longer be an overpass here and initially we had planned for a bypass of McDermott
Road to come through our site, then, we had this significant amount of right of way
allocated along the north and south part of McMillan Road to accommodate it and uses
that would, obviously, be able -- would not be negatively impacted by the overpass. So,
we kind of had to rethink our plans, because a lot has changed since 2008 and 2013.
This is the property that you can see. This is a view of the property from the west
boundary. As you can see it's relatively flat. We have Jump Creek Subdivision to the --
to the east of us. They come off of -- their access is off a Black Cat and off of McMillan
Road. They have a collector that connects to us, extending out to Black Cat, aligning with
the collector roadway in Bridgetower West. This was the original preliminary plat that was
approved in 2013 by the City Council. As you can see we have -- where is my -- have to
find it. There it is. So, we had this area that was going to be multi-family, R-15 apartment
type development. We did not have any specific site plan. It was just approved for a
certain number of units and, then, we had the -- oh, dang it. This thing gets squirrelly on
me. There we go. And then -- how come I always lose the cursor, Bill? There it is. Then
we had this mini storage here and as you can see here was the overpass as it started to
increase in elevation. State Highway 16 is west of -- west of McDermott about 300 feet
and -- I'm having technical difficulties. And, then, we had what we call the McDermott
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 5,2020 Flo]
Page 7 of 34
bypass -- that, then, McDermott would terminate and, then, bypass that overpass. So,
obviously, with the changes in the ITD plan, we had to rethink what was going to transpire.
So, this is -- this is what we came up with and one of the things that was, obviously, a
integral part of our Oaks North and Oak South project was the fact that we would have
diversity. Diversity in lot sizes. Diversity in different types of home -- housing products.
We had significant open space. We had pathways. And so we -- we took a look at this
and said, you know, what are we lacking as far as different product in the Oaks project.
Townhomes were one. Secondly were patio homes for like empty nesters on smaller
lots. We had our Garden product. We had our Woodland product. We had our
Countryside product. And so we wanted to, obviously, add another dimension for the
housing market in this project. This is the preliminary plat that you see right here. This
is an overall colored rendering of what you see. So, we -- we kind of took the project.
We have Trident, which is a collector roadway. So, I have no direct access onto
McDermott, nor to McMillan. All of our access is on our internal collector roadway Trident.
The number of vehicle trips proposed within this development are less than what was
anticipated and accounted for in the original traffic study that was done on the site back
in 2013. Ada County Highway District indicated that a new analysis would not be
necessary, since we have been widening McMillan Road 17 feet from centerline in both
directions, since we are north and south of McMillan, and we did construct a roundabout
at our primary mid mile continuous collector, Rustic Oak, which exceeded a million dollars
and so that -- that is -- has been constructed and is operational. So, what we looked at
-- and we worked closely with BB Living and their architects KTGY, who are specialists in
-- in this type of product, that the southern portion of the project that you see is
townhomes. We wanted to have a mixture of front load and rear load, so that we had
differing elevations. We have MEWs incorporated in the project and you can see that --
that some of the units are along a MEW. Some of them have front load. They all have
garages. They all have 20-by-20 carport or car pads in front and, then, we do have one
20 foot wide alley, so we have rear load. The primary entrance into the project is Daphne.
There it is. So, Daphne comes in right there off of Trident and we do have detached five
foot wide sidewalks along Daphne on both sides. So, we have a nice soft entrance. That
was a designated entrance. Meets all ACHD standards. All internal streets within the
project are proposed as public streets, including the alley will be a public alley. So, we
have a nice landscaped detached sidewalk coming into the project. Our primary amenity
is centrally located and you can see that -- I don't know where that arrow goes. There he
is. You can see our central amenity located at that location. So, it's easily available to all
residents, since we have pedestrian pathways that go both north and south within the
project and we have some pathways that go out to McDermott to the ten foot pathway.
So, we have significant amount of pedestrian interconnectivity. Up to the north of the
project we have the Creason Lateral, which was piped. There is a pathway along that
Creason Lateral. It runs from McDermott and all the way through our project connecting
to Jump Creek Subdivision, which is located on the far eastern boundary. Here is kind of
a blow up of the amenity. What BB Living likes to have is a significant gathering place for
their residents. They wanted to have an open lawn area and kind of a plaza area. This
plaza area has playground equipment. It has an outdoor full kitchen. It has barbecue
area. It has seating area. It has for -- for eating like a -- like a covered shelter and it also
has kind of a conversation pit area where they have a fireplace. So, they are -- they are
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 5,2020 Fill
Page 8 of 34
big on creating a community network and as staff indicated we significantly exceed the
minimum required open space under the ordinance with this development. One of the
reasons that we require -- requested an amendment or revision of the development
agreement is because the original development agreement that was tied to the overall
project in 2013 said that the density within this area had to be a minimum of eight dwelling
units per acre. Our gross density with the project is 7.58. So, we are under that eight
dwelling units per acre, which required that we modify the DA. Now, obviously, over the
past seven years there have been ordinance amendments. Things have changed. Some
of the conditions in the original DA we have already satisfied. So, we are in agreement
with staff to prepare a new DA for this 26 acres here or 25 acres. Sorry. So, that it's site
specific and that's pretty standard when we have these older DAs trying to retrofit them.
The code sections have changed. Other items have changed. Things that aren't
applicable to this, but are applicable to other areas within Oaks North, so -- so, that --
that's the reason that staff has -- has requested that the Commission provide a condition
to do a new DA for this project. This is kind of an example. I had BB Living from some
of their other projects that they built in California, in Arizona, Nevada. This is -- this is
their specialty. This shows you kind of an example of their shelter that they -- that they
like and their plaza areas where they take great care to, obviously, make it inviting and
landscaping. They have benches. They have picnic tables. They have a covered area.
As you can see here is an example of one of their outdoor kitchens. So, they have -- they
have barbecue areas, full kitchen areas. They kind of have a bar where the residents can
gather. They are sheltered and -- and can converse and -- and, obviously, enjoy living in
the project. This is another example where they have a plaza area. This one is not
covered. It has -- it has barbecues. It has picnic tables. Hard surface plazas. Bike
parking. So, they -- they want to, obviously, create an inviting environment for the
residents and here is an example of another project that they have done where you can
see they have --they have a central fire pit. They have the Adirondack chairs. They have
landscaping and -- to bring people together to enjoy the living environment. We did -- we
did get comments from the staff concerning our elevations. The architects have made
some revisions. These are not the final product. These are drafts. We did not have a lot
of time. Once we received the staff report we realized that -- that the staff had requested
revised elevations prior to Planning and Zoning Commission, not prior to Council. So,
therefore, the architects were under the gun to prepare these drawings and so these,
obviously, are breaking up that roofline in the townhomes where we have a continuous
roof there. This -- this kind of shows you another breakup where they are breaking up
and changing and modulating that roofline and you can see the same thing here. But,
like I said, these are a work in progress and so the client is -- is, obviously, considerate
of staff's comments and cognizant of the fact that the design review standards for the
multi-family townhome -- townhome type buildings require modulation and articulation.
On the single family dwellings -- I will wrap it up. Single family dwellings, we have
provided staff with some additional elevations, basically breaking up that, creating kind of
a porch, a little bit of more of aesthetic pleasing garage orientation and I will stand for
questions.
Holland: Thanks, Becky. Any questions for the applicant from the Commission?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 5,2020 F12
Page 9 of 34
Seal: Madam Chair?
Holland: Go ahead, Commissioner Seal.
Seal: Just so I have a better understanding of the entire layout of the Oaks North and
South -- and this relates to the Rustic Oak as it traverses through multiple subdivisions it
looks like. What -- how much of that will be completed before this segment goes in?
McKay: We had a meeting this afternoon with the developers of Prescott Ridge, Hubbell
Homes, to coordinate the timing of Rustic Oak. We have eight phases within Oaks North
that have construction plan approval. We have I believe three phases that are
constructed and recorded. We have phases four, five, six and seven that have been pre-
conned and are underway. Rustic Oak was extended with phase one approximately 700
feet short of the south boundary of Prescott Ridge and, then, they will build Rustic Oak
all the way to Chinden, so we will have a continuous mid mile collector, which was
intended, and on a master street map. Phase eight, which we do have construction plan
approval, and they will begin construction in the spring and complete next year. We will
bring that collector roadway within -- and utilities within 300 feet of Prescott Ridge and in
the meeting we had with Mitch Armuth and Don Hubbell this afternoon, they have agreed
that if Toll will -- will construct Rustic Oak up to that 300 foot point, then, they will extend
the sewer, the water, and the collector roadway up to their boundary and, then, within
their first phase Rustic Oak will go clear to Chinden. I think everybody's on the same
page. We also shared drawings, agreed on the transitioning of the lots, because they
had some attached product next to some of our larger countryside bigger lots that are 11
and 12 thousand square feet on our north boundary and initially when the preliminary plat
was approved in 2013 -- the reason those lots were so large on the north boundary is we
had like 15 acre and 20 acre parcels with existing homes and they wanted transitioning.
So, I did the transitioning and put our larger lots, our R-4 zoning along the north boundary,
but today we kind of worked with Hubble and -- and Ryan Hammons with Toll and -- and
Mitch Armuth and Don Hubble -- all agreed on appropriate transitioning, so that everybody
was happy and the timing of the collector roadway. So, it appears that our phase eight
will be under construction at the same time as their phase one. So, that continuous
collector will be built in 2021 .
Seal: And when do you see the occupancy and build out for Oakwind Estates?
McKay: You mean for -- for this project? We have it as two phases. We will begin
construction plans here shortly and I believe they anticipate trying to get, obviously,
underway shortly after we obtain Council approval and get the development agreement
signed and recorded. Then that would allow us to, then, submit our final plat and
construction plans. So, they would like to be underway I believe this winter and,
obviously, paving their first phase in late spring, early summer, and, then, going vertical
in the -- in the mid summer, late summer, and, then, they want phase two to be following
shortly behind that. The staff has requested that we build all of our perimeter buffering
along McMillan and McDermott with the first phase and we are comfortable with that.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 5,2020 F13
Page 10 of 34
Seal: Okay. And the reason I have asked the questions is because of the remarks from
ACHD in their final letter that are kind of pressing to have that Rustic Oak completed really
before there is occupancy in here and that's -- I mean essentially what --that's what I read
in the letter that they provided. So, that's why I'm trying to kind of press for -- is -- is that
-- is that going to be a reality?
McKay: Madam Chairman, Commissioner Seal, their intent was not that -- that it be
constructed prior to the occupancy in this development. I did attend via Zoom that ACHD
meeting and what Council -- or Commissioner Baker wanted to be assured that the
collector roadway would be connected up to Prescott Ridge, so that we could get the --
the additional mid mile collect established for the entire section to improve access for
emergency vehicles and to, obviously, take the heat off of some of the intersections along
the arterial, because we do have a continuous collector going from McMillan to Chinden
and from -- obviously from McMillan wrapping out to Black Cat and, then, from Black Cat
through Bridgetower West, which I designed, going out to Ten Mile. There was no
stipulation that our occupancies would be dependent on that being in place. It was a
recommendation, because that would be an off-site improvement and an exaction upon
this project, because this particular project has two points of ingress and egress and we
do meet the fire department regulations. We will be sprinkling the townhomes and
according to my conversations with Joe Bongiorno, the single family dwellings will also
require sprinklers, because we are at the five minute response and he indicated to me
that even with the continuation of Rustic Oaks up to Chinden, it does not change the
response time for Oakwind, but it does change the response time for Prescott Ridge. But
we are -- I think Bill has been, obviously, pursuing the -- that the developers get together
and do this in unison. So, that is what we are doing. We have come to an agreement
and I think that's -- that's a critical thing, that we don't stop 300 feet short of them. We
will allow them to build that sewer and water on that 300 feet and we will make up the gap
when we design -- or build phase eight, which is designed and approved and ready to go.
Seal: Okay. Thank you.
McKay: Thank you.
Holland: Becky, one other question for you. On the southern side of the development
where you have got the townhomes, the more dense product, I think my biggest concern
is about parking. I know a lot of times when we see these kind of things -- and I know I
saw a visual in the staff memo that showed where some parking areas would be kind of
on the northern side of it, but I worry about that shared drive aisle, that kind of chunk that's
in the middle there, that they don't really have a lot of extra parking and you are going to
end up having people parked in the alley or parked around there. Do you have any
comments about parking or some of those shared drives?
McKay: Yeah. Madam Chairman, we -- we did provide a parking plan for the staff,
because that -- that is -- is not a requirement, but it has been strongly suggested by the
staff when we do have narrower lots or we propose townhomes. So, all of our townhomes
will have a two car garage. They will also have a 20-by-20 concrete pad. So, we will be
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 5,2020 F14
Page 11 of 34
able to park four cars. And, then, we have provided a parking plan, which showed a
significant number of additional parking areas available. Now, Daphne has no front-on
housing and we only showed parking on the south side of Daphne. So, technically, you
could park on the north side of Daphne. All of our streets are a full section, 33 feet from
back to back, so we don't have any reduced street sections that would not allow parking.
With those common drives we -- we did show the parking along the end blocks where --
where guests could park. We have to sign those -- those 20 foot wide common drives as
no parking within those. I think we have between three and -- we have -- I think we have
one that has four units on it. We tried to minimize those. It was just kind of difficult. We
have reworked the site plan, both my staff and the architects, trying to minimize any of
the -- the joint driveways and trying to provide as -- as much interconnectivity and parking
as possible. As far as the single family lots, you know, those are --those are patio homes.
They will have two car garages. They will have a 20-by-20 pad and, then, on-street
parking will be allowed on both sides of the street. We don't have any -- we have end
block buffers, so there is parking at the end of the blocks without blocking a driveway.
So, I think -- I think we have demonstrated that -- that we can accommodate guests within
the project. Trident is a collector. There will be no parking -- there is no parking signs on
Trident until such time as it goes north and we have front-on houses.
Holland: Thanks, Becky. Really quick, I'm going to ask -- Adrienne, it looks like
Commissioner McCarvel got moved back to attendees. I think she had to call back in. If
you wouldn't mind moving her back over to panelist.
Weatherly: Commissioner Holland, I'm trying. We are trying to work out a technical
difficulty right now. I'm not able to move her over. So, I'm trying to work out if she can
log out completely and, then, try to log back in, if we want to wait for that for a second
while we lose our quorum and, then, regain it. I'm fine doing that. But, Rhonda, I can't
get you back in, so -- we can try to do a fresh reboot with you if you want to hang up
completely and try to get back in.
Holland: I will ask Andrea -- do we need to pause, Andrea, to have a quorum?
Pogue: It seems like it's taking a little bit longer than I initially thought, so I think we should
take a break.
Holland: Okay. Sorry about that, Becky.
McKay: That's okay. One thing, Madam Chair. We did have two neighborhood meetings
for the project. I had -- the first neighborhood meeting I had one individual show up that
had bought a home south of McMillan within our Oaks South project. The second
neighborhood meeting I had two residents that lived over off of Black Cat. They seemed
to be pleased with the project and were happy that we had eliminated the apartment
component and had gone to townhomes and patio homes. So, we did not --
Holland: Thank you for that.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 5,2020 F15]
Page 12 of 34
McKay: -- have significant opposition.
Holland: Have a little bit of technical difficulties. Thanks everyone for hanging in there
with us.
Seal: And, for the record, any delays are Bill's fault this evening.
Holland: It looks like we might have Commissioner McCarvel back. All right. It looks like
we are back to having a quorum again. So, welcome back, Commissioner McCarvel.
Was there any other questions for Becky before we open up to see if there is any public
testimony?
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
Holland: Go ahead.
Yearsley: On your -- you stated it earlier, but in the development agreement there was a
requirement for eight units to the acre. Is that the entire site or just the southern portion
of this project?
McKay: No, sir. Madam Chair. That was just for the -- the R-15 multi-family areas that
we had designated on the preliminary plat. We had three of them and in that -- in that
initial DA it was just applicable to those R-15 areas, that our minimum density would be
eight.
Yearsley: Okay. That's all I have. Thank you.
Holland: Thank you, Commissioner Yearsley. Any other questions? Hearing none,
Madam Clerk, do we have anyone signed in to testify?
Weatherly: Madam Chair, we do not.
Holland: Becky, we will bring you back up in a minute.
Weatherly: Excuse me, Madam Chair. I'm sorry. We do not have anyone signed in on
this project.
Holland: Okay. If anybody that is on the call would like to testify, if you want to raise your
hand on the Zoom panel or wave at Commissioner Seal and he will let us know if there is
anybody looking -- it looks like it's pretty quiet at Council chambers behind Becky, but --
Seal: Nobody in chambers.
Holland: Seeing none, Becky, do you have any final comments you would like to make?
McKay: No, ma'am. I think -- I think I have covered it all. I think we have a great project
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 5,2020 F16
Page 13 of 34
and it's going to compliment the Oaks North development and provide an alternative type
of housing that we don't have and the amount of open space and amenities is significant.
This project stands on its own. These residents will, obviously, be able to use the
pathways, clubhouse, pools, that are within Oaks North and Oaks South as part of their
amenities also.
Holland: Thanks, Becky. If there is no more questions for the applicant or for staff, can I
get a motion to close the public hearing for Oakwind Estates Subdivision, H-2020-0093,
and move to deliberation.
Seal: So moved.
Yearsley: Second.
Holland: I have got a motion and a second I believe by Commissioner Yearsley. All those
in favor? Okay. None opposed.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT.
Weatherly: Madam Chair?
Holland: Adrienne, was that you?
Weatherly: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you that prematurely. I will let you finish
there and, then, I will interrupt.
Holland: I think we have a motion and a second and all were in favor, so we have closed
for deliberation, but what's up, Adrienne.
Weatherly: My apologies. Commissioner Cassinelli is joining us at 6:52 p.m.
Holland: Thank you. Welcome, Commissioner Cassinelli. You are just in time for
comments. You want to go first? I'm just kidding. Anybody would like to go first on
making comments for the Oakwind Estates Subdivision?
Weatherly: Madam Chair, this is Adrienne again. I'm sorry, we are still having technical
difficulties on Zoom, so, Commissioner Cassinelli, I'm unable to promote you to have your
own ability to speak. If you would like to speak, please, raise your hand.
Holland: Got to love technical difficulties.
Weatherly: And that will be throughout the meeting, too. I apologize.
