2021-01-19 Regular
City Council Regular Meeting
City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho
Tuesday, January 19, 2021 at 6:00 PM
Minutes
VIRTUAL MEETING INSTRUCTIONS
Limited seating is available at City Hall. Consider joining the meeting virtually:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88094660003
Or join by phone: 1-669-900-6833
Webinar ID: 880 9466 0003
ROLL CALL ATTENDANCE
Councilwoman Liz Strader
Councilman Joe Borton
Councilman Brad Hoaglun
Councilman Treg Bernt
Councilwoman Jessica Perreault
Councilman Luke Cavener
Mayor Robert E. Simison
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
COMMUNITY INVOCATION
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Adopted as Amended (Item 4 vacated)
PUBLIC FORUM – Future Meeting Topics
The public are invited to sign up in advance of the meeting at www.meridiancity.org/forum to
address elected officials regarding topics of general interest or concern of public matters.
Comments specific to active land use/development applications are not permitted during this
time. By law, no decisions can be made on topics presented at Public Forum. However, City
Council may request the topic be added to a future meeting agenda for further discussion or
action. The Mayor may also direct staff to provide followup assistance regarding the matter.
ACTION ITEMS
Public Hearing process: Land use development applications begin with presentation of the
project and analysis of the application by Planning Staff. The applicant is then allowed up to 15
minutes to present their project. Members of the public are then allowed up to 3 minutes each
to address City Council regarding the application. Citizens acting as a representative of a
Homeowner’s Association may be allowed up to 10 minutes to speak on behalf of represented
homeowners who have consented to yielding their time. After all public testimony, the applicant
is allowed up to 10 minutes to respond to questions and comments. City Council members may
ask questions throughout the public hearing process. The public hearing is then closed, and no
further public comment is heard. City Council may move to continue the application to a future
meeting or approve or deny the application. The Mayor is not a member of the City Council and
pursuant to Idaho Code does not vote on public hearing items unless to break a tie vote.
1. Public Hearing for Earl Glen Subdivision (TECC-2020-0003) by Riley Planning
Services, Located at 1780 E. McMillan Rd. Approved One Year Time Extension
A. Request: A 2-year Time Extension on the preliminary plat in order to obtain
the City Engineer’s signature on a final plat and extend the time to commence
the multi-family use as permitted with the conditional use permit.
Motion to approve a one year time extension made by Councilman Borton,
Seconded by Councilman Bernt.
Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun,
Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener
2. Public Hearing for Cache Creek Subdivision (H-2020-0105) by Matt Schultz of
Schultz Development, Located on the Northwest Corner of E. Victory Rd. and S.
Locust Grove Rd. Approved
A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 15.18 acres of land from RUT in Ada
County to the R-4 zoning district.
B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 41 building lots and 4 common
lots on 13.99 acres of land in the proposed R-4 zoning district.
Motion to approve made by Councilwoman Strader, Seconded by Councilman
Borton.
Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun,
Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener
3. Public Hearing for Daphne Square Subdivision (H-2020-0101) by Matt Schultz of
Schultz Development, Located at 4700 W. McMillan Rd. Approved
A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 4.97 acres of land with an R-15 zoning
district.
B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 30 building lots and 3 common
lots on 4.97 acres of land in the proposed R-15 zoning district.
Motion to approve made by Councilman Cavener, Seconded by Councilwoman
Perreault.
Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun,
Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener
FUTURE MEETING TOPICS
EXECUTIVE SESSION Vacated
4. Per Idaho Code 74-206(1)(a) To consider hiring a public officer, employee, staff
member or individual agent, wherein the respective qualities of individuals are to
be evaluated in order to fill a particular vacancy or need; and 74-206A(1)(a) To
deliberate on a labor contract offer or to formulate a counteroffer.
ADJOURNMENT
8:45 pm
Item#2.
Meridian City Council January 19, 2021.
A Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:00 p.m., Tuesday, January
19, 2021, by Mayor Robert Simison.
Members Present: Robert Simison, Joe Borton, Luke Cavener, Treg Bernt, Jessica
Perreault, Brad Hoaglun and Liz Strader.
Also present: Chris Johnson, Bill Nary, Joe Dodson, Alan Tiefenbach, Jamie Leslie, Joe
Bongiorno and Dean Willis.
ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE
Liz Strader _X_ Joe Borton
_X_ Brad Hoaglun _X_Treg Bernt
X Jessica Perreault _X Luke Cavener
_X_ Mayor Robert E. Simison
Simison: Council, I will call this meeting to order. For the record it is Tuesday, January
19th, 2021, at 6:00 p.m. We will begin tonight's meeting with roll call attendance.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Simison: Next item is the Pledge of Allegiance. If you will all rise and please join us in
the pledge.
(Pledge of Allegiance recited.)
COMMUNITY INVOCATION
Simison: Thank you. Our next item is our community invocation, which will be delivered
by Randy Rodes of reSurge Christian Church this evening. If you would all, please, join
us in the community invocation or take this as is a moment of silence and reflection for
yourself. Pastor Rodes.
Rodes: Mayor Simison, thank you for this opportunity and, Council Members, to come
and pray tonight. Lord, we thank you for this great City of Meridian. We pray your blessing
upon it and upon this meeting tonight and, Lord, you tell us in your Word that if we
acknowledge you in all that we do, that you will direct our paths. So, I pray, God, that you
would be with every one of our Council Members and our Mayor tonight as they would
acknowledge you, God, in these decisions and all that is decided would be done for your
perfect will and this great city. We pray this in Jesus' name, amen.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Page 30
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 19,2021
Page 2- —
Simison: Thank you. Appreciate it. Council, next item is the adoption of the agenda.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: There is a change to the agenda. Item 4, Executive Session, we took everything
-- we took care of everything -- everything previously in our -- after our 4:00 o'clock
workshop, so I move that we approve the agenda, minus Item 4. We will strike that.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, I second the amended agenda -- adopted amended agenda.
Simison: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as amended. Is there any
discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it and
the agenda is agreed to as amended.
MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES.
PUBLIC FORUM — Future Meeting Topics
Simison: Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone signed up under the public forum?
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, there were no signups.
ACTION ITEMS
1. Public Hearing for Earl Glen Subdivision (TECC-2020-0003) by Riley
Planning Services, Located at 1780 E. McMillan Rd.
A. Request: A 2-year Time Extension on the preliminary plat in order to
obtain the City Engineer's signature on a final plat and extend the
time to commence the multi-family use as permitted with the
conditional use permit.
Simison: Okay. Then we will move into Action Items. Our first item is a public hearing
for Earl Glen Subdivision, TECC-2020-0003. I will open this public hearing with staff
comments and turn it over to Joe.
Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. Good evening. As noted, the
first item on tonight's agenda is for Earl Glen time extension. The site consists of 4.65
acres of land currently zoned R-8 and R-15, located at 1780 East McMillan, which is near
the northeast corner of McMillan and Locust Grove, as seen on the maps here. It received
preliminary plat, a rezone, and conditional use permit approval in 2015. The conditional
use permit was for multi-family. The preliminary plat was for -- I believe something like
16 or 17 lots of single family residential. A one year time extension was approved
administratively in 2017. In 2018 a second time extension, which was approved by City
Page 31
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 19,2021
Page 3- —
Council, was approved, which made the new deadline for the applicant to apply for a final
plat and receive signature by the city engineer October of last year. They did not meet
that, so they asked for a -- they are asking for another time extension in order to have
another two years to obtain signature on the final plat. The previous extension that was
approved required some additional conditions. Since then nothing has changed, so I just
recommended to continue those existing recommendations and just note that future multi-
family here will require certificate of zoning compliance and design review. So, any design
comments there we can take care of at that point. And, then, the road infrastructure and
utilities will all get constructed with the plat. So, that's pretty straightforward. This is the
approved plat. Large open space. A bunch to the west, which is a commercial zoned
property and the multi-family abutting McMillan. I need to zoom in on the multi-family.
The road exists already to about approximately here, just for reference. And, then, this is
just our overall map of the area. And after that I will stand for questions.
Simison: Thank you, Joe. Council, any questions?
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: Thanks, Joe. I -- I am just wondering -- it's been so long since this was approved
and a lot of change to the city. We have a new Comprehensive Plan. Do you think in
general that this is the type of project the City Council would approve today? Is it
consistent with our Comprehensive Plan? If it came as a de novo project do you think we
would require other things? How does this sort of compare given the amount of time
that's past.
Dodson: Councilman Strader, great question. I haven't dived too much into the details
of it -- of what was approved or why, but it does meet the comp plan in the sense that it's
a medium density residential and the density proposed meets that, as well as the
proposed uses of single family and multi-family. I think that its inclusion -- and this was
thought out back in 2015 -- of where the open space is located with the street and, then,
the corner property, it's kind of hard to see, but this corner property is zoned commercial,
so that's a good buffer between that and having the multi-family up against the arterial
with a nice landscape buffer is also something that we see typical today. I don't know that
there would be much -- much else to change if this were to come back through. A lot of
the subdivision design guidelines were implemented afterwards, but that is something
that in the previous time extension were added to this as a requirement they need to meet
those, which they appear to do. So, I wouldn't see much difference between what they
would submit now versus what they submitted in 2015, no, ma'am.
