2020-12-03 WE IDIAN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho
Thursday, December 03, 2020 at 6:00 PM
MINUTES
ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE
PRESENT
Chairperson Ryan Fitzgerald
Commissioner Lisa Holland
Commissioner Rhonda McCarvel
Commissioner Nick Grove
Commissioner Andrew Seal
Commissioner Steven Yearsley
ABSENT
Commissioner Bill Cassinelli
ADOPTION OF AGENDA-Adopted
CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] -Approved
1. Approve Minutes of the November 19, 2020 Planning and Zoning Commission
Regular Meeting
ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item]
ACTION ITEMS
2. Public Hearing for TM Center (H-2020-0074) by SCS Brighton, et al., Located
East of S. Ten Mile Rd. and South of W. Franklin Rd.
A. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 83 buildable lots and 2 common
lots on 132.42 acres of land in the R-40, TN-C, C-C and C-G zoning districts.
Continued to January 21, 2021
3. Public Hearing for Conner Square (H-2020-0107) by Sarah Martz with SEM
Consulting, Located at 557 W. Idaho Ave. and 528 W. Broadway Ave.
A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for 3 four-plex units to a total of 12 units in
the R-15 zoning district.
Approved
4. Public Hearing for Compass Pointe Subdivision (H-2020-0100) by A-Team Land
Consultants, Located at the Southwest Corner of E. Victory Rd. and S. Locust Grove
Rd.
A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 7.69 acres of land with a request for the
R-15 zoning district.
B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 48 residential building lots and 9
common lots on approximately 4.69 acres of land in the R-15 zoning district.
C. Request: A Planned Unit Development for the purpose of reducing the rear
setback of the R-15 zoning district for a portion of the development due to site
constraints.
Recommended Denial to City Council, Hearing Scheduled for January 5, 2021
ADJOURNMENT - 8:11 p.m.
Item 1.
Meridian Planning and Zoninq Meeting December 3, 2020.
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of December 3, 2020, was
called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Ryan Fitzgerald.
Members Present: Chairman Ryan Fitzgerald, Commissioner Lisa Holland,
Commissioner Andrew Seal, Commissioner Rhonda McCarvel, Commissioner Nick
Grove and Commissioner Steven Yearsley.
Members Absent: Commissioner Bill Cassinelli.
Others Present: Adrienne Weatherly, Andrea Pogue, Bill Parsons, Alan Tiefenbach, Joe
Dodson and Dean Willis.
ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE
X Lisa Holland X Rhonda McCarvel
X Andrew Seal X Nick Grove
_X Steven Yearsley (6:02) Bill Cassinelli
X Ryan Fitzgerald - Chairman
Fitzgerald: At this time I would like to call to order the regularly scheduled meeting of the
Meridian Planning and Zoning meeting for the date of December 3rd and let's start with
roll call, Madam Clerk.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Fitzgerald: Thank you, Madam Clerk. First item on our agenda is the adoption of the
agenda. We have one item on our agenda that we are going to be opening for the sole
reason to postpone that or to continue it. So, the public hearing for TM Center, H-2020-
0074, will be opened only for the reason for continuance and we will let Bill and Joe get
into that as we go forward. So, with that being said, can I get a motion to accept the
agenda as presented?
Seal: So moved.
McCarvel: So moved.
McCarvel: Second.
Seal: Second.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 3,2020 6
Page 2 of 40
Fitzgerald: Thank you, ma'am. I have a motion and a second to accept the agenda for
tonight's meeting as presented. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion
passes.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item]
1. Approve Minutes of the November 19, 2020 Planning and Zoning
Commission Regular Meeting
Fitzgerald: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. We do have one item on
the agenda, which is the minutes for the November 19th, 2020, Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting. Any reason that we need to pull that out or talk about minutes? If
not, I could entertain a motion whenever you are ready.
Holland: I move to approve the Consent Agenda.
Seal: Second.
McCarvel: Second.
Fitzgerald: Motion and second to approve the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say
aye. Any opposed? Motion passes.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item]
Weatherly: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: So, thank you all for joining us this evening. At this time we will kind of start
the hearing -- the public hearing process for the -- for the meeting. As you know we are
partially in -- in person, partially on Zoom, so we appreciate your patience as we continue
to the city's business during this time of COVID response. So, the staff will report their
findings to us on each application. We will -- we will open each application and the staff
will report their findings about how that application adheres to our Comprehensive Plan
and Uniform Development Code with their recommendations. After the staff has made
their presentation the applicant will come forward, either online or in person, to present
their case for the approval of their application and respond to any staff comments. The
applicant will have 15 minutes to make their presentation and, then, after the applicant
has finished their presentation we will open the floor to public testimony. Hopefully you
have an opportunity to sign up either in person or if you are on Zoom we will have you
raise your hand and be recognized and the clerk will pull you over, so you can present
your comments. Please make sure you understand there is only three minutes you have
to provide public testimony. We don't have an opportunity for you to have a second round.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 3,2020 7
Page 3 of 40
So, if you are an individual who is representing an HOA this evening, we will -- or a larger
group of people, we will give you some additional time to make the case for the HOA if
you are representing that larger group. But, again, we only -- we will ask you as the
general public to keep your comments to three minutes and we probably try to stick close
to that, just so we can make sure everybody gets heard. So, after all public testimony
has been taken we will allow the applicant to come back and kind of answer questions
that may have come up during testimony and make a closing statement and, then, answer
any questions from the Commission that they may have. So, with that -- again, on the
Zoom, folks, as you hear the -- the item come up on the agenda that you want to hear,
make sure you raise your hand. The raise your hand button is down at the bottom of the
screen. Or if you are in person Commissioner Seal will give me the high sign if there is
people there that want to testify on a certain application and we will kind of move from
there. So, we appreciate your patience as we deal with in person and online and keep
moving forward.
Fitzgerald: So, with that --
Weatherly: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: -- let's move into the first item on the agenda, which is Item No. 8 --
Weatherly: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Oh. Yes, ma'am.
Weatherly: I apologize for the interruption. I believe that Commissioner Yearsley has
joined us under the name Boise Forsgren Associates. Mr. Yearsley, will you, please,
confirm that's you?
Yearsley: Yes. That's me. Sorry for coming late. Had computer problems.
Fitzgerald: Hi, Commissioner Yearsley. How are you doing, sir?
Yearsley: I'm doing well.
Fitzgerald: Good to -- good to hear your voice. Any questions about what we have
already dealt with so far?
Yearsley: I came in just right at the agenda, so --
ACTION ITEMS
2. Public Hearing for TM Center (H-2020-0074) by SCS Brighton, et al.,
Located East of S. Ten Mile Rd. and South of W. Franklin Rd.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 3,2020 $
Page 4 of 40
A. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 83 buildable lots and 2
common lots on 132.42 acres of land in the R-40, TN-C, C-C and C-
G zoning districts.
Fitzgerald: Awesome. Okay. So, we will move on to the first item on the agenda, which
is the continuation of TM Center, the file number H-2020-0074. They are requesting
continuance to the date of January 21 st, 2021. Bill or Joe, do you want to kind of touch
base on what -- what the scoop is with TM Center as there is an alignment of plats and
PUD, if I remember correctly.
Parsons: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. You are correct.
The applicant is working with city staff in order to get an additional application caught up
with their preliminary plat and we have targeted a date of January 21 st. So, we just ask
for the Commission's agreeiance and acceptance of the continuance request this
evening.
Fitzgerald: Any questions for Bill or for the team? Can I get a motion to continue the file
number H-2029-0074?
Holland: Mr. Chair, I move we move -- or continue the application for public hearing of
TM Center, H-2020-0074, to the date of January 21 st, 2021.
Seal: Second.
McCarvel: Second.
Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to continue H-2020-0074 to the date of January
21 st, 2021. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you very
much.
MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT.
3. Public Hearing for Conner Square (H-2020-0107) by Sarah Martz with
SEM Consulting, Located at 557 W. Idaho Ave. and 528 W. Broadway
Ave.
A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for 3 four-plex units to a total of 12
units in the R-15 zoning district.
Fitzgerald: The next item on our agenda is the public hearing for Conner Square, File
No. H-2020-0107, and I will turn it over to Alan for the staff report.
Tiefenbach: Hopefully everybody can hear you -- hear me. Give me a thumbs up if you
can hear me.
Fitzgerald: Got you, Allen.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 3,2020 191
Page 5 of 40
Tiefenbach: All right. Good. Can you see my screen share? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good evening, Mr. Chair and Members of the Planning Commission. Hopefully you are
having a good holiday and we will move into this. So, this is a proposal for a conditional
use to allow three four-plexes. So, the property is approximately a half an acre. It is
zoned -- it's a -- about a half acre of land. Zoned R-15, located at two different properties,
557 West Idaho Avenue and 528 West Broadway Avenue. The property is surrounded
by R-4 to the north. On the south it's zoned I-L. To the east it's zoned R-15. And to the
west it's zoned R-15. This property has two different Comprehensive Plan land use
recommendations. To the south it's recommended for a medium density residential,
which is lower density. To the north it's recommended for higher density residential. A
couple of pictures of the site. The top left corner, that is looking down Broadway and the
subject property is what you see there with the porta-potty sitting there, open -- there was
two existing houses that were demolished. So, now it's an open and vacant piece of
property. On the -- the picture on the right there you are looking at Idaho Boulevard -- or,
sorry, Idaho Avenue. That's looking at it just to kind of show you -- if you look there you
can see some existing four-plexes, which are very comparable to what's being built. The
same thing looking down at the bottom of the picture, that's also Idaho. This is just to
give you an idea of the diversity of the housing. Triplexes. Four-plexes. Multi-family. As
well as single family residential. So, this is a conditional use. This is to allow, as I said,
three four-plexes on about a half acre of land. The property recently contained the two
houses. Those were constructed in the 1950s and those have been removed. The
subject property is one of the few properties in this area which is vacant and this would
be considered an in-fill project. From the site plan you can see there there are three
different building footprints that are being proposed. This area has single family attached
and detached, duplex, triplex and four-plexes. So, again, the whole gamut of housing
also includes large -- larger multi-family complexes. Much of the housing in this area is
over 50 years old, although there has been a recent turnaround with some of these being
newer triplexes and four-plexes, very similar to what the applicant is proposing. As I
mentioned, the applicant proposes three buildings with four units each. Two buildings
are proposed on 557 West Idaho. That's what you see there on the left. That's the longer
lot. One of these buildings is proposed at 528 West Broadway. That's what you see
down there I guess at about 4:00 o'clock. The parking for this project will occur into the
two parking lots at the south. So, you can see those two lots. That's the access to the
site. So, driving access will not occur to the north, it's only going to occur to the south
from Broadway into those two lots. This project provides 24 parking spaces. Twelve of
these parking spaces are in covered carports. The -- the Unified Development Code
would -- would require 20 parking spaces. So, there are four parking spaces over what
they would be required. Also there is on-street parking that exists along both sides of
West Avenue -- West Idaho Avenue, as well as East Broadway Avenue. Ada County
Highway District did review this project and in a letter dated November 24th noted that
they supported this project as proposed. Give you a copy of the landscaping plan here.
It does appear that the landscaping and the landscaping requirements around these
building foundations would be satisfied. So, that it does meet all of the landscape
requirements of the code. Also a landscape strip of -- of at least five feet is provided
along West Broadway, which is down here, and there is also a landscape -- landscape
strip of ten feet that's proposed along West Idaho, which is up here. It's important to note
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 3,2020 Flo]
Page 6 of 40
that there is not a landscape buffer requirement in this zone district. These are local
streets. However, there is a minimum density of one evergreen shrub per three linear
feet of building foundation around the buildings, which is what you can see here. We are
not sure that this is met. One of our -- one of our recommendations for our conditional
approval is that the landscape plan would be submitted with a certificate of zoning
compliance that demonstrates that the minimum landscape density along these
foundations is met. The UDC requires a minimum of 80 square feet of private open space
per unit and this could be like patios or porches or those kinds of things, but this would
amount to 3,000 square feet. The applicant has responded that these -- this is met.
Although looking at these building plans I could not really determine that. So, we are
recommending that an exhibit be presented at the time of CZC that demonstrates those
private open space requirements are met. The landscape plan indicates almost 5,000
square feet of qualified open space. The minimum requirement is 3,000 square feet. The
central area, which is what you see here, this is the central park area. This scales to at
least 2,500 square feet and there are several other open spaces, such as this one down
here, that are at least 20 by 20. That's the minimum requirements in order for this to be
considered qualified open space. Staff is confident that the common open space
requirement is met, although I can't give you exact numbers. Two amenities are required
with this project. The applicant proposes a community garden within that central open
space, which, hopefully, you can see my cursor there. That is where the community
garden is. They also are providing a bicycle storage. Eight by ten. I know it's a little
blurry, but the -- the enclosed bicycle storage is what you see here. Building elevations
that have been submitted have architecture that's similar to the surrounding four-plexes
to the west and to the east. If you recall on the pictures that I gave you, just to kind of
give you a comparison of what is existing in the neighborhood as it is. The elevations
that -- they would meet the requirements of the architectural standard manual and they
are very similar to the architectural elevations of the other surrounding four-plexes.
However, one thing I want to mention is that the -- there is numerous blocks of nearby
duplexes and four-plexes in this neighborhood and they all utilize this same single color
with no accent color -- colors. Most of them are kind of a beige color and there is no
accent colors, just blocks of these beige buildings basically. The color schemes that you
see here were submitted by the applicant and they reflect -- reflect at least three different
colors on each of these elevations. Staff recommends to reduce the visual monotony and
provide separation between projects one of the conditions is that all building elevations
display a color scheme of at least two fill materials and one accent color. That would be
consistent with what you are seeing here. We would just want to make sure that as shown
here that those buildings would have some kind of a more interesting color palette than
what you see existing there now. There are two points of clarification that staff would like
to address. The first is in the staff report it mentions that there is a hundred year floodplain
crossing the northern tip of the property. That's actually a 500 year floodplain. The
applicant provided that clarification to me, so thank you. The other issue is in regards to
our recommendation regarding trash enclosures and let me back up to the landscape
plan here. The UDC states that trash dumpster should be incorporated into the overall
design of buildings and landscaping, so that the visual and acoustic impacts of these
functions are fully contained and out of view from adjacent properties. There is a trash
enclosure that is right here shown on Idaho, but there is another trash enclosure that is
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 3,2020 Fill
Page 7 of 40
shown down here on West Broadway. Staff was trying to work with the applicant to see
if these trash enclosures could be moved. We weren't super thrilled about the --the street
elevation of these projects having a trash enclosure sitting directly on the street. We had
a condition in our staff report that these dumpsters be relocated internally to the
development. One of our recommendations -- this -- this ten foot setback here, it was
actually--or sorry. This 20 foot setback here actually wasn't necessary. They didn't have
to provide this. They also didn't have to provide this sidewalk, because there is already
a sidewalk here. We had recommended that they push this whole thing ten feet, so that
they could locate those trash enclosures internally in here to the parking lot. The -- the
-- the applicant actually worked diligently towards seeing if they could design this. They
came back to us and told us there was a few different issues with this. The first one is
that they were going to lose quite a bit of open space over here and down in here. When
they reached out to Republic Trash, Republic Trash did not actually like that idea. They
thought it would be too difficult to get their trucks in there to empty the trash bins. They
actually would prefer that the trash enclosures be where are being shown on the plan as
it is now. We also reached out to ACHD. They had no issues with that. But with that
staff agrees with the applicant that probably the design as it is right now is the best versus
what they would have to do otherwise. We are recommending that the Planning
Commission strike that condition. That would be condition three on the staff report. That
would be the one that recommends the trash enclosures be located internally. So, again,
we recommend that you strike that condition. The one thing I just wanted to mention sort
of an editorial is where we started with this project was a very different design. The
original project looked quite different than this. Staff told the applicant we did not
recommend that design, but we had already scheduled this for hearing and we had to
continue this, so that the applicant could rework this. The applicant spent a significant
amount of time, design, and money to redesign this project to be closer to what staff
recommended and has done everything that staff has asked and some. So, we wanted
to -- so, other than the trash enclosures, which really were not a feasible solution, staff
did want to point out that the applicant has been very very good with working with us to
do whatever they could to meet all of our recommendations. With that staff recommends
approval with conditions as listed in the staff report, again, with the addition that condition
three regarding the trash enclosures be stricken. And with that I would entertain any
questions, Commissioners.
Fitzgerald: Thanks, Alan. We appreciate it. Are there any questions for staff at this time?
Seal: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Go right ahead, Commissioner Seal.
Seal: Inside of the -- inside of the information -- the posted information there is actually
a trash enclosure revision that does show that the trashing enclosures -- well, it looks like
there is only one that's internal. Are we -- that's -- is that negated, basically, or were
they --
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 3,2020 F12
Page 8 of 40
Tiefenbach: Yes, sir. Yeah. Maybe I should have been a little -- you know, we forwarded
those things on to the city clerk and maybe I should have been a little more clear to clarify
that for you. That was the proposed -- that was their redesign trying to work on that and
that's what they gave to us and gave to Republic, which Republic said, no, that's really
not a good option. So, we are back --
Seal: Okay.
Tiefenbach: -- -- right now is what you see right now on the -- on the screen.
Seal: Okay. Thank you.
Holland: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland.
Holland: Just to confirm, the neighboring property that's in that -- that white block there,
that missing square in the L, is that a -- what type of building is that sitting there? Is that
like a tri-level? Is that apartments there?
Tiefenbach: Yeah. That -- let me see if I could see the actual picture. I can't remember
if it's a quad or it's -- this -- this is the property here. It's either a quad or an apartment
building. I'm sorry, I can't tell you exactly, but it is multi-family.
Holland: Okay. Perfect. That's what I wanted to confirm. Thank you.
Tiefenbach: There is a -- there is an existing fence there as well. So, yeah, it's not single
family residential. I can't remember if it's a -- if it's a four-plex or an apartment building.
Holland: Okay. Thanks, Alan.
Fitzgerald: Any additional questions at this time? Okay. Would the applicant like to join
us? Commissioner Seal, is he in person or -- is he in person or are they on Zoom?
Martz: On Zoom.
Seal: They are on Zoom.
Fitzgerald: Oh. Hi, Sarah. How are you?
Martz: I'm well. How are you?
Fitzgerald: I'm good. Welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission this evening.
Martz: Thank you.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 3,2020 F13
Page 9 of 40
Fitzgerald: Please state your name and your address and the floor is yours, ma'am.
Martz: Sure. Sara Martz. SEM Consulting. 3117 West Smith, Boise. 83703. I'm here
tonight representing the owners of the property. I first wanted to thank Planning staff,
specifically Alan, for all of their hard work on this application and for tonight's presentation.
The owners are in agreement with all the commenting agencies and conditions of
approval proposed by staff with one exception. We would respectfully request that the
trash enclosures remain as initially shown and the condition of approval requiring the
central location be removed per staff's recommendation. With that I just stand for any
questions.
Fitzgerald: Thanks, Sarah. Are there any questions for the applicant at this point?
Seal: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal.
Seal: One of the things that was discussed was extending the sidewalk up to Idaho,
believe, and that's shown in the revision where you revised it to show the trash enclosures
internally, but it's not on the original. Is that -- is that something that you are going to
accommodate is having the -- basically having the sidewalks come up and through the
development up into Idaho?
Martz: Yes, sir. Yes. We will revise the -- the site plan to reflect that accordingly.
Seal: Okay. Thank you.
Fitzgerald: Additional questions for Ms. Martz? Sarah, hang with us for a little bit. We
will let you answer any questions and close in a minute. We will see if there is any public
testimony and get back to you. Madam Clerk, are there anyone who would like to testify
on this application, either in person or online?
Weatherly: Mr. Chair, we have several people signed in, several of which indicated a
wish to testify, starting with David -- I can't read the last name. David Stem. Please come
to the podium. Please state your name and address for the record.
Stem: Greetings. My name is David Stem. Me and my wife live at 621 West Broadway
Avenue, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. We are right across the street. We are a little bit west
and on the south side of the street. We have grave concerns for the parking design and
the way they have put all the parking on the south. When we were originally presented
this question inside of one of the old houses, they had mentioned the fact that the parking
would be in the center and now it's all on our side. As we speak right now I have grave
grave concerns for where people are going to park their cars, because there is no parking
on the south side on the street that I'm aware of. Everyone's got gravel out to the road.
Secondly, we have had a lot of speeding. It's uncontrolled down there. As a matter of
fact, a couple of years back a young lady who was driving down Broadway, she was
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 3,2020 F14]
Page 10 of 40
headed west, totaled the car on a rock at the end of the road. I look at the things that this
does -- a lot of it is because we added a lot of apartments at the -- at the west end of
Broadway and these people come flying down and they throw things out -- trash is always
a question, because I'm picking up trash in front of my house all the time. McDonald's
things. A little bit of Jack-in-the-Box. You can name it what day of the week it is. Thirdly,
I have grave concerns for their trash can positioning. Because in my humble opinion, if
we have problems parking and they say, oh, we are going to park on the street and they
are concerned about trying to get it out of there, where is that dump truck going to come
and get? There is only so much room that they can empty that with and these are going
to be those big trash containers, the big batch bins. There is no way to do that. I mean I
could see them trying to pull in, but if he puts it on the side as they are proposing, is it
going to be facing in the parking lot where the cars are or is it going to be facing south
where we come over there and how do we get it out of there without damaging something
else? I have had one of my cars ran into. Never heard anything of it. I'm pretty sure it
was somebody that pulled up to one of the apartments across the street where there is a
three-plex. Just for the record that's just west of where they are proposing to do this on
the Broadway side. Never heard anything of it, just fixed the dent. But I'm just saying I
could see a huge problem and a big problem with this. It's not been thought through. As
much as they want to yeah yeah this through, it's not been thought through and if you
don't live down there you wouldn't know what I'm talking about, but I see it all the time
and I pick up the trash almost every day. Thank you for your time.
Fitzgerald: Thank you, sir. We appreciate it.
Weatherly: Mr. Chair, next we have Danielle Stem. Okay. Next will be -- is it Sean Pierre
Buckner. Oh. Okay. Same with Chanel, then, I'm guessing? Okay. They signed up on
the other form. My apologies, Mr. Chair. Is that Tennell or Terrell? Terrell. My apologies.
Terrell Barrett. Jarrett. Sorry about that.
Jarrett: My name is Terrell Jarrett. I live at 624 West Broadway Avenue, Meridian. I live
across the street from the Stem family. We have lived in that house since '63. We were
the last house on the north side of Broadway. We have a lot of issues with speeders and
people throwing garbage out of their cars. They are talking 12 units. It's going to be 24
cars -- 24 additional cars, because when you think about it, you know, you got two cars
per unit and, then, we have a traffic issue already and ACHD doesn't want to come down
and put more 25 mile an hour speed limit signs, because there is only one and that's over
here across the street at the Legion Hall by the alley. There is nothing coming up from
the west side. No -- no speed limit signs. No nothing. You got Headstart down there
and they got buses and you got little kids and you got parents. You got these people that
are brainless dead that don't give a damn about the speed limit. They don't even take the
time to stop sometimes at 3rd Street, they just blow through the intersection. What does
it take to get speed bumps put in or speed control mounds. I have been home and retired
and living in the house since 2015. 1 have been up to the City of Meridian. I have signed
a piece of paper to get on a list to have trailer cameras put up for showing the speed limit.