Holland: That's okay. I will just trust you to be my eyes and ears for Commissioner
Cassinelli when he wants to speak. Could we get the picture back of the landscape plan
for the Oakwind Estates? That may help for discussion. Since everybody else is jumping
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 5,2020 F17
Page 14 of 34
the gun to talk, I will just say I don't have any huge concerns with it. I like that they have
got the open space kind of in the central area. The biggest concern is kind of what I
mentioned, that whenever you have got the higher density products, like the townhomes
on the south side, parking can become an issue quickly for me on those. I also don't love
the shared drives when there is more than three houses sharing a shared drive for the
townhomes and I can't tell how many there are on that bottom right corner, but it looks
like there is at least four townhome units that will be sharing that common drive. Could
staff confirm that? I can't see that landscape plan very well.
Tiefenbach: Yeah. Sorry. Alan Tiefenbach. It looks like we have five townhouses
sharing that drive down at the bottom right.
Holland: Okay. Thanks, Alan. That would be one of my requests is that they would limit
it to no more than three on those shared drives. I just -- shared drives are always funky.
They don't work super well and, then, you have got people who try to do big turns and,
then, you get driveways that are blocked and people get mad and, then, it's hard with
trash enclosures and trying to get all the cars on the edge of the common drive, it always
seems to be a topic of conversation for the Commission. Those were one of my
comments, though. Anybody else want to go?
Seal: Madam Chair?
Holland: Commissioner Seal.
Seal: Yeah. Same thing. The shared driveways are definitely cause for concern to me
for similar reasons. They kind of cause their own traffic congestion on their own. One of
the other things is just -- I mean the -- the parking plan that was -- that was shown -- and
to me there just needs to be more parking in this -- you know, where the -- we have more
-- more homes. It would be nice to see, you know, possibly some reconfiguration that
allowed for more parking that was central to -- to the townhomes that are in this -- you
know, something that might even expand the MEW or something like that. It just seems
like there is -- you know, I mean, obviously, you want the density to be high, but with this
high of density and the lack of parking dedicated to each one of the residences, as well
as shared drives, you know, in here on the bottom of either side, I just see that there is
going to be -- you know, I think that there will be continual issues with parking and ability
to get around in here that could translate into, you know, emergency vehicles as well. So,
that's something that I would definitely want to see is just more dedicated parking in here
somewhere. Again, I'm not sure how they can accomplish that, but, you know, maybe
give up a couple of the residents, expand the MEW in the middle, get some dedicated
parking in there, something along those lines, as well as, you know, eliminating or
reorienting things to only let so many houses on the common drives and I think -- I think
your wording of no more than three is appropriate.
Holland: Thanks, Commissioner Seal. Yeah, I agree with your comment on parking, too.
It always makes me nervous. I would like to see more of a dedicated parking, because I
know what it's -- driving through some of these new townhome products that have the two
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 5,2020 F18
Page 15 of 34
car garages and two driveways -- while it gives four parking spots, people aren't parking
in their garages, they are putting stuff in their garages and parking on the driveway. So,
you just see kind of rows of cars, which is unfortunate.
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
Holland: Go ahead. Was that Alan?
Yearsley: Steven Yearsley. Sorry.
Holland: Oh, sorry. Commissioner Yearsley, go ahead.
Yearsley: You know, I come back to this -- there is -- there is two things major that I --
I'm concerned. I think you are -- you are -- you are right on with the parking. I even think
in the single family homes -- again, these are going to be very small homes, I mean the
lots are 3,500 square feet. You are going to have a mediocre sized home, very small
yard, they are going to have their garages full of stuff as well as -- so, they are going to
be parking on the street and in the -- on the -- so, I think overall the other -- the -- the --
the -- you know, the whole project I'm concerned about parking, especially with the
smaller lots that they have. The other concern that I have with -- given the small lots, you
know, they have 15 percent open space, but -- and I would prefer to see 20, just because
of -- there is -- there is no place for these kids to go. If they are -- if they have kids, you
know, because there is -- there is no -- no space at their house to actually go in their
backyard or maybe play a little bit in their front yard, but there really is no place to -- you
just -- there is going to be a sea of homes with no -- with very small yards. So, I would
prefer to see closer to 20 percent open space in this area as well.
Holland: Thanks, Commissioner Yearsley. Yeah, I always like it when there is more open
space than required and I know that they are meeting -- or they are exceeding the open
space requirement with the park and the pathways that they have in here. I don't disagree
that if you are living in that southern area you are just kind of in a row of homes and cars
and there is not really a lot of area for playing. So, I don't disagree with you there either.
Commissioner McCarvel or Commissioner Cassinelli, any comments you would like to
make?
McCarvel: Madam Chair?
Holland: Go ahead, Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: Yeah. I would definitely agree with the parking scenario. It just looks very
compact down there and, you know, with the landscape visual and everything it looks
pretty, but we know what's going to happen in real life and so I -- I would like to see a little
more parking somewhere.
Holland: Yeah. Commissioner Cassinelli, I know you love talking about parking.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 5,2020 F19
Page 16 of 34
Cassinelli: Yeah. I don't have a whole lot to add, since I'm jumping in late on this one,
but -- but those are the -- what's been said is -- you know, I would say -- I would just echo
-- ditto those comments.
Holland: So, I'm not sure if anybody has some suggestions on how we would form that
in a -- in a motion -- if we wanted to have them come back to us as a continuance and
come back with another concept or if we would rather just make some conditions that
sounds like there was agreement on eliminating the shared drive to no more than three,
but we would need to see some additional parking and ideally a little bit more open space.
Anyone's thoughts on that? Do we want to look at a continuance or are you happy to try
and put some conditions in there that can help guide that?
Parsons: Madam Chair?
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
Holland: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: I think -- I don't know if we need to hold it up for that. I think we can put some
conditions in the approval and move it off to the City Council for their review with those
conditions.
Parsons: Yeah. Madam Chair?
Holland: Bill, were you commenting?
Parsons: Madam Chair, this is staff.
Holland: Go ahead, staff.
Parsons: There is -- there is a couple of things that are at play tonight that I want you to
take under consideration is that what's before you tonight is a plat. What Council will be
acting on is a DA modification. So, if that's something that you want -- if these changes
that you want to see with the plat need to be incorporated as part of a recommendation
as part of the DA modification that Council will take action on, because under the code
just for a straight subdivision, the code only requires ten percent open space. So, it's
hard for this body to say provide 20 percent open space when they are already exceeding
what code allows. So, again, if that's something you want to see more parking, more
open space, loss of units, then, I would recommend that you include that as part of some
DA provisions that the Council could take under consideration. That will make them part
of the plat conditions.
Holland: Thanks, Bill. Appreciate that insight.
Parsons: You're welcome.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 5,2020 F20
Page 17 of 34
Holland: So, if anybody wants to take a stab at making a motion, certainly welcome to,
but it sounds like a couple of things we could do is move forward with recommendation
of approval of the plat and, then, make a suggestion that Council would take into
consideration a request to consider more parking and open space as part of the DA.
Seal: Madam Chair?
Holland: Go ahead, Commissioner Seal.
Seal: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend
approval to City Council of file number H-2020-0093, as presented in the staff report for
the hearing date of November 5th, 2020, with the following modifications: That the plat
be approved, but we are recommending for the DA that no more than three residents on
shared drives, that they provide plans for dedicated parking central to the townhomes
before City Council, and they work to increase the open space in the townhome area, as
possibly part of the parking.
Holland: We have a motion on the table. Is there a second?
Yearsley: I will second that.
McCarvel: Second.
Holland: Commissioner Yearsley seconded first. All those in favor? Any opposed?
Hearing none, motion passes.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
3. Public Hearing for Goddard Creek Subdivision (H-2020-0092) by
Conger Group, Located in the Northwest Corner of W. McMillan Road
and N. Goddard Creek Way
A. Request: Development Agreement Modification (Inst. #102012598)
to allow the development of an age restricted community consisting
of thirty-four (34) attached SFR homes instead of offices.
B. Request: A Rezone of approximately 5 acres of land from the R-4 to
the R-15 zoning district.
C. Request: A Preliminary Plat for 34 residential lots and 8 common lots
in the proposed R-15 zoning district.
Holland: All right. With that we will move on to the public hearing for Goddard Creek
Subdivision, H-2020-0092, by Conger, and we will begin with the staff report.
Parsons: One second, Madam Chair.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 5,2020 F21
Page 18 of 34
Holland: Whenever you are ready, Bill.
Parsons: We got to do some COVID disinfecting here while we switch staff members
here, so bear with us.
Holland: No problem. Thank you.
Parsons: The sign of the times here. Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the
Commission. The last item on the agenda this evening is the Goddard Creek project.
This property is located at -- on McMillan and West Goddard -- excuse me -- North
Goddard Street. This property was before this Commission several times over the last
couple of years and has quite a bit of history on it. The applications before you are a
rezone and a preliminary plat. Of course, concurrently submitted were also a couple
alternative compliance requests -- or an alternative compliance request, a private street
request, which is -- or which are -- which have been approved at the director level and,
then, of course, another development agreement modification in which this body could
add some DA provisions, but ultimately the Council will have the decision making ability
on that -- that application as it moves forward through the hearing process. The subject
site consists of 4.62 acres of land, currently zoned R-4 in the city and is located, again,
at the northwest corner of McMillan and Goddard Creek Way. The adjacent land uses --
we have to the west C-C zoning and a self storage facility. To the north we have R-4
zoning, although it is developed with a 170 unit multi-family development that was
approved with the Lochsa Falls PUD back in 2002. To the east we have the collector
street, Goddard Creek, and, actually, a common lot that abuts this property as well on the
-- along the roadway there that is owned by the Lochsa Falls homeowners association
and it's not part of this project. And to the south is, again, McMillan Road and, then,
across the street from that is Bridge Tower, which is R-4 and, again, single family
detached homes. There is a lot of history on this site. So, essentially, in 2002 this
property was approved as a use exception as part of the Lochsa Falls PUD process,
which allowed -- although it's zoned R-4 currently, it allows office uses to develop on this
site. There have been several attempts over the years to get something other than office
uses entitled on this property. In 2017 there was a conditional use permit for another
multi-family development on this site in which ultimately the -- the Planning and Zoning
Commission did recommend denial of the conditional use permit and after -- based on
that recommendation of denial they elected to withdraw that application prior to City
Council taking action on that and so, therefore, Council did approve the CUP for the
storage facility, the comp plan amendment to change it from the office to the mixed use
community designation that's currently on this property and, then, they also -- the Council
also approved the DA to remain in effect for this site, which allows the office uses. In
2019 the most recent applications -- was before you was the Goddard Creek Townhome
Subdivision and that project was endorsed by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Again, it was controversial. I remember it was a split tie vote, came down to three to two,
if I remember -- or some -- something to that effect. You guys felt it was a great project,
but it wasn't the right location. Ultimately it went to City Council. City Council heard the
neighbors, kind of reflected on the public record, like your guys' testimony, agreed that it
wasn't the right time for this project and, ultimately, denied that project. The primary
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 5,2020 F22
Page 19 of 34
difference between this project and that project at the time was that was a townhome unit
development and it had a total of 44 units. The plat before you tonight is -- is actually a
less dense project and it consists -- it lost -- it has ten fewer units and rather than two
story townhome they are proposing single -- single story -- single family attached homes.
You can see here this is something new that we are trying to provide for this body and
City Council -- is, essentially, staff is including maps as part of our presentations to you
that shows current roadway improvements planned in the area and what other
developments have been proposed within a couple mile radius of this proposed project.
So, that's what you see there. You can see -- if all of you have gone to the new Costco
you will see that Ten Mile has actually been widened to five lanes all the way up to
Chinden now, so that -- those road projects are nearing completion and, then, you can
see all the other preliminary plats that have been approved in the area, including some
final plats. So, again, just trying to give you a little bit more information as you guys
deliberate on applications and keep you informed as to what's been approved in the area
surrounding any future developments coming forward. So, again, here is the proposed
preliminary plat. Again, it's -- the applicant is proposing to rezone this from the R-4 zone
to the R-15 zone, which was consistent with the previous approval. Again, this is a 34
lot, 50 foot -- age restricted development is proposed for this site. As I mentioned to you,
it is a mixed use community on the Comprehensive Plan and typically we like to three --
we like to see three distinct land uses on a specific property. But given the fact that we
have storage, multi-family, and farther to the west some adjacent commercial
development -- commercial properties that aren't fully developed yet, staff believes
developing this with a single use as proposed still is consistent with that comp plan
designation and the proposal density on this particular project this evening is a gross
density that's 7.36 dwelling units to the acre, which falls right in between that density
range of six to 15 dwelling units to the acre in the Comprehensive Plan. Access to this
site is provided via a private street, which is -- on this map you can see it says West --
West Selway Rapids Lane and that was meant to serve as access for the apartments, but
also for the future office that was to develop. So, staff didn't really anticipate residential
developing on this site at that time when those apartments went in and so now we are
kind of stuck with a situation where we have a piece of property that is bound by an arterial
on the south side and a common lot on the east side where there is no real viability of
having a public street connection to this development and, therefore, the applicant is
proposing a private street as part of the development. Now, the UDC does try to
discourage private streets for single family developments, unless it's either a MEW
development or a gated community and neither one of those are proposed for this project
this evening. And the applicant has also submitted an alternative compliance to allow the
two common driveways off the private street, which have been approved by the director.
Staff has also conditioned -- because there is no gated community proposed for this site
and there isn't really room to provide adequate gates and separations per the code, we
have recommended a condition as part of -- a condition of approval as part of this project
that the applicant create some kind of -- go through the alternative compliance with their
final plat submittal and incorporate some kind -- some decorative entry features at both
of these entrance locations to almost mimic like it is a 55 an older or a gated community.
Let's just do it as a decorative entry feature, rather than having an actual gate to provide
access. Because this project -- this project is over 30 units the fire department will
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 5,2020 F23]
Page 20 of 34
required emergency access and that is proposed to McDermott Road here -- or, excuse
me, to McMillan Road here. So, they are meeting the fire department requirements. One
of the unique characteristics of this particular project is the applicant's ability to work with
the adjacent neighborhood. I think in the previous projects there was quite a bit of
opposition to both the townhome project and the previous multi-family project and so this
applicant was able to work with them. They made some concessions to the neighbors
where they were asked to make this an age restricted development, which they are
amenable to. The residents were -- were asked -- asked the developer to make -- limit
the height of these buildings to single stories, which they are amenable to, and, then, also
there is a real parking issue with the apartment complex in this development and so what
the applicant has gone ahead and done is they have provided 16 additional guest parking
here along the north side of the road here and then a --where West Selway Rapids comes
into the development they are actually proposing to widen that to add some additional
parallel parking along that roadway to offset some of those parking concerns that we have
heard from the neighbors in the past. So, I would just like to go on the record and
commend the applicant for stepping up and trying to make those concessions and try to
address some of those concerns they have heard with previous applications. This
development, as you know, is under five acres in size, so the UDC -- except for the 25
foot wide landscape buffer along West McMillan Road, there really is no requirement for
usable open space, but as you can see here the applicant is trying to include some
detached sidewalks and some parkways to count as some qualified open space and,
then, they are also providing a central open space and a covered picnic area for the
residents to use as part of this development. One of staff's recommendations is because
this will be an age restricted development or proposed to be one, we wanted to make
sure whatever -- and -- and the private streets -- and our private street standards don't
require sidewalks on -- on those streets, but the applicant is providing that on the internal
street section. We wanted to make sure that they enhanced the pedestrian connectivity
into the site by not only extending any sidewalks from the Selway apartments from the
north, but also delineate pedestrian walkways through the private roads to guide citizens
and residents to the use of that open space. So, in our staff report we require the applicant
to provide us a pedestrian circulation plan with their final plat application that shows an
interconnected pathway that comes off of McMillan Road, may be able to have some
crossings -- if you can see my cursor here -- have some crossings that ties into the
sidewalk that runs in front of the guest parking and, then, have another crossing that
heads east that ties pedestrians and residents to this open space and, then, also do the
same along the north boundary just to kind of get more of an enhanced pedestrian
connectivity and safety aspect to the development. The applicant did provide sample
elevations, so you can see here that there is a mix of siding materials and different
variations in rooflines. Some of these units are built throughout our community and been
very successful by the client. I would just let the Commission know that any attached unit
such as these requires design review from staff prior to getting buildings permit submittal,
so they have been conditioned to do so. Staff did look at the public record before the
tonight's festivities and we did note that there was one person that had sent written
testimony in. If you have had a chance to look at the public record you can see staff
actually responded in the e-mail and explained the merits of the development and it
seemed like we were able to gain -- change her mind of the development going from
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 5,2020 F24]
Page 21 of 34
maybe proposing a denial to -- or in support of what the applicant was proposing to do.
And staff also received an e-mail late this afternoon from the applicant in which they have
read through the staff report and they are in agreement with all staff conditions. So, with
that Planning and Zoning -- Planning and Zoning staff is recommending approval of the
rezone and the preliminary plat and we would humbly stand for any questions from you.
Holland: Do we have any questions for staff?
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
Holland: Go ahead, Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: Bill, the parking -- I have got a concern there. Let me back up just a little bit.
Did the -- did the applicant not propose a gated community? And -- and the reason why
I'm asking -- to me some of the parking -- I mean I like that they are adding in extra
parking, but the concern would be that every time we have looked at stuff in this area
here historically, the -- one of the biggest objections is the parking situation at the Selway
and how it spills over into -- it goes -- it -- it goes east of Goddard Creek -- I can recall a
lot of these comments. So, it seems to me that the parking that they are adding in --
what's to stop people from the Selway apartments using some of those spots?
Parsons: Yeah. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, there really isn't. I mean
the applicant has not proposed gates. Certainly they are going to have their own CC&Rs
and how they are going to control that. I think maybe the applicant should probably
address that concern. But from our standpoint and looking at this, these are private
streets, so, technically, they could restrict people from driving on them, not necessarily
West Selway Rapids Lane, because that's access to the apartments, but certainly
anything that connects into that in that loop road they can --they could sign that as private
property and not for useful for the apartment complex. So, that's something that they are
going to have to manage and determine how they are going to deter people from using
that parking area.
Cassinelli: Okay. Thank you.
Seal: Madam Chair?
Holland: Other questions for staff?
Seal: Madam Chair?
Holland: Go ahead, Commissioner Seal.