Strader: Thank you.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Page 32
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 19,2021
Page 4- —
Perreault: Joe, has any -- two questions. Has any dirt actually been moved on this yet
at all? And, secondly, I apologize if I didn't hear if the applicant is here this evening to
share their thoughts on the delay.
Dodson: Council Woman Perreault, the applicant is here, yes, in -- in the chambers. She
might be better to answer the first question, too, but I don't believe much dirt, if any, has
been moved. So, I would like to leave that to Penelope to answer, just to give you the
right answer.
Simison: Council, any further questions for staff? Okay. Then I will invite the applicant
to please come forward. And if you can state your name and address for the record,
Penelope, that would be great.
Constantikes: Mayor and Council, Penelope Constantikes. Post Office Box 405, Boise,
Idaho. 83701. 1 have a prepared presentation, but I will try and insert in -- into it answers
to those comments. So, I'm here representing Brinegar Investments. It's a limited liability
-- limited partnership for the request of the time extension for both the Earl Glen
Subdivision preliminary plat and a conditional use permit. The Brinegars do have an
extensive history of subdivision development in Meridian and are currently developing
Whitecliff phase one, which is to the west of the site on McMillan Road. To the property
owners this is a legacy site for their family, because their parents lived along Locust Grove
for many years, so Clyde had a funny story about how his father fell down in the yard
when they bought this property in an auction in 1990. So, anyhow, it's a combination of
single family lots, as you know, and multi-family. The developers actually own the
additional 11 .4 acres that's immediately north of this site and so that's -- that's one of the
pieces that still -- it's still in Ada county. It hasn't been annexed into the city. There are
two primary reasons why they are requesting the time extension. First of all, the site, if
it's combined with the parcel to the north, would encompass the full 16 acres and the
Brinegars are still carefully considering the best way to plan development of the three
parcels in a meaningful way. The stub street that enters the site from Sheridan Place,
which is up on the north boundary, would provide an avenue of connectivity from that
subdivision in the future and Earl Glen westward to Locust Grove Road, with the initial
section being constructed with Earl Glen. At this time there has been no dirt moved with
this project. Second of all, given the structure of the Brinegar Investments is a limited
liability, limited partnership, and given that the principals are dealing with some health
issues, they would like to complete Whitecliff prior to starting the final plat for Earl Glen.
Starting a new subdivision would present issues of the ownership of Earl Glen needed to
be changed in the middle of the project and as it goes without saying, COVID has
complicated every avenue and particle of our lives. The Brinegars are committed to the
Earl Glen project. I spent quite a bit of time with them last week to talk about this. This
is a timing issue, not a lack of commitment, and they would like to plan the incorporation
of the northern 11.4 acres moving forward into their overall plan. Some of the elements
they are considering for the northern parcels include commercial development along
Locust Grove Road, with the extension of a low intensity neighborhood commercial zone
and then -- and, then, the north for a continuation of the single family residential that would
be started with Earl Glen in the interior of the abutting parcel. The staff report mentioned
Page 33
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 19,2021
Page 5— —
that there was one neighbor that called there -- actually two. One neighbor was just north
of McMillan Road and he wanted to know if the multi-family would be adjacent to his site.
He's a brand new homeowner in that -- that particular house. And I said no. And, then,
another neighbor called way north of Earl Glen in Sheridan Place, but like four or five lots
north of our north boundary and wanted to know if there was going to be multi-family next
to his home and I sent him a copy of the plat and welcomed any discussion he wanted to
have with me about that. So, there doesn't appear to be a downside to the time extension.
This is now becoming an in-fill site, as opposed to what it was in 2015. It's still consistent
with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan for residential development and they are anxious
to look at options and looking at maybe an assisted living facility along Locust Grove
Road. Both the Brinegars are elderly now and so I understand this is the third time
extension. I understand that you have some maybe unusual circumstances with COVID,
so -- and, then, their participation in Whitecliff. With that I would be happy to move back
and make sure I have answered Council Woman's Strader's questions. Yes, it's still
consistent with the comp plan. As Joe mentioned, it is a good buffer for Sheridan Place,
kind of an intermediary density between the existing mature subdivision that's east of our
site. With that I would be happy to answer questions.
Simison: Council, any questions?
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Penelope, nice to see you virtually tonight. Help me
understand from your perspective what's going to change between now and two years
from now to help you and your clients effectively move forward on this project? I think,
as you know, I -- time extensions are a pet peeve of mine. I think that they serve a
purpose, but oftentimes they can kind of spin out of control, and I'm just trying to come to
terms of what's going to be different two years from now that doesn't exist today.
Constantikes: Mr. Mayor, Councilman, I'm not sure I can give you a definitive answer on
that. The only thing I know for sure is that the Brinegars are -- are pretty deep in Whitecliff
right now. According to their real estate specialist, it's a 40 acre site, they have -- they
have got quite a few of the homes built and I think there is actually a senior living facility
that's going in Whitecliff. I'm not a hundred percent sure. So, as I stated in my testimony,
I think this isn't a lack of commitment, I think it's a timing issue. So, I don't know that there
would be anything any different in two years, other than they would be better positioned
to began final platting.
Cavener: Okay. Thank you, Penelope.
Constantikes: You're welcome.
Simison: Penelope, maybe piggybacking off that question --
Page 34
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 19,2021
Page 6 of 50
Constantikes: Yes, sir.
Simison: -- a little bit. You talked about that they own the property to the north and they
eventually want to incorporate that. Why would it be better not to wait and have this done
as part of that project, instead of this one remaining a standalone project at this time with
the time extension with an unknown date and obligations and possible other impacts?
Constantikes: Mr. Mayor, appreciate -- that's a great question and I think probably from
a phasing and strategic perspective that the -- they would construct Earl Glen first and it
would assist them in financing the future phase, which would be northward and, then, the
commercial development, as allowed by the city along Locust Grove. So, it's a -- it
becomes really no different than phasing a subdivision.
Simison: I guess a better question and more is -- is land use and how that northern one
develops compared to how this one is proposed to develop --without-- knowing that there
is probably not a concept plan yet for that -- for the -- for the one to the north or is there?
I think that -- that to me is -- at least from my perspective when you are talking about a
time extension, but you are also talking about the value of how the northern property will
eventually develop, does it make sense to have a plan for all 16 acres at the same time
to consider, as compared to leaving this one and, then, reconsidering that one in -- in a
different vacuum?
Constantikes: Mr. Mayor, I think I can verbally give you a conceptual plan. The idea is to
continue the single family detached dwellings northward on the interior of the site,
because it's more consistent with what's going on in Sheridan Place and, then, whatever
depth the -- the convenience store site is to the west of us, that would hopefully be
extended northward. So, it would just really be two -- two use types. You would have
single family on the interior and this low intensity neighborhood oriented commercial along
Locust Grove. I apologize, that's the best I can give you. I do understand your question
about conceptual planning. One of the reasons that the Brinegars have been successful
doing so many subdivisions -- and there is a lot of them. I searched the database -- the
Meridian clerk's database and I think I found five or six subdivisions that they have done
in the fairly recent past -- is that they tend to be a little bit more conservative and -- and
they don't -- and they -- they work hard to maintain their stability, so that when they make
commitments they can follow through on them.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: Penelope, thank you. I would like to just say at least from my perspective that
my thought process and the -- what I weigh in this kind of decision really is less on the --
on the reliability of the applicant in this situation and more on -- are we -- are we taking
away the public's ability to, again, have input this later on the property. You know, by
doing this we essentially approve for two more years and -- and, then, you know, six years
has been significant for our city and so now if we do this we -- another application is not
Page 35
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 19,2021
Page , of 50
submitted for that property and there is not another public hearing that's held until what
would be a CUP application, just -- and that's just for the multi-family. So, that's my only
hesitation with this. Not that I in any way want to -- want to burden you or your client as
an applicant to restart a process for a preliminary plat that you wouldn't make changes
to, for me it's just more along the lines of, you are right, there has been a lot of significant
changes in that area. I know the subdivision to the east very well and I just -- I guess
that's where my hesitant -- my -- I shouldn't say hesitancy. That's where my thought
process comes in is six years -- you know, one extension we see, but this is essentially
-- I mean this is quite long for me and it has nothing to do with your applicant's reasoning
for wanting the extension, I just want to be clear about that, it is just purely a -- are we
doing what's right for the city as a whole -- for the residents of the city as a whole. So,
that's not my decision, I'm just letting you know kind of what I'm thinking is -- as we are
sitting here discussing.