Nothing has ever came of it. I don't know what's going on with the City of Meridiam. But
that's all I got to say. Thank you.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 3,2020 F15]
Page 11 of 40
Fitzgerald: Thank you, sir. We appreciate your input this evening. Madam Clerk, is there
additional folks or anyone online that would like to testify on this application?
Weatherly: Mr. Chair, that's all that's signed in, but I understand there is another person
that would like to testify. Go ahead and come forward.
Fitzgerald: Thanks, Commissioner Seal.
Mortensen: Hello. My name is Kent Mortensen. I own 511 , 521, and 607 Broadway
across the street from the proposed building site and we have kind of the same dilemma.
It's really high traffic speed coming through to -- to miss Pine and we had a kid out there
with a speed gun one day and he was trying to clock people in, but we have got people
going as high as 50, 56 miles an hour through to Pine -- or from Meridian Road to the
apartment complex that's down at the other end. So, our concern is more traffic. We
already produce traffic. We are a business, plus a home, and so I would like to see some
sort of proposal that -- you know, divert some of the traffic towards Idaho where there is
more stop signs, more traffic signs in some way. When our kids were growing up there
there was no way to play out on that street. It's just way too fast. I have had two dogs hit
out there as well throughout the --we have been there since 2000 and it's just more there.
I'm an advocate for -- for the building. I would just like to see how they are going to
approach the --the additional cars with the housing that's there. There are several people
who have been there for a really long time and there is businesses as well. So, I'm just
a little concerned about the increase of traffic that it's going to bring and transient traffic
as well. We have quite a bit of movement on that street and there is quite a bit of police
activity on that street already and so we just want to -- if there is going to be temporary
people there, we just want to make sure that it's -- there is some proposal of how they are
going to be monitored and I had to put in a fire extinguisher across -- or a fire hydrant
across the street. I'm wondering if that's going to be included as part of theirs or how they
are doing that as well, because of the fire risk. There is an elderly woman that's right next
door to them that's on home health care right now and I'm just worried how the
construction process -- or how she is going to be, you know, affected as well during the
process if there is going to be some dust containment, if there is going to be something
to kind of control in and out of there and the mud and everything that will seem to come
along with -- with the construction. And so I am for it as long as it's -- because it's already
an apartment area, but I would like to see at least some of the parking go to Idaho or in
some way -- I'm also concerned about the trash enclosures. In some way trying to figure
out that thoroughfare that goes through there is -- it's really a bypass right there through
for Pine. That's all I have.
Fitzgerald: Thank you, sir. We appreciate it. Commissioner Seal, is there anyone else
who would like to testify on this application in the chambers?
Seal: No one in chambers.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 3,2020 F16
Page 12 of 40
Fitzgerald: And if there is anyone online who would like to testify on this application,
please, raise your hand on Zoom. I will wait for a second. Okay. Ms. Martz, would you
like to close?
Martz: Yes, sir. Thank you. So, to try to address some of the concerns that we heard
this evening -- we did initially have some parking off of Idaho and some parking off of
Broadway. That's initially how this site was -- was kind of laid out. However, in working
with staff we weren't able to meet a majority of the conditions in the code and so we
actually had redesigned this to actually put the parking all off of Broadway in order to
accommodate more open space and buffer zones and things of that nature. In regards
to the traffic, ACHD has commented they are projecting an additional 70 vehicle trips per
day. However, that is based off the ITD's latest manual and doesn't necessarily take into
consideration the -- the surrounding areas and the proximity to the city core. We do feel
that a lot of these individuals would hopefully be walking or riding their bikes to downtown
to get their essentials once they get homes. Nine of these units are one bedrooms, with
the other three being two bedrooms. Additionally, as far as speeding we can work with
Ada County Highway District and see if we can put up a speed limit sign. We are
improving Broadway, putting in curb, gutter, and extending the asphalt there and so we
can work with them to see if we can put a speed limit sign up as well in that general
location. With that I just respectfully request approval of the project and stand for any
other questions.
Fitzgerald: Thanks, Sarah. Are there questions for the applicant?
Seal: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal.
Seal: It's of the applicant and probably staff, too. Is there a reason that everything was
pushed to Broadway instead of Idaho? As far as the traffic that is. Or the parking I
should say.
Tiefenbach: Would you want staff to answer that or would you like --
Seal: If it was a recommendation by staff that would be -- that would be appropriate I
think.
Tiefenbach: Where we see the -- the original drawing -- this is Alan Tiefenbach sitting
right in. The original drawing that we saw with the pre-app had a -- one parking lot off of
Idaho and two parking lots off of Broadway and the open space, if I recall, was towards
the south of the proposal. We didn't tell them actually where to relocate their parking.
Our concern was that we didn't think that the open space was very accessible. We
recommended that they orient this so that the open space was central to the buildings.
The -- what the applicant brought back to us removed the parking lot off Idaho, kept the
two parking lots on Broadway, but slightly enlarged. I guess that's probably the best
answer. There was -- we did not require them to cut off the access off of Idaho. That
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 3,2020 F17
Page 13 of 40
was what came with the second design. But, no, we did not have any concerns with it.
But our opinion is that they are already exceeding the parking that they are needing to
meet and there is -- if there needs to be guest parking, which wouldn't be counted, would
be along the street. But they are actually exceeding by four the required parking.
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seals, do you have follow up there, or are you good?
Seal: I guess I would ask the same thing of the applicant, then, as to the -- it seems like
Idaho is a little bit more improved street. I wouldn't call it better necessarily, but is there
some reasoning behind why everything was pushed to Broadway instead of pushed to
Idaho as far as the parking lot?
Martz: Yeah. So, as Alan had kind of mentioned, they were -- we were kind of working
with the site to see if we could get that open space to be larger and more centrally local
-- or localized in the center. In doing that we -- we were -- the only way we could make
that work was to push the parking to Broadway. We also had some setback issues with
the carports from the side yard setbacks -- or the side setbacks that we weren't able to
accommodate off of Idaho and so those were the main reasons that we had pushed all of
the parking onto Broadway.
Seal: Okay. Thank you.
Fitzgerald: Any additional questions for the applicant at this time? Or staff?
Yearsley: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: Just really quickly to the applicant. You know, it looks like there is a lot of
mature trees on your property. Are they going to have to be removed to build this facility
or are they mitigated? How is that happening?
Martz: We are trying to save as many of them as possible. We will work with the arborist
and mitigate if we have to remove some of them. There are some along the eastern
portion. There is a large tree there that we are saving and, then, another one on the
western portion. The one along Broadway will have to be removed.
Yearsley: Okay. Thank you.
Fitzgerald: Any final questions for the applicant? Ms. Martz, we appreciate you being
here. Thank you very much.
Martz: Thank you.
Fitzgerald: Can I get a motion to close the public hearing?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 3,2020 F18
Page 14 of 40
Weatherly: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Madam Clerk, go right ahead.
Weatherly: Pardon me. Pardon me. We have a citizen raising their hand. If you have
had a chance to -- it looks like it's the same gentleman that would like to speak again.
So, I will leave it to the Commission to decide.
Fitzgerald: You only -- that's -- we only give one opportunity. That's the -- and that's why
I talked about that early on. We give you one shot and, I apologize, but we are going to
stick to that this evening. So, can I get a motion to close public hearing?
Yearsley: So moved.
Seal: Second.
Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to close public hearing on file number H-2020-
0107. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes.
MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Fitzgerald: Anyone want to lead off?
Yearsley: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: You know, the project looks good. I -- I kind of -- I like the style of the
apartments. They are not the standard look. Give them a little bit more entrance off their
own side. I -- I understand the plight of the neighbors, but it's hard to put those
requirements to slow down traffic on the applicant when, you know, that's more of an
enforcement problem I feel than a development problem, you know, because the
speeding was there before and not during the design. The one gentleman that talked
about the mud and tracking and stuff like that, I know that they have to meet certain
requirements to -- for their site to -- for their design, so I'm not too concerned, I'm sure
they will do a fairly decent job controlling their -- their waste and their site as best as
possible. So, I don't quite know what to tell the public on how to fix the speeding. It
sounds like it's a bigger problem than this applicant can solve, besides just trying to help
voice their concerns to the City of Meridian police force and ACHD. So, with that I -- I
think it's a good project. It looks good and I -- I would recommend approval.
Fitzgerald: Additional comments? Commissioner Grove, go right ahead.
Grove: Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, I don't live too far away and I'm down in this area a bit.
This stretch -- especially on Broadway is a really interesting stretch, because it's not --
there is no cross-streets to it from anywhere and so there is a long stretch of
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 3,2020 Fig]
Page 15 of 40
uninterrupted. So, I totally understand what the public has said tonight with regards to
not having traffic slow down at all. But as -- as it pertains to the application, I -- I like the
-- the in-fill. Downtown needs more residential options and I think this is a good way to
accomplish that. That -- that area also has a lot of hidden -- almost like multi-family units
in it. When I was walking down there about a year ago that I didn't really realize were
multi-family. So, it's a -- a very diverse area and adding in additional character through
-- through this development seems like a good use of that space.
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland, go right ahead, ma'am.
Holland: Thanks, Mr. Chair. I would echo some of Commissioner Yearsley's comments.
It's -- it's unfortunate that there are traffic issues and there is a lot of places in the city
there are traffic challenges, but it does seem more like an enforcement issue, not a
development issue, because it's not this one development that's going to cause traffic
issues, it's already an issue with people speeding. I did appreciate the applicant's
willingness to work with ACHD and we can certainly condition that they work with ACHD
to see if they could put up an additional speed limit sign or find some additional traffic
calming measures that they could implement there and perhaps that's a win-win solution
to try and help with some of that mitigation. As far as the way that they laid out the site, I
actually like that they put the parking lot where they did, because I think if they put it up
at the top it would have been narrower and so probably cause even more sight line issues
getting in and out of it. I appreciate that they have got a community garden and bike
racks. I think bike racks are a great amenity for this project with its proximity to downtown.
Hopefully that does inspire people to come into the downtown more often. I know I used
to ride my bike a lot more when I lived closer to the downtown and I wish I lived close to
the downtown still. But I think overall it's a good in-fill project. I like the design. I like that
they have got some variation to the way that it looks, so it's not just another cookie cutter
four-plex project. So, I appreciate their flexibility in working with staff.
Fitzgerald: And I -- I echo almost all of your comments. I think that -- and Commissioner
Grove's comments about diverse area. I think it's -- I'm okay with the fact that we are
putting the parking lot where it is, mostly because of the open space, the community
garden, but also because we look at Idaho, there is a ton of multi-family that opens up
onto that road specifically and so I -- it's -- and we are also putting curb and gutter and
sidewalk on this property where it is not now and so we are trying to add to the amenities
of that road, which will, hopefully, provide some safety for the folks that are there. I know
it's not -- it's not taken all the way down, but it will hopefully be done as we go forward
with other redevelopment. But there is at least some additional sidewalk along this
frontage. So, I think that's a positive. But I do agree, I think there is -- it's -- it's a diverse
area. I think-- and it has industrial to the south of it, which isn't conducive to other things.
So, I think it -- it matches well with what's around it and with industrial use to the south.
So, I -- I think it makes sense for where it is and I really appreciate the applicant and the
staff working to find that open space and to put some new -- additional amenities in there.
So, kudos to that. I understand the challenges of the public as well. I think to
Commissioner Holland's points -- and we could ask that they work with ACHD on -- but
-- or Meridian Police Department on finding some ways to -- whether it is getting a trailer
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 3,2020 F20]
Page 16 of 40
out there with speed limit or discussing the idea of tabletops -- I know that's not fun on
those main roads, but something that would help calm that down a little bit. Other
comments? Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: Yeah. Mr. Chair. Yeah. Echo -- I don't know that I have every -- anything
new to add. I think everything's been well said and very much appreciate Commissioner
Grove's comments. Always like hearing from somebody who lives close and can offer a
perspective. Yeah. I think the -- the appearance of what they have done and the open
space and additional parking I think will be good on --for this particular project and adding
this in that area. But, yeah, I would encourage maybe more to the enforcement issues
of what's already there.
Seal: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal, go right ahead, sir.
Seal: Nothing further to add. I think we have covered it all. Commissioner Holland's -- I
agree that we should definitely provision something in here to have the applicant work
with ACHD and possibly Meridian Police Department for some -- you know, at least extra
speed limit signs, as well as some visibility to the issue that exists with -- down there, so
there could possibly be some more enforcement coming from the Meridian Police
Department. I do like the fact that they rolled back the -- the changes that were submitted
as far as the trash enclosures, because they -- I agree it would be -- with the parking and
everything that's in there it's going to be, you know, a nightmare to get trash trucks in and
out of there and where they have got them placed currently is going to be a little bit easier
to make that happen for everybody. All that said, after considering all staff, applicant, and
public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council a file number H-2020-
0107 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 3rd, 2020, with the
following modifications: That condition three concerning trash enclosures being located
internally be struck and that the applicant work with ACHD and the Meridian Police
Department to install speed limit signs and possibly traffic mitigation.
Holland: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Yeah. Commissioner Holland, just -- Commissioner Seal, you are approving,
you are not recommending, so -- making sure --
Holland: It's a conditional use permit.
Fitzgerald: Yeah.
Holland: So, if you amend your motion to approve the conditional use permit I will second.
Seal: Amended.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 3,2020 F21
Page 17 of 40
Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to approve file number H-2020-0107. All those
in favor say aye. Any opposed? Your motion passes.
MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Fitzgerald: Ms. Martz, thank you. Good luck in the neighborhood. We appreciate you
here and we heard your comments. Definitely we will have the applicant work with our
city officials and, hopefully, with ACHD to get some -- hopefully calming down there for
you all. So, thank you for being here this evening.
4. Public Hearing for Compass Pointe Subdivision (H-2020-0100) by A-
Team Land Consultants, Located at the Southwest Corner of E. Victory
Rd. and S. Locust Grove Rd.
A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 7.69 acres of land with a request
for the R-15 zoning district.
B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 48 residential building lots
and 9 common lots on approximately 4.69 acres of land in the R-15
zoning district.
C. Request: A Planned Unit Development for the purpose of reducing
the rear setback of the R-15 zoning district for a portion of the
development due to site constraints.
Fitzgerald: Moving on to the last item on our agenda is a public hearing for Compass
Pointe Subdivision, file number H-2020-0100, and let's start with a staff report. I will turn
it over to you, Joe. Maybe. Joe is going incognito. He is putting things on the screen,
but not telling us what he's doing.
Dodson: Sorry. Mr. Chair, I was trying to figure out my -- I -- this is awesome. Okay.
Fitzgerald: You're good. Go right ahead when you are ready.
Dodson: All right. Let me -- okay. Now I know why Alan did it the way he did it. Because
I can't see my outline otherwise. All right. I apologize for the not presentation view. Not
sure why it's not letting me do that. But as noted this is our last item on the agenda. It is
for Compass Pointe Subdivision. H-2020-0100. The applications before you are for
annexation and zoning, preliminary plat, PUD, and, then, secondarily, private streets and
alternative compliance, which are handled at the staff level. The site consists of 7.69
acres of land, currently zoned RUT, and -- you know what -- sorry. I just want to make
sure -- can you guys see my presentation still?
Fitzgerald: Yes.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 3,2020 F22
Page 18 of 40
Dodson: Okay. Just want to make sure. Seven point six nine acres of land currently
zoned RUT. It's specifically located at 3247 South Locust Grove, which is the southwest
corner of the Victory and Locust Grove intersection as noted on these plans here. As you
can see in the aerial much of the surrounding development -- or area is already
developed. All of the residential abutting the property is R-8 zoning, minus the pocket of
R-4 here, which is actually a water -- not tower, but a water basin for the city. To the north
is county RUT as well, but the --there is a future application for that you guys will probably
hear later on this month. That will be low density residential. So, less density than this.
I guess we will get into the weeds here. All right. Like I said, it is for annexation and
zoning of 7.69 acres of land, with a request for the R-15 zoning district. A preliminary plat
consisting of 48 residential building lots and nine common lots on approximately 4.69
acres. The planned unit development as proposed now is to reduce the rear setback of
the R-15 zoning district for a portion of the -- of the development. It is proposed with
private streets and there is an alternative compliance request to connect the private street
directly to an arterial. The proposed use is attached single family in the form of
townhomes and they are triplexes in 45 of the 48 units. The gross density of 6.24 dwelling
units per acre and a net density of 13.4 dwelling units per acre. In most cases I do not
mention the net density, but due to the site constraints of the property I find it appropriate
to mention that tonight. The density discussion immediately leads to different discussion
points without -- within the proposed project. First of all, the applicant is requesting a
planned unit development for this project and there are certain purpose statements and
standards that must be met. The current request incorporates the use of private streets
instead of public as well -- as well as a reduction in the rear yard setback for the central
units as noted. Both of these as proposed originally do not meet the PUD requirements
in staff's opinion. However, as discussed in the staff report, staff finds revising a few
items brings the project into compliance and removes the need for the reduced setbacks
for a majority of the units that they are requesting it for. First, the entire western property
boundary of the site is made up of the Ten Mile Creek. So, north is to the right for
reference here. The applicant is choosing to leave his waterway in its natural state to
preserve its natural beauty and also meet the city code requirements to protect this creek.
It's one of those listed in our code that should be protected and remain natural. Secondly,
there is a purpose statement of granting a desire to have PUDs be constructed at a
density of eight dwelling units per acre or more that also involves an innovative site design
and multiple housing types. The applicant has proposed 48 units as noted and 45 of them
are garage dominated with one two unit attached product, which is in the south -- these
two here in the south of the site. Those are tandem garages. It's not a drive through. It
kind of looks odd, but those are just a duplex, basically, with tandem garages. And, then,
one detached single family structure here. The site overall as currently seen and
proposed here lacks innovation as proposed. To help the project meet the purpose
statement two things should be done. Minimally staff finds the creek easement, which,
again, is a hundred foot easement entirely on this property, it should be -- it's going to be
nonbuildable no matter what and should be removed from the density calculation in
regard to the PUD requirement. Once this area is removed the dense -- density is 8.6
units per acre and that, therefore, meets that requirement of eight or more. The net
density overall is higher than that of the immediately surrounding neighborhoods because
of the site constraints, but it will also be buffered on all three sides by the site constraints,
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 3,2020 F23
Page 19 of 40
noting the two arterial roads and the creek easement. The second part of this is that the
applicant -- sorry. Staff recommends that the applicant amend their PUD request to
eliminate the parking pad requirement for these internal lots. These right here, if you can
see my cursor. Lots 1 through 14, Block 2, and they are part of the applicant's existing
request for a setback relief. This would make the setback request only applicable to five
units, these more southern ones here, instead of 17, and allow these units, essentially, to
be pushed back towards the street with a rear setback of no less than five feet, which is
the allowed setback in the R-15 zoning district for alley loaded units. Secondly, once
these units become alley loaded they should front on the internal micro path that is already
proposed between these lots. This area should, then, be platted as a common lot and
function as a MEW following these changes, which for those who don't know what a MEW
is -- I didn't when I started here -- is a vista or paseo, some kind of green open space with
a pathway running through it. If the applicant adheres to these recommendations the
MEW could be 30 feet wide and be a great vista and pathway connection through the
center of the development, offering more than adequate pedestrian access to the arterial
sidewalk network that will be in place following the construction of the roundabout. With
an additional housing type in the development, adding alley loaded, in addition to the
other proposed triplexes, the applicant meets this objective by being innovative in the
PUD request and the overall site design. The applicant is proposing to construct private
streets that are 24 feet wide, with five foot attached sidewalks, on one side of the street
throughout the project. Staff supports the inclusion of the sidewalk on one side to ensure
adequate pedestrian access in the development. For reference, private streets do not
require sidewalks. So, that is something that the applicant is presenting and proposing.
Staff supports the inclusion to ensure adequate pedestrian access in the development
and at the north end of the main street within the development, labeled as Compass Lane
on this landscape plan, which is this one here, the applicant is proposing an emergency
only access road to -- no, that -- yeah, that's the main road here. I apologize. An
emergency access road at the north end of the main drive through the center of the
development. This emergency access is required if more than 30 homes are to be
constructed. The proposed access to -- the proposed normal access I should say is
proposed to South Locust Grove here and lines up with East Coastline Street on the east
side of Locust Grove, which is the access to Tradewinds and, then, the recently approved
Teakwood Subdivision further to the east. The access point into the -- into the
development does not meet ACHD or district policy, but they are modifying their policy to
accommodate this access, because it is really the only place that you could put an access
and it's the furthest place from the intersection that you could have on the site, as the site
is not a perfect triangle. I don't remember the term. It's been a long time. And as noted
before, this is largely because of the site constraints already outlined. So, the creek and,
then, the arterial streets. Like I noted, this distance along this street is shorter than this
distance on Locust Grove. So, the applicant is placing the entrance as far away from the
intersection as would be physically possible for the site, because the site is triangle
shaped, as I said multiple times, abutted by two arterial streets and, then, the Ten Mile
Creek, there is no opportunity for public road connectivity to any adjacent site and so
ACHD prefers private streets within development. There is no public benefit to having
public streets in this site, because there will be no future connectivity to other properties
I should say. Consequently, private streets also take less right of way and the applicant
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 3,2020 F24
Page 20 of 40
agrees with ACHD, because of this and has proposed private streets throughout the
development. City code requires that private streets are to be used in either a MEW or a
gated development and this -- originally the applicant proposed neither. Within the PUD
analysis I have already recommended that Lots 2 through 14 become alley loaded units
and eliminate the parking pad requirement for those lots through the PUD request. Once
the applicant does this, yeah, it's going to be pushed towards the street and the micro
path already proposed can be placed in -- on a line and become a MEW. Thus, the
development would include a MEW and meet the private street standards. This is how
the private streets are integral to both the access and the PUD request. So, I hope I came
full circle for everybody. The proposed private streets are not wide enough to
accommodate any on-street parking and the applicant is proposing to construct some
extra off-street parking along the main street, as seen on the proposed plat. Which are a
pocket here, a pocket here, pocket here. It amounts to 12 as of right now. There are no
multi-use pathways proposed or required of the development. However, the applicant is
proposing a five foot wide pathway on the east side of the creek behind all of these homes.
The pathway connects to the private streets at the southern end of the project and through
the common open space generally mid block on the west side of the site. The pathway
also continues north and connects to the sidewalk along Victory. In addition, the
applicant's proposing a micro path between the center lots as discussed that connects to
the sidewalk along Locust Grove. This path, with any of the revisions that I have
recommended, should be kept and it should remain in the MEW to serve as the sole
pedestrian connection to Locust Grove. Staff is recommending to lose these two more
north and south ones on Locust Grove. There is no existing sidewalk along Victory or
Locust Grove. However, both arterials are scheduled to be widened as part of the
roundabout project at this intersection in 2021 and '22, according to ACHD. With the
random project the applicant is required to dedicate additional right of way to the
intersection and the future widening of Victory and Locust Grove. ACHD is requiring the
applicant to enter into a road trust for the sidewalk improvements adjacent to the site and
not to construct them, since they will be constructed by ACHD with the roundabout on
widening projects. A minimum of ten percent qualified open space meeting the UDC
standard is required. Per the property size of 7.69 acres, the applicant should supply at
least .77 acres of qualified open space or approximately 33 and a half thousand square
feet. The applicant is proposing 3.2 acres of open space, of which 2.84 is shown as
qualifying on the submitted open space exhibit, which is vastly more than the minimum.