Seal: On the -- the loop road here, is there a -- is parking available on any of that or is
that -- it doesn't look like it's the 30 foot --
Parsons: Madam -- Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, there is not. It's -- it's
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 5,2020 F25]
Page 22 of 34
the minimum width of 24 feet per the city standard. So, they do not -- they are not -- they
are going to have to put up no parking signs to make sure no one's parking and blocking
that roadway for the fire department.
Seal: A follow-up question on that. On the shared driveway, as you said, they already
have director approval for the shared driveways? Does that mean that's something we
can't condition? Considering we just conditioned it on the last application.
Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, there is -- there is still a DA, so
there is still some -- some wiggle room there for you. All I'm stating is -- as far as driveway
access by a company driveway is allowed -- as open to that. So, if you wanted to restrict
the number of units, that's something you could do as part of a recommendation to be
included at a -- at a DA provision. But as far as allowing units to take access off a common
driveway, yes, the director has approved the two common drives.
Seal: Okay. Appreciate that.
Holland: Any other questions for staff? Hearing none, is the applicant here? It looks like
we have got Hethe Clark on.
Clark: Hi, Commissioners. Hethe Clark for the applicant. 251 East Front Street in Boise.
And I am going to turn on my little presentation here. Okay. So, as Bill mentioned, this
is a project that -- that I would say has kind of been through the wringer. It's got a pretty
decent history to it and that's always fun to kind of look back and see where things have
been and how they have gotten there. As Bill mentioned, this project is on -- off of
McMillan between Ten Mile and Linder. As you can see it's one of those last properties
on that square mile to develop and down the street from Rocky Mountain High School
and it's what I'm going to call the -- we will call it the big box shopping quadruple double.
It's got Walmart, Costco, Fred Meyer, and Winco all right in the immediate vicinity. Like
say, it's -- it's been through the wringer and Bill mentioned the history -- the previous
applications with the apartments and, then, the last iteration with the 44 unit project. P&Z
had recommended approval of that project and, then, it went down at Council due to the
-- as I understand it due to traffic and parking concerns. So, that's been a lot of what we
have tried to pay attention to. So, with this plan, again, it's a reduction from the prior
application of 44 units down by ten to 34. There is additional parking as Bill mentioned,
so in addition to the -- the two in the garage, two on each driveway, we provided 15
internal stalls on the south along Ap -- Ap -- Apgar -- that's easy for me to say. I have
struggled with that all day. Apgar. And, then, in addition, to kind of address what
Commissioner Cassinelli had mentioned, we did -- have provided an additional eight up
on West Selway Lane. That's in addition to widening that by eight feet. So, we have tried
to be very responsive to what we have heard as being that concern in terms of -- in terms
of parking in that area. We have proposed detached housing with single level, trying to
be responsive to the neighbors again. And, again, I think this is important, it's an age
restricted community. This applicant, the landowner, Schmidt Investments, has
experience with that and that will help to further address I think any of the concerns about
traffic and parking. With -- with age restricted communities you see less traffic generation
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 5,2020 F26
Page 23 of 34
and less need for parking. As you can see, you saw this -- Bill showed you some of the
attached product. Again, single level and two plus two on the parking on each unit. In
terms of neighbor interaction, I need to give some credit to Laren Bailey of Conger
Management Group. He did the -- you know, he put on the Kevlar and went to the
neighborhood meetings and talked to the neighbors. He did have -- had conversations
with those folks. There was eight people that attended the initial one. They did have a
follow-up neighborhood meeting to discuss -- or to look at the proposed elevations and a
couple people showed up to that one. Overall it's our understanding that the neighbors
have appreciated the concept of a senior living approach, you know, with the, you know,
associated reduction in traffic and with the belt and suspenders approach to adding
parking. We talked a little bit about some of the solutions that we have worked on with
staff, just to kind of help you know how this has gone and the collaboration that's gone on
there. So, again, we worked -- we worked with staff to arrive at an alternative compliance
approval for the -- for the private street and I think Bill's gone -- gone into detail on that to
a level that I don't need to really deal with that too much. I will just say that we are in
agreement with staff's recommendation of installing pillars and faux gates on the -- on the
entries. So, over on West Selway. So, they would be at each of the entries to the project.
Going along with that, we would be -- we will be installing the pedestrian amenities that
Bill mentioned. So, that includes the sidewalk connection at the western entry over at
West Selway. There will be pedestrian treatment there at each entry. Also down at the
shared driveway to McMillan and also at the -- the open area -- park area here on the
east. There will also be, as Bill mentioned, a sidewalk connection on the south to the
McMillan Road, a meandering sidewalk that you can see on the bottom of this drawing.
As I mentioned with parking, at an age restricted community, they tend to be over parked.
Again, we have provided the 15 internal parking spaces at West Selway Rapids Lane.
Again, we have committed to widening that lane to address any fire concerns. In
response to Commissioner Cassinelli's question, I think I -- my response would be very
similar to Bill's. We don't expect overparking through here, but it is private property. So,
if there is an issue, the -- this little HOA would be able to sign that and -- and help address
that. But, again, we don't -- we don't expect to have that type of problem. I'm trying to
keep this easy for everybody. So, on the staff report we are in agreement with the terms
and conditions of the staff report. We appreciate the work that Bill and Joe have done on
this. Appreciated Joe reaching out to the -- the public in response to the questions. This
does provide a variety of housing types in an area that already has a pretty abundant mix
of uses and we think it's -- it's checked all the boxes and we would ask for an approval
tonight. So, with that happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Holland: Thank you for that. Any questions for the applicant? I will actually start with
one question. So, I know that the neighbors seem to be happier about the age restricted
units, but it seems like we have been having a lot of age restricted units coming into
Meridian lately and I know for resale value it can be tricky, because it is only a limited
population that can buy those types of products. Are you set on having the age restricted
community?
Clark: Commissioner Holland, I would just say, yeah, that's the -- that's the model here
and, you know, it's -- my understanding of the market and I know that this applicant feels
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 5,2020 F27
Page 24 of 34
the same way, is that there is a really significant demand for age restricted communities
throughout the -- throughout the area. So, yes, that -- that is the plan and that has been
what we have discussed with staff and that's what we would proceed to do.
Holland: Okay. Any other questions for the applicant?
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
Holland: Go ahead, Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: Hethe, could you go to -- it looks like it's slide number five with the elevations.
Thank you. I'm going to -- I'm going to ask, only because we have been down this road
before with the applicant, are we talking -- are these all meant to have full eaves all the
way around the home?
Clark: Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli, this -- this is a different client. Not -- not
the same client. Not the same model. But -- and, yes, there are eaves on this model.
Cassinelli: Okay. Sorry. I'm just confused then.
Clark: That's okay. It's okay. It's a small community and I'm here a lot for, you know,
certain clients, so I get it.
Seal: Madam Chair?
Holland: Commissioner Seal.
Seal: Just a couple of questions on the -- since there is going to be faux gates in there,
will that be posted as a private drive? That will be posted is my question.
Clark: Madam Chair, Commissioner Seal, yes, that would be posted as a private drive.
Seal: The follow-up question to it is why not real gates, if you are going to go through
trying to make something -- doing something elaborate to provide that it looks like a gate,
why not just put gates in?
Clark: Madam Chair, Commissioner Seal, it really is a matter of room. You are going to
-- you are going to end up with stacking distance questions. You know, if those gates
would be opening in front of lots, they go internal, they would be opening up onto Selway
if they are external and it doesn't make sense. This -- the faux gates -- you know, they
are much more effective practically given the size constraints and they still I think convey
the --the point, which is that it's -- it's a private community, it's not a -- not a through street,
not -- not a place that, you know, folks are going to necessarily head into. So, we are
using visual cues, rather than the physical barriers.
Seal: Final question. Do you have any elevations of showing the park area with the picnic
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 5,2020 F28
Page 25 of 34
shelter, what that might look like? I mean I -- I tend to agree with what's in the staff report
where you have all of this going on and, then, you have a big open area and you are
going to put a picnic shelter in it. So, it seems kind of lackluster considering the -- what's
going in here.
Clark: Madam Chair, Commissioner Seal, I think we have a condition of approval to show
-- to show detail on that, if I remember correctly. And Bill might be able to jump in there.
But to -- I think that they asked for more detail on that when we come back at final plat
and I think that would be typical for that. I mean we are certainly open to the Planning
and Zoning Commission's recommendations on that, but-- and -- and we would be happy
to provide more detail as this goes, which -- as would be typical.
Seal: Okay. Thank you.
Holland: Any last questions for Hethe before we open up for public testimony? Seeing
none, Hethe, we will be right back with you. Madam Clerk, do we have anyone signed in
to testify?
Weatherly: Madam Chair, we do have some people signed in. Dan and Penny Fisher
are on the line with us. Fishers, one moment. And no one -- while I'm transferring them
over, Madam Chair, no one is in house, so we don't have anybody here to raise their
hand.
Holland: Okay. All right. It looks like what was labeled as Fishers is over on the panelist
side now, so if you wouldn't mind stating your name and address for the record and, then,
feel free -- you have got three minutes for us. And you will have to unmute yourself or
the clerks can help you with that, too, if you need. It looks like you are talking, but I'm not
hearing anything from -- from our side. Is that just me? Is anybody else able to hear
them?
Cassinelli: I'm not hearing anything.
Seal: Nothing in chambers either.
McCarvel: I don't hear him.
Holland: There -- there is an option. I'm not sure if you can hear us, but there is an option
that you can call in. It looks like you are still trying to talk to us, but if you go to the bottom
you can switch to using phone audio. Sometimes that helps if your computer is not
working. So, right down on the bottom left corner where it's next to the mute button, if
you click the up arrow, there is this option that says switch to phone if you want to try that.
But, I'm sorry, we are not able to hear you right now. Adrienne, is there anyone else that
we want to try while we are trying to figure out how to help these guys?
Weatherly: Madam Chair, Penny and Dan Fisher were the only two that signed up with
a wish to testify.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 5,2020 F29
Page 26 of 34
Holland: Looks like they are still trying to talk, but we can't hear them.
Weatherly: I'm going to try one thing, Madam Chair, if I could here.
Holland: Go ahead, Madam Clerk. I always hate when technology doesn't work with us
the way we want it to.
Weatherly: Penny or Dan, if you could try to talk again and we can see if we can try to
hear you. Madam Chair, I have tried all the tricks up my sleeve and we still can't hear
them in chambers either.
Holland: Yeah. I'm not quite sure what to do here either.
McCarvel: Yeah. I wonder if they are muted on their end.
Holland: And it's Penny and Dan, is that what you said?
Weatherly: Yes. Correct.
Holland: If you guys can hear us at all, if there is another way that you can call into the
meeting we would love to hear from you. Adrienne, do we have a call in number that they
can try?
Weatherly: We do have the number right here. Penny and Dan, the phone number to
call in is 1-669-900-6833. The ID number is 89068341242. 1 do see that you have the
ability to raise your hand, but you are unmuted, so you would be allowed to talk now and
we still cannot hear you. If you want to try calling in with the information I just gave you
we can try that way.
Holland: It looks like they hung up from there, so we will see --they came over to panelists
one more time.
Weatherly: Madam Chair, we are trying to pull out all the stops here to try to get them set
up.
Holland: Yeah. Dan and Penny, we still can't hear you. I'm sorry. Can you hear us?
You can hear us. Do you have the option to call in on the number that Adrienne gave
you? Okay. It looks like they are trying to call in, so we are just going to wait another
minute for you.
P.Fisher: Can you hear us now?
Holland: We can. And if you could go ahead and mute your computer, so that way we
don't get the feedback, that would be great.
D.Fisher: Sorry about that. Okay. Thank you for your patience. We really appreciate it.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 5,2020 F30]
Page 27 of 34
Dan Fisher. 2382 West Apgar Creek Drive in Meridian. And we are the -- we are the last
house on Apgar Creek before Goddard Creek. So, we are the closest house to the
development. Overall I like the 55 and older concept and I really appreciate that and think
that that's definitely headed in the right direction. My primary concerns are still parking.
I don't think that -- I think that the parking spots that are going to be on Selway Rapids
would be immediately gobbled up by vehicles from Selway. So, I don't -- I don't think that
that would make even a dent in the parking issue. My second concern is the back of the
unit that faces Goddard Creek and McMillan, they don't have any real detail to them, other
than some variation in colors, but there is no stone, there is no -- no real textures, no
beams, anything like that to make them a little more attractive. I think that that might be
a good idea. If you look at what was proposed and -- for the mini storage and, then, you
look at what was actually built, there is -- they are not even identifiable between what was
-- what we were shown in drawings versus what was built. It's horrible. The corrugated
steel right on the outside. The -- nothing stucco and cinderblock. It's one of the worst
looking mini storages in the city. So, I think we would really be benefited by sprucing this
up a little bit.
P.Fisher: My name is Penny Fisher. Also at 2382 West Apgar Creek Drive. One -- one
of the concerns that we do have, like Dan said, is -- is the parking. We do have the overfill
in front of our home and probably nine times out of ten it is not -- it's just from Selway.
So, I do worry if you guys require like the gated, that they would have to remove those
extra parking spots in the top and that was a very -- that was a selling point for a lot of the
people that we spoke with, is that would remove some of it. We like the 55 and older age,
because it didn't affect the school population and that was one of the big things. This
would be -- this would be 55 and older. We wouldn't have the worry of the overpopulation
of the school. We do feel like there would be less of traffic, but, again, the biggest concern
is the parking and, then, the --just making it fit over the aesthetics overall is -- we do like
the stone, like Dan said, but we want to make sure that it goes through and, then, if we
were to rezone it we want to make sure that there is a contingency that if this project for
any reason does not go through, that the zoning does not go through as well. But it was
the only contingent for this project and only this project.
Holland: Thank you, Dan and Penny. Are there any questions for Dan and Penny while
they are on the line with us? We -- we greatly appreciate you guys making the time to
join us tonight and sorry about the technical difficulties. Thanks for calling back in and
we are glad we got you back on the line. So, we appreciate your comments.
P. Fisher: Thank you.
D. Fisher: Thanks.
Holland: Adrienne, do we have anybody else signed in to testify?
Weatherly: We didn't have anybody else sign in with a wish to testify, Madam Chair.
Holland: Okay. It looks like there might be one other person in the attendee panel, but if
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 5,2020 F31
Page 28 of 34
they would like to testify now is the time to raise your hand. If not, we will hand it back
over to Hethe, if he had got any closing comments he would like to make. Hethe, it looks
like the floor is yours. Go ahead, sir.
Clark: Great. Once again for the record Hethe Clark. 251 East Front Street.
Representing the applicant. Thanks to the Fishers for your comments. Just to respond,
with regard to the appearance, the -- these are duplexes, so they will have to go through
design review. So, the city will have another bite at the apple to ensure that that -- that
everything looks appropriate. With regard to the -- I guess the -- the question of whether
the proposal would ride through with -- with any changes, I guess, in terms of who the
applicant is -- this is a -- a development agreement modification, which means that there
are conditions of approval that the zoning is tied to. So, if there was going to be a change
in the project there would have to be a development agreement or modification in order
to make that happen. With regard to the parking, I understand the concern. It sounds
like it's been something folks have been living with. When we are putting those additional
eight stalls and widening Selway by eight feet, we think that we are helping to address an
existing problem and not one that's created by this project, which we believe is going to
be adequately parked and is parked well in excess of what code requires. So, we have
the two plus two at each unit and, then, in addition to that, the 15 stalls on the south. So,
we are hoping that -- you know, to be a good neighbor on that front and help to address
the --the concern that Fishers have shared. With regard to some of the comments before,
I just wanted to circle back on those. With regards to the amenity, Commissioner Seal,
it's condition 3-A that I was trying to think of that requires us to come back with details of
site amenities. You know, a picnic shelter is a typical amenity for a 55 plus community. I
mean, obviously, you are not going to put a tot lot in, but, you know, appreciate the -- the
comments there and that's something that we will take to heart as we put together that
final list of site amenities at final plan -- or final plat. And, then, I did -- I -- this didn't come
up in -- in our conversation, but with regard -- I heard Commissioner Seal ask about the
number of lots on the common driveways. Just to circle up on that -- so, the maximum
-- as I understand code is six. There is only three on each of these. So, we have tried to
be mindful of that. I think that the -- the city is looking at a code amendment to cap it at
four. We would still be below that. So, we think that we are not only within the four
corners of the code as it exists, but as the -- the intent of future code amendments. So,
with that I think I have hammered this to death and I would be happy to follow up on
anything that you have got left.
Holland: Thanks, Hethe. Any final questions for Hethe before we move to deliberation?
Seal: Madam Chair?
Holland: Commissioner Seal.
Seal: Just in -- in looking at the drawings that are out here and -- I mean it basically
shows that there is four off the common drives. That's -- I mean that's what I'm looking
at and that's what I'm seeing. So, if it is just three, then, that's, essentially, what we are
aiming for is -- I mean just an overall reduction in the shared driveways, because they
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 5,2020 F32
Page 29 of 34
seem to be everywhere and they are always an issue no matter if there is just two of them
on there, so having three -- having more than three seems to be a really big issue.
Clark: Madam Chair, Commissioner Seal, if you can see my cursor, I'm not sure that you
can. But you can see that this -- I think would be what you are referring to is the fourth.
That would take access from the street. Same would be true down here on West Apgar.
So, those -- those actually take access from the street -- or take access from the common
drive.
Holland: Hethe, one follow up to that -- and I think one of the other challenges we always
see -- and I know it's only one day a week, but where people put their trash carts, because
that always tends to be an issue. They put them on somebody else's driveway and, then,
there is problems getting around them. Do you guys have another designated area for
trash enclosures or anything like that to try and help with the trash carts?
Clark: Madam Chair, Commissioner -- actually, just Madam Chair. So, the -- we have
talked to the -- the garbage companies about that and there -- there are solutions to deal
with that, so for a nominal fee folks can have it picked up at the door or at the garage, if
that ends up becoming an issue. Otherwise, it would -- it would be at the street as typical.
Holland: Yeah. I think that the -- that goes back to the challenge about the shared drives,
because I don't imagine the garbage company wanting to go all the way up the -- the
shared drive to go pick up carts, but --
Clark: Yeah. Madam Chair, in that case they go out to the street. So, folks would bring
them out to the street.
Holland: Okay. Yeah. I think that's -- that's where we always get back to the challenges
with common drives, because it just -- they stack up so quick on the streets, because
there is not really a good place to put them if there is not a driveway to put against them.
Clark: I understand.
Holland: Okay. Thank you.
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
Holland: Any questions for Hethe?