Constantikes: Mr. Mayor, may I respond? Yes. Council Woman. I do understand your
question. I -- I have had so far three neighborhood meetings in association with these
time extensions and I have never had -- I had three people show up for the first one and
I have never had anyone ever come after that. I have had a couple of phone calls, but --
and they are concerned -- the neighborhood concern was just that they weren't going to
have an incompatible use adjacent to theirs and the subdivision has been designed to be
complimentary to Sheridan Place, which is what's immediately to the east of them, so but if there is some mitigating that we can do, more follow up neighborhood meetings if you can think of something that we can do to keep this active and -- and current with
the neighbors we would be happy to do that.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Question for Joe. Joe, you know, this has been on the books for a while. When
-- as residents move in, if they wanted to find out about what's going to happen with this
property, it sounds like they are able to call the city, they can be given information, it
sounds like they have been given her phone number to call, so it's -- it's not a surprise to
people that -- if they do their due diligence that they can be aware of what the plan is; is
that correct?
Dodson: That's very--very true. For any project, but especially for one that hasn't broken
ground as well.
Hoaglun: Okay. Thank you.
Constantikes: Mr. Mayor, may I respond?
Simison: Yes.
Page 36
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 19,2021
Page 8 of 50
Constantikes: Maybe some signage would be in order. Some additional signage beyond
what's normally required, which is for hearings. Maybe a map on -- on the site that just
stays there. Says this is what's proposed for the site and if you have questions you can
call this number. I would be fine with that. I'm sure the Brinegars would be. It's a little bit
out of the box, but I do understand people move in and they don't know, they just know
there is a big empty field next to them and don't have -- a lot of people don't even know
that they need to call City Hall. It's not real common for people to think about that. So, if
there is some kind of additional signage that we can implement that would make the City
Council more comfortable, I would be happy to talk to Brinegars about doing that.
Hoaglun: Well, Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: To explore that concept further, I mean it's just basically good marketing. If you
put up a sign and say future site of XYZ subdivision, Earl Grey -- Earl Glen -- Earl Glen
Subdivision or some sort of thing like that. You know, from just a marketing standpoint
that might be a good idea, but, you know, we do have sign requirements, so I don't know
if this -- you would have to have something done to -- to make that work, even though it's
a developmental process, so -- it's a good thought, though, Penelope. Thank you.
Constantikes: Mr. Mayor, I did have one other thing I wanted to offer. Apparently they
get phone calls weekly from people throwing just outrageous amounts of money at them
trying to buy the site. I have heard that, you know, boutique grocers, complete changes
of uses, which I don't know how the city would feel about that, and they have consistently
declined any follow up in terms of selling the site. So, I know that there is a lot of demand
for it and they want to keep it a single family residential subdivision. Thank you.
Simison: Council, any further questions for the applicant?
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: If I could, one -- a question I will leave with legal and, then, a question for you,
Penelope. Your application for the extension, it notes that expired -- the existing
opportunity to get the plat -- the final plat -- it expired October 17th, but request for the
extension was after that fact, November 5th. In my world once that period expires the
right to -- to extend -- even request it is gone as well. So, I had a question about whether
we are even allowed to hear this request in light of the date the request was made after
the period of expiration. But as legal -- legal noodles that question, the question for you
is why not request a ten year extension? What would be the policy reason why a ten year
extension wouldn't be appropriate?
Simison: Mr. Nary.
Page 37
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 19,2021
Page 9 of 50
Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of Council, I can answer the second question first. Our code
only allows a two year extension. So, that's one reason. We have -- the Council in the
past has granted extensions that were applied for after the date of the -- of the prior
extension, so the Council has approved those in the past. I don't know if Joe had any
more to add about that from the planning's perspective, but I know the Council has -- has
discussed that issue previously and has granted them outside of the expiration.
Dodson: Yes, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, there -- thank you, Mr. Nary for that.
That's also true. And, then, in addition, the applicant and I had started this before the
deadline and with the neighborhood meeting and things like that that require -- that are
required prior to the expiration it got bumped out beyond that and I think even the
November date is actually a little late from when -- I think that's when it was noticed,
compared to when we actually were -- we received it in house was very close to that
October date, I just can't remember exactly when that was. But I hear your point. I do.
If there is a precedent that we have done that before, then, that's that.
Borton: Okay. Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: I appreciate that. That's -- I would love to clean that up for an applicant's benefit.
Let's pick some date and stop receiving applications for stuff like this after the -- the time
for action expires. It just leaves us -- it's just mushy. It's not fair to an applicant. They
can ask for an extension ten months after it expires and so we open ourselves up and
make it difficult for an applicant. And so the second question -- Penelope, I wasn't trying
to be cute with it, just illustrating that -- I mean there is reasons behind that Council's
expressed these struggles, there is reasons behind deadlines and requirements to have
these in. If we limit ourselves two years, it's like a cap on the request, so five of the seven
of us didn't see this as well and there is five years of a period before COVID where, again,
this has just all sat. So, it just sort of begs the question just to continue to grant
extensions. Let's just get rid of the two year cap and start granting ten year extensions.
It's just -- it's problematic. I struggle as well under these circumstances as requested in
light of what's been discussed to grant another two year extension.
Constantikes: Mr. Mayor? Yes, Councilman, I understand the -- the nature of your
comments and they are just -- like Joe explained, we were working on the time extension
and -- so, I don't know what else to say. I'm sorry.
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: Definitely don't apologize. I understand if we -- as -- as far as the timing of it, if
we -- we have had a process that has allowed -- it's more the concern of substantive and
procedural on some of the problems of allowing us to continue to continue to continue in
light of all of the reasons the Mayor and Council have brought up today.
Page 38
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 19,2021
Page 10—50
Constantikes: Understood. Thank you.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: Penelope, I know that the time has passed and we are here now, but it seems
like we have chatted a little bit about what has gone on the last two years since the last
extension, but when the app -- applicant originally applied what was the original -- I mean
was the original intent to have that completed in short order and what -- I mean how did
it sort of get off course? Not -- not that you need to give the entire history, but I guess
that's -- that's -- and COVID has just been within the last year. So, maybe give us a short
summary of what transpired prior to that, so that we can get a sense of -- I agree with
Councilman Borton that, you know, that was the other thing that I had going through my
mind as I was reading this -- this information was that the majority of the Council didn't
originally approve this and a new Comprehensive Plan as well. So, can you give us a
little bit more understanding of what was going on at the time that the application was
made and the intention behind when it was supposed to be complete?
Constantikes: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman, when I was working on this in 2015 my
understanding was that they were going to move forward with it in fairly short order. I'm
not -- I don't have a lot of contact with the Brinegars, so I'm not exactly sure. I know that
-- that sometimes, just based on my work and routing final plats, which is a very difficult
project to do, sometimes things show up and they just send everybody off in a spin and it
takes a while to regroup and solve problems. Of course, that doesn't explain the number
of years that the project has been preliminary platted and I just know that they have been
involved in other projects, not Clyde, but his sister's experienced health issues that I think
I explained in my testimony, although maybe not real clearly, that because it's a limited
partnership they want to make sure that they don't start something that, then, requires a
change in ownership structure in the -- in the middle of the project. But my understanding
was from the beginning that we were going to go to final plat and other than knowing that
I can't explain to you why -- why the Brinegars didn't move forward with it more quickly. I
just don't have that information. I apologize.
Strader: Mr. Mayor, question for Joe.
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: Joe, if -- if we were to deny it this evening, is there anything I'm missing? Is
there any disadvantage at that point that would stop them from, you know, hopefully
bringing this back ideally with the property to the north, so the whole thing. Is there
anything that I'm missing? Are they penalized in some way besides having to notice it
through the public hearings, etcetera?
Dodson: Council Woman Strader, I mean negatives or positives are subjective in that
sense I guess. I just want to -- the only thing I guess would be that they already have the
Page 39
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 19,2021
Page 11 of 50
zoning. So, the R-15 and R-8 portion is zoned, so they technically would not have to do
a master plan between this parcel and the RUT parcel. There wouldn't be a requirement
to that. They could just come back and reapply with this exact same plat. Obviously, it
doesn't guarantee they would get approved, but that could be the process. It's -- it would
be up to the Council. I'm hearing the concerns from Council and I understand them. I did
put that in the staff report, too. You know, this is the third one, so it's up to you guys to
determine whether or not it's in the best interest of the city. Also with that you don't have
to grant two years. Unless Mr. Nary corrects me on this, it could be a shorter time frame.
It just -- it's whatever Council wants, so -- zero. It could be six months. Nine months.
Whatever you guys would like. But that might put a fire under their butt. I'm not sure.
Strader: Thanks.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: I guess, yeah, Joe kind of got to my -- the crux of maybe my questions for Mr.
Nary is, one, can we grant a time extension that is less than two years. And, two, if we
were to grant any extension could it be conditioned that no future extensions would be
granted?
Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Cavener, as Joe stated, you
can -- you can do any time period you wish. So, it doesn't have to be the full two years
that's being requested. Barring a future Council from making a decision on their own is a
little more problematic to me. I wouldn't say it's prohibited by code. It's certainly not
something I would encourage, because, again, circumstances change, situations change,
and trying to box that in -- in the UDC there really isn't anything like that. So, that's a little
bit more concerning to do. But it's not prohibited, it's just -- I'm not sure if a future council
would appreciate that when there may be some reason that is absolutely valid and I don't
know what that might be. Pandemics are one of them, so --
Simison: Council, any further questions for the applicant?