However, some of the areas listed as qualifying does not meet UDC standards due to
their size not being at least 5,000 square feet. So, it would be a few of these smaller
areas here, this pocket here, and, then, the one surrounding the parking here. Those are
all less than 5,000 and do not qualify. Once that area is removed, the qualified open
space is 2.68 acres, down from 2.84 and, again, vastly more than the minimum
requirement. More importantly, though, the open space for this development is largely
made up of the Ten Mile Creek, which is 2.1 acres of the 2.68 and the arterial street
buffers, which are almost half an acre -- 19,000 square feet. Although this area is
qualifying per code, but the Ten Mile Creek will be left natural with no improvements,
unless they can get a license agreement with Nampa-Meridian and it will be a buffer -- or
more of a visual amenity than it will be usable open space for the development. Abutting
the creek and generally mid block is -- the applicant is proposing an open space lot that
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 3,2020 F25]
Page 21 of 40
is approximately 5,100 square feet. This open space lot contains one set of the amenities
and a micro path that connects the private streets to the pathway along the creek. This
open space lot and macro path offers a clear connection to one of the other micro paths
in the development. Again, this one noted between the MEW -- between the lots that
should be in a MEW. Sorry. Finding my place. This 5,100 square foot open space in the
center of development is the most active and usable open space lot within the
development. So, again, of the 2.68 acres, roughly 5,000 square feet of that is the active
and usable open space area. The applicant submitted conceptual elevations for the
proposed single family homes. The attached single family homes. The submitted
elevations show all two story attached structures with two car garages and identical
finishing materials of wood and stone at least originally. Since publication of the staff
report the applicant has provided additional elevations, which are this material and color
palette, as well as this one. The applicant has also stated that they plan to incorporate
different -- you know, three to four different color palettes throughout the site to help
differentiate between the units. The elevations show modern architecture designs with
shed roofs, second story patios that have glass railings and stone accents that go to the
full height of the proposed homes. We have not received elevations for the one detached
home, nor the one duplex unit with the tandem garages. However, attached single family
homes require design review approval prior to building permit and at that point that will
ensure compliance with the architectural standards manual. In addition to the elevations,
the applicant has also submitted some revised plans related to staff's recommendations
of approval to change the plat and incorporate the MEW. The applicant has sent those
plans to me as of today and this is what has come about from that. As you can see, the
applicant has incorporated a 31 foot wide MEW and has pushed back the units in line
with the five foot setback for these 12 units and has also done it for these three and it
would be fronted on this green space here. As of 4:00 p.m. this afternoon there were 35
pieces of written testimony submitted for this application. I did not read all of them I will
admit. I read most of them and there was not a single one supporting the project. Their
main concerns throughout all of them regarding the density in comparison to the adjacent
subdivisions. The amount of open space and, of course, school overcrowding, you know,
adding additional homes and the traffic issues that already exist in this area. The
neighborhood has issues with the proposed access to Locust Grove and there only being
one access for the development. In relation to some of those comments I would just like
to make a few comments of my own. Again, the access is as far away as it can be from
the intersection. It is my understanding that ACHD would not allow another access for
this development. Secondly, the density as discussed in my staff report with the
Comprehensive Plan analysis, density and the housing type is -- I guess welcome in some
ways, because it offers a different housing type in the area of the city that has an
abundance of detached single family homes within the R-8 zoning district. With my
conditions and DA provisions I do recommend approval of the subject application and as
noted the private streets and alternative compliance to allow the private street to connect
to the arterial has been approved at the director level. The alternative compliance was
approved because, frankly, they have no other way to connect to the arterial -- to a street
network, because there is no -- there is no -- there are no other public stubs to the
property. And following that I will stand for questions.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 3,2020 F26]
Page 22 of 40
Fitzgerald: Thanks, Joe. I cannot believe you said the Teakwood Place Subdivision.
You may have to yourself and you are going to see that thing come back, whether you
actually mentioned that thing. Ah. Anyway. Are there any questions for Joe at this time?
Hearing none --
Yearsley: Sorry. I -- sorry. Mr. Chair, couldn't get unmuted.
Fitzgerald: Go right ahead, sir.
Yearsley: So, looking at these lots, what -- what are the sizes of these lots looking to be?
Dodson: Great question, Commissioner Yearsley. On the current plan they all meet the
R-15 zoning district, but the revised plat that I received today I noticed that some of them
are underneath or below the 2,000 square foot. So, one of the requirements that the
applicant is going to have to meet -- I appreciate you bringing this up -- is the Commission,
if you recommend approval, then, you will have to add a condition that they also include
in their amended request -- in addition to the one -- the recommendations I have made
-- include that they also require -- or request a reduced building lot size. Some of them
are -- really the smallest I saw were roughly 1,750 square feet. Most of them were a lot
closer to 2,000, if not more, and that's only within the central area. All of the other ones
meet the 2,000 square foot. These ones here -- there is a few that have dipped below
that and that's to -- on the applicant's behalf to help construct a MEW that's 30 feet wide
and not only 20 feet, which opens this area up a lot more.
Yearsley: Okay.
Fitzgerald: Any additional questions for staff or follow up? Commissioner Yearsley, are
you good?
Yearsley: I'm good.
Fitzgerald: Additional questions for Joe?
Grove: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Grove.
Grove: Joe, for the entrance exit is -- when the -- when Locust Grove is built out with the
-- will it still be a full access entrance or would that be like a right-in, right-out situation?
Dodson: Thank you, Commissioner Grove, Members of the Commission. Great
question. And I will answer your question, as well as give a little more information on the
ACHD improvements. My understanding is that this will be a full access to start in in
perpetuity. It is meant as that, but is also related to those -- as discussed those -- not
only approved, but scheduled improvements for Victory, Locust Grove, and that
intersection. As I noted, the intersection is slated to be constructed or reconstructed in
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 3,2020 F27
Page 23 of 40
2021 through 2022. That also incorporates widening Victory Road adjacent to the site
and, then, more importantly, widening Locust Grove north of this intersection to five lanes
from here all the way to Overland, I believe, and that is -- would be very beneficial for all
of this traffic coming from the south to the north as discussed by residents, having those
additional lanes of traffic flow going to the north to help alleviate some of the backup that
occurs at this light currently. That's my understanding as well, that the Locust Grove
Road directly adjacent to the site is scheduled to be widened as well to -- it has two lanes
right now, it would be three lanes with the center lane being that suicide lane, so to speak.
So, there are road improvements occurring and scheduled. I want to be clear on the
roundabout, that's something that's not only a pie in the sky, that is something that they
-- it's already part of the CIP. So, they already have the funding, they are already going
to construct that starting next year.
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Grove, do you have follow up or you are good? Okay. Any
additional questions for Joe? And, Joe, that -- that road does not -- the one outlet does
not line up with Coastline; right? Across the street.
Dodson: Mr. Chair, it should line up with Coastline. Yes, sir, it does. It lines up with that
point access in Tradewind.
Fitzgerald: Okay.
Dodson: That's why ACHD is allowing it.
Fitzgerald: Wow. That is a tight lineup if that's the case. And, then, just to be -- my
understanding is there is no ditch rider's road on either side of Ten Mile right now. There
is not a plan to have one?
Dodson: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, that is a great question. That is
something that I do not have a hundred percent certainty on I will admit. I know that on
the west side of the creek is the multi-use pathway. My understanding is that on this east
side, the one abutting this site, Nampa-Meridian does use this side. However, the
proposed plat as shown here -- and you can kind of see the line -- the dashed line here,
that is the creek easement and they are staying out of it completely with this. So, this site
plan will not encumber any of those existing accesses for the irrigation district.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Appreciate it. Thank you.
Dodson: You are welcome, sir.
Fitzgerald: If there are no additional questions, would the applicant like to come forward
or join us on Zoom.
Arnold: Mr. Chairman, can you guys hear me?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 3,2020 F28
Page 24 of 40
Fitzgerald: Yep. Mr. Arnold, please, state your name and your address for the record,
sir, and the floor is yours.
Arnold: Appreciate that. For the record it's Steve Arnold. I'm with A-Team Land
Consultants. Address 1785 Whisper Cove, Boise. 83709. First I want to start off is we
have been working with staff on this probably since October of '19. We have had
numerous changes and with this last one that Joe proposed, we fully agree with and, as
you can see, it really added some nice benefit to the center lots. So, I want to thank Joe
for working with us and being patient. Like I said, originally we started out a little over a
year ago, we had about 70 cottage units and those are all alley loaded and we were going
to do condos and the problem with the condos -- we are trying to make these a for sale
product and the condos aren't as desirable, plus it didn't have as much parking as we
thought that we needed, so we, then, turned this into triplexes and duplexes and with --
originally all of them with front garage space -- you know, two car garage and, then, two
car-- additional two cars in front of the garage. At our neighborhood meetings -- our first
one on this we had in October of last year -- of '19. We had about eight to ten people
show up and of the eight to ten we didn't have a lot of opposition. The only opposition
that we had was traffic, but most of the time the folks understood that that's not something
we can fix. However, it is something that is being fixed. The second neighborhood
meeting we held in September and I only had -- and it was a Zoom meeting. I only had
one person show up and they were not in opposition. So, when we -- we were a little bit
surprised when we got that 35 letters that were submitted to the city. I won't touch too --
as Joe did a great job explaining all of the features of the project, what I think I will do is I
will dive into the -- the buildings. You have seen just a couple of examples of elevations
that we are proposing, but our plan is to make these fairly attractive in a more modern
theme and we are planning to do several -- at least three to four color palettes and I
believe we submitted those palettes to the city as well and, like I said, all of these have
got their two car garage, plus two additional parking spaces out in front of the garage,
along with the 12 guest parking spaces. So, our -- our plan is to make sure that we have
got plenty of parking in here, so that we do not have a parking issue. As Joe stated well, the buildings -- if you notice, each building has got upper outdoor patios and then --
which is over a hundred square feet and, then, downstairs in the -- in the -- in the back or
the front of the yard we have got other patios that is over another hundred square feet.
So, we have got about a little over 200 square feet of outdoor open areas that the owners
will have. The townhomes -- like the reason we are platting is because we are trying to
put each townhome unit on its own lot for conventional financing. That was one of the
reasons we moved away from the condos. The units range from two bedroom, two and
a half bath, at 1,800 square feet to three bed, two and a half bath, at 1,900 square feet.
We did a similar project like this down in Kuna and it was very popular. We actually sold
it out in less than a year and a half. So, we are envisioning kind of marketing that the
same way that we did down there. One thing to note on this is that the developer will also
be building the units. So, there is some upfront reasoning to try to make -- we have put
quite a few amenities throughout the project. The reason being is because, you know,
they are sticking in for the long haul. So, the nicer that we can make the project the better
we believe it will sell out. And, again, this -- this product type -- there is not any in the
area. We believe that this -- townhomes is going to be a demand, so -- and it actually is
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 3,2020 F29
Page 25 of 40
encouraged in your comp plan for this mixed type of use. Some site construction -- just
to give you an idea, we are -- our gross density, even though it's a little over -- our gross
density is 6.24 units per acre where eight is allowed here, but since we are doing the PUD
additional is allowed. We have got the three pocket parks throughout and the idea, again,
there was to make sure that we had parks in close proximity to the majority of the units.
Those pocket parks will be provided gazebos and plaza sitting areas. We also showed
some decorative climbing rocks. I'm not a big fan of tot lots, because typically they are
not used, but the climbing rocks -- they are decorative and that -- they can be used by
young kids. The other amenity that we are doing that is one of the most utilized amenity
within a subdivision is pathways. So, we deliberately, as Joe showed you earlier, had
pathways and connected them throughout. We almost have three-quarters of a mile of
pathways in the subdivision. So, that was one of our big focuses. And the Ten Mile Creek
there, it's -- you know, there is reeds, there is water -- a year round waterway. We have
seen ducks and geese in there. So, it will be -- the idea of putting the pathway there was
to encourage people to utilize it as an open space amenity and that's -- you know, like I
said, the pathway will be one of the most utilized amenities within the subdivision. All of
the -- and this wasn't discussed, but all of the common lots and all of the landscaping
around the -- the building lots will be maintained by one HOA. So, the people moving in
here they don't need a lawn mower and that was -- the driving factor on that was, you
know, our experience in other subdivisions is people wanted that. So, our goal on this
was -- that it's got the open concept feel to all the units, but all uniformly maintained by
one HOA. The only fencing that we are going to be having is the fencing adjacent to the
buffers along Victory Road and Locust Grove Road and, then, we will require -- or
recommended by staff we are going to fence off that easement line and, then, to reiterate,
we are keeping everything out of the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District, so we do not
have to worry about license agreements or anything like that. One of the biggest things
that I noticed with all the neighborhood complaints was traffic and I don't know if -- most
of you don't know, but I used to work for ACHD and so ACHD on something this small it
generates so few traffic they didn't make us do a traffic study. But we are currently
working with the highway district as we speak -- maybe not now, but during the day to
dedicate right of way for the roundabout. So, we laid this whole thing out with that
roundabout in mind. We have ACHD's design, so that's kind of how we get the weird
shape boundaries that we have. But we just paved it. We will have that sold to them
within the next month or two. But going back to the traffic, this site generates 356 trips
total per day. The trips -- the p.m. peak hour traffic trips are roughly 28 trips per day --
per hour, which is basically equivalent to one trip every two minutes. So, this site really
does not generate or add much to the existing traffic that backs up during those p.m. peak
hours. However, what's been noted --we are going to have an arterial improved out there
that will greatly increase the amount of traffic that can travel on those lanes and the
roundabout will also help, so that we don't have the backing that we currently have now.
So, ACHD is going to take care of any traffic concerns that the -- the neighborhood had
and it's not -- as Joe said it's not a pipe dream, it's funded. It's going in and it's been
designed. So, that should alleviate most of the concerns of the neighborhood about
traffic. I think that concludes my presentation. I will -- I will stand for any questions that
the Commission may have.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 3,2020 F30]
Page 26 of 40
Fitzgerald: Thanks, Steve. Are there any questions for Steve at this time?
Yearsley: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Yearsley, go right ahead.
Yearsley: So, on these homes, what size of homes are you looking at?
Arnold: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Yearsley, we are looking at 1,800 to 1,900 square foot.
Yearsley: Is that -- that's -- that's living space and not garage; correct?
Arnold: That is correct.
Yearsley: Okay.
Seal: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Any additional questions for Mr. Arnold?
Seal: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal.
Seal: Question on the -- the residences that are bordering that west boundary on the
creek. What -- what is the height of those?
Arnold: Is that a question for me?
Fitzgerald: Yes. That was for you, sir.
Arnold: I'm sorry. They are -- they are two story and they -- they are in the -- the zone
will allow up to 35 feet.
Fitzgerald: Do you have a design size that you know how high they are going to be?
Arnold: I think those elevations that we were showing were roughly 20 -- they are not --
the peaks on those aren't very high. I'm guessing less than 30 feet.
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal, do you have a follow up there or are you good?
Seal: I'm good. Thank you.
Fitzgerald: Thank you.
Holland: Mr. Chair?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 3,2020 F31
Page 27 of 40
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland.
Holland: Hey, Steve, so you mentioned you guys are going to fence off the easement
line. Is that adjacent to that pathway that's between the creek and the units?
Arnold: That's correct.
Holland: So, just to confirm, the -- the creek won't be accessible by pedestrians, they
could just go on the pathway that kind of used the creek, but they are not actually able to
use the area that's in that creek area; is that right?
Arnold: Yeah. So, the idea is the staff recommended that we -- we fence it to keep, you
know, small children out of the waterway and we -- we agreed.
Holland: Okay. Thanks, Steve.
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Grove, go right ahead.
Grove: Thanks, Mr. Chair. Mr. Arnold, question regarding the different types of housing
that are in the project. The staff report had mentioned wanting to see a more variety of
housing options here and you have it looks like three different ones, but two of them on
the front of the south side kind of are abnormalities and the fact that they are the only
ones there and has there been more discussion on adding more housing diversity to this
-- to this project?
Arnold: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Grove, yes, and that -- that's why we modified that
center view or MEW, I'm sorry, the same, so those are going to be a different housing
type alley load and, then, when we get in -- and, yeah, we are continuing discussions with
staff. One of the conditions that's in this report is that we submit for design review and at
the time that we submit for design review staff's going to review the housing product type
then and we will -- we will probably have at least three or four different elevations.
Fitzgerald: So, Steve, random question. I think down the -- at the -- I guess on this map
it's the east -- southeast corner, that triangle that you kind of have those -- I don't know.
It's a duplex, but it's like a -- I don't know. It looks like a drive thru on the initial plat, but
as you shift into that MEW would you be -- I mean I know nobody likes to lose lots, but
that seems to make sense for some more common area right there and it just seems that
you are shoehorning in additional houses there. Would there be any thought about
removing that chunk and making that another open space? Because I think we are limited
right now. As we include -- if we take out the -- the creek, which I don't think qualifies --
anyway, I know we did some -- some additional work on a MEW and, then, the piece in
the middle is connecting to the creek, but I think that -- we are trying to just -- it seems
like we are adding lots to add lots and not giving folks that are living there some additional
space to live. Any thoughts there?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 3,2020 F32
Page 28 of 40
Arnold: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, the -- the Ten Mile Creek as noted in the staff report is
considered allowable open space and an amenity. Staff -- I will let staff further comment
on that, but in their report they explain that. We have got -- I think for this small of a site
I think we have got plenty of open space. I don't believe that really additional open space
is needed. We -- staff recommended that we create additional open space in that MEW
and, then, that 5,000 square foot park there in the center, we have -- we have been losing
lots on the -- we would kind of like to not lose anymore would be our preference and the
housing type that is there -- I mean we -- because we had so many changes that we have
made we didn't keep up with the building elevations and those two odd shaped lots that
have those -- the townhome on it, those will most likely change a little bit to accommodate
a better building type.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you.
Yearsley: So Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Yeah. Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: If you are done. I want to go back to those home sizes. You -- you are telling
me that they are 1,800 square feet?
Arnold: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Yearsley, that's correct.
Yearsley: So, help me do the math. So, your lots are 2,000 square feet and if you take
out the front of the parking area and a garage, I struggle to see 1 ,800 square feet.
Arnold: If you could go to frame 11 and show the building footprints. So, the garage is
not in our calculation.
Yearsley: Well, I realize that, but if your lot size is only 2,000 square feet, I still struggle
to figure out how you are getting 1 ,800 square feet.
Arnold: If you -- if you take -- you take out the garage --the upstairs is roughly a thousand
plus square feet. Downstairs, as you can see the numbers, are a little under 800.
Yearsley: Okay.
Fitzgerald: So, Steve, just adding on to Commissioner Yearsley's comments, is this --
are these lot sizes that you shifted to with the MEW, now that you are on with the PUD,
you are under that -- I mean do these -- the ones that you are showing us, these
elevations, do they fit on the lot sizes where you shifted down to?
Arnold: Yes. Mr. Chairman, if you go to the PUD map -- the new PUD that we sent, I
have got the footprints showing on it how that looks. So, yes, to answer your question
they could.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 3,2020 F33]
Page 29 of 40
Fitzgerald: Thank you. Additional questions for Mr. Arnold at this time? Okay. Steve,
we will get back to you and let you close after we take public testimony. Does that work
for you, sir?
Arnold: Perfect. It works for me.
Fitzgerald: Appreciate it. We appreciate it, Steve. Thanks. Madam Clerk, I know we
have probably some folks in the audience, either in person or online, that would like to
testify on this application. Do you want to start rolling down the list?
Weatherly: Yes, Mr. Chair. First is Rose Crandall.
Crandall: My name is Richard Crandall. I live at 1319 East Observation Street. I speak
for my whole family. Some of them aren't here and I think I could speak the best of what
we are feeling. I think the whole proposal was -- I would highly disagree with it. Very
much against it. I think it's, first and foremost, more than traffic concerns, I think the
biggest concern would be the value of the homes all around it, including our own. The
surrounding neighborhoods -- obviously, probably no one here would know this, but are
a lot nicer than what is being pictured and what is being shown for this new neighborhood
with these duplexes or triplexes or whatever they are. So, you are talking about a lot of
nice neighborhoods with people -- families that work hard to put value into their homes
and, actually, they are finally starting to see better value in their houses and, then, you
are going to put this kind of -- what appears is very much lower level housing on the
corner. That is -- I think, you know, you could say I'm wrong, but I would bet any money
that over time it's going to devalue the homes in the surrounding neighborhoods. Also as
far as the traffic goes, I know that you are saying that the roundabout plan is already
funded and going into place, but it isn't there yet and I don't think-- if you are talking about
two car garages in these things, that's potentially two cars per building -- or per people
that live there, this is like -- what would that be, like at the very least 96 cars that could be
leaving at the exact same time potentially. You would never know. I don't think that that
roundabout is going to fully alleviate that problem -- that issue in the morning. I have
driven to work in the morning, so I know. Also -- but back to my original point. You know,
the value of the homes around there -- you could go right across the street, there is a
neighborhood with these beautiful stuccoed homes in the Tuscany neighborhood right
behind it are larger, nicer houses and a lot of these people, you know, they got a lot of
value in these homes and I think that there is going to be a big problem with these
duplexes, triplexes, whatever devaluing the homes in the surrounding area and I think
that's going to be a big problem to a lot of the people who have lived there for a long time.
Thank you.
Fitzgerald: Thanks, sir. We appreciate it. Next on the list, Madam Clerk.
Weatherly: Mr. Chair, next we have John Pierre Buckner. I'm going to help him with a
video that he provided me on YouTube. This is a first for me, so, please, bear with me.
Fitzgerald: We appreciate it.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 3,2020 F34
Page 30 of 40
Buckner: I will address that. Hello. Thank you for having me. My name is Jean Pierre
Buckner. I live in Meridian off of Locust Grove, off of Monalisa Street. Please proceed.
What you are seeing here is a video taken at the intersection of Victory and Locust Grove
at rush hour traffic on a Tuesday. As you can see with the build up of vehicles, this is
clearly not two cars per minute. This video was taken of traffic in all directions at that
intersection. I speak for my wife, my family, that we are for growth and we are for
development. We are for Idaho and Meridian. We are for growth that makes sense and
is safe and is practical. We strongly oppose this development for primary reasons of
increased traffic, increased safety risks, decreased quality of life and decreased character
of our neighborhood. We would like to see a lower density of housing, a revision in this
proposal for lower density to meet the current typical zoning of R-8. As to traffic, high
rush hour traffic in single lane roads as you can see here, I was here during the hearing
for the roundabout and it was full of people who were opposed in my neighborhood to the
roundabout, who do not believe a roundabout will help the situation. You are also looking
at traffic that is during a pandemic when people are at home, they are not at work, and
as the pandemic ends, whenever it does, you will see even more traffic than what you are
seeing now and with the addition of a roundabout and 96 vehicles at minimum as
somebody else said, you are going to see a lot more traffic than this. Also as was
discussed earlier, this is an issue of traffic enforcement. This is an issue of density and
population. So, two cars is necessarily more traffic than one car and the 96 cars that are
going to be added is going to be a lot more traffic than what you see in the video that I
showed. There is also a lot of concerns about safety for -- especially for kids. There is
kids running about on our streets all the time. It's a -- currently an area where there is
relative safety for kids to run about, although it's not always the case. With increased
traffic there will be increased risk to our children getting hurt. Also with traffic comes
increased anxiety and tention that leads to poor decision making and poor alertness,
which leads to more accidents. Also increased traffic means a lesser quality of life, more
time on the road due to traffic means less time with your family, less time at home.