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
Holland: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: Hethe, on the -- on those eight spots up on Selway Rapids, are you kind of --
are you conceding those to the apartments?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 5,2020 F33]
Page 30 of 34
Clark: Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli, I don't -- I don't know how necessarily --
we are not -- not giving up ownership of those parking spaces by any means. They are
going to be external in many ways to the project and so I expect that there is going to be
lots of different folks, including folks from the apartments, that might use them from time
to time. We don't--what we are trying to do is to try to help alleviate the existing problem
there. We think we are going above and beyond by doing that. Saying that we are just
giving them up to the apartments I think that might be overstating it, but we are providing
additional parking there that might be used by them.
Cassinelli: Okay.
Holland: Any other questions for Hethe? Hearing none, thank you, Hethe, and I would
be open to a motion to close the public hearing for Goddard Creek Subdivision, H-2020-
0092, to move to deliberation.
Cassinelli: So moved.
Seal: Second.
Holland: Moved by Commissioner Cassinelli, seconded by Commissioner Seal. All those
in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Holland: All right. The floor is yours, Commissioners. Anyone want to go first?
McCarvel: Madam Chair?
Holland: Go ahead, Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: Our little map disappeared. I -- I tend to like what they have done. It seems
to be pretty night and day from things we have seen. They have, obviously, taken into
consideration a lot of the concerns of this area, including the eight external parking spots
and I think the additional parking close to where those shared drives are will be a big help.
All except for trash day and the addition of the sidewalks and everything and the -- I do
like the age restricted aspect to this, because it just reduces many of the concerns of
projects that have been in the past.
Holland: Thanks, Commissioner McCarvel. My comments in general -- I will jump in next.
I -- I like the loop itself. I remember we have talked about this specific lot many times and
it's kind of an awkward in-fill piece now the way that it developed and originally it was
supposed to be offices, but it doesn't really fit for office. So, I think what they are
proposing here makes sense. I'm not opposed to the way the development is. I
appreciate that they have done some extra parking. I appreciate the little pocket park
green space that they put in there. My biggest challenge is those common drives. I would
prefer to not see more than three houses sharing that and I know it -- even though that
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 5,2020 F34]
Page 31 of 34
fourth house is kind of on the edge of it, it still looks like it's part of that shared drive to
me, because it's connected to where that curb cut is. Because I don't know if there is
anything we can do to alleviate that, but it is always a concern to me, because I always
hate those shared drives. They just don't seem to function very well to me. My other
comment in general is I -- I really don't love all the 55 and older subdivisions we have
been approving, because there seems to be a lot of them and not that there is anything
wrong with having an age restricted community, but it does challenge the marketability of
those properties in the future if -- it gives a very narrow window of who could buy those
properties and what they could be reused for in the future if there is resale. So, it's always
challenging to me, because if our demographics change at some point and we end up
having a bunch of communities with 55 and older restrictions, it just seems like a
challenge to the market, but maybe that's a moot point and maybe there is more demand
for that than I know of. But that's just a general comment, not something I would feel to
take out of there, just something I wanted to put on record. Commissioner Seal, you want
to go next?
Seal: Yes, ma'am.
Holland: And you are muted I think.
Seal: No. I'm unmuted. I should be unmuted.
Holland: Okay. You are okay now.
Seal: I echo some -- some of your statements in there. I mean adding the extra parking
that -- to me that's above and beyond. I mean that's addressing, you know, directly a
problem that's been brought to their attention. So, I really appreciate that. I do like the
lay -- you know, the general layout of it. I'm -- I'm not a person that, you know, would
probably be looking for, you know, a townhouse type community. That said I can -- there
-- there is, you know, obviously, some demand for them, so -- especially kind of the
townhome communities that are, you know, more or less kind of maintenance free. So,
you know, the less common area kind of the better for -- for, you know, some of the 55
and older communities seems to be something that they -- they actually want, instead of
having, you know, huge parks and parkways and things like that. One thing I think they
could -- should definitely consider is like a central -- central trash collection site. I mean
that would make me feel a little better about the -- you know, the shared driveways that
are in there. Unfortunately, you know, one of the places I think it would land is possibly
where they have added extra parking spots. So -- so, I'm a little divided on that for sure.
You know, if there was a place to put, you know, central trash collection that could take
up a couple of parking spots, I think that would alleviate a lot of problems that they are
going to run into come trash collection days, so -- and those -- especially with the smaller
streets and not allowing any parking on them, to have all the, you know, the -- the trash
collection receptacles out there kind of presents some safety issues for me as we go
down that road. So, I mean I would -- I would like to have them consider central trash
collection and I still think that no more than three residents on shared driveways is --
especially considering, again, the density in here is more than fair.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 5,2020 F35]
Page 32 of 34
Holland: Thanks, Commissioner Seal. Commissioner Yearsley, Commissioner
Cassinelli, any comments?
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
Holland: Go ahead, Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: I -- I guess my biggest concern -- and I don't know how to address it -- is I don't
like private driveways. We -- so, actually, I'm -- I'm on the board of our HOA and we have
quite a few private driveways and they become quite an expense that they have to
maintain. You know, I'm not going to say we shouldn't have the private driveways, but I
would like to have them reach out to the homeowners association and at least provide
them some guidance on what they should be doing for maintenance and -- and storing
money away for future improvements as those roads, you know, deteriorate. So, that
would be my biggest concern and -- so, that's all I have.
Holland: Great comment. Thanks, Commissioner Yearsley. Any other comments out
there?
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
Holland: Go ahead, Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: Pretty much everything. I'm going to kind of echo what everybody else has
said, but I will just throw my comments out. I -- I kind of agree with you with maybe there
has been a lot of age restriction going in, but I -- but I -- from what I hear there is demand
for it and I think in this piece it -- it will help alleviate the -- the traffic. So, you know, there
is -- there is some places that I have seen around town where I think it really fits and I
think this is one place where the age restriction is a plus, because that's -- every time we
have heard -- you know, every time when this parcel has come up the traffic and parking
have been I think the number one things. If I can put a comment out there to maybe
address the -- the Fishers -- and I don't know if they have spoken at one or two of the
previous Planning and Zoning meetings. I think one time there was either two or three
story proposed units going in there and they didn't want three stories looking down in their
backyard. I think as far as -- you know, these are all single story. They are not going to
even see the back of the home. Maybe a patio cover or two, but, you know, most of it
won't be popping up above a six foot fence, you know, at the angle that they will have.
So, I don't think that that's an issue. The -- I'm in -- I have got the same concerns about
private -- not necessarily the private streets, those were great comments that
Commissioner Yearsley addressed. So, I think we do got to make sure that -- that there
is a -- there is a clause in there for the homeowners association to be well aware of -- of
what their -- what their requirements are. But those -- I think -- I -- the way I'm looking at
it and the way I see it, you can kind of spin it how you want. I'm counting four homes
each of those -- on those shared driveways and the other thing -- to comment on the --
with the trash, in a lot of -- in a typical single family development with shared driveways
there is a little bit more space on the homes that are up front, because they have got --
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 5,2020 F36
Page 33 of 34
you know, they have got a full -- a full width yard with just a -- with a -- with a driveway.
So, there is a little bit more room where you can put the trash receptacles. With the --
with the -- the attached homes here I think most of the frontage is going to be driveway
and there can be very little room to put those. So, that is a concern of mine as well. I
don't know how -- you know, short of having a -- a common collection area, how do you
-- how you deal with that? But I think that is going to be a problem once a week, every
week. And those are my comments.
Holland: Thanks, Commissioner --
Cassinelli: But in -- overall I'm in favor of it. I think it fits. Because it doesn't sound like
an office development has -- has come along and I think this is the best we have seen
yet. It fits. I think it just needs to -- it needs some tweaking. Oh. And one other comment,
too. I'm in agreement with Commissioner Seal, I would like to see a little bit something
more in that common area, given that 55 and over, and the picnic area is nice, maybe just
a -- just a thought, just a comment for the -- for the developer. Maybe like a -- even a
shuffleboard or -- or something else in there for the -- to give the residents something to
do.
Holland: Okay. So, just to recap the things we have talked about. Comments about the
private drive, that they should be putting in extra -- that they should put some resources
forward with the HOA towards helping with that and that would be a suggestion. I don't
know if that's something we can condition or not, but I agree with you, I'm not a big fan of
private driveways either. I'm not sure what we can do there, if we can make a condition
on that, but --
Yearsley: This is Steven. I don't know if we could condition it, but I would, you know,
appreciate the applicant to let the HOA-- give them some guidance, because I -- we have
-- before on Planning and Zoning Commission we have heard a lot of people talk about
their infrastructure failing within the HOAs and no one knows what they should be doing
to help make those last longer. So, at least providing some guidance, you know, from the
engineer to the HOA, it would be helpful. So, like I said, I don't know if it needs to be a
condition, but just have them, you know, if they would,just provide that guidance for them.
Holland: Any comments? The shared drives are a challenge it sounds like to almost all
of us, so I -- I would like to see us restrict the number of those or have a requirement that
they need to put in a parking -- or not a parking -- a trash enclosure. But I would rather
see the elimination of one or two of those lots on there to make it easier instead. I will
leave it open if anybody wants to try and attempt making a motion on this one.
Seal: Madam Chair?
Holland: Commissioner Seal.
Seal: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend
approval to the City Council of file number H-2020-0092 as presented in the staff report
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 5,2020 F37
Page 34 of 34
for the hearing date of November 5th, 2020, with the following modifications: That no
more than three residences are allowed on shared driveways and that the applicant
consider central trash collection enclosure, because of the small width of the streets and
the common driveways.
Holland: We have a motion on the table. Is there a second or any discussion?
McCarvel: Second.
Holland: Okay. Motion and a second by Commissioner McCarvel. All those in favor?
Any opposed? All right. Motion passes.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Holland: With that I believe that's all we have got on the agenda, unless staff has anything
else. So, we have got one more motion for the night.
Yearsley: Madam Chair, I move we adjourn.
Seal: Second.
McCarvel: Second.
Holland: All right. Motion and a second. Any -- all those in favor? None opposed. Have
a great night all.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:01 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
RYAN FITZGERALD - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED
ATTEST:
CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK
Item 1. 3
E IDIAN
'aAHO
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Approval of the October 22, 2020 Planning and Zoning Commission Special
Meeting Minutes
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. October 22,2020 F84]
Page 82 of 82
Seal: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Yes, sir, go right ahead.
Seal: I move we adjourn.
Cassinelli: Second.
Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second that we adjourn. All those in favor say aye.
Motion passes. Oh, is there anybody opposed? Sorry, I should have asked that.
Hopefully, not. We can all go to bed. You guys have an awesome evening. I will see
you in November.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:41 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
RYAN FITZGERALD - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED
ATTEST:
CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK
Planning Presentation and Outline for Land Use
Public Hearings
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting November 5, 2020
•which designates the property for multifamily and self storage. Also includes a modification to the existing development agreement •and 26 common lots on 24.54 acres. Proposal for preliminary
plat for 94 single family lots, 92 townhouse lots,
•The Oaks North Plat and DA #114030972 still govern this property.•withdrawn. requirement. It went to PC, but not to Council and has since been included another amendment to the DA to
remove the multifamily 8 to develop single family detached. This -proposed to be rezoned to RIn 2018, the multifamily portion of the property (16.71) acres was •storage uses. DA was
amended to allow this. -multifamily and selfof the Oaks North Subdivision. Subject property was approved for 15 zone as a portion -In 2013, the subject property was rezoned to the R•003).
-08-004 and PP-master planned residential development (Oak Creek AZ 08In 2008, the subject property received annexation approval for a large
FLUM
FLUM
Changes to Agenda:
Item #2: Oakwind Estates Subdivision (H-2020-0093)
Application(s):
Preliminary Plat and Development Agreement Modification
Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 24.54 acres of land, zoned R-15, located at Northeast Corner
of N. McDermott Road and W. McMillan Road.
Adjacent Land Use & Zoning:
Gem Innovation School located to the north (zoned R-15), single family residential to the east, west and south (R-4 and R-8).
History:
In 2008, the subject property received annexation approval for a large master planned residential development (Oak Creek AZ
08-004 and PP-08-003).
In 2013, the subject property was rezoned to the R-15 zone as a portion of the Oaks North Subdivision. Subject property was
approved for multifamily and self-storage uses. DA was amended to allow this.
In 2018, the multifamily portion of the property (16.71) acres was proposed to be rezoned to R-8 to develop single family
detached. This included another amendment to the DA to remove the multifamily requirement. It went to PC, but not to Council
and has since been withdrawn.
The Oaks North Plat and DA #114030972 still govern this property.
Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Medium Density Residential, 3-8 du/acre
Summary of Request: Preliminary Plat (PP) consisting of 94 single family lots, 92 townhouse lots, 3 common driveways and 26
common lots on 24.54 acres in the R-15 zone. A concurrent development agreement modification is submitted to change the
development plan from multifamily and self-storage uses to the single family and townhome uses being proposed with the subject
project.
Notes:
As listed above, there have been several rezonings and DAs relating to this property. The property is part of the Oaks North Plat
and development agreement.
The property is only 24.54 acres of the 298 acre Oaks North Plat. The northern 17. 24 acres is presently zoned to allow multifamily
of between 8-15 du/acre. The southern 7.83 is zoned to allow self-storage as an accessory use to the residential. (Not as a stand
alone business.)
This Preliminary Plat proposal includes a new development agreement to allow single family and townhouse uses (the property is
presently part of much larger DA).
Single family homes (94) will be on lots of between 3,000 and 5,000 sq.ft.
Townhouses will be on lots of between 2,100 and 3,200 sq. ft.
The proposed street network stubs two streets to the east – W. Cherrybrook Dr. and W. Daphne St. - which connect to N. Trident
Way.
N. Trident Way terminates at W. McMillan Rd to the south and W. Milano Dr. in the Oaks North development to the north.
This proposal would not provide direct access to an arterial nor would it increase the number of access points to nearby collectors
or arterials.
There are also several internal roads, and alley loaded access.
ACHD has commented that Marysville Street and Palustris Avenue are proposed to be greater than 750-feet in length and will
need to be redesigned to reduce the length of the roadways or to include the use of passive design elements.
The staff report mentioned the applicant will be required to construct curb and gutter along McMillan. However, it has later been
clarified that McMillian is an arterial and curb and gutter are not required.
Finally, the UDC states residential development along McDermott Road from Chinden Blvd to I-84 is required to provide noise
abatement by constructing a berm or a berm and wall combination. As a condition of approval, staff is recommending the applicant
submit a landscape plan which meets the requirements prior to City Council.
The development proposes 16.95% of qualified open space. This includes several grassy areas larger than 50’ x 100’, pathways
along all the landscape buffers, micro-pathways internal to the development and along mews fronting the single family attached,
and a one-acre park central to the development.
Pathways include a 10’ pathway along W. McDermott Rd., a 5’ pathway along W. McMillan Rd. and 5’ micro-pathways
interspersed throughout the development. As required by UDC 11-3A-8, all micro-pathways are within lots of at least 15’ in width
and contain landscape strips of at least 5’ in width with at least 100 tree per hundred linear feet as required by UDC 11-3B-12.
The applicant has provided building elevations for both the proposed single family residential and the townhouses. Overall, staff
believes the quality is good, but does have concerns with the lengths of the first story roofs on both products as well as the lengths
of the rooflines on the townhouses. Staff has recommended the applicant revised the elevations prior to this meeting, and
recommends a condition regarding the rooflines and quality of materials as can be referenced in the staff report.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval with conditions. The proposed plat includes less density than what was
originally approved, but still contains a diverse housing stock in terms of lot sizes, house sizes, and both detached and attached
housing product. Also, the qualified open space and amenities as proposed exceed the minimum requirements; the amount of qualified
open space is almost double what is required, is central to the development and there are numerous pathways integrated into and out
of the plat.
Possible Motions:
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H-
2020-0093, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 5, 2020, 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-2020-
0093, as presented during the hearing on November 5, 2020, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for
denial)
Continuance
I move to continue File Number H-2020-0093 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following
reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance)
Item #3: Goddard Creek Subdivision (H-2020-0092)
Application(s):
Rezone, Development Agreement Modification, Preliminary Plat, Alternative Compliance, and Private Street
Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 4.62 acres of land, zoned R-4, located at the northwest corner
of McMillan and Goddard Creek Way.
Adjacent Land Use & Zoning:
1. West – C-C zoning and self-storage facility;
2. North – R-4 zoning and the Selway Apartments;
3. East – Goddard Creek Way, a collector street; east of that is L-O zoning with a home and contractor’s yard; McMillan abuts
the site to the South (arterial street);
4. South of that is R-4 zoning and detached single-family homes (Bridgetower Crossing).
History: This property was granted annexation, preliminary plat, and a conditional use permit as part of the Lochsa Falls Subdivision in
2002 (AZ-02-010, PP-02-009, CUP 02-012) and has a development agreement (Instrument #103012598). These approvals granted
office uses in the R-4 district.
In 2017, the property received CPAM approval from Office and High Density Residential to Mixed-use Community. A PP and FP were
also approved. A concurrent RZ, CUP and MDA was proposed to develop the property with 76 multi-family units however, that request
was withdrawn. A PP and FP were also approved (H-2017-0007 and H-2018-0014) to develop the self-storage portion of the
development.
In 2019 an application for 44 attached townhome style single-family units was denied by City Council (H-2019-0068). This application
differs from the previous development in that it has 10 fewer units and proposes all age-restricted attached units.
Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Mixed Use Community
Summary of Request: The applicant is proposing to develop the site with 34 age-restricted single-family attached units. This area is
primarily developed with single-family homes except for the apartment complex to the north. Other commercial developments are under
construction in the area to complement the proposed residential project (convenience store/ fuel facility and senior housing). Because
the applicant is proposing to provide housing diversity in the area and other land uses are nearby the development, staff believes the
plan is consistent with the MU-C designation and falls within the target density of 6 to 15 dwelling units per acre as the proposed gross
density is 7.36 dwelling units to the acre.
Access is proposed via an existing private street, W. Apgar Creek Lane; access to McMillan Road is prohibited except for the depicted
emergency-only access as shown on the plat. Private streets are not typically intended for single-family developments unless designed
with a mew or gated community. The applicant is proposing internal private streets on Lot 42, Block 1 for internal access within the
development. The proposed private street is 24 feet wide with 5-foot sidewalk on the internal side of the street. To ensure adequate
guest parking is provided, the applicant is proposing sixteen (16) guest parking area along the north side of the private street across
from lots 14-18, Block 1, lots that abut McMillan Road. Eight (8) additional parallel stalls are also proposed on the south side of W.