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: One additional question for Penelope. Penelope, you have heard some of the
discussion amongst Council about maybe perhaps a time extension less than two years.
It kind of gets to the question that I asked you earlier about what would change between
now and two years from now. The part that I'm struggling with is if there was action that
was going to happen in the immediate future, I think I could be supportive of an extension.
If there is not, then, I am more supportive of a denial. So, can you help give Council a
little bit of flavor, again, for if a time less than two years is supported by you and your
Page 40
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 19,2021
Page 12—50
clients or if you are just going to be here two years from now asking for another time
extension.
Constantikes; Mr. Mayor, Councilman, any time period that the Council sees fit to grant
is fine. We are not really in a position to argue with that. One of the things that occurred
to me as I was listening to you discuss this is that a time extension would allow the
Brinegars to sell the project and get it moving. Not that they -- I have no knowledge that
they want to do that, but one of the -- one of the benefits of a time extension would allow
the project to move forward with someone else. And, again, I have to be very clear about
that. I have no understanding that they are planning on selling it, but it does keep the plat
active in the event that they consider your concerns this evening and understand that
there isn't going to be probably another option in the future and that this might be a good
time to entertain offers for selling the plat and -- and if it's constructed the way it's
approved now, then, any future plans they would have for the 11 acres to the north would
not likely change, because they would -- it would continue to match what was going on to
the south. So, that's the only thing I can offer really in response to your question.
Whatever time frame the Council sees fit is appropriate.
Cavener: Thank you.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Just a follow up on that line of thought, Penelope. If -- if there was a denial
tonight I would see them more likely to rid themselves of that property and focus on
something to the north for their use. What are your thoughts on that? I -- because if -- if
there is a denial -- well, if we can't do it now we got to come back with everything, well,
let's cash out on this and focus on the property of the north and, then, we bisect these
two properties and have two separate in-fill developments, as opposed to one in the
future. Is that --
Constantikes: Mr. Mayor, Councilman, I don't have enough insight into my client's future
plans to be able to really answer that. With the site designed completely -- and I think
there is even a fair amount of engineering work that's been done on it, it wouldn't be
difficult for someone to pick up the parcel and move forward with what was previously
approved with whatever changes are a reflection of changes in code. I know that the
Brinegars would like to keep the subdivision active and in their own ownership, so I don't
have any insight into whether or not they would -- would sell it if it was denied tonight.
Again, I think the family as a whole is anchored to the site because of their parents living
so close by. I guess on page 30 -- 25 of the Meridian book there is a picture of Mr.
Brinegar, Senior, and there was a place called Hoppy's Corner, which was his mother's
little commercial shop of some kind or another. So, I don't know that they would sell the
site.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, if I might follow up with a -- with a comment.
Page 41
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 19,2021
Page 13 of 50
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Because that's -- that's the -- the difficulty and I think Councilman Cavener are
touched on it as well, that, you know, these little details can -- can matter, but at the same
time I struggle where we haven't had a -- there hasn't been a change in zoning. There
wouldn't be any changes to the plat. It allows that ability to further develop the site to the
north with this included, although we can make requirements, but it's a little harder for --
when there is two different property owners to make sure things are tied together, as
opposed to one. I'm just trying to see the benefits of denial versus an approval of a year
or whatever Council would agree, if that's the direction we go. You know, weighing what
-- what's best for a future development. We know it's going to be developed and is that
with the current developer or does it get split and, then, what do we have. So, I'm probably
more inclined to go with --with what we know than what we don't know, but--which would
lend to a time extension, but, you know, it's not hard and fast in my mind right now.
Strader: Mr. Mayor, question for --
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: Thank you. Question for either Bill Nary or Joe. What is the longest, if anyone
remembers, that we have done these extensions before? And I guess I'm concerned --
are we setting a precedent by doing this for this amount of extensions in this length of
time.
Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of Council, Council Member Strader, I couldn't tell you how
long any have ever been. I mean there certainly have been many extensions. Each one
of them, in my opinion, is its own unique animal. I mean, again, I think the Council has
asked exactly the right questions you need to. Why is it taking so long. What's the plan.
What was the intention when you started. All of those things are really relevant. So, I
don't believe it's a precedent to allow this to go forward with an extension of whether it's
two years or less. I think it's totally within your discretion. I mean I think it speaks to at
least the impacts of the neighborhood, as Council Member Perreault brought up, is they
have had neighborhood meetings, that is part of the process, so the public is aware that
this is being asked to be extended again and you don't have anybody here or wanting to
testify opposed to that. So, what would happen -- that was one of the questions asked
earlier. Because the extension is denied and the plat itself is dead in the sense of planning
of being able to move forward with it or for the developer. It's already annexed and it's
already zoned. So, those remain, whether this is tonight or not, so -- but entitled property
certainly has value and I think that's what Ms. Constantikes was talking about, that from
a development standpoint, in fact, there is already an approved plan to move forward if
the desire was to sell or at least engage someone else to get this constructed. Having
the plat able to move forward immediately is certainly better than it being starting from the
very beginning. So, there are some good and bad either way. Certainly you all have
asked the exact right questions you should and it is totally within your discretion. I don't
believe it would be precedent setting for anybody else to say they are entitled to
something of this nature as well.
Page 42
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 19,2021
Page 14—50
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Well -- and, Mr. Nary, just to clarify, we have not yet asked for any public who
wish to testify, so I don't want to presume that there is nobody here in favor or opposition,
because —
Nary: You are correct.
Simison: -- we may have a couple people, so --
Nary: Thank you. Sorry. You're correct.
Simison: Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: Thanks, Mr. Mayor. You are answering one of my questions and, then, just a
comment for Council Member Strader. I think it's a great question that you asked and I
think where I developed this being somewhat of a pet peeve of mine is probably in my
first and, then, third year on Council. I think we granted a fourth and, then, maybe even
a fifth time extension in my third year and so we have provided time extensions much
longer in length, but to Council Member Borton's point, that was, you know, with a much
different City Council than we have today.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: If I can weigh in on that -- Council Woman Strader's question. When I was
appointed in '08 and, then, answering -- elected in '09 for a full term, so that's five years
and those years of '08 and '09, '10 were not good years economically. So, we cast
numerous votes for time extensions for a number of projects and it was for more than one
time extension for several of those projects just because of the economy. We knew they
wanted to do it and it just wasn't going to happen at that time. So, it's not unusual to have
in my book -- in fact, I thought that's the only vote we ever did was time extensions in that
time. But it -- it wasn't unusual, so -- and I know those are specific economic times, but
look at this -- each project I think it was pointed out is unique and has situations that
people are dealing with that I think we take into consideration. So, hope that helps.
Strader: Thank you.
Simison: Council, any further questions for the applicant? Okay.
Constantikes: Thank you.
Simison: This is a public hearing. Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone signed up to testify on
this item?
Page 43
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 19,2021
Page —of 50
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we did not.
Simison: Okay. If there is anyone who would like to come forward at this time in the room
and provide testimony, please, do so and if you are online in the Zoom meeting and would
like to participate, please, use the raise your hand feature at the bottom to do so. Thank
you. Please state your name and address for the record, please.
Lubinsky: My name is Brian Lubinsky. I am the HOA president of the Sheridan Place --
to the adjacent property. We do have many concerns as far as the homeowners that do
reside in Sheridan Place. They have brought it up many times about the subdivision --
the Earl Glen Subdivision that's wanting to be put in. One is -- the major one is the multi-
use sites. We haven't seen from -- nobody in our neighborhood has even seen what
these tend to look like or will look like. We do have, you know, rather big concerns about
that. Second, we have also a concern about the access road that is to the north of Earl
Glen Subdivision and how it's going to tie into the Sheridan Place neighborhood to the
east. That as well has not been discussed with the HOA or anybody in the neighborhood
as far as granting access to that neighborhood. The third is we have -- we have inquired
about purchasing the property with the representative and we would move forward in
developing it much quicker than two years if -- if allowed. We have also inquired about
the property to the north as well. But as far as we have heard it is not entertaining any
offers at this point. So, back to the original one. Is there anything that can show us what
the multi-family development will look like?
Simison: We will have the applicant bring that back up when the time -- do you have any
further comments?
Lubinsky: We also have one other concern. In the far northern -- northeastern section of
this approved plot, plat, there is a -- a water pumphouse that is part of Sheridan Place.
We would like to know what the intentions are to go around that -- that area as well,
because that -- that pumphouse is in that plotted section for the subdivision.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Mr. Bernt.
Bernt: With -- with all due respect -- and I understand, sir, that you want some questions
answered this evening in regard to a proposed maybe quasi-project that's in the future,
but with all due respect, tonight we are not debating that. Tonight we are talking about
whether or not they are going to receive a time extension to the proposed plat. That's it.
So, for the sake of time and for the sake of sticking to the agenda, I would propose that
we stick to the conversation as to whether or not we should extend this project out another
couple years.
Simison: Thank you, Councilman Bernt. This is his time to speak, so free to ask those
questions and whether or not the applicant addresses them or the Council is interested,
they will take that into consideration.