Sometimes I can pull out of my street onto Locust Grove and I have to sit there for minutes
waiting for cars to pass by and this isn't even rush hour traffic. I have to take the street
down and try to find another route to where I want to go. I take the street -- I take Victory
to work and every day it's always full. Thank you.
Fitzgerald: Thank you, sir. We appreciate your time and the visual this evening. Thank
you. Madam Clerk, the next person wishing to testify?
Weatherly: Mr. Chair, we have others that have signed up, but no one else is present in
chambers to testify.
Fitzgerald: Okay. If there is anyone online that would like to testify on this application,
please, raise your hand on the Zoom application or, Commissioner Seal, is there anyone
else in the audience?
Seal: There is not.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 3,2020 F35]
Page 31 of 40
Fitzgerald: Thank you, sir. We have a couple of people that are in attendance on Zoom,
but not raising their hand, so I just want to make sure to give you guys a chance. If you
would like to testify, please, raise your hand. If not we will allow Mr. Arnold to close.
Anyone have any questions for staff as we are waiting?
Seal: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal.
Seal: Just one. Joe, do you know where the nearest R-15 -- the next nearest R-15 is to
this? Or in relation to it I should say.
Dodson: Commissioner Seal, Members of the Commission, let me check really quick. It
-- the next closest is to the west up against Meridian Road. So, almost a mile away.
Seal: Okay. Thank you.
Dodson: You're welcome.
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal, I had the same exact question looking at this map. So,
thanks for asking. Mr. Arnold, would you like to come up and close, sir?
Arnold; Yes. Can you hear me?
Fitzgerald: Yep. Go right ahead.
Arnold: Okay. Yeah. You know, growth is one of those things that no one likes, but it's
happening. I think the biggest concern here is the -- the traffic and all I have to say to
comment on that is ACHD is the traffic authority for all the streets in Ada county. We do
have an approved report from them. So, they have taken into account the existing traffic,
what we are going to add, and they have made their findings and it's minimal. You know,
I'm not denying that traffic backs up right now at the signal. I have done that and sat there
while going to a Kuna P&Z meeting and it -- it -- at the rush hour it does -- there is some
backing. But with the planned improvements out there all of that goes away and, you
know, it -- and, then, there is a whole bunch more capacity. The idea of this site not
developing -- it's just pushing -- pushing development down somewhere else and this is
pretty much in-fill. You know, this is an appropriate use for the location and the -- the
density is an appropriate density for what -- what we are proposing. The -- the
neighboring lots -- and I know this shouldn't be a consideration with the Commission's
decision, but speaking of value, I know that was a concern that came up. I mean we are
probably going to be selling these and so not just development consultant work, we also
market the subdivisions and do the real estate end as well. I'm looking at -- we are
probably going to be in that 225 to 230 range per square foot. So, our project is actually
going to increase the value of the neighboring subdivisions. It will not decrease value.
That's a misnomer. So, the -- the -- with the planned improvements out there and the
value of our homes, I think the neighboring subdivisions are going to see very little impact
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 3,2020 F36]
Page 32 of 40
from our development and I will stand on that and answer any questions that the
Commission has.
Fitzgerald: Thanks, Steve. Real quick question and I will open it up for my other
Commissioners to ask. You -- in working with ACHD you fixed the design so that was --
it took into account the roundabout; correct?
Arnold: That's correct. If you look at our -- how our layout is, they have got some weird
curves in there and, then, we actually on the PUD map you can see exactly how the
roundabout fits on -- as it relates to development.
Fitzgerald: Okay. I just wanted to make sure that was the case. I wanted to make sure
that we -- they do have different design things in different areas. I just want to make sure.
Arnold: We have been working directly with ACHD. They actually sent me the CAD files
to insert into our drawing.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Appreciate that. Commissioners, do we have questions for Mr. Arnold?
Anyone? Okay. Steve, we appreciate it. Thank you so much.
Arnold: Thank you.
Fitzgerald: Can I get a motion to close the public hearing?
Seal: So moved.
Grove: Second.
Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to close public hearing on file number H-2020-
0100. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes.
MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Fitzgerald: The application of properly before you, team. Anything -- any thoughts want
to lead off?
Yearsley: Mr. Chairman, so I will step up, sir.
Fitzgerald: Go right ahead.
Yearsley: So -- so, I do live in this area and -- and I live off of Eagle, not off of Locust
Grove, but I look at this and my personal feeling -- building on this is -- they are trying to
shoehorn as many lots in this as they can and walk away with it afterwards and leave the
mess to the homeowners. I think they need to lose about eight to ten homes, because I
think it's way too dense. They are going to have issues with parking. You get that size
of home, they are going to fill up their garage with -- with stuff and, then, park in the street
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 3,2020 F37
Page 33 of 40
and, then, when someone tries to come -- come visit they are not going to have any
parking. You know, I think in certain areas these are not a bad mix of homes, but I don't
think that it fits in this area. I got to go back to the homes that we approved behind the
old Norco off of Eagle and Ustick and I thought that was a very appropriate area and I
think it works, but I don't think it works for this rural area. I honestly feel sorry for those
homes on -- in Tuscany that face this, because all they are going to see is a sea of
apartments or -- or townhomes or connected homes. So, it's just going to be a massive
wall of -- of homes, with very little breaks or no breaks at all. So, I -- I just can't in good
conscience approve something that's this dense in this small of an area and think that it's
going to work out well.
Fitzgerald: Thanks, sir. Commissioner Holland, you are off of mute, I get to call on you.
Holland: I unmuted so I could say yes to the motion to close the public hearing, but I can
go next. I forgot to turn myself back on mute. Well, I always -- it's always good to start
with the positive; right? So, I will -- a couple of things that I liked about the project. I -- I
like that it's a different type of style product. I think the -- the brick facade looks nice for
doing a triplex style. I'm not a big fan of the orange that's on the second rendering that
was there, but that's just a personal color palette preference.
Fitzgerald: Come on, orange is good.
Holland: Well, some people might like it. It wasn't my favorite, but I did like the style and
I agree with what Commissioner Yearsley said, I think overall townhome projects in this
kind of -- of complex can be a good fit in certain spots of town. The challenge is this lot
is a really weird lot. It's -- it's a corner shape, which is always really hard to design for.
It's right on the corner of two pretty strong traffic roads. My concern is a little bit less
about the traffic side of things, but it is a little bit more about traffic flow within the site
itself. Having one access and having so many different units in there can be a challenge.
I would probably agree, I'm not opposed to seeing some of these triplex types homes
being in here, but I would prefer to see nine or ten units less than what's proposed here
and see more open space. With the creek there, I think the creek's always a nice amenity
when you can tie it into a project, but that was two point -- 2.1 acres of the site is the Ten
Mile Creek and so if you eliminate that out from the 2.68 acres of qualified open space,
we are just barely over a half acre of open space that's usable for the development, so
that's a challenge for me, too. I always like -- I like the walking paths. I think those are
nice. I use walking paths in my neighborhood all the time, because I love to go for a walk
and three quarters of a mile is a great walk. But I would certainly like them to have a little
bit more amenities and if you are fencing off where the Ten Mile Creek is it's not really
usable open space to me, it's just kind of a nice eye window and it does provide some
buffer and transition from the neighborhood that's next to it, but I -- I would agree, I think
it might be a little too much density for this -- this corner the way that it's laid out currently.
Fitzgerald: Additional thoughts? Commissioner Seal. Did you start?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 3,2020 F38
Page 34 of 40
Seal: Mr. Chair, yes. I agree. I appreciate the product for -- for what it is. I mean it's not
my cup of tea, but I know that there is a big demand for--for a product like this, something
that you can live in, not have to have a lawn mower, not have to take care of, you know,
any of the amenities and stuff like that. I do like the pathways, but I do have some pretty
big concerns in here. I mean I know it's in-fill, which can lead to, you know, certain
concessions, but there just seems to be a lot of them happening where -- I mean the open
space is, you know, technically qualified, but they are going to fence it off, so it's not even
in use. The -- I mean the only streets that are going to fit in here are private streets as
per ACHD. Not that they recommend private streets anywhere, it's just that's really all
that's going to work in here. And with that I have concerns about, you know, obviously,
parking that's in there, but I also have concerns about service vehicles, you know, the --
the trash trucks and stuff like that trying to make their way in and out of this. I think that's
going to, you know, cause a lot of issues in there. You know, in the nearest R-15 being
nearly a mile away, I know this lends -- I mean this is another product type in the area.
Again, I do like the product type for what it is, but I just think the density is too high for this
particular -- you know, this particular application. But the other thing -- there was some
public feedback as far as where Ten Mile Creek crosses Locust Grove there and,
basically, as soon as you come out of there on a bike or walking or anything you can't --
you can't cross that creek. There is no safe way to do it. I mean I -- I wouldn't do it and
I'm a pretty avid rider. So, I mean there is some safety concerns as well as that and that
just has to do with, you know, again, the strangeness of the lot that's there.
Fitzgerald: So, I -- I agree with a lot of what you just said. I -- and I'm the weirdo that
likes the product, because I think it's very funky and cool and I think we need more offers
-- and we need more options in our community, because we have a lot of the same in a
lot of places as we have grown really quickly in our city. So, I do like the product. I think
it's -- it's cool. Even the orange. I like the orange. I do think there is a challenge here
that you have two or three acre component is tied up in that creek easement and so you
are shoving everything over and it makes that density go through the roof and so I'm kind
of with Commissioner Yearsley, I think if you shrunk it down and actually gave it some
space it may work a little bit better. But I still think it's -- it's tough. There is not enough
open space. Much like Commissioner Seal, I totally agree, pulling trash trucks through
here is going to be challenging. It is -- it is in-fill and I think it's tough. It's a tough spot to
put it, but I think making it worse by shoving everything in there and not giving people
places to live outside their house and eliminating pads to park on and hoping to God like
that the MEW is going to help us out and there is going to be more parking isn't going to
work. I think we all know that the parking spots that are all there aren't going to be enough
when there is no parking pads. I think Commissioner Yearsley is spot on with regards to
people are going to use their garages for storage and they are going to have no parking
pads on those houses with the MEW and they are going to be trying to park on a private
road that you can't park on and so that puts us in a really rough spot. So, additional
thoughts, Commissioner Grove or Commissioner McCarvel? Anybody want to weigh
back in?
Holland: Mr. Chair, I actually have one more comment.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 3,2020 F39
Page 35 of 40
Fitzgerald: No. I'm -- all right.
Holland: So, I know a couple of us served on the Comprehensive Plan committee, too,
and I know a lot of the people that were from the Southern Rim Coalition and kind of the
south Meridian area showed up to testify in the way that they wanted to see the -- this
area kind of develop in and there was a lot of preference for lower density product and
I'm not saying that I'm -- I'm not opposed to a high density product, I think it makes sense
in a lot of places and it's good to have diversity and I'm like -- even though I don't like the
orange, I do like the product and I think it's a good style and we need more of it, it's just
a tough spot and I think 36 -- I think there were 36 pieces of written testimony in there.
Most of them were saying that they weren't in favor of the project, so that's always tough,
too, when the community speaks out against something.
Dodson: Mr. Chair? You are muted, but I think you said my name.
Fitzgerald: I couldn't push it fast enough. Go ahead,
Dodson: Sorry. I just wanted to clarify something for the Commission and the public
regarding the Ten Mile Creek and open space and all that, since it's come up a few times.
I did recommend that it be fenced off. The reason for that is because it is one of the
creeks listed in code 11-3A-6. It is supposed to be left as natural as possible and be
incorporated as an amenity. Because it's a natural creek and they are not really required
to beautify it and do a lot of things with it, I found that it was appropriate to fence that off
for the safety of pedestrians and kids. I don't know how much water runs through there,
but, regardless, I know it's got quite -- quite a lot of brush and things like that. So, where
I can understand your concern regarding whether or not it's actually an amenity or not, I
just wanted to reiterate why I had put that in there and requested that. It wasn't an attempt
to say that this area can't count. I think that pathway along it and being a nice natural
creek is one of the best amenities in the proposed development. But I just wanted to
clarify that. That wasn't on the applicant, that was staff's recommendation and that was
why.
Fitzgerald: No. That's good context, Joe, and I appreciate it. I still think that the easement
puts us in a real tough spot.
Dodson: Absolutely.
McCarvel: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Grove.
Grove: All right.
Fitzgerald: I heard your voice first.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 3,2020 F40]
Page 36 of 40
Grove: Okay. I would -- I think I'm getting to the same place that everyone who has
spoke so far has gotten to, though maybe in slightly different -- a slightly different path. I
think that I like the density, but not in the configuration that they have it. I think that having
the -- a diverse product in a sea of sameness helps create a better overall community.
But I am not a fan of this layout and I -- I really want to like this project, because like you
said, Mr. Chair and Commissioner Holland, I like this -- like the product itself, but there is
something just really lacking and because it is so isolated from any other neighborhood,
there needs to -- this project needs to create its own sense of community and its own
sense of like uniqueness that it can really build on, because it doesn't have any other
outlet to the rest of the community and so it just feels stilted in -- in how it's going -- gone
about it. I -- I would prefer to have a little bit more options, I guess, within the development
from a product standpoint. Pathways are great. I like the fact that there is a lot of
connection. The open space, though, is a concern and I think it comes back to that point
of creating that internal sense of community with this development and I don't see it as
it's presented. I also --you know, anytime we start talking about some of this stuff looking
at-- like the school project-- or projection there, like it's a concern that the citizens brought
up also, you know, something that is always important to keep an eye on with these things
and there was one other thing. I think -- yeah. That's probably about all I have on this. I
really want to like it, because I like the design of the -- the units themselves, but it just
doesn't feel quite right.
Fitzgerald: So, that's funny, because I -- I always lean on my fellow Commissioners to
be eloquent where I'm not, but I think you -- what you just said is exactly what -- the tough
time I'm having is there is not a sense of place within it, because it's so isolated. I mean
that was a really good point. So, I have your similar feeling in that regard, because I do
like the product and I wanted to like it, too, when I first started looking at it, so --
Commissioner McCarvel, I apologize I cut you off earlier, so go right ahead, ma'am.
McCarvel: That's okay. Yeah. When I first looked through this my immediate reaction
was it was just a landlocked island and so it kind of needs to stand on its own. I do think
the fence is the right call, because it is a big enough part of the waterway, but that does,
obviously, limit the usefulness of what they are trying to use as open space. I like the
extra patio space on these units. I like the individual ownership of the product. But I just
-- I do think it's got to have some fewer lots to fit in here, because just the flow within itself
-- I don't think it's a huge traffic addition, but just being that landlocked by what's around
it, the canal and that major intersection -- not major, but major enough intersection, it
needs to have better flow within. But I do -- I do like the product and I like the whole idea.
Just a little bit fewer lots, so that they can be considered -- they don't necessarily have to
be public streets, but just wide enough that they are usable streets.
Fitzgerald: Agreed. So, additional thoughts? Commissioner Yearsley, if you are talking
you are on mute.
Yearsley: Sorry about that, Mr. Chair. Just to kind of follow up with that, I think, you
know, everyone's kind of hit it right there is -- if you look at it it does look like just the sea
of homes with nothing else and I think losing around ten lots you would actually create a
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 3,2020 F41
Page 37 of 40
lot more open space and more community type style look that -- that could be something
that would be -- that could -- could work, you know, because you could actually break up
--you know, along the pathway, along the creek you could break up some of those homes
to add some breaks and definitions and a little more open space in the center -- I think
would create a much better flow, a much better community, and I think it would look much
better.
Fitzgerald: I think you are right, Commissioner Yearsley. With the -- with the wall -- it's a
wall plain. I -- looking at the amount of homes that are there, I think you are right, those
houses on the other side of the creek, even though there is some natural landscaping
there, it's going to be a wall plain that they are staring at.
Yearsley: Yeah. And I agree the creek needs to be fenced. We walked along that creek
within our subdivision and it flows fast enough and it -- there is just enough issues with it
that having it fenced is a huge safety issue if it's not.
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Grove?
Grove: One thing that I had -- that I wanted to say was I like the -- what they have done
with the parking call outs, the three spots, but -- but it does feel like that is something that
they could probably expand on with -- with a site redesign. Keep some element of that.
I just keep looking at this layout and it -- it calls for something like very unique and it feels
like something ordinary has been placed in it with -- like the street just seems very -- I
don't know. I'm looking for something -- it feels like they could do something kind of funky
and really draw it out with their elevations and like play with what they were already using
and I don't know how they get to that point, I don't know if it's alley load that empties into
a large open space for all the homes or whatever that is, but something is just not there
for me, so --
Fitzgerald: Additional comments? Motions are always an order, but want to make sure
everybody gets their comments out there.
Holland: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland.
Holland: Are we at a point where we want to try and continue it and give the applicant a
chance to come back to us with some other thoughts or are we at a place where we would
prefer to give a recommendation of denial or a recommendation of approval with
conditions that they eliminate a certain number of lots and replace it with open space?
Fitzgerald: I would be happy to open it back up and let Steve come and talk, but I think
the last time we did this it was a Ustick project that never died. So, I'm -- but I'm happy
to have that conversation with the applicant if we would like to. Would that be the will of
the Commission? I think he has a sense of where we are going.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 3,2020 F42
Page 38 of 40
Seal: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Yeah, Commissioner Seal.
Seal: One more comment before we do that, just on the open space piece of it, just
because of what the product is. I mean if this ultimately is the product that goes in there,
I think we have to be careful because of what the product is. They are trying to cut down
the amount of maintainable space that's in there. I mean that -- that seems to be the --
you know, somewhat of the goal and a lot of these products that are in there. So, having
the Ten Mile Creek there is basically eye candy, it's something they don't have to
maintain, you know, it is -- it is not a bad thing for this type of product that's there and I
think if we try to get them to skin down too many lots, then, now you have a lot more
space that has to be maintained. They are already -- you know, the HOA is already
paying for the private roads. They are already paying to -- you know, for the maintenance
of all the pads, so on and so forth. So, I think -- you know, I think it's a -- I guess what I'm
getting at is my point is I think it's a really great product, I just think it's in the wrong place,
just because of the constraints that are around it. So, I -- I -- honestly, I don't know if we
go -- you know, put them through a continuance at this point.
Fitzgerald: I understand what you are saying. Additional thoughts on that? Because I
-- I -- I'm with you. I -- it may not be the right fit, but -- but I'm also not willing to give them
a recommendation of denial if they are willing to do some changing and I know Joe
probably doesn't need another continuance in his life, but I want to make sure we are
doing the right thing. Additional thoughts? Would you like to hear from the applicant or
would we like to move forward?
Parsons; Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Mr. Parsons.
Parsons: How are you doing this evening?
Fitzgerald: Good, sir.
Parsons: Well, I just -- I have been sitting back listening to the conversation and I can tell
you Joe and I met with the applicant on numerous occasions and, obviously, it's your
purview to open up the public hearing, but we were informed that they did not want to
lose anymore lots than the 48. So, I'm not sure if -- if Steve's going to be open to that or
not, but, again, if that--that's still within your purview, but that's -- that was the information
and communications that we have had, because we were -- we had the same -- we have
been around this numerous times, too, trying to figure out what -- the best use for this
site, because it is such an unusual piece of property, given the fact that it's at a major
intersection with no other connectivity. It is a -- kind of-- I'm going to quote Commissioner
Grove, it needs a unique project here and that's why -- what the PUD process is for.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 3,2020 F43
Page 39 of 40
Fitzgerald: No. And I give you and Joe a huge amount of credit, because I think the
MEW concept is a great one. I think bringing that into it is great. I also think it brings with
it other issues on a limited space project like this. So, fellow Commissioners, what would
you like to do?
Seal: Mr. Chair, I will --
Yearsley: You know, I think given what Bill's comment was, is I wonder if we just
recommend denial and -- and move forward.
Fitzgerald: I think -- yeah. I mean I -- I'm -- I'm always willing to hear things out, but I
think we got a sense that --just from the initial comment on the two lots up front that that
may not be where they want to go, so --
Yearsley: Mr. Chair or -- go ahead, Lisa.
Holland: I was just going to echo what you said. I think that we have the ability to
recommend denial, but if they decide to go back and kind of reconfigure some things they
could certainly do that and provide some alternative layouts to Council to consider.
Fitzgerald: Or we get it back in remanding.
Holland: Or we get it back.
Fitzgerald: So -- yeah. Commissioner Yearsley, go right ahead, sir.
Yearsley: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
recommended denial to City Council of file number H-2020-0100 as presented in the
hearing for December 3rd, 2020, for the following reasons: The -- the site is -- is too
dense -- or the density is too dense for the -- the area and it just doesn't fit the site.
Seal: Second.
Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to recommend denial of file number H-2020-
0100. Any further comments? Okay. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion
passes.
MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Fitzgerald: Team, we have one more motion before we run away.
Seal: Mr. Chair, I move we adjourn.
McCarvel: Second.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 3,2020 F44
Page 40 of 40
Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Any
opposed? Motion passes.
MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Fitzgerald: Thank you all.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:11 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
12-17-2020
RYAN FITZGERALD - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED
ATTEST:
CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK
Item 1. 3
E IDIAN
'aAHO
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Approve Minutes of the November 19, 2020 Planning and Zoning
Commission Regular Meeting
APPROVED
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 19,2020 F23
Page 20 of 20
not going to be so easy and simple. So, I will accept one more motion and we can all go
enjoy families. So glad to see Commissioner Holland. So good to see you. Stay safe.
Stay healthy all. And anyone want me to make that final motion?
Holland: I was going to say one more comment, too. It's really good to see Commissioner
Yearsley back with us and I'm super glad to have you.
Yearsley: Thank you.
Holland; I hope you stick around. With that, Mr. Chair, I move we adjourn for the evening
of November -- sorry -- 19th.
McCarvel: Second.
Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second that we adjourn the meeting. All those in favor
say aye. Any opposed? Okay.
MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:53 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
12 1 03 12020
RYAN FITZGERALD - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED
ATTEST:
CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK
Item 2. 24
(:>
E IDIAN*-----,
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for TM Center (H-2020-0074) by SCS Brighton, et al., Located
East of S. Ten Mile Rd. and South of W. Franklin Rd.
A. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 83 buildable lots and 2 common lots on 132.42 acres
of land in the R-40, TN-C, C-C and C-G zoning districts.
Applicant Requests Continuance to January 21, 2021
Planning Presentation and Outline for Land Use
Public Hearings
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting December 3, 2020
FLUM
FLUM
Revised Plans
st
Changes to Agenda: Item #2, TM Center (H-2020-0074), requests continuance to the January 21, 2021 P&Z hearing.
Item #3: Conner Square (H-2020-0107)
Application(s):
Conditional use to allow three four-plexes.
Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of .6 acres of land, zoned r-15, located at 557 W. Idaho Ave and
528 W. Broadway Ave
Adjacent Land Use & Zoning:
North: Zoned R-4, Single and Multifamily Residential
South: Zoned IL, Industrial
East: Zoned R-15, Single and Multifamily Residential
West: Zoned R-15, Single and Multifamily Residential
Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: South: MDR, North: HDR
Summary of Request:
This is a request for a conditional use to allow three four-plexes on .6 acres of land. The property had recently contained two homes
which had been constructed in the 1950’s. These homes have been removed. The subject property is one of the few properties in this
area which is vacant, this would be considered an infill project.