Apgar Creek Lane to address neighborhood concerns with parking in the area.
The Director has approved an ALT request to allow the common drive access as proposed. The applicant is conditioned to submit
another ALT application with the final plat application to incorporate a decorative entry feature at each of the entrances in lieu of gates.
Other than the 25-foot wide landscape buffer adjacent to McMillan Rd., the UDC does not require the applicant to provide any
qualifying open space because the project is less than 5 acres. To complement the surrounding developments and provide some open
space for these future residents, the applicant is proposing 24,415 square feet of open space (12.12%), of which 13,367 (6.49%)
square feet would qualify under UDC 11-3G-3 standards. The open space lot within the development also includes the proposed
amenity, a covered picnic shelter. To enhance the walkability in the development, staff recommends that the applicant provide a
pedestrian circulation plan with their final plat that includes extension of the sidewalk from the Selway Apartment project to the north
and distinguished ped crossings to guide residents to the proposed open space safely.
The prosed elevations include a mix of siding materials with varying hip and gable style roof options. All structures within the
development are required to comply with the residential design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. An
administrative design review application must be submitted to the Planning Division and approved prior to submittal of building permit
applications.
Written Testimony: Dr. Laurie Bower – Concerns over traffic, density, proposed use being restricted to 55 and older. Note: Staff
exchanged emails with this resident and now Dr. Bower supports the project after Staff clarified the details of the proposed
development.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested Rezone and Preliminary Plat. The Director has approved the
ALT and Private Street request. Council will act on the MDA request.
Possible Motions:
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H-
2020-0092, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 5, 2020, 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-2020-
0092, as presented during the hearing on November 5, 2020, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for
denial)
Continuance
I move to continue File Number H-2020-0092 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following
reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance)
Item 2. 86
(:>
E IDIAN*-----,
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Cakwind Estates Subdivision (H-2020-0093) by
Engineering Solutions, Located at 5685 N. Black Cat Rd.
A. Request: Preliminary Plat for 94 single family lots, 92 townhome lots, 26 common lots and 3
common driveway lots on 24.54 acres.
Item 2. F87
(:�N-WE IDIAN
IDAHO
PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION
Staff Contact:Alan Tiefenbach Meeting Date: November 5, 2020
Topic: public Hearing for Oakwind Estates Subdivision (H-2020-0093) by
Engineering Solutions, Located at 5685 N. Black Cat Rd.
A. Request: Preliminary Plat for 94 single family lots, 92 townhome lots, 26
common lots and 3 common driveway lots on 24.54 acres.
Information Resources:
Click Here for Application Materials
Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing
Item 2. ■
STAFF REPORTC�WE IDIANn-=-
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A H O
HEARING 11/5/2020 Legend
DATE: ------
TO: Planning&Zoning Commission
FROM: Alan Tiefenbach
208-489-0573
El
SUBJECT: H-2020-0093 W ---------
Oakwind Estates Subdivision—PP and -
MDA y ----
LOCATION: Northeast Corner of N. McDermott Road ,{
and W. McMillan Road ;
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Preliminary Plat(PP)proposal consisting of 94 single family lots, 92 townhouse lots, 3 common
driveways and 26 common lots on 24.54 acres in the R-15 zone. A concurrent development
agreement modification(Instrument#114030972)is submitted to change the development plan from
multifamily and self-storage uses to the single family and townhome uses being proposed with the
subject project.NOTE: The Oaks development agreement governs a larger area that what is being
proposed with this development application. Therefore,the subject modification will exclude the
subject property from the boundary of the overall DA, so the applicant can enter into a new DA with
provisions that are relevant to the proposed development.
II. SUMMARY OF REPORT
A. Project Summary
Description Details Page
Acreage 24.54
Future Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential
Existing Land Use(s) Vacant
Proposed Land Use(s) Single Family Residential
Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 94 single family lots,92 townhouse lots,3 common
driveways and 26 common lots
Phasing Plan(#of phases) Two Phases
Number of Residential Units(type 186—94 SFR detached and 92 townhomes
of units)
Density(gross&net) 7.58 du/acre gross, 10.13 du/acre net
Open Space(acres,total 4.97 acres total,4.16 acres(16.95%)qualified open space.
[%]/buffer/qualified)
Pagel
Item 2. 89
Description Details Page
Amenities Pathways,central lawn,playground,fire pit,outdoor
kitchen and shelter,additional qualified open space>
20,000 sq. ft.
Physical Features(waterways, None
hazards,flood plain,hillside)
Neighborhood meeting date;#of Oct 10,2019,2 attendees
attendees:
History(previous approvals) Oakcreek AZ 08-004,Oaks North-RZ-13-015,PP-13-
0014,MDA-13-015&DA Instrument#114030974;and
Oakwind H-2018-0119.The previous Oakwind
development is not moving forward because the applicant
failed to execute the amended development agreement.The
new proposal is intended to supersede the previous
approval.
B. Community Metrics
Description Details Page
Ada County Highway District
• Staff report(yes/no) Yes
• Requires ACHD Commission Yes
Action es/no
Access(Arterial/Collectors/State 2 local streets,Cherrybrook Drive and Daphne Street,will
Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) connect to N.Trident Way,which connects to W.
McMillan Rd(arterial).
Traffic Level of Service D
Existing Road Network No existing internal roads.
Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ McDermott Road—Undeveloped(no sidewalks or buffers)
Buffers McMillan Road—Undeveloped(no sidewalks or buffers)
Proposed Road Improvements Applicant required to construct all internal roads.
10' wide walkway and installation of curb and gutter along
N.McDermott and W.McMillan.
Distance to nearest City Park(+ +/-2 '/2 miles, Seasons Park,Keith Bird Legacy Park
size
Fire Service
• Distance to Fire Station 3.5 miles
• Fire Response Time >5 minutes
• Resource Reliability 86%
• Risk Identification 1
• Accessibility Roadway access,radio coverage
• Special/resource needs No aerial device necessary
• Water Supply 1,000 gpm
• Other Resources None needed
Police Service
• Distance to Police Station 8 miles
• Police Response Time >5 minutes
• Calls for Service 102 within one mile
• %of calls for service split by 47%P2,53%P3
priority
• Accessibility Satisfactory.
• Specialty/resource needs None necessary.
• Crimes 14
• Crashes 3
Page 2
Item 2. 90
Description Details Page
• Other Reports 85
West Ada School District
• Impacted Schools Pleasant View ES- 1.8 Miles
Star MS—7.2 Miles
Meridian HS—5.5 Miles
• Capacity of Schools Pleasant View ES-650
Star MS— 1000
Meridian HS—2075
• #of Students Enrolled Pleasant View ES-356
Star MS—701
Meridian HS— 1975
• Estimated New Students Generated by Development Pleasant View ES-60
Star MS—30
Meridian HS—40
Wastewater
• Distance to Sewer Services 0
• Sewer Shed N.McDermott Trunkshed
• Estimated Project Sewer ERU's See application
• WRRF Declining Balance 13.97
• Project Consistent with WW Master Plan/Facility Yes
Plan
Water
• Distance to Water Services 0
• Pressure Zone 1
• Estimated Project Water ERU's See application
• Water Quality No concerns
• Project Consistent with Water Master Plan Yes
• Impacts/Concerns *Water main should be removed from McDermott
Rd.
*Water main in Daphne St should be 12",the main
shall extend west and stub at McDermott Rd
*Alley with both water and sewer shall be 20'wide
with 5' easements on either side to a total of 30'.
*Each phase of the development will need to be
modeled to verify minimum fire flow pressure is
maintained.
Page 3
� m
IN
.-Y IT I'd I'll;l�.'+,
'dill r= -
''
tilk MINI r l
rim ll lurl A
W.Tic
. I HI
well
. I
C 7 a�i l. : pn 'Is� nilu
-
•rrrr=_ Ulm l ,r, klirJlS lfr = ,",iiii•- _ l rr.ri
ylur= Fr ee.�lr
In-m-k 'y� 112 III.
�ilul SI1T
§..1iirl l r "n;l rill :5- '
lllik MINI _ -.,;,Il;�, kFWI ..- t�;;,�.;
C • -
Item 2. 92
C. Representative:
Becky McKay,Engineering Solutions LLP— 1029 N. Rosario St. Ste 100,Meridian ID 83642
IV. NOTICING
Planning&Zoning City Council
Posting Date Posting Date
Newspaper Notification 10/16/2020
Radius notification mailed to
properties within 300 feet 10/13/2020
Public hearing notice sign posted
10/27/20
on site
Nextdoor posting 10/13/2020
V. STAFF ANALYSIS
This proposal includes platting the subject property to allow 94 single family lots, 92 townhouse lots,
3 common driveways and 26 common lots on 24.54 acres previously conceptually approved to
develop with multifamily and self-storage uses. This proposal includes amending the existing
development agreement(Instrument#114030972)that only allows multifamily and self-storage on
this property. This subdivision is proposed to develop in two (2)phases as shown on the preliminary
plat.
In 2008,the subject property received annexation approval(AZ-08-004)for a large master planned
residential development(Oak Creek AZ 08-004 and PP-08-003). The original annexation included
318.74 acres, although at the time only 139 lots on 30.72 acres at the SW corner of McMillan Road
and Black Cat Road were proposed for platting(including the subject property). This was because
city services were only available to this area with the expansion of the Black Cat trunk. The
annexation included development agreement instrument# 109009629 (agreement later terminated
and replaced with the agreement noted below).
In 2013,the subject property was rezoned to the R-15 zone and was included as a portion of the Oaks
North Subdivision. The Oaks North Plat included a lot for both the multifamily and self-storage uses.
The lot that was to develop with multi-family was required to at a density range between 8-15 du/
acre and the self-storage was allowed on 7.83 acres on the southern portion of the property subject to
further approvals per the recorded DA..
In 2018,the 16.71 acre multifamily lot was proposed to be rezoned from R-15 to R-8 to develop
eighty-two (82) single-family detached dwellings on lots ranging in size from 5,400 square feet to
8,600 square feet with an average lot size of 5,843 square feet(the Oakwind Subdivision H-2018-
0119). This proposal included yet another amendment to the existing development agreement to
remove the multifamily uses. This proposal was recommended for approval by the January 17, 2019
Planning Commission,but was withdrawn by the applicant in June of 2019 before proceeding to the
City Council.Accordingly,the Oaks North Plat and DA#114030972 still govern this property.
A. Development Agreement Modification(MDA)
The Applicant proposes to revise the following sections of Development Agreement Instrument#
114030972:
5.1.4 "Development of the multi-family lots requires conditional use permit approval. The
density range in these areas shall be 8 to 15 dwelling units to the acre."
Page 5
Item 2. 93
Proposed for deletion.
5.1.9 "The proposed outdoor storage is an accessory use in the R-15 district for the benefit of
the proposed residential developments and shall not operate as a stand-alone commercial
business. Development of this lot shall not commence until the Owner/Developer obtains
certificate of zoning compliance and design review approval of the storage facility."
Proposed for deletion.
5.1.12 "The Owner/Developer shall provide a method for notifying home owners of the future
multi-family developments proposed with the Oaks North and Oaks South developments
as determined by the Planning Division Manager."
Proposed revision would strike the reference to the Oaks North.
B. Staff supports a modification to the development agreement.As described below, the result would
still be a diversity in housing, with a significant amount of useable open space. However, since
the development agreement applies to the entire Oaks North and South (of which this property
is only a small part)staff believes it would be better to leave the existing development
agreement as is and create a new development agreement for this property. Future Land Use
Map Designation(https://www.meridianci(y.or /�compplan)
The site is designated MDR(Medium Density Residential),which allows smaller residential lots.
Uses may include single-family homes at gross densities of 3 to 8 dwelling units or less per acre
(du./acre).
The applicant proposes to develop this 24.54-acre site with 94 single family lots and 92
townhouse lots at a gross density of 7.58 dwelling units per acre(d.u./acre) consistent with the
MDR FL UM designation.
C. Comprehensive Plan Policies (https://www.meridiancity.or /�compplan):
(Staff analysis is in italics after the cited policy)
• Encourage a variety of housing types that meet the needs,preferences, and financial
capabilities of Meridian's present and future residents. (2.01.02D)
94 single family homes are proposed on the northern portion of the development on lots
between 3,000 square feet and 5,500 square feet, with the average lot size being 3,700 square
feet. The southern portion is proposed to develop with 92 townhomes on lots between 2,100
square feet and 3,200 square feet, with the average townhouse lot being 2,481 square feet.
With the Oaks North and South Subdivisions being comprised of 963 single family lots with
lot sizes averaging 10,000 sq.ft. +/-) this proposal for smaller lot sizes and single family
attached provides the "missing middle"housing encouraged by the Comprehensive Plan.
• Avoid the concentration of any one housing type or lot size in any geographical area;provide
for diverse housing types throughout the City. (2.01.01 G)
As mentioned above, this proposal would allow for a more diverse type of housing.
• With new subdivision plats,require the design and construction of pathway connections, easy
pedestrian and bicycle access to parks, safe routes to schools, and the incorporation of usable
open space with quality amenities"(2.02.01A).
This new subdivision provides a 10'wide pathway along W. McDermott Rd. and a 10'wide
pathway along W. McMillan Rd.A 5'wide pathway bisects the proposed development north
Page 6
Item 2. 94
—south and links to a 10'wide pathway connecting the future Gem Innovation School to the
Oaks North development. The townhouses are organized along mews with pathways and
open space dividing the townhouse rows into groups of 5 and 7 units.
The proposed plat depicts a total of 4.16 acres (or 16.95%) of qualified open space, much of
which is usable, and amenities consisting of a central open grassy area, community
playground,fire pit, outdoor kitchen and shelter. The development as proposed would result
in a pedestrian friendly community that links to surrounding development and provide quality
open space for the residents.
• "Permit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities
and urban services at the time of final approval, and in accord with any adopted levels of
service for public facilities and services."(3.03.03F)
City water and sewer services are available and can be extended by the developer with
development in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. A regional sewer lift station and pressure sewer
line were installed with the Oaks South Subdivision, extending east on McMillan Road and
then south on Black Cat Road to the North Black Cat Lift Station. Oakwind Estates (this
development)will connect to an existing 15-inch gravity sewer main line in N. Trident Way.
An 8-inch sewer main line will be constructed and will be stubbed through a common lot to
McDermott Road for future service to the west. The applicant will be required to extend the
12-inch water main located at the intersection of McMillan and McDermott Roads north
along the development's McDermott frontage.
This development cannot be served by Meridian Fire within the 5-minute response time but
does meet the resource reliability goal of greater than 80%. Extended response times put the
residents and first responders at a higher risk. More than one point of access is available to
this property as N. Trident Way and W. Milano Dr. (which provides access to W. McMillan
via N. Rustic Oak Way) have already been constructed and stubbed to the subject property as
part of the Oaks North No. 1.
Require urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments, including curb and gutter,
sidewalks,water and sewer utilities. (3.03.03G)
Urban sewer and water infrastructure and curb, gutter and sidewalks is required to be
provided with development as proposed.
"Reduce the number of existing access points onto arterial streets by using methods such as
cross-access agreements, access management, and frontage/backage roads, and promoting
local and collector street connectivity"(6.01.02B).
The proposed street network stubs two streets to the east— W. Cherrybrook Dr. and W.
Daphne St. -which connect to N. Trident Way. N. Trident Way terminates at W. McMillan
Rd to the south and W. Milano Dr. in the Oaks North development to the north. This proposal
would not provide direct access to an arterial nor would it increase the number of access
points to nearby collectors or arterials.
Require all new development to create a site design compatible with surrounding uses
through buffering, screening,transitional densities, and other best site design practices.
(3.07.01A)
The proposed density of 7.5 du/acre meets the Comprehensive Plan's recommendation of 3-
8 dwelling units per acre, and provides a diversity of housing anticipated by the Plan for this
area. However, staff notes townhouse lots as small as 2,200 sq.ft. are directly across the
Page 7
Item 2. ■
street from lots in the Oaks North No. I Subdivision which are between 8,000 square feet and
9,100 sf.ft. The applicant has noted Toll Southwest LLC(the owner) is also the developer of
the Oaks North No. I to the east, and the subject property is part of this larger development.
D. Existing Structures/Site Improvements:
There are no existing structures presently on the property.
E. Proposed Use Analysis:
The applicant proposes single-family detached and townhome dwellings which are listed as a
principal permitted use in the R-15 zoning district per UDC Table 11-2A-2.
F. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2):
The preliminary plat and future development is required to comply with the dimensional
standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-7 for the R-15 district.All lots meet the minimum 2,000 sq.
ft. requirements, and future structures should comply with the minimum setbacks of the district.
UDC 11-6C-3-regulates block lengths for residential subdivisions. Staff has reviewed the
submitted plat for conformance with these regulations. The intent of this section of code is to
ensure block lengths do not exceed 750 feet, although there is the allowance of an increase in
block length to 1000 feet if a pedestrian connection is provided. Two pedestrian connections and
a common open space area bisect the lots along N. McDermott Rd. in Block 1 with the longest
block face being 628 feet.
G. Access(UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4):
This development is estimated to generate 888 additional vehicle trips per day. ACHD previously
reviewed this site as part of The Oaks Subdivision in December 2013 and as Oakwind
Subdivision in February 2018.ACHD has noted their requirements will remain the same for this
project, as the number of lots as proposed would likely be less dense than the 3 multifamily lots
that were approved with the previous proposal.
There are presently no local roadways within the site. This proposal includes 2 local streets -
Cherrybrook Drive and Daphne Street-that are proposed to stub to the site's east property line.
This would connect to N. Trident Way(approved and constructed as part of the Oaks North),
which would route traffic to W. McMillian Rd. The applicant also proposes to provide alley-
loaded access to townhouses in Block 3 by constructing a 20-foot wide paved alley that runs
east/west between Marysville Way and Palustris Way. The proposed new access points are
consistent with Comprehensive Plan action item 6.01.02B which restricts access points on arterial
streets.
W. McMillan Rd. to the south and McDermott Road to the west are improved with 2-travel lanes
and no curb, gutter or sidewalk abutting the site. An interim signal is planned to be installed at the
W. McMillan Rd/N. Black Cat Rd. intersection in the next two years. Future improvements to
W. McMillian Rd include widening W. McMillan Rd to 3-lanes from McDermott Road to Black
Cat Road and installing a roundabout at this intersection. Future plans for N. McDermott Rd.
include widening to three lanes. At the request of ACHD,the applicant is required to dedicate
right-of-way and improve both roads along the frontages. Improvements include a 10' wide
walkway along both roads and installation of curb and gutter.