Page 44
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 19,2021
Page 16 of 50
Lubinsky: I certainly appreciate your time and don't mean to steer you off-- off course at
all and I do understand what you want to do tonight. We just as a neighborhood have
concerns and would like to have those answered, whether it could be Penelope that can
answer these questions, we just would like to go back to the homeowners and at least tell
them something from this meeting. Thank you for your time.
Simison: Council, any further questions?
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, before Brian sits down, if he wouldn't mind. Mr. Lubinsky. Question
-- quick question. Real quick.
Simison: Council Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Yeah. Just -- just a quick question. So, is your HOA willing to look at this
project and try to work out -- make sure you understand all the details, as opposed to just
starting -- starting new? Is that a position you guys have -- have taken any -- any which
way on that?
Lubinsky: We have discussed it and we are in favor of, you know, the development.
However, we are not in favor of the multi-family units. If it's a single family, yes. Multi-
family, no. So, we have discussed that and we have also discussed actually wanting to
purchase the property and continuing both sections of property into single family use.
Hoaglun: Okay. Great. Thank you. Appreciate that.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council, any further questions?
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: I suppose this is a question for Joe. So, the applicant -- when the multi-family
is -- when the multi-family moves forward will they need to have another public hearing?
I just saw that slide that came up that said approve CUP. Has that been approved and
-- and the design would just go before staff at this point?
Dodson: Council Woman Perreault, that is correct. Yes. The CUP was approved with
the plat. So, that's what --these extensions are for the plat and the conditional use permit
for the multi-family.
Perreault: Okay.
Dodson: I also do -- I did find some of the elevations that were with this application, if
that interests the Council.
Page 45
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 19,2021
Page 1, —50
Simison: Council, we will wait -- I see Penelope has been gathering some information,
but I don't -- there is no one else in the room wishing to testify and no one online who has
raised their hands to testify, so with that we will ask the applicant to come back forward
to present closing remarks and any further questions or comments at that time.
Constantikes: Thank you, Mayor, Council. Penelope Constantikes. Post Office Box 405,
Boise, Idaho. 83701 . 1 obtained my neighborhood meeting list for generating labels from
the City of Meridian and my understanding is that the HOA was included in that. So, I'm
not sure where the disconnect was. I was there on Saturday morning. I try to do them
on Saturday morning when I'm able, because it enables the maximum number of people
to be able to come. So, I scheduled it for Saturday morning. I did have at the
neighborhood meeting all the illustrations of plats and elevations that we submitted with
the CUP for the multi-family. So, I did have -- I did have those materials with me. I did
want to address the question about the pump station. That pump station, I believe, is
probably owned by Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District and the plat does have a pump
station lot designated. It's 1,512 square feet. It's Lot 1 of the subdivision plat and there
are several plat notes that without my readers I can't exactly read them, but we did make
an accommodation for the pump station. We understood that Sheridan Place was running
off of that pump station, that it would be handled correctly with the development to make
sure that everyone still received their water, there was no impediment to the pump station
operating correctly. The extension of the stub -- of the -- the extension of the stub road
out of Sheridan Place to the west, that wasn't something that the applicant really had any
ability to make a decision about. That was an ACHD thing. And, obviously, a stub street
was put there intentionally with the approval Sheridan Place with the -- with the intention
of having a connection to the west. So, we were just completing what the district required
us to do, a plan to complete it as a function of the development. It's very commonplace
for that to happen. So, the multi-family was very muted. We only had it directly adjacent
to McMillan Road intentionally and keep the single family the bulk of the site and that was
so that it was consistent and blended with the neighborhood. I would be happy to visit
with the HOA at any time if they want to call me, I can coordinate a Zoom meeting, or
whatever it takes. I would be happy to share the information I have with them, if that's
germane for this discussion. But I don't know what else to tell you. We have covered a
lot of territory and I'm hopeful that we can get one more time extension and keep this plat
in play. It's a good design and -- and it I think in the end will benefit the City of Meridian.
With that, if there are no questions I will excuse myself. Thank you.
Simison: Council, any final questions for the applicant?
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: Not seeing any other questions, I move that we close the public hearing for
Earl Glen Subdivision, TECC-2020-0003.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, I will second the motion.
Page 46
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 19,2021
Page ——50
Simison: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Is there any
discussion on the motion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The
ayes have it.
MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES.
Dodson: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Yes, Joe.
Dodson: Before Council gets into their final decision, I just wanted to note that if -- the
application was -- actually, the plat was -- the extension was denied tonight there -- from
a planning perspective the idea that multi-family would not be wanted or desired in this
area is a little concerning, only because as you can see in the aerial it is a sea of single
family for a quarter mile in every direction and usually when you -- you only have
ownership opportunities, you know, that leaves out some of the lower income. So, I just
want to present that these are not three story, 35 foot tall apartment buildings, they are,
you know, two story townhome style, but they are multi-family four-plexes and one eight-
plex. So, from a planning perspective it is beneficial to maintain some of that multi-family
opportunity. But, you know, from the professional perspective that's what that is.
Simison: Thank you, Joe. Council?
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Yes, Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: Maybe some discussion amongst the body before a motion is made. If you
would have told me that we would be deliberating a time extension for 45 minutes, I
probably would have wagered a Hungry Onion burger that we wouldn't. It's been good
discussion by -- by the body tonight. I think there has been some good questions raised,
particularly by our newer members of the Council. So, I appreciate the discussion. I'm
not sure how the rest of you all feel. As much as I loathe time extensions, I think it's
important that we take any denial, whether it's for a time extension or a denial of an
application, seriously and I think we have done that tonight. I would be curious to hear
how all of you feel, but I haven't heard for me a compelling reason to grant a time
extension and so I guess maybe before I made a motion I wanted to hear if there was any
thoughts or alternative considerations from the Council that we should discuss prior to a
motion being made.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Was that Strader or Perreault? I couldn't --
Perreault: Perreault.
Page 47
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 19,2021
Page 19 of 50
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: I don't know that I have an alternative thought, except that it seems like the
applicant's situation or the reasons that are -- that are causing them to lead to the delays
haven't been resolved and that -- and I don't -- and I'm not interested in knowing their
personal situation really truly. I feel for them and I doubt they have wanted to extend this
to this -- to this point. But, you know, I -- yeah, they are just -- it doesn't sound like that
there really is a plan in place at this point to -- to move forward to move towards
completion in short order and -- however, it doesn't sound also like they are planning on
selling it anytime soon. So, we could -- very well could find ourselves -- and this is not a
reason to approve it, but we very well could find ourselves in a situation where we are
having the same discussion, you know, in the next year or less. Yeah. Well, I mean if
they -- if we grant a denial and they have a year, I suppose, or is -- is the -- do they wait
-- on the extensions do they -- are they required to wait a year for a denial, the same as
in the original applications, or can they come back with -- Mr. Nary is shaking his head
no. So, they could come back with another application fairly quickly if they decided to go
that route.
Nary: So, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Perreault, to answer your
question, yeah, they are not barred from reapplying. Obviously, there is a process to go
through of public hearing meetings and all that.
Cavener: Mr. Nary, we may have lost you.
Nary: So, to answer the question, there is no -- there is no time period they have to wait.
It would be a new application. They would have to go through a pre-app process,
neighborhood meeting, go through --through planning -- go through Planning and Zoning,
and, obviously, there is a -- there is a time delay to all of that. But the application can be
submitted after a pre-app.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: Just to finish my thought very quickly, it doesn't sound like that the applicant is
planning on selling. I would -- I would be hesitant to request them to go through that --
that process all over again to submit the exact same preliminary plat. It doesn't sound
like they are planning on making any changes to it and I'm not sure -- and I don't -- trying
to appropriately verbalize where my thoughts are on this. There -- there is a lot of
unknowns and we can't make the decision really truly on -- the point I'm making is we
can't make the decision really truly on the applicant's circumstances. It has to be based,
in my opinion, on what is best for the City of Meridian, what is best for the residents. I
think that's really, in my opinion, where we are and I will leave it at that.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Page 48
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 19,2021
Page 20 of 50
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: I feel that it's been too long. I feel that this amount of delay has put this in a
position where things may have changed in terms of how we look at land use decisions.
I think that the applicant is not seriously disadvantaged by a denial. They are already
zoned for this project. They already have a plat. I don't hear a plan in place to start soon
and I -- and I would highly encourage them, if they do bring it back to us, if it were to be
denied, to come back with the property to the north I think would be best, if that's possible,
so we can see the whole thing. And that's not the reasoning. I just -- personally I feel it's
been too long. I did take Councilman Hoaglun's point during the Great Recession
certainly we did this and I think the mindset then might have been different, but from
where I'm sitting, with the amount of growth that we have, how fast things are changing
and evolving, our open space standards are changing possibly, parking standards may
be changing, I personally am leaning toward a denial.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: I just wanted to chime in. I -- I just see it differently. The perspective that -- I
do think this is a case where you look at personal situations. We are not talking about a
corporate developer here, we are talking about people who have lived in Meridian for a
long time, they do developments, they take properties and -- and in this case properties
that are -- that mean something to them and try to put in place a good development that
-- and, then, they move on to the next one where they purchase property and are doing
some things. They are not buying up, you know, 600, you know, acres at a time and --
and doing major development, so --so, to me I see personal situations and circumstances
here that do come into play, because we are not talking about this major corporation and
that is entirely different and so to me COVID and family situations, you know, where it
prevents some things, I -- I'm leaning towards more of a -- if we give them a year to see
what can happen, it gives them time -- if they do want to sell they could probably do it.