The area is typified by single family attached and detached, duplex, triplex and fourplexes, and larger multifamily complexes. Much of
the housing in this area is over 50 years old, although there has been a recent turnaround, with newer triplexes and fourplexes as the
applicant is proposing.
The applicant proposes three buildings of four units each. Two buildings are proposed on 557 W. Idaho, and one building is proposed
at 528 W. Broadway Ave. The parking for this project will occur into the two parking lots at the south. This project provides 24 parking
spaces, 12 of them in covered carports. 20 parking spaces are required for this project. On-street parking also exists along both sides
of W. Idaho Ave and E. Broadway Ave. ACHD reviewed this project and in a letter dated November 24, 2020 noted they support the
project as proposed.
It does appear the landscaping width requirements around building foundations and parking areas is satisfied. Also, a landscape strip
of at least five feet (5) is provided along W. Broadway Ave (in some places it is greater) and a landscape strip of ten feet (10) is
provided along W. Idaho Ave. There is not a landscape buffer requirement in this zoning district along local streets. However, the
minimum density of one evergreen shrub per three (3) linear feet of building foundation does not appear to be met on all sides. A
landscape plan should be submitted with the CZC that demonstrates the minimum landscape density along foundations is met.
The UDC requires a minimum of 80 sq. ft. of private open space per unit, and a total of 3,000 sq. ft. of qualified open space (250 sq. ft.
per unit). The applicant has responded that each unit patio meets the 80 sq. ft. requirement, although it is difficult for staff to ascertain
this based on the floor plans submitted Staff will recommend an exhibit be presented at time of CZC that demonstrates this requirement
is met.
The landscape plan indicates 4,690 sq. ft. of qualified open space, whereas the minimum requirement is 3,000 sq. ft. The central open
area has scaled to at least 2,500 sq. ft. and there are several other open spaces that easily meet the minimum requirements of 20’ x
20’ (the open area to the east of the southeastern most building is at least 1,200 sq. ft). Staff is confident the common open space
requirement is met.
Two amenities are required with this project. The applicant proposes a community garden within the central open space and an 8’ x 10’
enclosed bike storage.
Building elevations submitted have architecture similar to the surrounding four-plexes to the west and north.The elevations as
submitted would meet the minimum requirements of the ASM. However, there are numerous blocks of nearby duplexes and four-
plexes which all utilize the same single color with no accent colors. The color schemes submitted by the applicant reflect at least three
different colors on each elevation. To reduce visual monotony and provide separation between projects staff recommends as a
condition that all building elevations display a color scheme of at least two field materials and one accent color.
There are two points of clarification staff would like to address. The first is that the staff report mentions there is a 100 year floodplain
crossing the northern tip of the property. It is actually a 500-year floodplain.
The other issue is in regard to the staff recommendation regarding trash enclosures. The UDC states trash dumpsters shall be
incorporated into the overall design of buildings and landscaping so that the visual and acoustic impacts of these functions are fully
contained and out of view from adjacent properties and public streets. The staff report has a condition that dumpsters be relocated
internally to the development. The applicant has worked diligently trying to accomplish this and has responded this could only happen
with a loss of additional open space and landscaping. Also, they have provided an email to staff indicating Republic Services prefers
the enclosures on the street as originally proposed, not internally. Staff has analyzed the applicant’s response and agrees relocating
the dumpsters internally would be more determental than beneficial to the design. Staff recommends the Planning Commission strike
Condition 3 pertaining to relocating the dumpsters.
Staff Recommendation: Approval with conditions as listed in the staff report, with the addition that Condition No. 3 be stricken.
Item #4: Compass Pointe Subdivision (H-2020-0100)
Application(s):
Annexation and Zoning, Preliminary Plat, Planned Unit Development, Private Streets, and Alternative Compliance
Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 7.69 acres of land, currently zoned RUT, located at 3247 S.
Locust Grove (SWC of Victory and Locust Grove intersection).
Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: County Residential to the North (Application is in process with the city for low density residential
project); Single-family residential and R-8 zoning in all other directions.
History: None
Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Medium Density Residential (3-8 du/ac)
Summary of Request: Annexation and zoning of 7.69 acres of land with a request for the R-15 zoning district; Preliminary Plat
consisting of 48 residential building lots and 9 common lots on approximately 4.69 acres of land in the R-15 zoning district; Planned
Unit Development to reduce the rear setback of the R-15 zoning district for a portion of the development due to site constraints; Private
Streets throughout the development; Alternative Compliance to connect a private street directly to an arterial street.
The proposed use is attached single-family in the form of townhomes (triplex) with a gross density of 6.24 du/ac and a net density of
13.4 du/ac. In most cases the net density is not noted but due to the site constraints on the property, staff finds it appropriate to
mention the net density. The density discussion leads to multiple different discussion points about the proposed project.
The Applicant is requesting a Planned Unit Development for this project and certain purpose statements and standards must be met.
The current request incorporates the use of private streets instead of public as well as a reduction in the rear yard setback for the
central units which staff finds does not meet the PUD requirements. However, as discussed in the staff report, Staff finds revising a few
items brings the project into compliance and removes the need for reduced setbacks.
First, the entire western property boundary of the subject site is made up of the Tenmile Creek and its easement. The Applicant is
choosing to leave this waterway in its natural state to preserve its natural beauty and meet city code requirements to protect the creek.
Secondly, there is a purpose statement regarding a desire to have PUDs be at a density of 8 du/ac or more along with innovative site
design and housing types. The Applicant has proposed 48 units with 45 of them being garage dominated units, a two-unit attached
product that has tandem garages, and one detached single-family home. In Staff’s opinion, the site design lacks innovation as
proposed. To help the project meet this purpose statement, two things should be done: Minimally, Staff finds the creek easement to be
non-buildable and should be removed from the density calculation in this regard. Once this area is removed, the density is 8.6 units per
acre, helping to meet this design requirement. The net density is higher than that of the immediately surrounding neighborhoods
because of this but the site will be buffered on all three sides from adjacent subdivisions because of the site constraints which should
help mitigate some nuisances presented by this density.
Staff also recommends the Applicant amend their PUD request to eliminate the parking pad requirement for the 12 internal lots (Lots 1-
14, Block 2) that are part of the Applicant’s existing request for a setback relief. This would make the setback request only applicable to
five (5) units instead of 17 and allow these units to be pushed back towards the street with a rear setback of no less than 5 feet, as
allowed in the R-15 zoning district for alley-loaded units. Secondly, once these units become alley-loaded, they should front on the
internal micro-path that is already proposed between these lots—this area should then be platted in its own common lot and function as
a mew following these changes. If the Applicant adheres to these recommendations, the mew could be 30 feet wide and be a great
vista and pathway connection through the center of the development offering more than adequate pedestrian access to the arterial
sidewalk network that will be in place following the construction of the roundabout. With an additional housing type in the development,
the Applicant meets this objective by being innovative in the PUD request and overall design.
The Applicant is proposing to construct private streets that are 24’ wide with 5’ attached sidewalk on one side of the streets throughout
the project. Staff supports the inclusion of the sidewalk on one side to ensure adequate pedestrian access in the development. At the
north end of the main street within the development (labeled as Compass Lane on the landscape plans) the Applicant is proposing an
emergency only access to Victory Road. This access is required if more than 30 homes are to be constructed. The proposed access for
this development is to S. Locust Grove and lines up with E. Coastline St. on the east side of Locust Grove, the access into Tradewinds
and the future Teakwood sub. The access point into the development does not meet ACHD district policy but they are modifying their
policy to accommodate access into the development because this is the best place for an access to a residential development on this
site (furthest access point available away from the Locust Grove/Victory intersection). This is largely because of the site constraints
already outlined and discussed.
Because the site is a triangle shape, bordered on two sides by arterial streets and on one side by the Ten Mile Creek, there is no
opportunity for road connectivity to any adjacent site and so ACHD prefers private streets within the development. Consequently,
because private streets take less right-of-way than public streets and because of the constraints just noted, the Applicant agrees with
this assessment and has proposed private streets throughout the development. City code requires that private streets are to be used in
either a mew or gated development and this Applicant has proposed neither. Within the PUD analysis, Staff has already recommended
that Lots 2-14, Block 2 become alley-loaded units off of the private street by requesting to eliminate the required parking pad
requirement for these lots through the PUD request. Once the Applicant does this, the units can be pushed towards the streets and the
micro-path already proposed between these units can be placed in a common lot and become a mew. Thus, the development would
include a mew and meet the Private Street standards. This is how the private streets are integral to both access and the PUD request.
The proposed private streets are not wide enough to accommodate any on-street parking and the Applicant is proposing to construct
some extra off-street parking along the main street as seen on the proposed plat. There are no multi-use pathways proposed or
required for the development. However, the Applicant is proposing a 5-foot wide pathway on this side of the creek and behind the
proposed homes. This pathway connects to the private streets at the southern end of the project and thru the common open space lot
located midblock on the west side of the site. This pathway also continues north and connects to the required sidewalk along Victory
Road. In addition, the Applicant is proposing a micro-path between the center-most lots that connects to the required sidewalk along
Locust Grove. This path should be kept and included within the recommended mew to serve as the sole pedestrian connection to
Locust Grove.
There is no existing sidewalk along Victory Road or Locust Grove; both arterial streets are scheduled to be widened as part of the
roundabout project at this intersection in 2021-22, according to ACHD. With the roundabout project, the Applicant is required to
dedicate additional ROW for the intersection and the future widening of Victory and Locust Grove adjacent to the site. ACHD is
requiring the Applicant enter into a road trust for the sidewalk improvements adjacent to the site as they will be constructed by ACHD
with the roundabout and widening projects.
A minimum of 10% qualified open space meeting UDC standards is required. According to the property size of 7.69 acres, the
Applicant should supply at least 0.77 acres of qualified open space, or approximately 33,500 square feet. The applicant is proposing
3.28 acres of open space, of which 2.84 acres is shown as qualifying open space on the submitted open space exhibit, vastly more
than the minimum requirement. However, some of the area listed as qualifying open space by the Applicant does not meet UDC
standards due to their size not being at least 5,000 square feet. Once this area is removed, the qualified open space proposed is 2.68
acres, down from 2.84. More importantly, the open space for this development is largely made up of the Tenmile Creek easement (2.12
acres) and the arterial street buffers (19,281 square feet of qualifying area). All of this area is qualifying but the Tenmile Creek will be
left natural (no improvements) and will be a buffer and more of a visual amenity than usable open space for the development.
Abutting the creek and generally mid-block, the Applicant is proposing an open space lot that is approximately 5,150 square feet. This
open space lot contains one set of the amenities and a micro-path that connects the private street to the pathway along the creek. This
open space lot and micro-path offers a clear connection to one of the other micro-paths in the development that runs between the
homes in the center of the development and the attached sidewalks throughout the development. This open space lot is the most
active and usable open space lot within the development.
The applicant submitted conceptual elevations for the proposed attached single-family homes. The submitted elevations show all two-
story attached structures with two-car garages and identical finishing materials of wood and stone. In addition, the elevations show
modern architecture designs with shed roofs, second story patios with glass railings, and stone accents that go the full height of the
proposed homes. Staff has not received elevations for the one detached home nor the one duplex unit. However, attached single-
family homes require design review approval prior to building permit submittal and at that point, Staff will ensure compliance with the
Architectural Standards Manual. Since issuance of the staff report, the Applicant has provided additional conceptual elevations of the
proposed triplex units offering different designs and color combinations.
Written Testimony: 35 pieces of written testimony have been submitted (as of 4pm 12/3) –
The main concerns regard the proposed density in comparison to adjacent subdivisions, amount of open space, school over-crowding,
and the traffic issues already existing in this area. Neighborhood has issues with proposed access to Locust Grove and there only
being one access for the development.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the subject applications with the conditions and DA provisions noted
in the staff report.
Notes:
Possible Motions:
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H-
2020-0100, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 3, 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-
0100, as presented during the hearing on December 3, 2020, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for
denial)
Continuance
I move to continue File Number H-2020-0100 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following
reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance)
Item 2. F25
(:�WE IDIAN:---
IDAHO
PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION
Staff Contact:Sonya Allen Meeting Date: December 3, 2020
Topic: Public Hearing for TM Center (H-2020-0074) by SCS Brighton, et al., Located East of
S. Ten Mile Rd. and South of W. Franklin Rd.
A. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 83 buildable lots and 2 common lots
on 132.42 acres of land in the R-40, TN-C, C-C and C-G zoning districts.
Applicant Requests Continuance to January 21, 2021
Information Resources:
Click Here for Application Materials
Item 3. 26
(:>
E IDIAN*-----,
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Conner Square (H-2020-0107) by Sarah Martz with SEM
Consulting, Located at 557 W. Idaho Ave. and 528 W. Broadway Ave.
A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for 3 four-plex units to a total of 12 units in the R-15 zoning
district.
Item 3. F27
(:�N-WE IDIAN:--
IDAHO
PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION
Staff Contact:Alan Tiefenbach Meeting Date: December 3, 2020
Topic: public Hearing for Conner Square (H-2020-0107) by Sarah Martz with SEM
Consulting, Located at 557 W. Idaho Ave. and 528 W. Broadway Ave.
A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for 3 four-plex units to a total of 12 units in
the 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
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET
DATE: December 3, 2020 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 3
i
PROJECT NAME: Conner Square (H-2020-0107)
PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify
YES OR NO
2
l� 1�cD A-0 vJ Ivy
3
4
5
As
A 4
8 �- -
o �eJ Aj
9
10
11
12
13
14
Item 3. ■
STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY
N --
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HEARING 12/3/2020 Legend 0
DATE:
�
TO: Planning&Zoning Commission lei Lacfliiar LLLILLLw L HI, tnK.�rA
FROM: Alan Tiefenbach,Associate Planner �Y4+`+P I'WE— V E �
208-489-0573
Bruce Freckleton,Development 3
Services Manager ° --
208-887-2211
SUBJECT: H-2020-0107
Conner Square CUP -
LOCATION: The site is located at 557 W. Idaho Ave
and 528 W. Broadway Ave,in the NE 1/4 +
of the SE 1/4 of Section 12,Township 3N,
Range 1 W.
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Proposal for a conditional use permit to allow the construction of three(3)fourplex units on
approximately 0.66 acres in the R-15 Zoning District.
II. SUMMARY OF REPORT
A. Project Summary
Description Details Page
Acreage 0.66 Acres
Future Land Use Designation South: MDR,North:HDR
Existing Land Use(s) Vacant
Proposed Land Use(s) Multifamily(3 four-plexes)
Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 2 existing lots
Phasing Plan(#of phases) 1 Phase
Number of Residential Units(type 12 multifamily units
of units)
Density(gross&net) 18 du/acre
Open Space(acres,total 11,118 sq. ft.total landscaping,4,690 sq. ft. (16%)
[%]/buffer/qualified) qualified open space.
Amenities Community Garden,Enclosed Bike Storage
Physical Features(waterways, Northern tip of property within 100-year floodplain.
hazards,flood plain,hillside)
Neighborhood meeting date;#of August 12,2020, 1 person signed in,no issues expressed
attendees:
History(previous approvals) None
Page 1
Item 3. F29
B. Community Metrics
Description Details Page
Ada County Highway District
• Staff report(yes/no) Yes
• Requires ACHD Commission No
Action(yes/no)
Access(Arterial/Collectors/State Access from W.Broadway Ave,a local road.
Hwy/Local)(Existing and
Proposed)
Existing Road Network Access will occur from W.Broadway Ave(local road)
Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ Sidewalks exist along W. Idaho Ave,sidewalk will be
Buffers installed along W.Broadway Ave
Proposed Road Improvements Sidewalks and rolled curb will be constructed along W.
Broadway Ave.
Distance to nearest City Park(+ /2 mile to Centennial Park.
size)
Fire Service Only comments pertinent to building permit submitted.
Police Service—No comments
West Ada School District
• Distance(elem,ms,hs) Meridian ES: .4 Miles
Meridian MS: .7 Miles
Meridian HS: .8 Miles
• Capacity of Schools Meridian ES: 650
Meridian MS: 1250
Meridian HS:2075
• #of Students Enrolled Meridian ES: 529
Meridian MS: 1198
Meridian HS: 1975
Wastewater
• Distance to Sewer Services N/A
• Sewer Shed Five Mile Trunkshed
• Estimated Project Sewer See Application
ERU's
• WRRF Declining Balance 13.99
• Project Consistent with WW Yes
Master Plan/Facility Plan
• Impacts/Concerns No proposed changes to Public Sewer Infrastructure was
submitted with this application.Any changes or
modifications,to the Public Sewer Infrastructure, shall be
reviewed and approved by Public Works.
Water
• Distance to Water Services 0
• Pressure Zone 2
• Estimated Project Water See Application
ERU's
• Water Quality No concerns
• Project Consistent with Water Yes
Master Plan
• Impacts/Concerns No proposed changes to Public Water Infrastructure was
submitted with this application.Any changes or
Page 2
W,Xidll1r, • lHH • •
U:i NI ■■� - I`N 1� Fli��n ��i Sa,��, di�' �'.." �rnl l Y ;'y
1�4�111� ■ �1111�11 i,1111 Fig 111� P d■J�4*4:.'.i i�� :a�1` I . 4,
11:7��fa ��111�'1�•:��INi:.N�. ...�.�- ,�* .,�. ;I ,.t* .�si ;�Ya�'�'��
.�3 � - ■ "ice
IN
Ij, 1 11� }� } - --- 1��11�111' ■��111!11=����i��I!�I� .a
.13
ter IL1
l cC•
I`": •If
. ,1
I 'Y
I
Item 3. 31
III. APPLICANT INFORMATION
A. Applicant:
Sarah Martz SEM Consulting—3117 W. Smith,Boise,ID 83703
B. Owner:
Tracy and Shellie Robertson—3350 Selatir Pl, Meridian, ID 83642
C. Representative:
Sarah Martz SEM Consulting—3117 W. Smith,Boise,ID 83703
IV. NOTICING
Planning&Zoning City Council
Posting Date Posting Date
Newspaper Notification 11/13/2020
Radius notification mailed to
properties within 500 feet 11/10/2020
Sign Posting 11/20/2020
Nextdoor posting 11/10/2020
V. STAFF ANALYSIS
A. Future Land Use Map Designation(https://www.meridiancity.or /g compplan)
The properties are within two future land use designations. The southern portion of 557 W. Idaho
Ave and all of 528 W. Broadway is designated as Medium Density Residential (MDR). This
designation allows for dwelling units at gross densities of three to eight dwelling units per acre.
Density bonuses may be considered with the provision of additional public amenities such as a
park, school,or land dedicated for public services. The northern portion of 557 W. Idaho Ave is
recommended for High Density Residential(HDR). This designation allows for the development
of multi-family homes in areas where high levels of urban services are provided and where
residential gross densities exceed twelve dwelling units per acre. Development might include
duplexes,apartment buildings,townhouses, and other multi-unit structures.
The proposed density of this project is approximately 18 dwelling units per acre. This is higher
than is recommended for MDR but would be appropriate for HDR. Further,the R-15 zone does
not specify a maximum density range(that correlates to the Comprehensive Plan) and allows the
proposed use through a CUP. In this case, staff believes the mix of residential uses in the area
makes this an ideal location for infill and supports the higher density as proposed.
B. Comprehensive Plan Policies (https:llwww.meridiancioy.or /g compplan):
Encourage diverse housing options suitable for various income levels,household sizes, and
lifestyle preferences. (2.01.01)
This proposal is to allow 3 four Alex units of between 900 and 1,000 square feet within three
buildings. The surrounding area already consists of a diversity of housing types including single
family attached and detached, apartments, duplexes and four plexes. This type of housing will
integrate well into the surrounding community and will continue a more diverse housing stock.
Maintain a range of residential land use designations that allow diverse lot sizes,housing types,
and densities. (2.01.01 C)
Page 4
Item 3. F32
As mentioned above, the surrounding community consists of a mix of housing including single
family detached, single family attached, apartments and duplexes. This proposal would enhance
this already diverse mix.
Locate higher density housing near corridors with existing or planned transit,Downtown, and in
proximity to employment centers. (2.01.01H)
The proposed higher density development is within walking distance of the City's downtown area
and essential goods and services.
Encourage infill development. (3.03.01 E)
The subject property is surrounded by property that has been developed. Two 1950's dilapidated
homes had been on the property and have been razed. This proposal would replace them with 3
new four plexes of units designed to complement the architecture of surrounding newer four-
plexes and existing single-family. The project site is ingrained within an existing neighborhood.
This is the type of infill project encouraged by the Plan.
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)
As this is a redevelopment project and will be replacing homes which had previously existed,
there is existing infrastructure for this project. Water and sewer is available from mains in W.
Broadway Ave.Access will occur from W. Broadway Ave.
C. Existing Structures/Site Improvements:
The property formerly contained two single family residences and is presently vacant. Sidewalk
exists along W. Idaho Ave. The north side of W. Broadway Ave contains portions of sidewalk
and rolled curb and gutter. This proposal does include installation of sidewalk and rolled curb
along W. Broadway Ave.
D. Proposed Use Analysis:
The subject property is zoned R-15. This allows multifamily by conditional use.Minimum lot
size is 2,000 sq. ft. per unit. Front and rear setbacks per the Specific Use Standards of UDC 11-4-
3-27 are 10' with a 3' interior side setback. The application proposes 12 units on 0.66 acres,
which is an average lot size of 2,323 square feet. The proposal meets the minimum standards.
E. Specific Use Standards(UDC 11-4-3):
Specific use requirements for multifamily(UDC 11-4-3-27)include a minimum of a 10' setbacks,
80 sq. ft. of private useable open space per unit, 250 sq. ft. of common open space for each unit
between 500 sq. ft. and 1,200 sq. ft, and at least two site amenities. All street facing elevations are
required to have landscaping along the foundation of at least 3 feet wide. The proposal meets all
these requirements, and specificity regarding landscaping, open space and amenities is discussed
below.
F. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2):
As mentioned above,the proposed development meets all setback, lot size and landscaping
requirements.
G. Access(UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4):
Access for all three buildings is proposed to occur from two separate parking lots along W.
Broadway Ave, a local street. As much of the properties along this portion of W. Broadway Ave
Page 5
Item 3. ■
have yet to redevelop,most of the street in this area does not contain curb or sidewalk. There are
several portions of sidewalk and rolled curb just west of the property;the applicant will be
required to improve their W. Broadway Ave frontage similarly.No access is proposed to occur
from E. Idaho Ave,which already contains curb, gutter and sidewalk.
ACHD reviewed this project and in a letter dated November 24, 2020 noted they support the
project as proposed. As mentioned above,the applicant will be required to improve the W.
Broadway Ave. frontage as well as pave both of their driveways.
H. Parking(UDC 11-3C):
UDC 11-3C-6 requires 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit for 1-bedroom units and 2 parking
spaces for each 2-3-bedroom unit.At least one parking space per unit must be in a covered
carport or garage.
This proposal includes nine(9) one bedroom and three(3)two-bedroom units(requiring twenty
(20)parking spaces). The site plan reflects 24 parking spaces, 12 of which are in a covered
carport. The proposal meets the minimum requirements. On-street parking also exists along both
sides of W. Idaho Ave and E. Broadway Ave.
1 bicycle parking space is required for every twenty-five(25)proposed vehicle parking spaces. A
bicycle rack is shown at the front of each building and enclosed bicycle storage is provided
between the two southernmost buildings.
1. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17):
Five-foot wide sidewalk is proposed along the eastern side of the two buildings on 557 W. Idaho
Ave, and along both sides and the front of the building at 528 W. Broadway Ave. The proposal
also includes 5' wide sidewalk along the W. Broadway Ave. frontage. Additional sidewalk is
shown at the north side of the northernmost building, although sidewalk already exists along W.
Idaho Ave (this is discussed in the Landscape Section).
The plans do not indicate a connection from the sidewalks internal to the development to the E.
Idaho Ave and W. Broadway Ave street sidewalks; it appears parking lots provide the pedestrian
connection.As a condition of approval,the landscape plan submitted with the Certificate of
Zoning Compliance(CZC) should be revised to include connections from the street sidewalks to
the sidewalks internal to the development.
J. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B):
Multifamily developments are required to provide three (3)foot landscaped areas along the
foundations of all street-facing elevations. For every three(3)linear feet of foundation, an
evergreen shrub having a minimum mature height of twenty-four inches(24") shall be planted. A
five-foot(5')wide minimum perimeter landscape buffer is required along parking areas with a
minimum of one tree per thirty-five (35')linear feet. Any grouping of parking spaces of more
than twelve (12)are required to provide a 50 sq. ft.parking island.
It does appear the landscaping width requirements around building foundations and parking areas
is satisfied. Also,a landscape strip of at least five feet(5)is provided along W. Broadway Ave(in
some places it is greater)and a landscape strip of ten feet(10)is provided along W. Idaho Ave.
There is not a landscape buffer requirement in this zoning district along local streets. However,
the minimum density of one evergreen shrub per three(3)linear feet of building foundation does
not appear to be met on all sides. A landscape plan should be submitted with the CZC that
demonstrates the minimum landscape density along foundations is met.
Page 6
Item 3. 34
The landscape plan reflects trash enclosures directly along the W. Idaho Ave. and W. Broadway
Ave frontages. Staff does not believe dumpers in these locations is ideal. Staff notes only a 10'
setback is required along W. Idaho Blvd whereas 20' is shown and there is already sidewalk
along this frontage(the second sidewalk shown on the landscape plan is not necessary). Staff
recommends all dumpers be relocated internally at the far end(north end) of the parking lot(s)
and screened from view. This may require shifting the two fourplexes at 557 W. Idaho Ave north
to prevent losing parking spaces. The applicant also has the option to re-orient the central open
space between the two buildings to the south side of the internal building to provide more
consolidated open space within the development. Either scenario gains the applicant additional
area to accomplish this.
There are existing trees on site although the landscape plan does not indicate whether any of the
trees meet the tree preservation requirements of UDC 11-3B-10. At time of CZC,the applicant
should work with the City Arborist to indicate the number of trees that will require mitigation on
the landscape plan.
K. Qualified Open Space (UDC 11-3G):
UDC 11-4-3-27 requires a minimum of 80 sq. ft. of private open space per unit, and a total of
3,000 sq. ft. of qualified open space(250 sq. ft.per unit).
The applicant has responded that each unit patio meets the 80 sq. ft.requirement,although it is
difficult for staff to ascertain this based on the floor plans submitted Staff will recommend an
exhibit be presented at time of CZC that demonstrates this requirement is met.
The landscape plan indicates 4,690 sq. ft. of qualified open space,whereas the minimum
requirement is 3,000 sq. ft. The central open area has scaled to at least 2,500 sq. ft. and there are
several other open spaces that easily meet the minimum requirements of 20' x 20' (the open area
to the east of the southeastern most building is at least 1,200 sq. ft). Staff is confident the
common open space requirement is met.
L. Qualified Site Amenities (UDC 11-3G):
Two site amenities are required with this application. The applicant proposes a community garden
within the central open space and an 8' x 10' enclosed bike storage. The proposal meets the
minimum amenity requirements.
M. Waterways(UDC 11-3A-6):
A 100-year floodplain is shown to affect the northwestern portion of the property,although the
site plan does not indicate any development within this area. The extent of the floodplain should
be shown on the site plan, landscape plan and construction drawings that will be submitted with
the CZC.
N. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7):
6' high wood fencing already exists along the east and west property lines. The landscape plan
does not reflect any additional fencing. Any new fencing is required to comply with the standards
listed in UDC 11-3A-7.
O. Utilities (UDC 11-3A-21):
All development is required to connect to the City water and sewer system unless otherwise
approved by the City Engineer in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. City water mains exist in W. Idaho
Ave and W. Broadway Ave. Sewer is available in W. Broadway Ave.
Page 7
Item 3. 35
The utility plan shows water lines proposed underneath the covered carports. Typically,utility
providers do not prefer this. The applicant will be required to work with utility providers prior to
the CZC to determine the exact alignment of utility lines and potential easements.
Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual ASM):
The elevations submitted have architecture similar to the surrounding four-plexes to the west and
north that were constructed in early 2000. All four buildings resemble a craftsman-style
architecture. Materials consist of Hardie-board, lap siding and asphalt shingles. Building
elevations incorporate several roof pitches on three of the four sides with gabled elements,
dormer-type modulation, and overhangs over the doors. Street-facing elevations display
significantly more modulation and articulation.
The elevations as submitted would meet the minimum requirements of the ASM. However,there
are numerous blocks of nearby duplexes and four-plexes which all utilize the same single color
with no accent colors. The color schemes submitted by the applicant reflect at least three different
colors on each elevation. To reduce visual monotony and provide separation between projects
staff recommends as a condition that all building elevations display a color scheme of at least two
field materials and one accent color.
DECISION
Staff:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed conditional use permit with the conditions in Section
VIII per the Findings in Section IX.
Page 8
Item 3. ■
VI. EXHIBITS
A. Site Plan(date: 11/17/2020)
dp
•� 1
I
I
I I
III �
I I
I
1 I I I
I
I �
TI= �oa� �o3dmana
-I rW iL7 YC K!71
I �
.y
I •�' I
� I I
rl
I
I I
sear w sir _ 1
I rI I
I
I I I
A
I
I I I i I r
I
-- - - - -- -- - — - y' � -- -.r - i -Aa
• I
Air
--
ptE Ili. — •r`':+ ..�{r -�a ,
- v I -.-
'W
k Jl ac
M9-� -rG �1-1{9�1
R•JB Fffb f]EMELOPNENT
PAEW[M.1)
SITE LAYOUT CONCERT
L *I i mh m o
k
A
Page 9
Item 3. ■
B. Landscape Plan(date: 11/17/2020)
EE
8
- 8
�8 i
4
1 T��
e ' J
■
_ ,
IF
Page 10
Item 3. 38
C. Building Elevations(date: 10/2/2019)
ELEVATION NOTE5: ELEVATION KEYNOTES
f
d
1
00 00 � o 0
11C1 UNITS 51QE ELEVATION "A/0 ENTRY UNIT ELEVATION
EM
�•j
®®® MM7.91M 0 0 _ - - _® °o ul
III ENTRY/11811 511)E ELEVATION 1511 ENTRY/ "A11 SIDE ELEVATION
Page 11
Item 3. F39]
D. Proposed Color Scheme (date: 10/26/2020)
■
■
.yam
Page 12
Item 3. 40
VII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS
A. PLANNING
1. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and administrative design review application is required to
be submitted to the Planning Division and approved prior to submittal of building permit
applications. The applicant will either meet all architectural requirements of the Architectural
Standards Manual(ASM)or apply for a design exception as part of the CZC submittal.
2. The Applicant shall have a maximum of two(2)years to commence the use as permitted in
accord with the conditions of approval listed above. If the use has not begun within two(2)years
of approval, a new conditional use permit must be obtained prior to operation or a time extension
must be requested in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F.
3. All dumpers shall be relocated internally at the far end(north end) of the parking lots along W.
Broadway Ave and fully screened from view. This could be accomplished in two different ways.
Both buildings on 557 W. Idaho Ave. could be shifted as much as 10' which would reduce the
20' W. Idaho Ave setback to 10' OR the central open space between the two buildings to the
south side of the internal building could be re-oriented to provide more consolidated open space
within the development.
4. Pedestrian connections shall be provided from the street sidewalks to the sidewalks internal to the
development(UDC 11-3A-19).
5. The extent of the floodplain should be shown on the site plan, landscape plan and construction
drawings that will be submitted with the CZC.
6. At time of Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC)the applicant shall work with the City
Arborist to preserve any existing trees on the subject property that are four-inch caliper or greater;
or mitigate for the loss of such trees as set forth in UDC 11-3B-10C.
7. At the time of Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC),the applicant shall submit floor plans that
demonstrates the private useable open space requirements of UDC 11-4-3-27 are met.
8. To reduce visual monotony and provide separation between projects,all buildings shall display a
color scheme of at least two field materials and one accent color.
9. The site plan prepared by Rodney Evans+Partners, dated November 17, 2020, is approved as
submitted with the modifications listed in Conditions No. 3,4 and 5 above.
10. The landscape plan prepared by Rodney Evans+Partners, dated November 17,2020, is approved
as submitted with the modifications listed in Conditions No. 3,4, 5 and 6 above.
11. Parking requirements shall comply with the multifamily residential standards; 1.5 parking spaces
per dwelling unit for 1-bedroom units and 2 parking spaces for each 2-3-bedroom unit,with at
least one parking space per unit in a covered carport or garage.
12. The Applicant shall comply with all bulk,use, and development standards of the applicable
district listed in UDC Chapter 2 District regulations.
13. The Applicant shall comply with the structure and site design standards as set forth in UDC I I-
3A-19 and the Architectural Standards Manual.
14. The Applicant shall comply with the specific use standards for multifamily uses listed in UDC
11-4-3-27.
Page 13 -
Item 3. 41
15. The applicant shall comply with standards and installation for landscaping as set forth in UDC
11-3B-5 and maintenance thereof as set forth in UDC 11-3B-13 set forth for multifamily
development as listed in the specific use standards in UDC 11-4-3-27.
16. All multi-family developments shall record legally binding documents that state the maintenance
and ownership responsibilities for the management of the development,including,but not limited
to, structures,parking, common areas, and other development features. (UDC 11-4-3-27)
17. No proposed changes to Public Sewer or Water Infrastructure was submitted with this
application. Any changes or modifications,to the Public Sewer or Water Infrastructure, shall be
reviewed and approved by Public Works.
B. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SCHOOL ANALYSIS
https://weblink.meridianciV.ory/WebLink/DocView.gyp x?id=216461&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
ky
C. REPUBLIC SERVICES
https://weblink.meridiancioy.orkIWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=216804&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
Lu
D. ACHD
https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=217254&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
Lty
E. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH
https://weblink.meridiancioy.orkIWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=216533&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
Lu
Page 14
Item 3. F
2
VIII. FINDINGS
The Commission shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit requests upon the
following:
1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the
dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located.
Staff finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and
dimensional and development regulations of the R-15 district(see Analysis, Section V for
more information).
2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in
accord with the requirements of this Title.
The density as proposed is not consistent with the future land use map designation of medium
density residential on the southern portion of the property. However, the entire property is
already zoned R-15 which supports the proposed use and the associated density is consistent
with the HDR designation.
3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other
uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the
general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the
same area.
With staff's conditions, staff finds the proposed design of the development, construction,
operation and maintenance should be compatible with the mix of other residential uses
planned for this area and with the intended character of the area and that such uses will not
adversely change the character of the area.
4. That the proposed use,if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not
adversely affect other property in the vicinity.
Stafffinds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed
use will not adversely affect other property in the area. The Commission should weigh any
public testimony provided to determine if the development will adversely affect other properties
in the vicinity.
Page 15
Item 3. 43
5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services
such as highways, streets,schools,parks,police and fire protection,drainage structures,
refuse disposal,water, and sewer.
Staff finds that essential public services are available to this property and that the use will be
adequately served by these facilities.
Page 16
Public Presentations and supporting documents
f
i
a Y�
f
fl
y
G
toy
Vj
V .
0
�i
M
r
Y,
m
us O Vl `r'I '"t'I CO S
u m cn Gl m
m �
0 c) o
m r1; = Z m
so
0
Gl M Cl
m
O -ZanatanPs-
3` z un
-rLa�uoz��tp-
c' z = IJl
�f v�
xa�zzs
} �✓ QN'd HOD ONIQNaaaO
aozaaoz :2iOEER
��, Yall < x
rl
L _1
� � 0
Uf
.>
rt
a„
rt
r
s,
r Ul
i
�. T
��I 5
ro
d &
fl
C9
3
r
Ln
ar
a
j
v
" m
u)
LM
u c
<l o
m 0 N
n m � �s
m m
z zw
i
3
N ! r , j
st
(5
a `
r.
s �
ro i
"
n
a
w
i
s
i
7
C
x"
C�
9
� M '
I
4
u�
g
m
If, > y r.''t
"gymT � «� m � � � m cn ,'.. m �.n �a
3
tf`) FFN--YY Inl rr�ii fJ`y ���^^yy Pei o�fff FviY ^ •
V V rte V .a V i�r t"4
5+ I >
wi z i �,i z z —i z
3 o m z o m rn p m
O O a ' O `b O v � vn
r p r p r p E p 0
m —�1 m �I m m
C7 z C:7 z � z C7 z j
A D T CL
P.
m —M1 m �'i m —m1 m C-}
m m C) m C) m
z < z z { z Q
o= m
ci
h� R
6
From: John Buckner <john.buckner7@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 3, 2020 6:35 PM
To: City Clerk <CityClerk@meridiancity.org>
Subject: Locust Grove Hearing
External Sender - Please use caution with links or attachments.
https://youtu.be/s0LbFkU4yUg
The video is too large to share only 1 minute
John
Sent from my iPhone
https://youtu.be/s0LbFkU4yUg
Item 4. 44
(:>
E IDIAN*-----,
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Compass Pointe Subdivision (H-2020-0100) by A-Team
Land Consultants, Located at the Southwest Corner of E. Victory Rd. and S. Locust Grove Rd.
A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 7.69 acres of land with a request for the R-15 zoning
district.
B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 48 residential building lots and 9 common lots on
approximately 4.69 acres of land in the R-15 zoning district.
C. Request: A Planned Unit Development for the purpose of reducing the rear setback of the R-
15 zoning district for a portion of the development due to site constraints.
Item 4. F45
(:�N-WE IDIAN:--
IDAHO
PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION
Staff Contact:Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: December 3, 2020
Topic: Public Hearing for Compass Pointe Subdivision (H-2020-0100) by A-Team
Land Consultants, Located at the southwest corner of E.Victory Rd. and S.
Locust Grove Rd.
A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 7.69 acres of land with a request for the
R-15 zoning district.
B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 48 residential building lots and 9
common lots on approximately 4.69 acres of land in the R-15 zoning district.
C. Request: A Planned Unit Development for the purpose of reducing the rear
setback of the R-15 zoning district for a portion of the development due to
site constraints.
Information Resources:
Click Here for Application Materials
Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET
DATE: December 3, 2020 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 4
3
PROJECT NAME: Compass Pointe Subdivision (H-2020-0100)
PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify
YES OR NO 1
1
� YES
2
ye 5
3 '
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Item 4. ■
STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY
N --
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HEARING 12/3/2020 Legend _ �
DATE:
Project Location !
TO: Planning&Zoning Commission
ffl
FROM: Joe Dodson,Associate Planner
L9
208-884-5533 t� ,
SUBJECT: H-2020-0100 r ®'
Compass Pointe Subdivision
LOCATION: The site is located at 3247 S. Locust
Grove Road, in the NE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of
Section 30,Township 3N.,Range 1E. Ffi
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
• Annexation and zoning of 7.69 acres of land with a request for the R-15 zoning district;
• Preliminary Plat consisting of 48 residential building lots and 9 common lots on approximately
4.69 acres of land in the R-15 zoning district;
• Alternative Compliance to connect a private street directly to an arterial street;
• Planned Unit Development to reduce the rear setback of the R-15 zoning district for a portion of
the development due to site constraints,by A-Team Land Consultants.
II. SUMMARY OF REPORT
A. Project Summary
Description Details Page
Acreage 7.69 acres
Future Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential
Existing Land Use(s) County Residential
Proposed Land Use(s) Attached single-family and townhomes
Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 57 total lots—48 single-family residential;and 9 common
lots.
Phasing Plan(#of phases) Proposed as one(1)phase.
Number of Residential Units(type 48 total units-48 single-family attached and townhome
of units) units.
Density(gross&net) Gross—6.24 du/ac.;Net— 13.4 du/ac.
Open Space(acres,total 3.28 acres total—2.84 acres of qualifying open space(or
[%]/buffer/qualified) approx.35.68%qualified)much of the qualified open
space is the creek and landscape buffers
Page 1
Item 4. 47
Description Details Page
Amenities 3 amenities—Climbing rocks for children,walking loop,
and shaded picnic area.
Physical Features(waterways, Tenmile Creek runs along the western property boundary
hazards,flood plain,hillside) with most of its easement on this property.Portion of the
property within the easement shows area of flood hazard.
Neighborhood meeting date;#of September 8,2020; 1 attendee.
attendees:
History(previous approvals) N/A
B. Community Metrics
Description Details Page
Ada County Highway District
• Staff report(yes/no) Yes Section
VIII.H
• Requires ACHD No
Commission Action
es/no
Access(Arterial/Collectors/State Proposed access is from S. Locust Grove,an arterial. The
Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) proposed access is via a new private street and all internal
roadways are proposed as private streets.
Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross No stub streets are proposed due to site constraints.
Access
Existing Road Network E.Victory Road and S.Locust Grove Road,arterial streets,
are existing with 2 travel lanes.
Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ No
Buffers
Proposed Road Improvements No road improvements are proposed by the Applicant due
to all abutting right-of-way to the subject site being
scheduled for widening by ACHD. The intersection of
Locust Grove and Victory is to be a roundabout in
2022-23 with Locust Grove Rd.being widened to 5
lanes north of the intersection and Victory Road being
widened to 3 lanes on either side of the intersection by
2025.
Fire Service
• Distance to Fire Station 1.5 miles from Fire Station#4
• Fire Response Time Proposed development falls within the 5 minute response
time goal.
• Resource Reliability 77%(below the target rating of 80%)
• Risk Identification Risk Factor 2—Residential with hazards;current resources
would not be adequate to supply service to this project due
to nearby waterway if a water emergency were to occur.
• Accessibility Proposed project meets all required access,road widths,
and turnarounds.
The project will be limited to 30 homes until the entire
emergency access to Victory Road is constructed.
Police Service
• Distance to Police Station 2 miles
• Response Time Estimated response time of 4.5 minutes(Goal of 3-5
minutes)
• Accessibility MPD has no concerns with access into this development;
the MPD can service this development if approved.
Page 2
Item 4. F48]
Description Details Page
• Additional Comments Between 8/1/2019 and 7/31/2020,MPD responded to 636
calls for service within one mile of this proposed
development. The crime count on those calls was 79.
Between 8/1/2019 and 7/31/2020,MPD responded to 30
crashes within 1 miles of this proposed development.
West Ada School District
• Distance(elem,ms,hs) No comments submitted.
• Capacity of Schools
• #of Students Enrolled
Wastewater
• Distance to Sewer N/A
Services
• Sewer Shed South Black Cat Trunk Shed
• Estimated Project Sewer See application
ERU's
• WRRF Declining Balance 13.98
• Project Consistent with YES
WW Master Plan/Facility
Plan
• Additional Comments N/A
Water
• Distance to Water Services 0'
• Pressure Zone 4
• Estimated Project Water See application
ERU's
• Water Quality Concerns None
• Project Consistent with YES
Water Master Plan
• Impacts/Concerns •See the attached water markup for more details;
•Connect water main north to Victory Road;
•At the end of Navigation Road provide a meter pit for a
1"service and a 4"sleeve to the northeast at the proposed
edge of the future roundabout.This will be used for a
future water service to the roundabout used by Parks for
landscaping.
Page 3
m
1 1 1
-
■11:::r INN
Noll
♦ ♦ In unn ■ {
■■■■Wli�1\ -- ♦ �a-e no nion■NO
o ■ * � ■■ E, pEii pnnu
a L - ■ LLI■ILL I ■ ■■■■u■ ■ ..
Nra� ■r nnm-' ■�I�_illfl� �! -::■== =
IMINE . �illt••!' ~- � �■, iumll= r%��w -
_ n■mn■ � ■�1 \`a.Yl al ,pnunnm a - Ity
�'-
A1111111= ■ . ___ .` ,V �� � UIIIIIII 3
-
= nnnl nn■unE pr ml e
QIN OIIf� NOIII115n FIIIII:11■ ■■Ill Ii � --
�noon■�IlIIIILIII -nnum - '` �/lnLIfLI1f J � -
unn.IIIIIEInnI nnnm - u■unL■nI/im11;
umin�ss■ ENIELI � mxn nnnm � - Ill II■n■r -
ME so
�Iji.•• vu nu ■lnnunm nnua �O ■ILIIIII■ -, 5
_ NIEII■■ .w - I
IL■ I � I J
111' �. � \►um nmuuuN \ Si■O■ rl _ IIE!a��'' *' _ -� �'
N■■■■I■■■■IN Illly 1111111111111■ LI■ ■ 1■■m - I } � ���� � � `�
— m1 111►��i�� q�y '_-= Y��i � r=iiiin � _� c}" ` �•
•'-• -• • • • '�■■ E■E■n■■■i a�l I■IIII■LL
IIII J u■n+�_■IV a-OIII
Epson• ■I■■ 'i■i�
�
i
■■■■LLaG�1� --r ♦�♦i I�_ -_ n■EIr ♦� • �':-ee== ■n■EI �.
no■�►E 4 :� n u IIII .� inm ion n u Illlii p nnu ion '
�■ NONE. a*.noon ■■••rl■■ oe1-I- •••rl'■
��Nun■ i■nn ■ 11■n■n■■� ,r • -• •• - 1 ■ JI■mn■■��
■■■PEE: �■■n■ n+ ■■■. nd inl ■•>t ■n. nNl_
■m 11- it■m
� 1 lilfll 11 Ei! :::� : ■ :�-1�.� ■14111111 Ems! ::::___=
111• �'+ II nm ��■ . �IIIr ~�i�. '" -- - ■��Ia■quum n.n
r� � Innn r•�� III • V3GTORY- IIIIIIII■� �►� I�V'I ;� i�wYZi� - -- -
-- -__- .�=� _UIIIIIII= ---- --=__ �':�I I�'-- YT=•AN�AIAA ==�e � --- - = IIIIIIII= EN�■INN
-■NNNIII■IE rr 11■7 � � Illllnl ■nNNNI1INNE-r�11■- ._� - "� �
QIN■NIIp��■IIIIIIII■�r11111 7111 QII■1111��EIII■111N■IIIIIIII�11■ - � �\
nuns_Gmm�n �p nnum - - noon_�i■nu nn O�nnum - i.11a_
► mn.noon nq p noon 1 nm.IIIIIIIInq p nnnm t
unnmm nnm - nm � � mmmn num - nnm m
�Iwu nu-■nn■m EE I� �NOILNOLL■ I�t \I�•�w nu E•'mi■unn m - ��CL:C7:L7c
■non -nnnu ■ - • ..Enna a nu■- moon nIIIII • SO Enna
•nnm � i ■■ � -mnni 5i m �■�■ ■■
p ■nm ln■ II ti '.lnu nnm nn ln■•�
-`� �%�i� pNnunnn 1 �� ■ � �■ � �i�i .i�nunnn m �. r �■
111 I �i ..��■■- �. �f I ryl�l" \IIN�1 I �QIII I 1. .. \nN
.' + I..::7C:n:1 ■■ I 'y� pa I ilil;q � �'l,�,+��I..::..■n:n � � na
111 L. ►um nnnm NO■ ■■� 1111A\�V'ri� ►um nnl■1 Gf.l� 4_
nn■■■■m 1 Inm uumnl h nn HE nm -
- n 1 111 � -:a �� ■ nun — n11 111 'y �' ■ nun
��� 6� __�o '• - Innn q��� � ��w - Innn
II
i ' - 1� ' -1 ••1 all
Item 4. 50
IV. NOTICING
Planning& Zoning City Council
Posting Date Posting Date
Newspaper Notification 11/13/2020
Radius notification mailed to
properties within 300 feet 11/10/2020
Site Posting 11/6/2020
Nextdoor posting 11/10/2020
V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS
A. Future Land Use Map Designation(https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan)
Medium Density Residential—This designation allows for dwelling units at gross densities of
three to eight dwelling units per acre. Density bonuses may be considered with the provision of
additional public amenities such as a park, school,or land dedicated for public services.