Per ACHD,Marysville Street and Palustris Avenue are proposed to be greater than 750-feet in
length and will need to be redesigned to reduce the length of the roadways or to include the use of
passive design elements. Stop signs, speed humps/bumps and valley gutter are not accepted as
Page 8
Item 2. ■
traffic calming. Prior to City Council,the applicant should be required to submit a revised
preliminary plat showing the redesigned roadways and approved by ACHD.
Finally,UDC 11-3H states residential development along McDermott Road from Chinden Blvd
to I-84 is required to provide noise abatement by constructing a berm or a berm and wall
combination a minimum of ten feet(10')higher than the elevation at the centerline approximately
parallel to W. McDermott Rd. The landscape plan does not reflect this improvement. As a
condition of approval, staff recommends the applicant submit a landscape plan which meets the
requirements of UDC 11-3H-4D prior to City Council.
H. Common Driveways(UDC 11-6C-3):
The proposed preliminary plat shows three common driveways(Lots 17,47 and 73 Block 1).
Lots 17 and 47 will each serve three single family residences, and Lot 73 will serve 4 single
family attached units. The common driveways meet the minimum width of twenty feet(20'), and
none of the driveways exceed the maximum allowed length of one hundred fifty feet(150').
A perpetual ingress/egress easement for the common driveway(s)is required to be filed with 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.
1. Parking(UDC 11-3C):
Off-street parking is required to be provided for single-family attached and detached dwellings
based on the number of bedrooms per unit(i.e. 2, 3 and 4 bedroom units require 4 per dwelling
unit with at least 2 in an enclosed garage, other spaces may be enclosed or a minimum 10' x 20'
parking pad)in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6. All elevations show at
least two car garages, and the landscape plan shows parking pads of least 20' x 20'in front of the
single family attached.
The applicant has provided a parking exhibit for the single family attached portion of the project
(southern portion). The parking plan provides a 33' local street section which allows for
additional on-street parking. It is important to note this on-street parking does not count toward
meeting minimum requirements. ACHD and Meridian Fire have both reviewed the plan and have
not expressed concerns.
J. Pathways( UDC 11-3A-8):
As mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan analysis above,this new subdivision provides a 10'
pathway along W. McDermott Rd., a 10' pathway along W. McMillan Rd. and 5' micro-
pathways interspersed throughout the development. As required by UDC 11-3A-8, all micro-
pathways are within lots of at least 15' in width and contain landscape strips of at least 5' in
width with at least 100 tree per hundred linear feet as required by UDC 11-313-12.
K. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17):
Attached sidewalks are proposed throughout the development on both sides of all roads and meet
the minimum widths of UDC 11-3A-17.
L. Parkways(UDC 11-3A-17):
No parkways are proposed with this development.
M. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B):
The proposed landscape plan meets the requirements of UDC 11-313. 15 species of trees are
provided where at least 5 different species are required. All proposed trees meet the minimum
Page 9
Item 2. 97
sizes as indicated in Table 11-313-5-2.A 35' wide landscape buffer is proposed along N.
McDermott Rd as is required for an entryway corridor, and a 35' wide buffer is shown along W.
McMillan Rd. whereas 20' would be required. The minimum landscape buffer density of 1 tree
per 35' linear feet is exceeded, and all pathways include the minimum 5' landscape strip on each
side of the pathway. Several landscaped common open spaces are provided including a central
park of approximately 1 acre. Finally, landscaped mews of at least 20' are provided along the
front of each single family attached unit, all containing a pathway and trees.
The proposed landscape plan contains a note which indicates no trees exist on site and therefore
tree preservation or mitigation does not apply.
N. Qualified Open Space(UDC 11-3G):
The development proposes 4.16 acres (16.95%) of qualified open space. This includes several
grassy areas larger than 50' x 100',pathways along all the landscape buffers,micro-pathways
internal to the development and along mews fronting the single family attached, and a one-acre
park central to the development. The development proposes quality open space which exceeds the
requirements.
O. Qualified Site Amenities(UDC 11-3G):
The proposal includes a one-acre park with a playground, fire pit, outdoor kitchen and shelter. In
addition,4.16 acres of qualified open space is proposed,which is 1.76 acres over the minimum
requirement of 2.4 acres. (Additional qualified open space of at least twenty thousand(20,000)
square feet is counted as an additional amenity.)The development exceeds the minimum
requirements for qualified site amenities.
P. Waterways(UDC 11-3A-6):
No waterways bisect this development.
Q. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, I1-3A-7):
All fencing constructed on the site is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-
7. A 6-foot tall solid vinyl fence is proposed along N. McDermott Rd. and W. McMillan Rd., and
4' vinyl fencing is proposed along pathway connections, and common open areas as it allowed by
UDC 11-3A-7-A.
As mentioned in the section regarding access above,noise abatement by constructing a berm or a
berm and wall combination a minimum of ten feet(10') is required along W. McDermott Rd. As a
condition of approval, staff recommends the applicant submit a landscape plan which meets the
requirements of UDC 11-3H-4D prior to City Council.
R. 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.
S. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual):
Conceptual building elevation renderings were submitted for the future single family detached
and townhomes within the development. Home styles for both types of home include the
Bungalow, Farmhouse, and Craftsman. Materials include lap siding,pitched composite shingle
roofs with gables, and vinyl windows. Several building types include exposed timber frame.
Overall, staff believes the architecture and materials are high quality but does have concerns. One
concern is the length of the first story roofs on the single-family homes. It is staff s opinion that
these roofs should extend further over to the garage doors, or there should be another roof
Page 10
Item 2. 98
element on the garage side of the house. Staff likewise has concerns with the porch roof elements
that are over the doors on the townhouses and recommends these elements comprise a larger
percentage of the townhouse fagade.
Staff also has concerns with the length of the rooflines of several of the townhouse rows. As a
condition of approval, staff recommends no single family attached roofline may exceed more than
50 (fifty)feet without providing variations in roof profile including but not limited at least two of
the following: two or more visible roof planes; dormers, lookouts or,turrets. Townhouses will be
required to be reviewed with a future design review process and will be required to meet the
standards of the Architectural Standards Manual(ASM).
Also,because the rear and/or sides of 2-story homes will be highly visible from the arterial streets
(i.e.N. McDermott and W. McMillan Rd.), staff recommends articulation is incorporated 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 that are visible from these roads. One story
residences are exempt from this requirement.
VI. DECISION
A. Staff:
The proposed plat includes less density than what was originally approved,but still contains a
diverse housing stock in terms of lot sizes,house sizes, and both detached and attached housing
product. ACHD reviewed the impacts of earlier projects in this location which included more
density and determined roads are either adequate or will be upgraded to satisfactorily serve the
project. Water and sewer can be extended to the subject property. Finally,the qualified open
space and amenities as proposed exceed the minimum requirements; the amount of qualified open
space is almost double what is required, is central to the development and there are numerous
pathways integrated into and out of the plat.
Staff recommends approval of the requested preliminary plat and creation of a new development
agreement for this property with the conditions noted in Section VII.per the Findings in Section
IX.
Page 11
Item 2. F9-q
EXHIBITS
A. Preliminary Plat(date: 9/l/2020)
j Aur I I R1 I I I d11 —fi 'I1
I I 1 1 I I J
I l i II r I
_ --
+ �1♦L +2i1Y1 - WIIYE ------ ---
I ■It'1� '�� �, J 1 1 I I I 1 1 f
II " I] 61
-20
'L' I+ I■ ■ 1 1 1 ! 1 F i I ; Ij�,{Q' �1� ti —� � ram+
+ 17k x 5l
R-4_
— I] 7F ll 1F I� ■ N
3.7
■ I I it IS lr �mc F '1 :0 Y 13 E 'I ''r F Ft.
.12
I w
,y
Ic
—
Jy -�
yl-Iirl41 N o r21 Illlall it i i F I� I> j # , I +5++•i]'L+E2lI3'I'- ~
i -w Id
t I I I I
# i 7F l L4
I nl- --4 �— �-
IIIIr
-- I nlaljnlolxl f 401all-1a1451 ti� _�_ Iyy� ■ ~ I III ,---
�
OW
-
�, ' i7�� - �►-- �- x, II� ■ III f ��==��_��`�
7-1
I
I I+1 RIIIiliSli7- :7�11in�■ ',.!� �Ial40ll.lw:la tic!rl Ml�1 I I I1 I + 1 I ■ I , I , I , I
Ij�j � '� 1 ' \
Tjr
' I ■ ■ � i523�'
r
Page 12
Item 2. Fool
B. Phasing Plan((date: 9/l/2020)
R_
GEN= V44+
L-4) le-F
121A6
—F' r—
$110d4fv&M,
jPra e L I 4
mvoo-It-*
3
L I 11 L I
4— Wig
F
•S
S
1z
42L4
t.
3-87
T
A
C,
L I
rn
T
J
r7 f dp:
7
M Rpm E!�dw_M_4"4R1k& GFMGVM
p io wib
Page 13
I
� _ ��• Lei '"��� '
I
5L
f
it hl-pr:!
811
49�_J��11�111��;.9i�iailr�u I il■i 1mi. � a � I NEW
W
pllti
raw A
�Irr11�•�
■+i■r fl�� ��� Y 4I
III �R , m L
I ■n f
IJ ��
WIN
M.M Elm
r �
12
Ill
f , 42 F F
lip
ANW
elm
Wo
riF Ir
` III sir.,
r
,� .� "� ilM�il�ii■ �ill�i �4 J
■ � � rp awl n��■■� � I :'�,■...� �" _ ,�.
go
a 04
Ug
�7+1 ®r.,
�i ■Nr� � F2g� �fado � . : .1� 7.
' ��1r� � � III■■��■� 1�
PME-
.. ■IEEE
F �1� rEl�l■+IRIW�I Irr:r� �J�rr ■r �I�ILJM�rr.r■ r.W�
Item 2. F103
E. Townhouse Parking Plan
1 V/
W DAPHNE ST.•.- ��-- _ - :1- -
� �pF.i� ��,r— � �-_ .._.�:�•. - .,..«.-_� <�.� _ �,����4� c�l��bnHur vc,=--- � ' II� J t
� I
"=a 1 ARGAR PUBLIC ALLEY
_ Ln �I
j -
rz
- -
r nPRI 5-F.. �,� L. II II
OAKWIND ESTATES PRELIMINARY PLAT C� 44t ON STREET PARALLEL PARKIN
(TOWNHOUSE PARKING EXHIEIT)
1" = 100' EXEMBIrY - 1
Page 16
Item 2. 104
F. Building Elevations(date: 8/13/2020)
Uff
FRONT ELEVATION
—I ............ ------
- F-IF-IF-1 F-IF-IF-1
— EJEJEJOLEJEJEJEJ
L��
:.I.I
. I
FRONT ELEVATION
II I
I
D 11
ODO I1001
0 00 0 0
FRONT ELEVATION
kr-M
00Ell
FRONT ELEVATION
rage i i
Item 2. Fo5l
G. Building Elevations —Single Family Attached(date: 8/13/2020)
-PZMlT M--vxnOM-T:RWM;hL L
k
'.I
EIEVATION-CP,-
Page 18
Item 2. F106
G.1 Building Elevations—Single Family Attached(date: 8/13/2020)
p-;I
orl-
I
I .
cacerr aE�xnoH-�anoauL
I__Ufa
I _
ern Eti:nnore-ca4 raraw
L
�fELEL'hnIXi R3JHF ELEYM1IIC�Y
� 4
k
- I
Page 19
Item 2. F107
F. Legal Description
ugw trio C]
C)akvvind Estates
A parcel located in the SW '/,of the SW'r;of Section 28.Township 4 North. Range 1 West. Boise
Meridian,Ada C Gun ty.IdahG. and more particularly described as follows:
Carnmencing at a Brass Cap m on um en t m ark!ng the southwest corner of said Sedan 28, from
which a Brass Cap monument marking the southeast comer of the SW 1/, {S }/a corner) of said
Section 28 bears S 89'16'5Er E a distance of 2635.25 feet;
Thence N 1"00'42" E along the west boundary of said SW'A of Section 28 a distance of 25.00
feet to a point;
Thence leaving said west boundary S 89'16'58" E a distance of 25.00 feet to the POINT OF
BEGINNING;
Thence N 1"00'4Y E along a line being parallel to and 2 5.00 feet easterly of said west boundary
❑fthe SW'/.a distance of 1290A the north boundary of said S '/, of the SW'f.;
Thence along said north boundary S 89'1 U59' E a distance of 425.00 feet to a point
Thence leaving said north boundary S 88'59'1 T E a distance of 324.54 feet to a paint;
Thence S 1'OG42'W a distance of 10 1.68 feat to a point;
Thence S 86'59'18'E a distance of 121.46 feet to a point'
Thence S 1°00'42"W a distance of 47.00 feetto a point;
Thence N 88059'18" W a distance of 121.46 feet to a point;
Thence S 1'0(742'W a distance of 22.35 feet to a point;
Thence S 15028'05' E a distance of 262.84 feet to a point;
Thence S 10'22'36' E a distance of 85.82 feet to a point;
Thence S 85'0845' W a distance of 11.10 feet to a pohrt;
Thence S 1'00'42' W a distance of 142.12 feet to a pant;
Thence S 4'19`19'E a distance of 136.47 fee tto a point;
Thence S 1'00`42" W a distance of 50.00 feet to a point;
Thence S 88059'18' E a distance of 3.02 feet to a point:
Thence S 44'47'25' E a distance of 28.54 feet to a point:
Thence S 0043'02'W a distance of 38323 feet to a point;
— ut onS Ga*wndEstates
]oa Na.1D-73
?ago I of 2
Page 20
Item 2. 108
Thence S 45°43'02" 1N a distance of 52.3J feet to a point;
Thence S D'°43'02"' 4V a distance of 12.00 feet to a paint.
Thence N 89'16'59"W along a fine being 25.00 feet northerly of and parallel to the south bDundary
of said SVV 1/4 of the SVV 'l{a distance of 931.39 feel to the P01NT OF BEGINNING.
This parcel contains 24.54 acres and is sAecI to any easements existing or in use.
Clinton W. Hansen, PUS �N� LA No
Land Solutions, PC T t
5eplernber 1,2020
s�
` 71-F f a. 'Zo
of r o �a
IU W p
1 ThaOaks NorlhCnmmorts
LAnd blutions JadNo_19673
'r,.r�...wn4+na cenrwwq Page 2 of 2
rage z i
Item 2. Flog]
CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS& CONDITIONS
A. PLANNING DIVISION
The subject property shall no longer be subject to the terms of the existing Development
Agreement(DA) (Inst. #114030972)upon the property owner(s) entering into a new agreement.
The new DA shall be signed by the property owner(s) and returned to the Planning Division
within six(6)months of the City Council granting subject modification. Currently, a fee of
$303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the
DA.The new DA shall incorporate the following provisions:
a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the submitted plat,
phasing plan, landscape plan, open space exhibit, amenities and conceptual building
elevations for included in Section VII and the provisions contained herein.
b. The applicant shall construct the entire street buffers,pathways and sound attenuation
wall along N. McDermott Rd. and W. McMillan Rd with the first phase of development
c. No single family attached roofline may exceed more than 50(fifty) feet without
providing variations in roof profile including but not limited at least two of the following:
two or more visible roof planes; dormers, lookouts or,turrets. Planning approval will be
required at time of building permit.
d. The Development Agreement shall require the rear and/or sides of 2-story structures that
face the arterial streets (i.e.N. McDermott and W. McMillan Rd.)to 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. Planning approval
will be required at time of building permit.
2. The preliminary plat included in Section VII.A, shall be revised ten(10)days prior to the Council
hearing as follows:
a. Note#10: Revise to include Lot 84, Block 1 as a common lot to be owned and
maintained by the Home Owners Association.
b. Marysville Street and Palustris Avenue will need to be redesigned to reduce the length of
the roadways or to include the use of passive design elements. Stop signs, speed
humpsibumps and valley gutter are not accepted as traffic calming. The applicant shall
submit a revised preliminary plat showing the redesigned roadways and approved by
ACHD prior to City Council.
3. The landscape plan included in Section VII.B shall be revised ten(10)days prior to the Council
hearing as follows:
a. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to include a berm and sound attenuation
wall along W. McDermott Rd as required in UDC 11-3H-4D. All required landscaping
shall be on the west side of the wall.
4. Prior to the Planning Commission,the Applicant shall revise the proposed elevations to extend
the first-floor rooflines on the single-family residences further toward the garage or incorporate a
similar element, and expand the porch roofs on the townhouses to include a larger percentage of
the facade.
Page 22
Item 2. 1 10 1
5. For lots accessed by common driveways, 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. 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 easement should
be submitted to the Planning Division prior to signature on the final plat.
6. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC
Table 11-2A-7 for all buildable lots.
7. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-
3C-6 for single-family detached dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit.
8. All townhouses are required to complete design review approval prior to building permits.
9. Developer shall comply with all ACHD conditions of approval.
10. The Applicant shall have a maximum of two (2)years to obtain City Engineer's signature on a
final plat in accord with UDC 11-613-7.
11. Staff s failure to cite specific ordinance provisions does not relieve the applicant of responsibility.
B. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval
1.1 The water main in W. Daphne Street needs to be 12-inch diameter. The water main shall extend
west, and stub at McDermott Road.
1.2 Each phase will need to be modeled at Final Plat to verify there aren't any pressure issues.
1.3 Remove the water main in McDermott Rd
1.4 Confirm sewer mainline slope from SSMH TL-12 to the first new proposed Manhole(should be
0.04%).Need to ensure that property to the west has adequate depth for future development.
1.5 When there are four or more lots on a common drive, a mainline can be installed in lieu of
extending service lines.
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
Page 23
Item 2. F-1111
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 I I"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.
2.4 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.
Page 24
Item 2. F112
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.
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.