You know, if Councilman Cavener said, no, two years is great, I could probably go to that,
but I'm just leaning towards giving them some time to decide what do they want to do.
Are they moving forward? How are they going to move forward? Or are they going to do
something different. And, like I said earlier, not changing -- there has not been a change
in zoning. It meets all our Comprehensive Plan requirements. Roads are there because
of ACHD and how they are laid out from the Sheridan Place development to this place.
We aren't going to be changing that. We do want to have mixed use in areas and so it
meets all the goals of our -- of our community. So, I see nothing to be gained by -- by
denying that, you know, and a great amount of benefit. So, I -- I can go with the time
extension.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Page 49
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 19,2021
Page 21 of 50
Strader: You know, I -- I appreciate you saying that. I think a year, I could wrap my head
around that. If that -- if the Council had consensus. I think the most important thing is for
us to be on the same page about how we handle and list extensions and if how we all felt
like handling it was going to move toward a consistent place of -- if we feel like it's been
too long, people get a year. Not that that's a rule, but if we -- if I -- I can get on board with
that, if that creates consensus with the Council.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: I -- I was leaning the other direction. I believe that Council Member Hoaglun is a
great salesman. He is -- he is -- he switched me over to the other side. As soon as he
said local, I -- he got me with it. So, I agree. I don't think a year is going to be that big of
a deal. Great points, Councilman Hoaglun. I'm in favor of a year extension.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: Certainly if a motion is made to extend it for a year, I won't -- I won't oppose
that. I just think it's an important reminder that this will be -- it's already been extended a
year once. It's already been extended two years once. This will be a second one year
extension for a total of four years. Every time this thing gets extended that's time that our
staff, the clerk, City Council, has to devote to this and I appreciate I think where Mr.
Hoaglun is trying to get. Frankly, that's where I was trying to get from the get go. I just
didn't hear any confidence from the applicant that they are not going to be back here a
year from now asking for another extension. So, as long as we are comfortable that that's
-- the fact is that a year from now the Council will likely hear another time request, I'm
supportive, I just -- I think we need to be prepared for what we are going to be seeing.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: Maybe whoever is making that motion can say that this is the last one.
Cavener: You can't.
Hoaglun: Well, Mr. Mayor, if I might --
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: -- speak to that. I -- I agree, Councilman Cavener, this is a -- this is granting
them that one last extension and there will be definitely three of us and I suspect even
more here a year from now that will be serving on -- on this Council and we are well aware
Page 50
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 19,2021
Page 22 of 50
of the situation and the testimony that's going on and I think the applicant can be assured
that there would be a -- probably a unanimous decision not to grant that extension if they
come back in the future.
Simison: So, with that in mind, Councilman Hoaglun, would this Council consider a ten
month time extension, so it is this Council that will definitely be the ones hearing this
conversation a year from now and not -- yeah. I'm not going to take anything for granted
with the election outcomes or people's decisions that occur. Just food for thought.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, I'm chewing on that thought, so --
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: Maybe a thought for -- for whoever may make the motion. I don't think it's
entirely appropriate that we base a decision for at least the time extension on who will or
won't be here ten months from now, a year from now, five years from now. If the
consensus is around a year, let's go for a year. If we don't think that a year is appropriate,
then, let's just move forth with a denial or a two year extension. I don't think that we need
to build a plan necessarily around this particular body and who will or won't be here a year
from now.
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: Mr. Mayor, is -- the public hearing's closed; correct?
Simison: Yes.
Borton: I'm going to make a motion that we grant a one year time extension for TECC-
2020-0003 for the reasons discussed by Council in this recent exchange.
Bernt: Second.
Simison: I have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion on the motion?
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: I know this is in the staff report, but that would require all previous conditions
of approval are included in that? Is that your understanding, Mr. Borton?
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Page 51
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 19,2021
Page 23 of 50
Borton: Correct. The motion of approval for the one year extension would include the
conditions and language as set forth in the staff report of January 19th, 2021.
Bernt: Second agrees.
Simison: Second agrees. Is there any discussion on the motion? If not, Clerk will call
the roll.
Roll call: Bernt, yea; Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, yea; Perreault,
yea.
Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is agreed to.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
2. Public Hearing for Cache Creek Subdivision (H-2020-0105) by Matt
Schultz of Schultz Development, Located on the Northwest Corner of
E. Victory Rd. and S. Locust Grove Rd.
A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 15.18 acres of land from RUT in
Ada County to the R-4 zoning district.
B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 41 building lots and 4
common lots on 13.99 acres of land in the proposed R-4 zoning
district.
Simison: Thank you very much, everyone. Next item is a public hearing for-- I can never
get that-- Cache Creek? Cache -- Cache Creek Subdivision, H-2020-0105. We will open
this public hearing with staff comments and recognize Alan.
Tiefenbach: Can you hear me, Council?
Simison: Yes, we can, Alan. Faintly.
Tiefenbach: Let's try it again. Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, can you see my
presentation?
Simison: Yes.
Tiefenbach: Okay. Good evening, Council.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Yes, Council Woman Perreault. Forgive me, but, Alan, your presentation is not
in full view, it's --
Page 52
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 19,2021
Page——50
Tiefenbach: Yes. Okay. Thank you. Sorry. Sometimes hard to get all this coordinated.
Thank you very much, Council Person. So, this is a -- the Cache Creek Subdivision is an
annexation, zoning, and preliminary plat to allow 41 building lots and four common lots.
The site is about 14 acres of land. It's presently zoned RUT. It's located at 1560 West
Victory Road and 2955 South Locust Grove. That's the northwest corner of South Locust
Grove and East Victory Road. To the north it is zoned residential four with single family
residential. To the south is RUT within the county. To the east is R-8 and R-4, single
family residential. To the west is zoned R-4. The next slide here is to show you what the
future upcoming improvements are. There is going to be widening of Locust Grove in
2022. There is going to be widening of East Victory in 2025. You can't see it very well,
but right where it says Victory, that blue circle there, that is going to be a roundabout. You
can also see where the schools are in relation to this. The future land use map -- map
recommends this property for low density residential, which would be less than three
dwelling units per acre. Again, this includes the annexation, zoning, and planning to allow
41 building lots and four common lots. There we go. The property presently contains two
existing homes. There is a home down at the south, although it's not shown here. You
can see it on this one. That home is going away. There is an existing home that is up
here at the northeast corner. That home will be part of this development. There will be
two accesses to the property. Each access will -- the first access point -- if you can see
my cursor -- is at East Loggers Pass, which is up here. The second access is East
Sagemoor Street, which is here. Both of these will go into the Cabella Creek Subdivision,
which has already been stubbed, and they will connect to South Bailey Road, which is off
screen, but it's basically down here. And so you can see South Bailey here. And South
Bailey will, then, connect to Victory or South Locust Grove. Within this subdivision is, in
general, a loop road, as you can see here, but South Locust Grove -- as I said, both of
these are going to be expanded in the future. South Locust Grove currently has two lanes
and no curb, gutter, or sidewalk. East Victory has two lanes, with no curb -- no curb,
gutter, or sidewalk as well. Both of these are proposed to be widened and, as I said, there
will be a roundabout that's proposed in 2022. Sufficient right of way presently exists --
presently exists for both of these roads. However, the applicant will be required to
dedicate additional right of way for the roundabout at East Victory and South Locust
Grove. Because both of these roads are due to be constructed in the next five years,
instead, ACHD has requested that the applicant pay 38,425 into a road trust deposit and
this road would be used byACHD at a later date to construct sidewalks when they do this
road construction. Five foot detached sidewalks are proposed on both sides of all streets.
I think you can see it better in the color plan that is up there. There is a pedestrian
connection from the sidewalk into Common Lot 3. Common Lot 3 would be this big lot
here. There is also a pathway along a detention pond at the southwest. It includes two
amenities and approximately 16 percent open space. There is two regional pathways in
this area. The first regional pathway parallels Ten Mile Creek, which way down here you
can see it in the southwest. Hopefully you can see my cursor. That's the pathway along
Ten Mile Creek. There is another -- another pathway that runs along Eight Mile. It's off
screen here. If you can see here on Locust Grove there is a pathway that connects into
South Locust Grove here. When this went to the Planning Commission -- so, originally,
there was -- we believed that there needed to be a mid block connection and that had not
been incorporated when this went to the Planning Commission. That was one of our
Page 53
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 19,2021
Page 25 of 50
recommendations to the Planning Commission that there be a mid block connection. The
Planning Commission agreed with us. The applicant did not have an issue with that.