The proposed annexation area is an undeveloped corner of land with existing medium density
development to its west and east across Locust Grove. Specifically, this parcel of land is at the
southwest corner of Victory Road and Locust Grove Road. There is existing City of Meridian
zoning to the west, east, and northeast located at the northeast corner of the same intersection.
All existing development most adjacent to the subject site is zoned R-8. There is a large county
zoned parcel directly to the north of this site that has not yet received development approval but
its future land use designation is Low Density Residential(LDR)dictating that it will likely have
less density than this site.
The proposed land use of attached single-family residential, and townhomes would be a new type
of dwelling in this immediate area and is therefore consistent with policies noted in the
Comprehensive Plan for all residential future land use designations, including Medium Density
Residential(MDR), to contain different types of dwellings. MDR, as noted above, also allows
gross densities of 3-8 units per acre; the Applicant has proposed this project with a gross density
of 6.24 du/ac. Stafffinds that the proposed project meets the density requirements of the
Comprehensive Plan.
The City may require a development agreement(DA) in conjunction with an annexation pursuant
to Idaho Code section 67-6511A.In order to ensure the site develops as proposed with this
application, Staff recommends a DA as a provision of annexation with the provisions included in
Section IX.A1. The DA is required to be signed by the property owner(s)/developer and returned
to the City within 6 months of the Council granting the annexation for approval by City Council
and subsequent recordation.A final plat will not be accepted until the DA is executed and the AZ
ordinance is approved by City Council.
B. Comprehensive Plan Policies(https://www.meridiancity.or /g compplan):
The applicable Comprehensive Plan policies are cited below with 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"(2.01.01 G). The proposed R-15 zoning and proposed
land use of single family attached and townhomes would be a new dwelling type in the immediate
area surrounding this development. R-8 zoning abuts the subject site to the south and west and
across Locust Grove to the east. This policy, and the comprehensive plan, calls for a variety of
housing types in any one geographical area. So, adding 48 units of a different product type to the
area shows congruency with this comprehensive plan policy.
Page 5
Item 4. 51
"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 Tenmile Creek runs adjacent to this property
on its western boundary and the entirety of its 100'easement is located on the subject site.
Because of this, the Applicant has proposed to utilize this area as a natural open space and place
a 5-foot wide path adjacent to the easement. In addition, the Applicant is proposing sidewalks
adjacent to the internal private streets with connections to the path along the creek and out to
Locust Grove and Victory Roads. These connections create a continuous walkingpath through
the development creating easy pedestrian and bicycle access within and out of the proposed
development.
Despite the Tenmile Creek qualifying as open space per the UDC, it is the majority of the
proposed open space and is not an active open space area. The Applicant has not been able to
enter into a license agreement with the irrigation district to beauty the creek but code does
allow for this waterway to be left natural. There are other small pockets of open space within this
development that can accommodate active use and the Applicant has chosen to place them
throughout the project to encourage use by all future residents; only one of these areas is large
enough to be qualified open space. Despite the inclusion of a large area of qualified open space
in terms of percentage of the site, Staff finds the proposed project lacking in usable open space.
"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).Due to the triangle shape of this parcel and its location
being constrained directly by the Tenmile Creek and two arterial streets, strict compliance with
this policy is not feasible. There are no streets stubbed to this property and this parcel also
cannot stub to any other parcel due to these constraints. The Applicant is only proposing one
access for the development and is locating it as far away from the intersection as physically
possible. Despite not being able to comply with this policy, Staff appreciates that only one access
to an arterial is proposed. The access to Victory Rd. is for emergency access only.
"Require all new residential neighborhoods to provide complete streets,consistent with the
Transportation and Land Use Integration Plan."(2.02.01Q. The Applicant is not proposing to
construct complete streets with this development and therefore does not comply with this policy.
Instead, the Applicant is proposing to construct private streets at their minimum standard width
of 24 feet with 5-foot attached sidewalk on one side. Both ACHD and the Applicant believe
private streets are the preferred street type in this development because there is no opportunity
for road connectivity to adjacent parcels due to the site constraints outlined above. The Applicant
is not required to construct private streets and public streets would be accepted by the highway
district if proposed as compliant with their standards. However,public streets require more
right-of-way than private streets and if this were to be constructed with public roads instead, a
redesign of the project would be required and would likely result in a large reduction in building
lots.
"Annex lands into the corporate boundaries of the City only when the annexation proposal
conforms to the City's vision and the necessary extension of public services and infrastructure is
provided." (3.03.03). The proposed development and use adhere to the vision established by the
underlying future land use designation in that it should offer an additional housing option for the
immediate area.Attached single-family and townhomes are permitted uses in the R-1 S zoning
district. In addition, all infrastructure extensions will be paid for by the Applicant and not the
taxpayers.
"Encourage compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land."
(3.07.00). The proposed development is not like any of the detached single-family homes adjacent
Page 6
Item 4. ■
to the subject site and this distinction is encouraged in the comprehensive plan in order to offer
different housing options at different price points and to different types of home buyers. The open
space within the development may leave something to be desired but the development has buffers
on all three sides of the development to minimize any conflict that may arise from having an
attached product in an area dominated by detached single-family homes. In addition, the
Applicant is proposing only one access to the development which should help minimize traffic
impact on adjacent streets, especially once the arterial network surrounding this development is
widened and improved in the coming years.
Staff finds this development to be generally consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies and
objectives.
VI. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE REVIEW
A. Planned Unit Development:
The Applicant is requesting to construct this subdivision as a Planned Unit Development(PUD)
in line with UDC standards and findings (UDC 11-7). PUD's have specific purpose statements,
standards, and findings that the Applicant should meet in order to garner an approval. The
proposed project meets the applicability requirements and the following purpose statements
should also be complied with; Staff analysis is in italics:
A. The purpose of the planned unit development(PUD)requirements is to provide an
opportunity for exemplary site development that meets the following objectives:
1. Preserves natural, scenic and historic features of major importance; The entire western
property boundary of the subject site is made up of the Tenmile Creek and its easement.
The Applicant is choosing to leave this waterway in its natural state to preserve its
natural beauty and meet city code requirements to protect the creek.
2. Allows for innovative design that creates visually pleasing and cohesive patterns of
development(including,but not limited to,residential development at densities greater than
8 units per acre where design guidelines are in place for development and where garage
doors are generally not fronting the street); The proposed development will have a net
density greater than 8 units per acre(approximately 13 du/ac) after area is removed from
the calculation due to the constraints surrounding this site(i.e. the creek easement,
arterial street buffers, and additional right-of-way dedication).Minimally,Staff finds the
creek easement to be non-buildable and should be removed from the density calculation
in general. Once this area is removed, the density is 8.6 units per acre, helping to meet
this design requirement. The net density is higher than that of the immediately
surrounding neighborhoods because of this but the site will be buffered on all three sides
from adjacent subdivisions precisely because of the site constraints which should help
mitigate any nuisances presented by the higher density.
As presented, the overall site design is lacking in innovation, in Staffs opinion.All of the
units are garage dominate which does not meet the PUD standards.However,Staff has
recommendations to assist the Applicant in meeting these requirements. First, thru the
PUD process, the Applicant should amend the application and include a request to
eliminate the parking pad requirement for the 12 internal units(Lots 1-14,Block 2) that
are part of the Applicant's existing request for a setback relief. This would make the
setback request only applicable to five(5) units instead of 17 and allow these units to be
pushed back towards the street with a rear setback of no less than 5 feet, as allowed in
the R-15 zoning district for alley-loaded units. Secondly, once these units become alley-
loaded, they should front on the internal micro path that is already proposed between
Page 7
Item 4. 53
these lots—this area should then be platted in its own common lot and function as a mew
following these changes.If the Applicant adheres to these recommendations, the mew
could be 30 feet wide and be a great vista and pathway connection through the center of
the development offering more than adequate pedestrian access to the arterial sidewalk
network that will be in place following the construction of the roundabout. With an
additional housing type in the development, the Applicant meets this objective by being
innovative in the PUD request and overall design. In essence, the proposed development
would be its own style of development showcasing that attached and townhome products
can look and feel modern while maintaining a small community feel and offer adequate
open space.
Note:Staff has other specific recommendations related to these changes in other sections
of the report below regarding open space,fencing, and sidewalks.
3. Creates functionally integrated development that allows for a more efficient and cost
effective provision of public services. The Applicant is required to construct all public
infrastructure required for this project and tie into the existing network. This includes
the requirement to offer adequate vehicular access to the site.As noted, the site
constraints severely limit the point of access for this development to the one location
proposed by the Applicant.Locust Grove is a very busy corridor due to the minimal
improvements currently existing at the intersection of Locust Grove and Victory abutting
the site.However, this intersection should be constructed and improved with a multi-lane
roundabout in 2021-23, likely prior to and during construction of this development. Once
these improvements are complete, this development should be functionally integrated into
the road and pedestrian network with a more efficient traffic pattern and adequate road
capacity on both abutting arterial streets.
B. It is not the intent that the PUD process be used solely for the purposes of deviation from
the dimensional standards in the district.Prior to incorporating the recommended
additional changes as discussed above, the one specific request made by the Applicant
through the PUD process is to reduce the rear setback of the centermost lots of the R-15
zoning district(Lots 2-14 Block 2 and Lots 2-6,Block 3).However, it is not the
Applicant's intent or function to do this only to have a larger home on the proposed lots.
Because the site is constrained and private streets are recommended by ACHD, the
Applicant states that this setback relief is needed to provide the innovative product type,
pedestrian circulation, and street layout while maintaining compliance with the R-15
dimensional standards along the perimeter of the site. With the changes recommended by
Staff above, this request is further diminished because it would only apply to Lots 2-6,
Block 3.
The standards prescribed within the PUD code are as follows; Staff analysis is in italics:
A. General Use Standards:
1. Deviations From Underlying District Requirements: Deviations from the development
standards and/or area requirements of the district in accord with chapter 2, "District
Regulations", of this title may be approved. The exception is that along the periphery of
the planned development,the applicable setbacks as established by the district shall not be
reduced.Depending on the frame reference, a majority of the site can be considered to
contain periphery lots due to the odd triangle shape of the subject site. The Applicant is
currently requesting to deviate from the rear setback standard of the R-15 zoning
district for 17 of the 48 proposed units that Staff considers to be the centermost lots in
the subdivision (Lots 2-14 Block 2 and Lots 2-6,Block 3).Again, once Staffs
Page 8
Item 4. ■
recommended changes are included, this request will be reduced to 5 lots that are
central to the development.
2. Allowed Uses: Applicant may request that specific conditional or accessory use(s)
allowed in the district be allowed as principal permitted use(s). The Applicant is not
making a request in line with this standard so Staff finds it not applicable in this case.
3. Interconnected Uses: The uses within the planned unit development are interconnected
through a system of roadways and/or pathways as appropriate. Private streets and service
drives may be permitted, if designed and constructed to the transportation authority
standards and in accord with chapter 3, article F, 'Private Street Requirements", of this
title. The subject site is proposed to be constructed with private streets that appear to
meet UDC standards.In addition, the Applicant is proposing good interconnectivity of
open spaces to all residential units in the subdivision through sidewalks and micro-
paths.However, the amount of usable open space and housing types within the
subdivision can be increased if the central units front on the micro path as
recommended by Staff above. This micro path would then be part of a mew and offer
more usable open space, an additional housing type in the form of alley-loaded homes,
and more clear pedestrian connection to Locust Grove. Staff finds this project to be
compliant with this standard if Staffs recommendations are adhered to.
4. Building Clusters: Buildings shall be clustered to preserve scenic or environmentally
sensitive areas in the natural state,or to consolidate small open spaces into larger,more
usable areas for common use and enjoyment.Buildings within the development are
proposed as attached single-family and townhomes. These structures are therefore
inherently clustered in small blocks. In addition, the Applicant is preserving the Tenmile
Creek as a scenic area and is remaining out of its easement completely by clustering the
entire development more to the east and north.If the central units (Lots 2-14,Block 2)
become alley-loaded and front on a mew as recommended by Staff, usable open space
within the development can be consolidated without sacrificing the density of the
project.
B. Private Open Space: In addition to the common open space and site amenity requirements
as set forth in chapter 3, "Regulations Applying To All Districts", of this title, a minimum
of eighty(80) square feet of private,usable open space shall be provided for each
residential unit. This requirement can be satisfied through porches,patios,decks, and
enclosed yards. Landscaping, entryway and other accessways do not count toward this
requirement.Per the submitted,PUD Map(Section VIII.E) and conceptual elevations
(Section VIII.F),private open space is shown for each unit in the form of first and
second story porches. The specific sizes of the proposed porches is unclear but they
appear to be greater than the required minimum 80 square feet. The Applicant should
show compliance with this standard by graphically depicting the dimensions of the
proposed porches with the required Design Review submittal for attached units.
C. Residential Use Standards:
1. Multi-Family:Notwithstanding the provisions of chapter 2, "District Regulations", of this
title,multi-family dwellings may be an allowed use when approved through a planned unit
development.Not applicable for this development.
2. Housing Types: A variety of housing types shall be included within a single planned
development,including attached units(townhouses,duplexes),detached units(patio
homes), single-family and multi-family units,regardless of the district classification of
the site,provided that the overall density limit of the district is maintained.As noted
Page 9
Item 4. F5_51
above, 45 of the 48 units are proposed as townhomes. The remaining three units are
made up of one single-family attached and one detached single-family home. Staff finds
the Applicant needs to include an additional housing type that is more dominant than
the few remnant unit types noted.As discussed above,Staff recommends the central
units be designed to front on the internal mew and become alley-loaded. This would add
12 units of different type than the garage dominated townhomes currently proposed.
However, if Commission andlor Council determine otherwise,Staff recommends
additional conditions be included that increase or decrease one or more other housing
types in this development.
3. Density Formula: Residential density in a planned development shall be calculated by
multiplying the net residential area(gross acreage less the area of nonresidential uses)by
the maximum number of dwelling units per acre allowed for the district in which the site is
located. There are no non-residential uses proposed with this development but Staff
believes the creek easement should be removed from the density calculation as this area
will be non-buildable in perpetuity. Once this area is removed, the density of the project
becomes 8.6 dulac. This is above the allowed gross density of the underlying future land
use designation but Staff is only using this calculation to show compliance with the
PUD standards where the overall gross density calculation is still accurate by definition.
4. Density Bonus: A residential density bonus may be given for dedications of land for
public use such as school,park, fire station or recreational facility provided to the public
entity by donation or at a cost less than, or equal to,the applicant's predevelopment cost
for that land. The bonus shall be proportional to the amount of land being dedicated. For
example, if ten percent(10%)of the total property is being dedicated,the density bonus
shall be ten percent(10%). However,in no case shall the bonus exceed twenty five percent
(25%) of the units permitted by the district. The Applicant is not requesting a density
bonus;Staff finds this standard not applicable in this case.
Staff finds the proposed development to be generally consistent with the PUD purpose
statements and standards applicable for this project if the Applicant makes the revisions
recommended by Staff.
B. Private Streets/Access:
Access for this development is proposed via a private street connection to S. Locust Grove in the
southeast corner of the site aligning with E. Coastline St. on the east side of Locust Grove(the
access into Tradewinds Subdivision). All private streets appear to meet UDC dimensional
standards for width,number of units,and turnarounds.
Because the site is a triangle shape, bordered on two sides by arterial streets and on one side by
the Ten Mile Creek, there is no opportunity for connectivity to any adjacent site and so ACHD
prefers private streets within the development. Consequently, because private streets take less
right-of-way than public streets and because of the constraints just noted, the Applicant agrees
with this assessment and has proposed private streets throughout the development.
City code requires that private streets are to be used in either a mew or gated development and
this Applicant has proposed neither. Within the PUD analysis above, Staff has recommended
that Lots 2-14, Block 2 become alley-loaded garages off of the private street by requesting to
eliminate the required parking pad through the PUD request. Once the Applicant does this, the
units can be pushed towards the streets and the micro path already proposed between these units
can be placed in a common lot and become a mew. Thus, the development would include a mew
and meet the Private Street standards.
Page 10
Item 4. ■
The access point into the development does not meet ACHD district policy but they are modifying
their policy to accommodate access into the development because this is the best place for an
access to a residential development. This is largely because of the site constraints already
outlined above. The Applicant is proposing to construct private streets that are 24'wide with 5'
attached sidewalk on one side of the streets throughout the project. Staff supports the inclusion of
the sidewalk on one side to ensure adequate pedestrian access in the development.At the north
end of the main street within the development(labeled as Compass Lane on the landscape plans)
the Applicant is proposing an emergency only access to Victory Road. This access is required if
more than 30 homes are to be constructed. Staff is not aware of the kind of emergency access
proposed but Meridian Fire prefers bollard type accesses for added efficiency in emergency
situations;Meridian Fire has approved the requested preliminary plat for fire access,
turnarounds, and road widths.
Near the center of the development the Applicant is showing a hammerhead type turnaround
because that dead-end street is longer than 150'and therefore is required to have a turnaround
for emergency vehicles. Since the hammerhead does not take up the full length of a buildable lot,
the Applicant is proposing the rest of that lot to be a small area of open space. With Staffs
recommendations discussed in the PUD analysis, this currently small open space area would
become part of the larger common open space mew lot. Further analysis is below in the open
space section.
C. Existing Structures/Site Improvements:
There appears to be an existing home on the property and this building will be demolished at the
time of development. There are no other site improvements known at this time.
D. Proposed Use Analysis:
The proposed use is attached single-family and townhomes whichare listed as principally
permitted uses in the R-15 zoning district per UDC Table 11-2A-2. There is one detached unit
proposed closest to the entrance of the development.
As discussed in the comprehensive plan section above, the proposed use of attached single-family
homes would be a new type of residential use within almost a square mile in every direction of
this development. So long as the Applicant complies with the recommended conditions of
approval, including those regarding adding an alley-loaded product type, Staff finds that the
proposed use will be a welcomed addition to the City of Meridian and add more housing options
in this area of the City.
E. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2):
The proposed lots and the private streets appear to meet all UDC dimensional standards per the
submitted preliminary plat. This includes property sizes,required street frontages,and road
widths for the requested R-15 zoning district.
As noted above, the Applicant is requesting to reduce the rear setback on a section of the
proposed lots within the subdivision. This is the only request the Applicant is making that would
adjust the required dimensional standards. If the PUD request is approved, then all lots will be in
compliance with the dimensional standards of the R-15 zoning district and the PUD request.
hi addition, all subdivision developments are also required to comply with Subdivision Design
and Improvement Standards (UDC 11-6C-3). Staff finds the proposed project meets these
standards.
Page 11
Item 4. 57
F. Parking(UDC 11-3C):
Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-
3C-6 for single-family detached and attached dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per
unit. Future development should comply with these standards.No parking plan was submitted
with the application.
The proposed street sections(29 feet wide) of the private streets within the development,shown
on the submitted preliminary plat, CANNOT accommodate parking on either side of the street.
The entirety of the private streets will be required to be labeled as "No Parking,"per the
Meridian Fire recommendations. Each unit will be required to meet the off-street parking
standards and Staff encourages the developer of this site to include provisions within their HOA
bylaws that prohibit garages being used as storage. This would help alleviate some of the parking
issues seen throughout the City and especially in areas where no on-street parking is allowed.
The PUD Site Map submitted by the applicant appears to show compliance with the parking
standards with a two-car garage for each unit and a parking pad. However, if Council and the
Applicant agree with Staffs recommendations, the 12 internal units would lose their parking pad
through a PUD request to eliminate that requirement as allowed through the PUD process.
This would eliminate some parking in the subdivision but the Applicant is also proposing to
construct guest parking off the main private street in three areas of the development to total 12
additional spaces. Staff is amenable to using some of the other small open space pockets for
additional guest parking or losing a lot to accommodate additional guest parking. For example,
Lot 1, Block 2 and losing the unit on Lot 14, Block 2. Staff is only making a specific
recommendation to add off-street parking on Lot 1, Block 2.
G. Pathways (UDC 11-3A-8):
No multi-use pathways are proposed or required with this development because the required
multi-use pathway is already constructed on the west side of the Tenmile Creek on an adjacent
parcel.
This Applicant is proposing a 5-foot wide pathway on this side of the creek and behind the
proposed homes. This pathway connects to the private streets at the southern end of the project
and thru the common open space lot located midblock on the west side of the site. This pathway
also continues north and connects to the required sidewalk along Victory Road. In addition, the
Applicant is proposing a micro path between the center-most lots that connects to the required
sidewalk along Locust Grove. This path should be kept and included within the recommended
mew to serve as the sole pedestrian connection to Locust Grove. Therefore, the additional
pathway connections shown to Locust grove are not needed and should be removed.
H. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17):
Five-foot attached sidewalks are proposed along one side of all internal local streets. Sidewalks
are not required when constructing Private Streets. There is no existing sidewalk along Victory
Road or Locust Grove;both arterial streets are scheduled to be widened as part of the roundabout
project at this intersection in 2021-22, according to ACHD, as stated above.
Detached sidewalks are required along arterial roadways per UDC 11-3A-17. The Applicant has
already agreed to dedicate additional right of way to ACHD for the roundabout and future
widening of Victory and Locust Grove.ACHD is requiring the Applicant to road trust for the
sidewalk improvements as the roundabout and associated improvements will likely be constructed
prior to construction of this site. In addition, this will ensure any improvements made by the
Applicant will not have to be removed to make the planned roundabout improvements. Therefore,
Page 12
Item 4. ■
Staff is recommending that the Applicant comply with the ACHD conditions of approval for the
arterial sidewalks.
As discussed, the Applicant is proposing 5-foot attached sidewalks on one side of the internal
private streets to accommodate better pedestrian access through the development. Staff
recommends that these sidewalks and every expected pedestrian crossing be constructed with
pavers, stamped concrete, or similar to clearly delineate the sidewalks from the driving surface
and to subsequently help with pedestrian safety.
I. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B):
A 25-foot wide street buffer is required adjacent to E.Victory and S. Locust Grove because they
are arterial streets. This buffer should be landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C
and placed into a common lot that is at least 25-feet wide. In most cases this common lot should
also contain the detached sidewalk required along all arterial roadways but in this case the
sidewalk abutting this site will be built with the ACHD roundabout project.