Page 25
Item 2. 113
C. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT(SCHOOLS ANALYSIS)
HTTPs://WEBLINKMERIDIANCITY.oRG/WEBLINK/DOCVIEW.AsPX?ID=214998&DBID=0&REPO=ME
RIDIANCITY
D. ACHD
https://weblink.meridiancity.oLvlWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=214524&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
Lty
D. MERIDIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT
https://weblink.meridiancity.orb/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=203768&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
Lty
E. MERIDIAN FIRE DEPARTMENT
https://weblink.meridianciU.orz/WebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=203794&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
Lty-
F. COMPASS
https://weblink.meridianciU.orkIWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=214349&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
Lty-
G. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT
https://weblink.meridianciU.org_/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=214828&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
hty
VII. FINDINGS
Preliminary Plat(UDC 11-613-6)
In consideration of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat,the
decision making body shall make the following findings: (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-
2005)
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)
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.
Page 26
Item 2. F114
2. 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
the Comprehensive Plan analysis regarding serving development by critical public facilities as
well as the section regarding urban infrastructure.
3. 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 development at
their own cost, Staff finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital
improvement funds.
4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed
development;
Staff recommends the Commission rely upon comments from the public service providers
(i.e.,Police,Fire,ACHD, etc.)to determine this finding. (See Exhibit B for more detail.)
5. 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's attention. ACHD
considers road safety issues in their analysis. Staff recommends that the Commission
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.
6. The development preserves significant natural,scenic or historic features. (Ord.05-
1170,8-30-2005,eff.9-15-2005)
Staff is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that need to be
preserved with this development.
Page 27
Item 3. 115
(:>
E IDIAN*-----,
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Goddard Creek Subdivision (H-2020-0092) by Conger
Group, Located in the Northwest Corner of W. McMillan Road and N. Goddard Creek Way
A. Request: Development Agreement Modification (Inst. #102012598) to allow the development
of an age restricted community consisting of thirty-four (34) attached SFR homes instead of
offices.
B. Request: A Rezone of approximately 5 acres of land from the R-4 to the R-15 zoning district.
C. Request: A Preliminary Plat for 34 residential lots and 8 common lots in the proposed R-15
zoning district.
Item 3. 116
(::�VE IDIAN
IDAHO
PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION
Staff Contact:Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: November 5, 2020
Topic: Public Hearing for Goddard Creek Subdivision (H-2020-0092) by Conger Group, Located
in the Northwest Corner of W. McMillan Road and N. Goddard Creek Way
A. Request: Development Agreement Modification (Inst. #102012598) to allow the
development of an age restricted community consisting of thirty-four (34)
attached SFR homes instead of offices.
B. Request: A Rezone of approximately 5 acres of land from the R-4 to the R-15
zoning district.
C. Request: A Preliminary Plat for 34 residential lots and 8 common lots in the
proposed R-15 zoning district.
Information Resources:
Click Here for Application Materials
Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing
Item 3. ■
STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY
N --
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HEARING November 5,2020 Legend
0
DATE: [11IProject Location gm-,rn
TO: Planning&Zoning Commission .�u HMO
�54� �
f INFROM: Bill Parsons Current Planning ®
ZHU
Supervisor
208-884-5533
URI
SUBJECT: H-2020-0092 --- ® E
Goddard Creek Community ® �
LOCATION: Northwest corner of W. McMillan Rd.
and N. Goddard Creek Way. -
-- LH
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
• Modification to the recorded Development Agreement(Inst. #103012598)to allow the
development of age-restricted, single family attached homes instead of offices;
• Rezone of 5.03 acres of land from the R-4 to the R-15 zoning district;
• Preliminary Plat consisting of 34 residential building lots and 8 common lots on 4.62 in the
proposed R-15 zone;
• Private Streets to provide access to the development; and,
• Alternative Compliance to allow common driveways off of a private street.
Page 1
Item 3. 118
IL SUMMARY OF REPORT
A. Project Summary
Description Details ` Page
Acreage 4.62
Future Land Use Designation MU-C
Existing Land Use vacant
Proposed Land Use(s Single-family residential,duplex
Current Zoning R-4
Proposed Zoning R-15
Lots(#and type;bldg/common) 34 SFR building/8 common
Number of Residential Units(type 34(SF attached units)
of units)
Density(gross&net) 7.36 units/acre(gross);9.09(net)
Open Space(acres,total [%]/ 0.56 acres, 12.12%(according to the submitted Open Space
buffer/qualified) Exhibit).
Amenities One(1)qualified amenity-Covered picnic shelter
Physical Features(waterways, None
hazards,flood plain,hillside)
Neighborhood meeting date;#of July 30,2020; 8 attendees
attendees:
History(previous approvals) This property was granted annexation,preliminary plat,and a
conditional use permit as part of the Lochsa Falls Subdivision
in 2002(AZ-02-010,PP-02-009,CUP 02-012)and has a
development agreement(Instrument#103012598).These
approvals granted office uses in the R-4 district.
In 2017,the property received CPAM approval from Office
and High Density Residential to Mixed-use Community.A PP
and FP were also approved.A concurrent RZ,CUP and MDA
was proposed to develop the property with 76 multi-family
units however,that request was withdrawn.A PP and FP were
also approved(H-2017-0007 and H-2018-0014)to develop
the self-storage portion of the development.In 2019 an
application for 44 attached townhome style single-family
units was denied by City Council(H-2419-0068). This
application differs from the previous development in that
it has 10 fewer units and proposes all age-restricted
attached units(duplexes).
Written Testimony
B. Community Metrics
Description Details Page
Ada County Highway
District —
• Staff report Yes
(yes/no)
• Requires ACHD No
Commission
Action es/no
West Ada School No Comments were submitted by West Ada School District—this is
District likely due to project being proposed as an age-restricted development.
Page 2
Item 3. 119 1
Wastewater
Distance to Sewer Services N/A
Sewer Shed White Drain Trunkshed
Estimated Project Sewer ERU's See application
WRRF Declining Balance 13.97
Project Consistent with WW Yes
Master Plan/Facility Plan
Additional Comments •Flow is committed
•See"WW comments"pdf markup for items that need to
be addressed.
Water
Distance to Water Services 0'
Pressure Zone 2
Estimated Project Water ERU's See application
Water Quality Concerns None
Project Consistent with Water Yes
Master Plan
Impacts/Concerns •See the attached Water Main Markup for details.
•No water main in the shared driveway at the southeast,
water services only
•Instead of connecting the water main to the southern stub,
extend the water main south directly to McMillan to
eliminate unnecessary parallel water main. The existing
stub will either need to be abandoned or end in a hydrant.
•Loop the two deadend water mains near the north
boundary line and connect to existing water main in
Selway Rapids Ln to create a secondary connection and
elimiate two deadend mains.An easement will need to be
obtained from Selway Apartments in order to connect of
the water main in Selway Rapids
C. Project Area Maps
Future Land Use Map .Aerial Map
Legend ,C) � 0 Legend
Project Location [E] Project Location
® Medium De-n1� -
LL
Residenlial EIF-+H -
Higmh Density
Residential
Icgmm re vial =
Low=—ensilyi
� Residential -
Qffice
� � _
Page 3
Item 3. F120]
Zoning Ma Planned Development
Legend fl0,� Legend0
Project Location .,Project Location ® `l`�[i4®���
C-C City Limits
® R-8 FFHfflmff�g R�B: 0��q�
Planned Parcels ® �
C-G C-
RUT
C N FR-8
'R=4�®ILLL
L=0 RR
o
R O L-0
RUT LSO =Fm
� —� ---- �
III. APPLICANT INFORMATION
A. Owner:
Steve Schmidt— 1016 W. Sane to Street,Nampa, ID 83651
B. Applicant Representative:
Sophia Durham, Conger Group—4824 W. Fairview Avenue,Boise, ID 83706
IV. NOTICING
Planning& Zoning City Council
Posting Date Posting Date
Newspaper Notification 10/16/2020
Radius notification mailed to
properties within 300 feet 10/13/2020
Public hearing notice sign posted
10/26/2020
on site
Nextdoor posting 10/13/2020
V. STAFF ANALYSIS
Comprehensive Plan:
The subject property is designated MU-C on the fixture land use map. 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.
Page 4
Item 3. ■
When the FLUM was changed in 2017, staff had analyzed the viability of three different land uses on
the subject property. At the time of the FLUM change,the plan consisted of multi-family and a self-
service storage facility. In determining the appropriateness of the land use change staff determined
that other commercial and office uses approved next to the storage and multi-family development
would serve as the third land use type to support the requested FLUM change. Prior to City Council's
action on the previous development,the applicant of the multi-family project withdrew their CUP
application. Therefore,the subject 4.62 acre parcel is still governed by the original development
agreement which allows office to develop on the property.
The applicant now desires to develop the site with 34 age-restricted(55 years of age and older)
single-family attached and units in the form of duplexes. Staff has evaluated the existing land uses
and zoning in the area to determine if this stand-alone residential project is attainable. This area is
primarily developed with single-family homes with the exception of the apartment complex to the
north. To the west of the adjacent storage facility and at the nearby intersection of Ten Mile and
McMillan,more commercial uses are currently being built including restaurants and a gas station. In
addition this age-restricted product would be an additional option for this demographic as the large
commercial parcel to the west is entitled for an age-restricted multi-family development(they have
applied for building permits at the time of writing). Because the applicant is proposing to provide
housing diversity in the area and other land uses are nearby the development, staff believes the plan is
consistent with the MU-C designation. The project also falls within the target density of 6 to 15
dwelling units per acre as the proposed gross density is 7.36 dwelling units to the acre.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES: Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be
applicable to this application and apply to the proposed use of this property(staff analysis in italics):
• "Avoid the concentration of any one housing type or lot size in any geographical area;
provide for diverse housing types throughout the City."(2.01.01G)
The proposed development will contribute to the variety of residential categories that
currently exist in this area (i.e. duplexes). Staff is unaware of how "affordable"the units will
be.
• `Encourage development of universally accessible home designs within new developments
and home retrofits, allowing residents to age in place and creating full accessibility for all
residents of varying levels of physical ability." (2.01.O1E)
The subject development is proposed as an age-restricted community and part of that should
be the ability for residents to age in place. Staff is unaware of the accessibility of these homes
for residents with barriers to physically access these units. Staff therefore recommends that
the Applicant clarify this for Staff and if no units are ADA accessible, Staff recommends that
a certain number of the units should be constructed as such.
• "With new subdivision plats,require the design and construction of pathways connections,
easy pedestrian and bicycle access to parks, safe routes to schools, and the incorporation of
usable open space with quality amenities."(2.02.01A)
The subject property is under 5 acres in size and the UDC does not require that the applicant
provide common open space. To ensure the project offers some open space for its intended
residents, the Applicant is proposing to provide approximately 12 percent common open
space for the development and include a covered picnic area as the amenity. Staff finds that
the open space and amenity leaves something to be desired and is not particularly exciting
but with the intended demographic for the development, large swaths of open space is not
needed. The residents would have ample access to sidewalks should they desire to go for
Page 5
Item 3. ■
longer walks through the proposed common lots. Staff finds that the proposed open space and
amenity can provide adequate area for the target demographic.
• "Permit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities
and urban services at the time of final approval, and in accord with any adopted levels of
service for public facilities and services." (3.03.03F)
Development exists adjacent to the subject site in all directions with City services readily
available in McMillan Road. Public Works has committed flow to the property and all levels
of service are available and adequate to serve the site(i.e. Fire and Police).
• "Reduce the number of existing access points onto arterial streets by using methods such as
cross-access agreements, access management, and frontage/backage roads, and promoting
local and collector street connectivity."(6.01.02B)
The UDC(11-3A-3)restricts access to arterial streets when access is available from a local
street. Access to and from the development is provided along the north boundary via a
private street(W.. Apgar Creek Lane).Access is not proposed to McMillan Road.
REZONE
The applicant requests to rezone 5.03 acres of land from the R-4 zone to the R-15 zone consistent
with the MU-C FLUM designation.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT MODIFICATION
The applicant is requesting to modify the recorded Development Agreement(Inst.#103012598)
to development the site with 34 single-family attached homes(duplexes)instead of offices. The
applicant is requesting to exclude the subject property from the boundary recorded DA and enter
into a new one that governs this site specifically. Staff s recommended DA provisions are
included in Exhibit VIII below.
PRELIMINARY PLAT
The proposed preliminary plat consists of 34 building lots and 8 common lots on 4.62 acres in the
proposed R-15 zone.
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-7 for the R-15 zoning district. The proposed
plat complies with these standards.
Access(UDC 11-3A-3):
Access is proposed via an existing private street,W.Apgar Creek Lane and access via McMillan
Road is prohibited. The Applicant is also proposing an emergency-only access to McMillan Road
to be limited by bollards as approved by the Fire Department.
Private streets are not typically intended for single-family developments unless designed
with a mew or gated community.However,to avoid having a public road off of a private
street(Apgar Creek Lane)that connects to another public street(Goddard Creek Way),
and with access to McMillan Road prohibited, staff is of the opinion the internal private
street is appropriate.In addition,the private street standards require that they connect to a
local or collector street which this property does not have access to due to McMillan being
an arterial and any access to Goddard Creek Way would not meet ACHD separation
requirements for access.Therefore,the Applicant is applying for alternative compliance in
Page 6
Item 3. 123
order to provide internal private streets on Lot 42,Block 1 for internal access within the
development.
Private streets are required to comply with the design and construction standards listed in
UDC 11-3F-4. The proposed private street is 24 feet wide with 5-foot sidewalk on the
internal side of the street.To ensure adequate guest parking is provided,the applicant is
proposing a guest parking area along the north side of the private street across from lots 14-
18,Block 1,lots that abut McMillan Road.
Additionally,the private street standards prohibit common driveways from taking access
from private streets,unless approved by the director with an alternative compliance
application.Alternative compliance has been requested in accord with 11-3F-4A.6,to allow
the two(2) common driveways to be accessed off the private street.Because of the access
constraints and the fact that it is a small compact,infill development,the Director approves
the request for alternative compliance.
Note: One of the perpectual issues within the area surrounding the subject site is
inadequate parking and to help address this issue the Applicant has proposed to widen the
existing private street,Apgar Creek Lane,to 32 feet wide to allow on-street parallel parking
on its southern edge.This widening should allow approximately 8 additional parking spaces
along this private street.
The Private Street standards are intended for developments that provide a mew(shared
vista) or are a gated community. The Applicant is not proposing either of these because of
the site constraints discussed above.However, Staff cannot ignore these standards and
therefore the Applicant should attempt to meet these requirements. Staff recommends that
the Applicant construct faux gates at both entrances to help it appear to be a private
development which would also add a nice entry feature.With the final plat submittal,the
Applicant will be required to apply for Alternative Compliance to propose an adequate
alternative to these standards.
Common Driveways (UDC 11-6C-3)
All common driveways are required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3D. Two
(2)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 are not 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 with
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 for emergency wayfinding
purposes as requested by the Fire Department.
Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17
Private Streets do not require sidewalks within a residential development per the private street
standards. There is existing sidewalk along both McMillan Road and Goddard Creek Way
Page 7
Item 3. F124]
adjacent to the subdivision;there is no existing sidewalk along W.Apgar Creek Lane,the private
street abutting the subject site to the north.With the proposed expansion of Apgar Creek Lane by
the Applicant, 5-foot detached sidewalk is also being proposed that would connect this
subdivision to Goddard Creek Way along the northern boundary. However,there is also existing
sidewalk along the western side of the existing Apgar Creek Lane where it turns into N. Selway
Falls Lane(the enterance into the Selway Apartments)that the Applicant is not showing a clear
sidewalk connection to.
The Applicant should continue the existing sidewalk from Selway Apartments into this site
and provide a clear crossing from that side of the street to the proposed 5-foot attached
sidewalk along the interior of the proposed private street that loops through the
development.It is unclear on the submitted plans if the Applicant is also proposing to use
the common driveway/emergency access as an added pedestrian connection to McMillan
Road but the Applicant has stated to Staff this is the intent. The Applicant should revise the
plans to clarify this prior to the City Council hearing. The submitted plat shows the
common driveway as 20 feet wide with 5 feet of landscaping on each side which exceeds
code requirements. The most eastern area of landscaping should remain and the other 5 feet
of area should be used as the pedestrian connection and should be clearly defined with
pavers,stamped concrete,or similar to clearly delineate the driving surface and the
pedestrian path to McMillan.
In addition,any area where pedestrians will need to cross the street from the interior
sidewalk loop to areas on the perimeter(i.e.to and from Selway Apartments,the open space
area and the common driveway) should be clearly deliniated from the driving surface with
pavers,stamped concrete,or similar for added pedestrian safety and clarity. Staff has
included DA provisions in line with these recommendations.
Landscaping(UDC 11-3B1:
Landscaping is required within street buffers(11-3B-7C), and within common open space areas
(11-3G-3E) in accord with UDC standards. Note: The street buffer landscaping to McMillan
Road and Goddard Creek Way is existing and the Applicant is not required to provide
more landscaping—the Applicant is not proposing any more landscaping in these areas.
The Applicant has proposed a larger common open space lot shown to include five(5)Class
II trees which exceeds the requirement of one(1)tree per 8,000 square feet of open space.
All other landscape areas appear to be landscaped per city code requirements including
those areas with proposed seepage beds.
Qualified Open Space(UDC 11-3G-3):
The UDC does not require the applicant to provide any qualifying open space because the project
is less than 5 acres. However,the applicant recognizes that this is an infill development and the
surrounding residential developments have ample open space. In order to complement the
surrounding developments,the applicant is proposing 24,415 square feet of open space
(12.12%),of which 13,367 square feet would qualify under UDC 11-3G-3 standards. This
amounts to approximately 6.49%of qualified open space. The large open space lot within the
development also includes the proposed amenity, a covered picnic shelter.
Some of the area shown as qualifying on the submitted open space exhibit does not qualify
under the UDC standards because it is not wide enough; those landscaped areas adjacent to
W.Apgar Creek Lane need to be at least 20 feet wide in order to count as linear open space.
The removal of this area and taking half of the arterial buffer area is how Staff came to the
reduced number of qualifying open space when compared to the data shown on the open
space exhibit(Exhibit VII.D).
Page 8
Item 3. F125]
The existing utilities to serve this development are stubbed in from McMillan Road and
require an easement by Public Works.The Applicant is utilizing this requirement to
incoroporate one of their common driveways for this area in the southwest corner of the
site.Further,this common driveway is also being utilized as the secondary emergency
access.
Staff is supportive of the amenity package and qualified open space for this development
due to the resident demographic,its relatively small size, and the proximity of Heroes Park
that has easy pedestrian access from this development via sidewalks.
Parking(UDC 11-3C):
Parking for single-family dwellings is required based on the number of bedrooms per unit. For 1-
2 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 3-4
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. Each of the
units are required to comply with the parking standards set forth in UDC 11-3C-6.
Because of the proposed 24-foot wide street section, on street parking is prohibited. As mentioned
above,the applicant is providing 16 guest parking stalls within the project and is widening the
existing private lane abutting the site to the north to provide additional parking for the
development. Parking stalls are required to measure 9' x 19' in accord with UDC Table 11-3C-5.
NOTE: Parking is a concern in the area.The City has received multiple complaints from
residents in the area because the existing apartment complex does not have adequate
parking. To address this concern,the Applicant has proposed the above additional parking
spaces and proposed this project as an age-restricted development which tends to be over
parked and create less traffic than traditional subdivisions or commercial development.
Fencing(UDC 11-3A-7):
All fencing constructed on the site is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-
7.
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.
One issue presented by Public Works is regarding the proposed sewer and water mains
shown in the common drive in the southeast corner; Public works requires that if the
common drive serves three(3) or less properties that only service lines should be
constructed and not mains.
The main issue is regarding the water line layout and a requirement to connect to the
existing main within W.Apgar Creek Lane from both of the proposed stubs off of this road
to create a looped system.The Applicant would need to obtain an easement from Selway
Apartments to connect their existing main.In addition,Public Works is requesting that the
Applicant change the connection point to the water main within McMillan Road to connect
directly south of the emergency access instead of heading east within the landscape buffer.
See Section VIII.B below for specific Public Works comments/conditions regarding the
requested changes to the utilty layout.
Page 9
Item 3. F126]
Pressurized Irrigation System (UDC 11-3A-1�:
An underground pressurized irrigation system is required to be provided for each lot within the
development.
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 I Architectural Standards Manual):
The design of structures on this site is required to comply with the design standards listed in UDC
11-3A-19 and the City of Meridian Architectural Standards Manual because they are an attached
product with two or more dwelling units. The development should incorporate high quality
architectural design and materials that is also consistent with the MU-C designation. Conceptual
building elevations are proposed as shown for the single-family attached units.
All structures within the development are required to comply with the residential design
standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual.An administrative design review
application must be submitted to the Planning Division and approved prior to submittal of
building permit applications; one design review application may be submitted for the
overall development.
Page 10
Item 3. 127
VI. DECISION
A. Staff:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed rezone, development agreement modification and
preliminary plat and the Director approved the private street and alternative compliance
applications per the conditions included in Section VIII. in accord with the Findings in Section
IX.
Page 11
Item 3. 128
VII. EXHIBITS
A. Rezone Legal Description and Exhibit Map
RE-ZONE DESCRIPTION FOR
RI ZONE
GODDARD CREEK TOWNHOUSE SUBDIVISION
Lot 2,Block 1 of Goddard Creek Subdivision as filed in Book 114 of Plats at
Pages 17060 through 17062 and a portion of the SE 114 of the SW 114 of Section 26,
T.4N.,R.1 W.,B.M.,Meridian,Ada County,Idaho more particularly described as
follows:
BEGINNING at the NW corner of said Lot 2;
thence along the along the North boundary line of said Lot 2 South 88°58'36"
East,476,28 feet to the NE corner of said Lot 2;
thence along the easterly boundary line of said Lot 2 the following 5 courses
and distances:
thence South 00°31'17"West, 107,36 feet;
thence 7.85 feet along the arc of a non-tangent curve to the right,said curve
having a radius of 30.00 Peet,a central angle of 14°59'49"and a long chord which
bears South 08'06'33"West,7.83 feet;
thence South 15°36'33"West,96,54 feet;
thence 131.94 feet along the arc of a non-tangent curve to the left,said curve
having a radius of 252,00 feet,a central angle of 29°59'51"and a Iong chord which
bears South 00'35'25"West, 130.43 feet;
thence South 14°23'27"East,58.02 feet;
thence continuing along the easterly boundary line of said Lot 2 and the
southerly extension thereof South 00°37'38"West,78,37 feet to a point on the South
boundary line of said Section 26;
thence along said South boundary line North 88°58'46"West,468,83 feet;
thence leaving said South Boundary line and along the West boundary line of
said Lot 2 and the southerly extension thereof North 01'01'14"East,473.31 feet to the
POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 5.03 acres,more or less.
7729
s 511311�
G.C
Page 12
Item 3. Fl 29
W. SELWAY RAPIDS LN.
_588'58'36"E 476,28
REAL POINT �
OF BEGINNING
� t`{M
I 0
N
I C1
a
M
I r�. W
� U
BLOCK 1 0
wl 5,03 ACRES a
TI f O
o
f �
S14'23'27"E
--58,02'
I
I�SO'37'38"W
_ 7B.3T
W. McMI_LL_AN RD.
r N88'S8'46"W 468,83'�
dY
CURVE TABLE
CURVE RADIUS LENGTH CHORD DIST. CHORD BRG. DELTA
C1 30.00 7.85 7.83 NB'06'33"E 14'59'49"
�r C2 252.00 131.94 130.43 SO'36'25"W 29'59'51"
� l
P LA
s
25 100 300 CL
7 7229 p
0 50 200 (P 5I3)1 ZO
qr \aP
SCALE: 1" = 100' c�eYG cP���
JOB N0.
IDA O EXHIBIT DRAWING FOR 19-093
11 W.EMERALDST- R15�-REZONE DESCRIPTION SHEET NO.
SURVEY CoalII ICAHDes7D4
I2p II slo GODDARD CREEK TOWNHOUSE SUBDIVISION 1
GROUP, LLC LOCATED IN THE SE 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 DF SECTION 28.T.4N.,RAW.,R.M., nWO.DATE
MERIDIAN.ADA COUNTY.IDAHO 5/13/2019
Page 13
Item 3. F130]
B. Preliminary Plat(date: 9/2/2020)
GODDARD CREEK SUBDIVISION �0 W°
PR6IE7 SiE
PRELIMINARY PLAT `� '`` g
RE-SUBDIVISION OF LOT 2 BLOCK I,GODDARD CREEK SUBDIVISION,
TAN, IE,SEC.26,ADA COUNTY,MERLULAN,IOAHO
.' 17
zanEo sm RfSo[MNL ", 44 4, __ �\ t
------------------
I'
L
�7
r
I` CyrI LINEfYPES:�
Q
z
ni.
-------------
E • � xn.mm nnnn.
6i _- _
F� � �� L PBBNEVwnoNs
— may S--
er-
- o
a --' -
- -'
I _ - _
it e��w
Page 14
Item 3. F 131]
C. Landscape Plan(date: 9/2/2020)
I j I P
ocNs
PLANT SC;HEDLJ LE
t
49—
CITY REQUIREMENTS PRE-PLAT
�J-
in
a7A, =
P4
Z
W
W SITE DEVELOPMENT FEATURES
m
M
41
A
Z=1111 11 11 z
LEGEND
04
P4
W.WMILLAN RD.
--o— ENGINEER
LANDSCAPE PLANIM 1
VICINITY MAP
Page 15
Item 3. Fl 32
���� rcn � nze�ra,R nr.a.xx,r rrm rw.r2 rrv�cx �..aaE E�.nwas uur mm rw.e �`� 36
�^ SIIRl1E PLAMIIJG CETAL� mw y �ari�a rsm 3.0 MMPio n�o xeare0.M«max u — ae'.e,
CCNIFEROUB TFEE PLAMINQ EETAL n OECIW WSIf�PLANRJG OETPL
u
LANDSCAPE NOTES
area Ve s,.�, O
x
In
VALLWIMM FElY_E a+ mmcu�
n 6 HIGH YINYL F CE
V aek
Page 16
Item 3. F133]
D. Open Space Exhibit
GODDARD CREEK SUBDIVISION
OPEN SPACE EXHIBIT 9-
RESUBDMSION OF LOT 2 BLACK I,GODDARD CREEK SDBDMSION, + wW
TAN,R.IE,SEC.26,ADA COUNTY,MERIDIAN,IDAHO ¢W z
l= Ia
w
�3
+ _ 91WAY-- 61Y- - I I
a J'
TA
_r- G
--------------------
m
w
.�v
o„ a
N
O
y _ -
me
2 000m
Page 17
F134]
B. Conceptual Elevations
GENERALNOTES
LU
FINISH LEGEND �:LLI
@���.�Lam"o nr. HIP ROOF OPTION E. ON GABLE ROOF OPTION
LU
FM
�M(RFAR)7LEVATION-HIP ROOF OPTION ELEVATION-GABLF ROOF OPTION
�IENTRY(FRONT)ELEVATION-HIP ROOF OPTION �'LFRONT)ELEVATION-GABLE ROOF OPTION
/ ----------_-----_
Page |8
Item 3. F135]
GENERAL N07ES
k'SHEETKFYNOTFS
w
T
.............W. 0
x
W
FINISH LEGEND ,
SID
E TYP.-HIP ROOF OPTION �A 117�171ELEVATION TYP.-GABLE ROOF OPTION
LU
wo ,w
14.
T"IT, T
T T,T"IT,'T
T
PATIO(REAR)ELEVATION-HIP ROOF OPTION (j�UTI�(REAR)ELEVATION-GABLE ROOF OPTION
COLOR PALETTES
sm
rgop n-
ELEVA71ONS
,B\ENTRY(FRONT)ELEVATION HIP ROOF OPTION (FRONT)ELEVATION-GABLE ROOF OPTIOIN A4.0
Page 19
Item 3. F136]
F. Public Works—Water Markup
s,•N�Ls �,
GODDARD CREEK SUBDIVISION PNaE�srE — � �.,.•w, �Zs
PRELIMINARY PLAT , `�► ' ' �yx
° RE-SUBDIVISION OF LOT 2 BLOCK I,GODDARD CREEK SUBDIVISION,
TAN,R.IE,SEC.26,ADA COUNTY,MERIDIAN,IDAHO
w
F rn QW
IIY
A k se rnr e ■ �►� +L� =
�w
I LINE ES
{
(i ,„n uriuoex�2Mn zmwr,asau,mx _ — '2
.... .. fzF to
o I °
ommW
c.m / w 4II F r N A9 MNATQW --
lJ
Q r m z/ xG — a�,-rcirtlm
. pia
P
a �_' �-'•moo• '...--
Page 20
Item 3. F137]
VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS
A. PLANNING DIVISION
1. Within six(6)months of Council's approval of the findings for the rezone and prior to
submittal of a final plat application,the developer shall sign and obtain Council approval of
the development agreement with the following provisions:
a. Future development of this site shall comply with the preliminary plat, landscape plan,
and conceptual building elevations(single-story) included in Section VII and the
provisions contained herein.
b. The Applicant shall widen W. Apgar Creek Lane(the existing private street abutting the
subject site)by eight(8)feet in order to accommodate on-street parking along the
southern side of the street as shown in the proposed preliminary plat(Exhibit VII.B).
c. Any area of the plat where pedestrians need to cross the private street for added
pedestrian connectivity shall be constructed with pavers, stamped concrete, or similar in
order to clearly delineate the pedestrian pathways from the driving lane;this includes the
proposed pedestrian connection that runs next to the southwest common drive(Lot 12)
that connects to W. McMillan Road.
d. The proposed development shall be an age-restricted(55 years of age and older)
development as proposed by the Applicant.
2. The preliminary plat included in Section VII.B, dated 9/2/2020 shall be revised as follows at
least ten(10)days prior to the City Council hearing:
a. Depict zero lot lines on those lots that have shared walls.
b. Clearly depict all pedestrian connections within the development on the plat, specifically
the pedestrian connection adjacent to the common drive/emergency access(Lot 12).
c. Add a sidewalk connection within Lot I that continues the sidewalk on the west side of
N. Selway Falls Lane.
d. Show all pedestrian crossings as pavers, stamped concrete, or similar to clearly delineate
pedestrian connections and provide Staff a pedestrian exhibit that shows this and shows a
cross-section of the crosswalks.
3. The landscape plan included in Section VII.C,dated 10/18/19 shall be revised as follows:
a. Provide the details of the site amenities with the submittal of the final plat application.
4. Private streets within the development are required to comply with the design and
construction standards listed in UDC I I-3F-4.Exception:Alternative Compliance was
approved to UDC 11-3F-4A.6 to allow the common driveways off of the private street and
to allow private streets off of an existing private street instead of a local or collector street.
5. Applicant shall provide the common open space and amenities as proposed on the landscape
plan(Exhibit VILC).
6. The Applicant shall construct all fencing as shown on the submitted landscape plan and in
accord with UDC 11-3A-7.
7. On-street parking is only allowed in the designated guest parking area as shown on the
attached plans. The private streets shall be posted with"no parking"signs.
Page 21
Item 3. F138]
8. Off-street parking shall be provided for this site as set forth in UDC Table 11-3C-5 and 11-
3C-6.
9. An exhibit shall be submitted with the final plat application for the lots accessed by the
common driveway that depicts the setbacks, fencing,building envelope and orientation of the
lots and structures in accord with UDC 11-6C-3D. Driveways for abutting properties that are
not 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.
10. Provide address signage at the street for homes on Lots 8-11 and 18-21,Block 1 accessed by
the common driveway for emergency wayfinding purposes.
11. A perpetual ingress/egress easement shall be filed with the Ada County Recorder for the
common driveway,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.
12. All structures within the development are required to comply with the residential design
standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual.An administrative design review
application shall be submitted to the Planning Division and approved prior to submittal of
building permit applications; one design review application may be submitted for the overall
development.
13. With the final plat application submittal,the Applicant shall submit an Alternative
Compliance application to provide an adequate alternative to gates,as required by the private
street standards in UDC 11-3F-4.
B. PUBLIC WORKS
Site Specific Conditions of Approval
1. Remove the water mainline from the shared driveway at the southeast,water services will
need to be extended from the mainline.
2. Instead of connecting the water main to the southern stub, extend the water main south
directly to McMillan to eliminate unnecessary parallel water main. The existing stub will
either need to be abandoned or end in a hydrant.
3. Loop the two deadend water mains near the north boundary line and connect to existing water
main in Selway Rapids Ln to create a secondary connection and elimiate two deadend mains.
An easement will need to be obtained from Selway Apartments in order to connect of the
water main in Selway Rapids
4. Intermediate manhole located at the intersection of W.Apgar Creek Loop and the western
shared driveway needs to be relocated further into the travel way to avoid conflict with the
curb and gutter.
5. Remove the sewer mainline from the eastern Shared driveway, and instead run individual
services to serve the lots. Manholes are required at all mainline angle changes.
General Conditions of Approval
3. 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
Page 22
Item 3. F139]
be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard
Specifications.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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
Page 23
Item 3. F140]
performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the
final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404
Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers.
17. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office.
18. All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H.
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. 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.
Page 24
Item 3. 141
6. MERIDIAN FIRE DEPARTMENT(MFD)
https:llweblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=213839&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC
hty
7. SETTLER'S IRRIGATION DISTRICT
https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=213917&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
ity
8. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ)
https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=214296&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC
fty
9. MERIDIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT(MPD)
https:llweblink.meridiancily.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=214306&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
ity
10. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH(CDH)
https:llweblink.meridiancily.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=214496&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
ky
11. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD)
https:llweblink.meridianciU.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=215221&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
Lty
12. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT—SCHOOL TABLE
https:llweblink.meridianci(E.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=214999&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC
iv
IX. FINDINGS
A. REZONE(UDC 11-513-3E)
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:
1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive
plan;
Staff finds the proposed density and associated R-15 zoning designation is consistent with the
applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan in regard to the MU-C future land use map
designation for this site.
2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district,
specifically the purpose statement;
Staff finds that the proposed map amendment and subsequent development will contribute to
the range of housing opportunities available in the northern portion of the City.
Page 25
Item 3. F142]
3. 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 materially detrimental to the
public health, safety, or welfare.
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
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.
5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city.
Because this application is for a rezone, this finding is not applicable.
B. PRELIMINARY PLAT(UDC 11-6B-6)
1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this
unified development code;
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.
2. Public services are available or can be made available ad 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)
3. 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.
4. 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)
5. 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
or not the proposed subdivision may cause health, safety or environmental problems of which
Staff is unaware.
Page 26
Item 3. ■
6. The development preserves significant natural,scenic or historic features.
Staff is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that need to be
preserved with this development.
C. PRIVATE STREET(UDC 11-3F_4)
In order to approve the application,the Director shall find the following:
1. The design of the private street meets the requirements of this Article;
The design of the proposed private streets complies with the standards listed in UDC 11-3F-
4. See analysis in Section Vfor more information.
2. Granting approval of the private street would not cause damage hazard, or nuisance,or
other detriment to persons,property,or uses in the vicinity; and
Staff does not anticipate the proposed private streets would cause any hazard, nuisance or
other detriment to persons,property or uses in the vicinity if they are designed as proposed
and constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3F-4B.
6. The use and location of the private street shall not conflict with the comprehensive plan
and/or the regional transportation plan.
The location of the private streets does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and/or the
regional transportation plan. Both ACHD policy and the UDC prohibits access to McMillan
Road if local street access is provided. With the development of the property to the north,
stafffinds that local street access has been provided via a private street.
4. The proposed residential development(if applicable)is a mew or gated development.
The proposed residential development does not include either a mew or proposes gates. Due
to the site constraints, existing road network, and proposed use of an age-restricted
development outlined in Section VII, Staff is requiring that the Applicant apply for Alternative
Compliance to this requirement to in order provide an adequate alternative with the Final
Plat application submittal.
D. ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE
In order to grant approval for alternative compliance,the director shall determine the
following findings:
1. Strict adherence or application of the requirements is not feasible; OR
Access to this development is provided by a private street and the UDC restricts access to
McMillan Road, an arterial street.ACHD is also restricting access to Goddard Creek way, a
collector street, Because the property is not served by internal public streets, the Director
finds strict adherence to the UDC is not feasible and approves the request for the common
driveways to take access from the private streets as proposed.
2. The alternative compliance provides an equal or superior means for meeting the
requirements; and
The Director finds the infill and age-restricted development proposed by the applicant as a
whole provides an equal or superior means for meeting the requirements in that it contributes
to the unique character of the area and provides diversity in housing types available within
the City.
Page 27
Item 3. F144]
3. The alternative means will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or impair
the intended uses and character of the surrounding properties.
The Director finds that the proposed alternative means will not be detrimental to the public
welfare or impair the intended use%haracter of the surrounding properties and will actually
contribute to the character and variety of housing types in this area of the City.
Page 28