The submitted landscape plan and preliminary plat depict a 25 foot wide landscape buffer; the
correct number of trees appear to be shown on the submitted landscape plans (see Section
VIII.C). However, there is no landscape calculations table as required by code. The Applicant
shall be required to submit revised plans that include a calculation table depicting the linear
footage of the landscape buffers, the required number of trees, their common name and their
scientific name, the class of tree, and the dimensions of the tree canopy at maturity; each type of
shrub proposed to be used should also be included in the calculations table.
The Applicant shows beautiful landscaping throughout the site but Staff has concerns on whether
the trees shown abutting the internal private streets will be able to be placed there. This concern
stems from the Applicant proposing the water and sewer mains nearly 20 feet apart within the
right-of-way dictating that the overall easement width will encroach into the front yards of the
homes. These utility easements cannot contain any vegetation more than grass per Public Works
standards. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Applicant graphically depict the vegetation on
the submitted landscape plans can be constructed in the locations shown OR revise the proposed
water and sewer main locations to alleviate this issue by reducing the overall width of the
easement.
Common open space is required to be landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-
3G-3E. The total square footage of common open space is not included because there is no
Landscape Calculations table on the submitted landscape plans demonstrating compliance with
UDC standards. However, Staff can graphically see that the open space lots are vegetated
according to UDC standards. Still, the Applicant will be required to add a calculations table with
the recommendation noted above and revise the landscape plan to show the addition of the mew
between Lots 2-14, Block 2 as recommended by Staff.
The proposed pathway located behind the homes and adjacent to the Tenmile Creek is also
required to be landscaped with a tree every 100 feet per UDC 11-3B-12. However, the Applicant
did not include a 5-foot wide landscape bed on either side meant for the required trees. The
Applicant will need work with the irrigation district to obtain a license agreement to include at
least 5 feet of landscaping on one side of this pathway. Otherwise, the Applicant will need to
apply for Alternative Compliance with the Final Plat submittal so show an equal or better means
of compliance with this requirement.
J. Qualified Open Space (UDC 11-3G):
A minimum of 10%qualified open space meeting the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3B is
required. According to the property size of 7.69 acres,the Applicant should supply at least 0.77
Page 13
Item 4. 59
acres of qualified open space, or approximately 33,500 square feet. The applicant is proposing
3.28 acres of open space,of which 2.84 acres is shown as qualifying open space on the submitted
open space exhibit(see Section VIII.D).
Some of the area listed as qualifying open space by the Applicant does not meet UDC standards
due to their size not being at least 5,000 square feet. Once this area is removed, the qualified
open space proposed is 2.68 acres, down from 2.84; the Applicant should revise the open space
exhibit to correctly label the qualified open space. More importantly, the open space for this
development is vastly made up of the Tenmile Creek easement(2.12 acres) and the arterial street
buffers (19,281 square feet of qual�ing area). All of this area is qualifying but the Tenmile
Creek will be left natural(no improvements)and will be a buffer and more of a visual amenity
than usable open space for the development.
Abutting the creek and generally mid-block, the Applicant is proposing an open space lot that is
approximately 5,150 square feet. This open space lot contains one set of the amenities and a
micro path that connects the private street to the pathway along the creek. This open space lot
and micro path offers a clear connection to one of the other micro paths in the development that
runs between the homes in the center of the development and the attached sidewalks throughout
the development. This micro path should become part of the mew recommended by Staff and
increase the usable open space provided by this development. Prior to the City Council hearing,
the Applicant should revise the open space calculations to show this additional common open
space lot containing the mew between Lots 2-14, Block 2.
K. Qualified Site Amenities (UDC 11-3G):
Based on the area of the proposed plat, 7.69 acres,a minimum of one(1)qualified site amenity is
required to be provided per the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3C. The applicant has proposed
four(4)qualifying amenities in multiple locations: gazebos, seating around small plazas,
climbing rocks, and walking paths.
The proposed amenities exceed the minimum UDC requirements and Staff finds them to be
applicable for a community of this kind due to the variety of activity levels they can
accommodate.
L. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7):
All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. Fencing is shown on
the landscape plan along the subdivision boundary and around the central open space lot but no
other fencing is shown. Fencing shown next to any open space shall be open-vision or semi-
private fencing per UDC requirements.
According to the Applicant, the exclusion of fencing between homes is purposeful despite the
homes being a for sale product. The Applicant intends for the open areas between homes to be a
more shared space than what is normal in a subdivision. Staffs recommendations to include a
mew for some of the units lends itself to this design as the units would front on the mew and
fencing is not always included in these instances. Fencing is not required in these areas so Staff
has no conditions regarding this. However, there should be open-vision fencing along the western
edge of the pathway adjacent to the Tenmile Creek to ensure the safety of pedestrians, especially
children. Staff is recommending a condition of approval to show this additional fencing.
M. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual):
The Applicant has submitted sample elevations of the attached,triplex, single-family homes for
this project(see Section VIII.F).
Page 14
Item 4. 60
The submitted elevations show all two-story attached structures with two-car garages and
identical finishing materials of wood and stone. In addition, the elevations show modern
architecture designs with shed roofs, second story patios with glass railings, and stone accents
that go the full height of the proposed homes. Staff has also not received elevations for the one
detached home nor the one duplex unit. However, attached single-family homes require design
review approval prior to building permit submittal and at that point, Staff will ensure compliance
with the Architectural Standards Manual. The submitted elevations for the townhomes units
appear to meet the architectural standards but with the design review application for the site, the
Applicant will be required show additional styles and colors for these units. In addition, Staff
recommends the Applicant provide a different design for the units fronting on the recommended
mew.
VII. DECISION
A. Staff:
Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation and zoning with the requirement
of a Development Agreement, the preliminary plat, and planned unit development with
the conditions noted in Section VIILA per the findings in Section IX of this staff report.
The Director has approved the private street and alternative compliance applications.
B. Commission:
Summary following Commission meeting.
C. City Council:
To be heard at future date.
Page 15
Item 4. F61
VIIL EXHIBITS
A. Annexation Legal Description and Exhibit Map
a
DAVID EVANS
AND ASSOC I ATES INC
DESCRIPTION FOR
COMPASS POINTE SUBDIVSION
REZONE&ANNEXATION
The following describes a parcel of real property lying within the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast
Quarter(NE1/4 NE1/4),Section 30,Township 3 North,Range 1 East,Boise Meridian,City of Meridian,
Ada County,Idaho being more particularly described as follows:
BEGINNING at the northeast corner of said NE1/4 NE1/4;Thence,along the east boundary line of said
NE1/4 NE1/4,South 00'14'11"West,1070.48 feet;
Thence,departing said east boundary line,North 30"12'47"West,1235.02 feet to the nortFi boundary
line of said NE1/4 NE1/4;
Thence,along said north boundary line,North 89'42'20"East,625.91 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING,
containing 7.69 acres more or less.
l
�w F
0
13 x
sF r a 1oP e�
P.SULL��P
Page 16
Item 4. F
2
625.91
n89°4220"e
Title: Date:05-19-2020
Scale: 1 inch=200 feet File:COMPASS POINTE SUB REZONE ANNEXATION.des
'tract 1: 7.690 Acres: 334998 Sq Feet:Closure—s72,0359w 0.00 Feet Precision>1/999999: Perimeter—2931 Feet
001=00.141 lw 1070.48 003=n89.4220e 625.91
002=00.1247w 1235.02
Page 17
Item 4. F
3
EXHIBIT MAP OF
COMPASS POINTE SUBDIVISION
RE—ZONE & ANNEXATION
A PORTION OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 30,
T. 3 N., R 1 E., S.M.,
CITY OF MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO
2020
E VICTORY RD
N $9'42'20" E 625.91'7h
PLS 8444 NE COR, SEC. 30
FOUND 1/2 REBAR FOUND BRASS CAP
28.95' WC
I
\ I
00
p
O w�
2 � 7
O
�p 7.69 ACRES± I O
N.
I
FOUND 5/8 REBAR
ILLEGIBLE 1"=200'
DAVID EVANS o _
Q ANoASSOCIATES INC. a 1 4 6
,u O 9179 W Black Eagle Dr 4p D
Boise Idaho 7 °
Phone: 208-585-5858 s'tc9 F F►oP�e�
qNP SU1L�`1P
Page 18
Item 4. F64
B. Preliminary Plat(dated: 11/2/2020)
"All R [1 . 1
1 Ila
A
sic
,To'
15- L
,%
Ph
R
A! I M 01
M�
w LIMON
limp III iglioldilli..
HL
I+
Page 19
Item 4. ■
C. Landscape Plan(dated: 11/2/2020)
- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
a-�r rf`- y► u
v
s
4
= g
V
Page 20
Item 4. F66
D. Open Space Exhibit(dated: 11/02/2020)
:F
4kr.
--N
4 � n
A 7
A
4 kRi�•
� L I
\ „5
a
Al
i
a� Asa
Z w
a z v
\ \
❑ w v
D OIL ✓ �,
w
w
T�y
O w K �Z w - -
- -
U g^ � aaa I ----
a O `a® sw8
o z 's
Page 21
Item 4. F67
E. Site Plan—"PUD Map"(dated: 11/02/2020)
oil
5,
6 6 6 6 A 6 8 B
Is
RINI Hqui
'17
-------
F --------
-1 F-----7
T I
X
t
A
N
No oil IN H
of H1 W
�Hj
2 021 12"
MY
Page 22
Item 4. F68
F. Conceptual Building Elevations
WHITE CLOUD
COMPASS POINTE CONTEMPOR`i' MODERN TH°p
3 BEDROOM 2 112 BATHROOM - 1991 SQ FT a Ns a
2 BEDROOM 2 1/2 BATHROOM TRIPLEX - 1855 SQ FT
o-j ova
� z
o}�
n - o
� w
•TEPM,�
corER 8Hw
Ctrs io _ E
Cs 1®0
-
WHITE OLmp
STdDIDS
W
_ 1
------ -ymFAf-a W w r,
F
Q
u�
U
i
- - - - --ram V-1m�
CLEVAT k"
w A 201
Page 23
Item 4. F
9
WHITE OLOUP
SiUPIOS
W
- - z
_. —-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—
o}�
Teom
u�
U
ELEVATION"
i
IX. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS
A. PLANNING DIVISION
1. A Development Agreement(DA)is required as a provision of annexation of this property.
Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance, a DA shall be entered into between the City of
Meridian,the property owner(s) at the time of annexation ordinance adoption,and the
developer.
Currently, a fee of$303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division
prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner
and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council
granting the annexation. The DA shall, at minimum, incorporate the following
provisions:
a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the approved
Preliminary Plat,PUD Map,Landscape Plan,and conceptual building
elevations for the development, especially the attached single-family dwellings,
included in Section VIII and the provisions contained herein.
b. The Applicant shall comply with the ordinances in effect at the time of
application submittal.
c. Direct lot access to E.Victory Road and S. Locust Grove Road shall be
prohibited.
Page 24
Item 4. 70
d. The entire frontage improvements along E.Victory Road and S. Locust Grove
Road shall be completed with the first phase of development.
e. All sidewalks and pedestrian crossings within the subdivision shall be
constructed with pavers, stamped concrete, or similar to clearly delineate the
pedestrian pathways throughout the development and to add to the character of
the private development.
f. Lots 2-14,Block 2 shall have reduced parking standards to include only the
required two(2) garage spaces per the Planned Unit Development request.
2. The Applicant shall revise their Planned Unit Development request to: 1)reduce the lots
being asked for a rear-yard setback relief,2)request an elimination of the parking pad
requirement of the off-street parking standards(UDC 11-3C-6) for Lots 2-14,Block 2; and 3)
include a mew at least 20-feet wide between these lots to meet the PUD and Private Street
standards.
3. At least ten(10)days prior to the City Council hearing,the preliminary plat included in
Section VIII.B, dated 11/02/2020, shall be revised as follows:
a. Revise note#4 to list the building lots that have a reduced rear-yard setback per the PUD
request(Lots 2-6,Block 3)
b. Revise the plat to show Lot 71,Block 2 as Lot 8,Block 2 to correct a labeling mistake.
c. Revise the plat to show Lots 2-14 as alley-loaded homes that front on the central mew
between them commensurate with the revised PUD request.
d. Revise the plat to show Lot 5, Block 2 as at least a 20-foot wide common lot creating a
mew and containing the proposed micro-path.
e. Revise the plat to show the removal of the two additional pathway connections to Locust
Grove that are north and south of the micro-path located in the mew between Lots 2-14,
Block 2.
f. Revise the plat to show all sidewalks and expected pedestrian crossings to be constructed
with pavers, stamped concrete,or similar to clearly delineate the pedestrian pathways
throughout the development and to add to the character of the private development.
g. Show additional guest parking on Lot 1,Block 2.
4. At least ten(10)days prior to the City Council hearing,the landscape plan included in
Section VIII.C,dated 11/02/2020 shall be revised as follows:
a. Include a landscape calculations table that includes the following information at a
minimum: the linear footage of the landscape buffers,the required number of trees,their
common name and their scientific name,the class of tree, and the dimensions of the tree
canopy at maturity; each type of shrub proposed to be used should also be included in the
calculations table with the same accessory information as is required for the proposed
trees.
b. Show open vision fencing on the west side of the pathway abutting the Tenmile Creek;
all fencing shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7.
c. Revise the landscape plan to show the recommended layout changes; any changes in
landscape calculations shall also be reflected in the calculations table.
Page 25
Item 4. 71
d. The Applicant shall graphically depict the vegetation on the submitted landscape plans
can be constructed in the locations shown OR revise the proposed water and sewer main
locations to alleviate this issue by reducing the overall width of the utility easement.
e. Show the required landscaping on the western side of the pathway abutting the Tenmile
Creek per UDC 11-3B-12.
5. At least ten(10)days prior to the City Council hearing,the open space exhibit included in
Section VIII.D shall be revised to accurately depict and label the qualified and non-qualified
open space per the standards in UDC 11-3G-3 and per the revisions recommended by Staff.
6. Future development shall be consistent with the R-15 dimensional standards listed in UDC
Table 11-2A-7 for all buildable lots except for those lots given a reduced rear setback with
the PUD request.
7. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table
11-3C-6 for single-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit except for
Lots 2-14,Block 2,per the PUD request.
8. The Applicant shall comply with all ACHD conditions of approval as noted in Section IX.H.
9. The Applicant shall work with the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District to obtain a license
agreement to include a 5-foot wide landscape strip and the required landscaping(including
trees)per UDC 11-3B-12 prior to applying for the Final Plat application; IF the Applicant can
prove this agreement could not be reached,the Applicant shall apply for Alternative
Compliance at the time of Final Plat application submittal for the required landscaping.
10. Administrative Design Review application is required to be submitted and approved prior to
submittal of any building permit applications for single-family attached dwellings as
applicable.
11. A minimum of 80 square feet of private,usable open space shall be provided for each dwelling
unit;this requirement can be satisfied through porches,patios, decks and enclosed yards as set
forth in UDC 11-7-413.
12. The Ten Mile Creek that resides along the western boundary of the subject site shall be
protected during construction.
13. The Applicant shall comply with and maintain all applicable standards for the proposed
Private Streets as outlined in UDC 11-3F.
14. "No Parking"signs shall be erected on both sides of the private streets throughout the
development; coordinate with Joe Bongiorno of the Fire Department if you have any questions
regarding this condition.
15. The proposed development shall have a reduced rear-yard setback of no less than ten(10)feet
for Lots 1-6,Block 3 per the Planned Unit Development request.
B. PUBLIC WORKS
1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval
1.1 Connect the Compass Lane water main north to the water main in Victory Road.
1.2 At the end of Navigation Road,provide a meter pit for a 1"service and a 4"sleeve to the
northeast at the proposed edge of the future roundabout. This will be used for a future water
service to the roundabout for landscaping.
Page 26
Item 4. 72
1.3 A street light plan will need to be included in the final plat application. Street light plan
requirements are listed in section 6-7 of the City's Design Standards. A streetlight future
installation agreement will be required for the streetlights on Locust Grove and Victory.
Locust Grove and Victory are scheduled to be improved by ACHD and streetlights will be
installed during the improvements. Contact the Transportation and Utility Coordinator for
additional information.
1.4 The geotechnical investigative report prepared by SITE Consulting,LLC dated April 6,2020,
indicates some specific construction considerations and recommendations. The applicant
shall be responsible for the strict adherence of these considerations and recommendations
to help ensure that homes are constructed upon suitable bearing soils, and that groundwater
does not become a problem with home construction.
2. General Conditions of Approval
2.1 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works
Department,and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to
provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three
feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials
shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard
Specifications.
2.2 Per Meridian City Code(MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water
mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement
agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5.
2.3 The applicant shall provide easement(s)for all public water/sewer mains outside of public
right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet
wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via
the plat,but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard
forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit
an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works), a legal description
prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,which must include the area of
the easement(marked EXHIBIT A)and an 81/2"x 11"map with bearings and distances
(marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a
Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this
document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to development
plan approval.
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.
Page 27
Item 4. 73
2.7 Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic
service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8 contact the City of Meridian Engineering
Department at(208)898-5500 for inspections of disconnection of services.Wells may be
used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho
Department of Water Resources Contact Robert B. Whitney at(208)334-2190.
2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City
Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment
procedures and inspections(208)375-5211.
2.9 Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and
activated,road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for
this subdivision shall be recorded,prior to applying for building permits.
2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all uncompleted
fencing, landscaping, amenities, etc.,prior to signature on the final plat.
2.11 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to
occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a
performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the
final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B.
2.12 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction
inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process,prior to the issuance of a plan
approval letter.
2.13 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply
with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act.
2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404
Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers.
2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office.
2.16 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H.
2.17 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all
building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material.
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.
Page 28
Item 4. ■
2.22 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the
amount of 125%of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer,water and reuse
infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost
estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an
irrevocable letter of credit,cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for
surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please
contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211.
2.23 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the
amount of 20%of the total construction cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse
infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost
estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an
irrevocable letter of credit,cash deposit or bond.Applicant must file an application for
surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please
contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211.
C. FIRE DEPARTMENT(MFD)
hyps://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=216616&dbid=0&repo=Meridian C
ky
D. POLICE DEPARTMENT(MPD)
https://weblink.meridianciU.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=216663&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
hty
E. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL IMPACT TABLE
https://weblink.meridianciU.orglWebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=216459&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
ky
F. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ)
https://weblink.meridiancily.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=216673&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
iv
G. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT(CDH)
https://weblink.meridiancily.org/WebLinkIDoeView.g§px?id=216532&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC
hty
H. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD)
https://weblink.meridiancily.or lWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=217090&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
Ry
X. FINDINGS
A. Annexation and/or 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;
Page 29
Item 4. 75
Staff finds the proposed zoning map amendment to R-15 and proposed residential uses are
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, if all provisions of the Development Agreement and
conditions of approval are complied with.
2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed districts,
specifically the purpose statement;
Staff finds the proposed zoning map amendment will allow for the development of single-
family attached homes which will contribute to the range of housing opportunities available
within the City and especially in the area immediate to this site, consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, and the purpose statement of the residential districts.
3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health,safety,
and welfare;
Staff finds the proposed zoning map amendment should not be detrimental to the public
health, safety and 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 the proposed zoning map amendment will not result in an adverse impact on the
delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City.
5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city.
Staff finds the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the City per the Analysis in
Section VI.
B. Preliminary Plat Findings:
In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat,
the decision-making body shall make the following findings:
1. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan;
Staff finds that the proposed plat, with Staff's recommendations, is in substantial compliance
with the adopted Comprehensive Plan in regard to land use, density, transportation, and
pedestrian connectivity. (Please see Comprehensive Plan analysis and other analysis in
Section V and Section VI of this report for more information)
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 with development. (See
Section IX 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 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;
Page 30
Item 4. 76
Staff finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed
development based upon comments from the public service providers(i.e.,Police,Fire,ACHD,
etc). (See Section VII for more information.)
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. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis and approves of the
project with specific conditions of approval relating to the scheduled road improvements
adjacent to the subject site.
6. The development preserves significant natural,scenic or historic features.
The Applicant is preserving the Tenmile Creek that resides on the subject property; therefore,
Staff finds the Applicant meets this finding.
C. Private Street Findings:
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 VI for 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.
3. 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 despite needing Alternative Compliance for its connection
directly to an arterial street. With the constraints detailed and analyzed for this development,
Staff finds 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 a mew or gates. The Applicant shall
be required to include a mew between the central lots of the development to meet this finding.
If the conditions of approval are adhered to, Staff finds this development in compliance with
this finding.
D. Alternative Compliance:
In order to grant approval for alternative compliance to allow Private Streets directly off an
arterial,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
both Victory Road and Locust Grove Road, arterial streets. There are no available local
street connections to the subject property due to it being a triangle shape bordered on two
sides by arterial streets and the other by the Tenmile Creek. Because the property is not
Page 31
Item 4. ■
served by public local street streets and any public street would not be able to be extended to
any adjacent property, the Director finds strict adherence to the UDC is not feasible and
approves the request for the private streets to directly connect to S. Locust Grove Road, an
arterial street.
2. The alternative compliance provides an equal or superior means for meeting the
requirements; and
The Director finds the 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.
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
contribute to the character and variety of housing types in this area of the City.
E. Planned Unit Development:
Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and
shall,at the public hearing,review the application.In order to grant a planned development
request,the council shall make the following findings:
1. The planned unit development demonstrates exceptional high quality in site design
through the provision of cohesive,continuous,visually related and functionally linked
patterns of development,street and pathway layout, and building design;
Staff finds the planned unit development demonstrates high quality design in the ways listed
above and analyzed in Section VI of the staff report with Staff's recommendations.
2. The planned unit development preserves the significant natural, scenic and/or historic
features;
Because the Applicant is proposing to preserve the Tenmile Creek, Staff finds the significant
natural features of the site are being preserved.
3. The arrangement of uses and/or structures in the development does not cause damage,
hazard, or nuisance to persons or property in the vicinity;
Staff finds no proof that the proposed uses or structures will cause damage, hazard, or
nuisance to persons or property in the vicinity, especially after the adjacent road
improvements are complete.
4. The internal street,bike and pedestrian circulation system is designed for the efficient
and safe flow of vehicles,bicyclists and pedestrians without having a disruptive
influence upon the activities and functions contained within the development,nor place
an undue burden upon existing transportation and other public services in the
surrounding area;
If all conditions of approval and recommended revisions are approved and adhered to, Staff
finds the internal street, bike, and pedestrian circulation system is designed for the efficient
and safe flow of vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians without disrupting the activities and
functions within the development or surround area.
Page 32
Item 4. 78
5. Community facilities,such as a park,recreational, and dedicated open space areas are
functionally related and accessible to all dwelling units via pedestrian and/or bicycle
pathways;
Staff finds the proposed sidewalk and pathway connections within the development provide
adequate and efficient access to any nearby parks and dedicated open space for all dwelling
units within the subdivision.
6. The proposal complies with the density and use standards requirements in accord with
chapter 2, "District Regulations", of this title;
Staff finds the proposed development complies with the density and use standards of the
requested R-15 zoning district and the future land use designation of Medium Density
Residential.
7. The amenities provided are appropriate in number and scale to the proposed
development; and
Staff finds the proposed amenities are appropriate in number and scale for the proposed
development because the proposed amenities are less common within the city and the overall
area of development(approximately 3 acres) is relatively small in size.
8. The planned unit development is in conformance with the comprehensive plan.
As noted in Section V of this staff report, Staff finds the development to be in conformance
with the comprehensive plan.
Page 33