Since this time that's been provided. That's what you can see here. So, this mid block
connection you would be able to come up the Eight Mile Pathway, come through this mid
block connection to the central, then, you could come down the sidewalk as a way out on
this pedestrian -- so, basically, it's a shortcut. If you are coming down South Locust Grove
you can get over to Ten Mile Creek, you don't have to go all the way down to the corner
and, then, turn left. Although the minimum required square footage of the qualified
common open space is satisfied, the arterial buffer along South Locust Grove, which is
on -- kind of here, does not meet all of it, there is kind of a pinch point here. At some point
I believe -- and the applicant will probably correct me -- I think it's between 11 and 12 feet
wide at the narrowest and, then, to the north up here it's 22. And, again, the landscape
buffer is required to be 25 feet. But the applicant noted that this existing house and the
widening of South Locust Grove it's not feasible and the reason why is because there is
five accesses right now directly at South Locust Grove. All those accesses are being cut
off and two accesses that are -- that are right now allowed for this are going to be internal.
So, in order to have enough room for them to get into this driveway and around to the
house into the garage, they don't have enough room to expand that buffer. Staff didn't
have a strong opinion of this at the time of Planning Commission, because we hadn't
really heard a good argument in regard to that. One of our recommendations at the time
was that the staff -- that the applicant present the information that we needed for
alternative compliance to allow this reduction in the buffer. The Planning Commission
agree with staff on this. Since this time the applicant did give us sufficient information to
support this and the planning director did approve alternative compliance to allow this
reduced -- reduced buffer. The last thing I would mention, kind of a small point, is that
the original landscape plan was missing a piece of a lot down here, which is where the
Ten Mile Creek is there. There -- it's a major significant pathway. Staff had some
concerns with that not being shown on the plat. We also weren't sure how they were
addressing the creek. We -- there is -- there is much information in our Comprehensive
Plan and in our development code that talks about preserving waterways. We wanted to
make sure that they incorporated something into that pathway. The Planning Commission
agreed with that. They met us halfway with the applicant and they -- they made a
recommendation that the applicant landscape that with grass. I believe that the applicant
is in agreement with that. With that the applicant is in agreement and/or has made all of
the recommended changes that staff has recommended and the Planning Commission.
Staff received four different letters. Two of them are from -- or, excuse me, three of them
are from adjacent property owners. One of them is from the president of the Cabella
Creek Homeowners Association. In general the biggest issue is the access. Again, there
is two stubs that go into the Cabella Creek Subdivision right now. The homeowners don't
want to see that access coming into their subdivision. They want to see the access,
instead, come off of South Locust Grove. One recommendation was for them to line up
with East Sagemoor over here and make a new connection. ACHD is not in support of
that. It does not meet their spacing requirements. ACHD also noted that there is already
two stubs that have been there that were -- that were required that had been anticipated
for eventual traffic into that subdivision. With that I think that -- that concludes my
presentation and I will take any questions or comments.
Page 54
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 19,2021
Page——50
Simison: Thank you, Alan. Council, any questions for staff?
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Alan, appreciate the report. If I recall during the
Planning and Zoning Commission they discussed that -- I think that the stub at Loggers
Pass had --was signed, you know, a future extension planned here. Do you know -- does
that also exist at the -- at the other stub?
Tiefenbach: I can't answer that with surety, Council Person. I'm sorry.
Cavener: Okay.
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: Thank you. I -- Alan, I noticed in the file that there was some e-mail
communication with ACHD regarding the questions from the homeowners association for
Cabella Creek and the -- concerning specifically the amount of traffic that will be coming
through and whether it meets -- like if the street width and the existing streets would --
would meet demand for the -- the new residences. Was there -- was there any -- is there
any other information you can share with us in regard to that? I mean I -- I don't know if
there were any phone calls that were had with ACHD. Is -- is all the information regarding
communication that was provided back to the homeowners association with ACHD, do
we have all of that in the file or is there anything else you might want to add or enlighten
us on?
Tiefenbach: No, ma'am. Everything in regards to ACHD is in the project file. ACHD
basically said they had two issues. The first one was intersection spacing and the second
was the amount of traffic, as you said, to warrant having a new road and ACHD -- I believe
they said that they needed to have at least 2,000 trips per day in order to look at possibly
foregoing the policy of not having direct access off of South Locust Grove and in their
case the development is to provide a whole lot less than that. So, ACHD cannot justify
cutting off that access and creating a new -- new point off of South Locust Grove.
Everything that we have you have now.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor, a follow up?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: So, help me understand. Is that 2,000 trips including Cabella Creek plus
Cache Creek or is that 2,000 trips that Cache Creek would have to create?
Page 55
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 19,2021
Page— —50
Tiefenbach: That would be incremental. So, that would be this particular development.
It doesn't -- it's not cumulative.
Perreault: Thank you.
Simison: Council, any further questions for staff at this time? Okay. With that we will ask
the applicant to, please -- I think they are on. I got to scan my -- there is Mr. Schultz. If
you can state your name and address for the record and be recognized for 15 minutes.
Schultz: Hello. Matt Schultz. 8421 South Ten Mile, here on behalf of Challenger
Development. Need to get this shadow out of my face a little bit. It's a little bright. Good
to be here. So, it's been last summer we last saw you. I had a double that night. I got a
double tonight. Obviously, I love R-4 in South Meridian. It's been the giant for 20 years
and R-4, when we looked at the roundabout going in next year, which is quite imminent
for an ACHD project, it's not five or ten years out, when we saw that and saw the access
is we really, you know, this needed to be R-4, it needed to be an expansion of Cabella
Creek, which was done back in --you know, I think right after we came out of the downturn
as an R-4 subdivision, low density, bigger lots. We missed a pretty obvious pathway
connection that your staff caught that we have made the revision to add in between --
actually, right before P&Z and, then, updated everything before your -- your hearing here
tonight showing that pathway connection. We did coordinate with ACHD on that
roundabout. You can see how there is some curve to our south boundary. Everything's
perfectly coordinated on there. They call them 99 percent plans right now. We did set
aside that southwest big green space for them. They had previously shown a long narrow
no man's land drainage area on our west boundary prior to them knowing the
development was coming in, which they fenced off and they grow weeds and they are
quite ugly, so we -- we said, no, this is a better spot for it. Let's grass it. Let's landscape
it to Meridian standards. We are -- we are willing to pay at whatever level is fair. But it is
their drainage that that is set aside for, with a pathway put through it for us. But -- but it
is the drainage for their -- their roundabout project, which some distance going each
direction away from there. Widening the road. They are putting in a new -- a new box
culvert there at the creek, which already does have a Ten Mile -- a ten foot pathway on
the south side, put in with Cabella Creek, and the north side is -- is Nampa-Meridian's
access road and we did not clearly show that to be a common lot in our plat in our first
submittal, so we did that on this one. It is a common lot. We can't really do anything in
it, because there is already -- there is just a little ditch bank on the one side and a little
ditch bank and an access road on the other side and -- and it's -- it's just kind of a no
man's land. But we are responsible to the HOA to take care of that and own it, although
ACHD and Nampa-Meridian will have their facilities in there. So, the kind of quirks with
this one is the existing house. They always present interesting geometric issues with
setbacks and how access is going to get changed to delete -- I believe three accesses
that they have for that house and, then, take access from the rear. The way it's separated
we needed two, one on the north to get to the -- to the garages and, then, one to their
shops and one on the south to get to the garage and do the geometry. We did have to
go down to a 12 foot minimum and, then, 22 on the north just to line up with the existing
landscape buffer to the north. Everywhere else is 25 feet. In fact, it's a little bit more than
Page 56
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 19,2021
Page——50
25 feet. Some part of our justification was that we -- from a square footage standpoint
we actually have more than a 25 foot average overall and it would be safer if we can
narrow this down. It will have nice landscaping and it won't be a detriment to the -- to the
neighborhood to have a reduction just in this one spot and DirectorArial did -- did approve
that. Other than that it's R-4. I love R-4. Bigger lots. Nobody usually gets bent out of
shape about R-4. Don't even want to think about R-8. It's going to be a comp plan
amendment, one, because it's low density on the comp plan and, two, due to the access
it just needs to be an expansion of Cabella Creek and we are going to have great
amenities, centralized. This geometry lays out to a really --just nicely flowing loop with a
nice central open space, connected -- connected pathway. What else do we need? You
know. I like it. It's good. I'm proud of it. I think it worked out well and I think it's going to
be an improvement to the access in the neighborhood to get that roundabout in and we
are perfectly coordinated with it. So, we do agree with all of staff's conditions of approval.
We have the record on approval at hand for reduced setback. There is two little things I
ask for your consideration. One, to make a specific recommendation and that's where
the grass came from that -- that Alan brought up. I -- P&Z made a specific
recommendation that ACHD actually grass and landscaped that drainage area in the
southwest corner. I don't know if you have noticed, but on some of these major arterials
they will just fence them off and they will be like sterilized dirt and that's not the look we
are going for here. You know, they are going to buy the property from us -- or however
they want to do it. They are going to get it. We just like the specific recommendation that
it has to be landscaped, because of Meridian standards. That's all. And we are willing to
participate in that. And, secondly, maybe this is a private issue, but I always find it to be
something that would be nice to get in a development agreement, is that we agreed to
make the --the homes adjacent to the Carrington Lots 21 to 24, Block 2, to be single story
and if that's in the development agreement it is there forever. So, if I'm gone everybody
remembers and so with that I ask for your approval. Thank you.
Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: Just, Matt, if you could repeat which lots that you had just mentioned would be
limited to single story, please.
Schultz: Yes. Lots 21 through 24, Block 2. They are directly--they are directly southwest
of the big Carrington lot.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: Perfect suggestion. It seems like it would make it work better for everybody.
Appreciate that.
Page 57
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 19,2021
Page 29—50
Schultz: Yeah. Thanks.
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: Just briefly this is a little different than the bump puzzle from the --
Schultz: A little bit.
Simison: Councilman Borton, we lost you if you are speaking.
Cavener: Got to charge your Pad.
Borton: All right. We are back?
Simison: We are back. We can hear you. Okay.
Borton: Sorry about that. It froze. The south -- the only question I had was just that
southwest corner and the landscaping in that ACHD retention area and correct me if I
didn't hear this right. The property will be ultimately transferred to ACHD ownership, but
the condition would be that -- that the applicant green it up and landscape it to Meridian
standards. Is that right?
Schultz: Working with ACHD. Thank you, Mayor, Councilman Borton. It's kind of an odd
deal. I have never ran into this situation where I have an ACHD drainage facility on our
properly -- on our property going at the same time. You know, usually we are really early
or really late. So, it is a -- it's a unique situation that I haven't ran into. Typically with our
drainage areas that are for our roads and we maintain them, ACHD has an easement
over them. We landscape them. We build them to their standards and we are done. This
is a little bit different situation where I believe they are going to acquire it, because it's for
the regional drainage. It's not for our subdivision specifically. I believe they are going to
own it, but there is -- I may be wrong, we could certainly own and maintain it as the HOA
and we might even prefer that. We just haven't really worked the details out of-- we have
just told them recently, hey, this -- this needs to go here, not this little narrow no man's
land on the other side. So, we are going to take this hearing tonight, move forward, and
work out the details of how that's going to be -- be taken care of, but we -- whoever takes
care of it -- we would love to take care of it. Whoever installs it, we would like it to be a
requirement that it would be --that it would be installed to the City of Meridian's landscape
standards for drainage facilities, which you have some newer specific requirements for
those and we want to participate in that. We think it would be a great demonstration of
how ACHD and developers can work together and still end up with, you know, a nice
landscaped facility, instead of a fenced off no man's land.
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Page 58
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 19,2021
Page——50
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: To that point maybe at the tail end we can circle back. The best way to do that if
-- I agree a hundred percent that ideally the -- the HOA would be able to -- it would be
designed to Meridian's landscape standards, greened up, and the HOA would be required
to maintain it in perpetuity going forward, granting ACHD the easement rights to utilize it.
The question might be if -- if it were to be transferred to ACHD, if there is some way to
encumber it in perpetuity so they would take it subject to that requirement. Either way, I
think you are spot on.
Schultz: Yeah. It's a unique situation. We are open to whatever -- to participate in that
cost of landscaping it up. We just don't want them to take -- hey, look, you know, zero
cost increase to us, we are just going to fence it off and go spray herbicide on it every
couple years.
Borton: Yep. Yep.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: Matt, good to see you.
Schultz: Hello.
Perreault: Hi there. So, I was wondering what -- one question and one comment.
Wondering if you had had a chance to chat with any of the residents in Cabella Creek that
had submitted public testimony. And, then, also to -- to Councilman Borton's point, I
actually live in a neighborhood where there was a drainage area that was very nicely
maintained by the HOA. ACHD, for whatever reason, came in and wanted to take
ownership -- ownership of it after -- I mean it was -- the subdivision was built. The HOA
had been maintaining it for a few years. I don't know why ACHD decided they wanted to
take ownership of it and now it's a mess and it's in an area where a lot of children go and
they have left it to be a situation where now the HOA is just trying to keep people safe,
honestly. So, hopefully, you can work that out with them.
Schultz: We will work it out.
Perreault: With the HOA. But, yes, if you would, please, answer the question regarding
any communication you might have had with the individuals who submitted written
testimony.
Schultz: Yes. Mr. Mayor and Council Woman Perreault, at the neighbor meeting the
president did show up and, actually, he was like a hundred percent supportive. Can you
join our HOA? Can we share HOAs? I was like, well, we will talk about it. You never
know, you know. But there was no discussion of the access points at that point. I think
Page 59
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 19,2021
Page 31 —50
he got some pushback since then from some of the neighbors, especially some of them
that live right on those stubs streets that did provide testimony at the last hearing. It's one
of these stub streets that never make anybody happy to be extended that live there. It's
been a stub street for ten years, been a nice field, but the intent of even putting it there
was that it would be connected in the future with development to allow pedestrian and --
and, you know, vehicular access and even if we did put another access out to Locust
Grove Road, I have never seen ACHD cut one of these things off ever. They go through,
they are meant to disperse traffic, kind of filter it out and to your -- to your question about
traffic studies and demands, typically they look at each home generating ten trips per --
per-- per house per day. You know, delivery trucks, going to school, work, whatever. So,
in this case we would have, you know, 410 trips. I think Cabella Creek is about another
40, 45. We are about -- we are pretty equal in size. So, we are under a hundred total.
We are under a thousand. A thousand is what usually triggers the first discussions about
collector roads and no on-front housing and all that. But we have got great dispersion on
Bailey, both north and south, and, then, on the other side of Cabella Creek there -- I think
it's Mesa Way that connects north and south -- at least south to Victory. So, there is good
dispersion of traffic. There is no overload of any of the streets and that's where ACHD is
coming from. Low density. Low density. Low density combined with low density never
usually yields, you know -- you know, a collector requirement, you know, which is where
we are at, so -- so, I had not talked directly. I did get a -- I did get a letter from one of the
neighbors after P&Z expressing her displeasure with how the -- the P&Z meeting went
when we talked about how those stubs streets get extended. We will be good neighbors.
We have big lots. You know, 10,000 square foot lots abutting there. So, it's a hard -- it's
a hard discussion to have, but it is -- it's just kind of how -- how things happen, so -- that's
all.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: Matt, if you could, please, just refresh my memory. I don't remember -- I think I
read this in the staff report. Is there a shack near this property or on this property?
Schultz: Is there a what? Excuse me?
Bernt: A shack. Or a big house that needs to get removed?
Schultz: Yeah. If -- Alan, can you put up that preliminary plat again, please. The black
and white one that kind of shows an outline. Thank you. Yeah. There is a house right
on the corner down by the roundabout. You can kind of see the rectangle down there.
There is actually a little label that says existing house and outbuildings to be removed
there on the corner and, then, further west of that there is a -- I don't know if it's an old
barn -- a little barn, shed, shack thing. A corral west of that, between there and Cabella
Creek that's going to get removed and other than that the site's pretty clean. The
Carrington's house is going to stay essentially where they have it fenced off right now.
There is a fence going diagonal right there, so that's where it's going to get developed up
Page 60
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 19,2021
Page——50
to and the rest of it's pasture. So, yeah, that's all -- we are going to remove that structure
and the sheds and leave the Carrington's home.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Matt, good hire by your client. Lucky to have you.
Appreciate you being straightforward and bringing good recommendations as part of your
narrative. A couple of questions based on your testimony and dovetailing on a couple of
questions from Council. First, I assume both of those stubs are marked future roadway
extensions. There had -- this isn't any surprise for any of the residents that live over
there?
Schultz: Mayor, Councilman Cavener, I did not look specifically at those. All these stub
streets at one point had a sign that's put up that says stub street to be extended in the
future. Now, whether those get taken down, thrown away, that has happened before in
the history -- say I didn't know that was going to be extended. Well, the sign was there at
one point. So, I don't -- I can't -- I can't say for sure that I have seen the signs on both of
them. I have, but I didn't specifically look at it. But we are required to put them up. All of
our stubs have signs for this specific purpose.
Cavener: Okay. Fair enough. So, the second one is kind of a sideways question. So, I
think that your client does a good job of greening space up and really maintaining
everything during the development and the sales phase, but I get pretty significant
feedback from residents of those types of neighborhoods that feel after the sales process
is complete there isn't necessarily a -- a fund of HOA dues that remain for the ongoing
maintenance and it kind of creates a scenario where things start really great, all of the
lots and homes are sold and there is nothing available, then, we will have to rebuild up,
you know, kind of some HOA funds to maintain it and they always feel like they are
working in arrears. So, especially where we are talking about kind of a piece of ground
that could go to ACHD that's greened up to our standards, have you had any
conversations with your clients about the approach that you all can take to reduce at least
that perception from happening? Are there any suggestions for us as Council to condition
so that what I -- what I don't think is intended, but sounds like is occurring at least in some
developments throughout Meridian.
Schultz: Yeah. Thanks, Mayor, Councilman Cavener. Appreciate the feedback. I -- I will
get these approved, get them all built, and, then, I go into the next one and every once in
a while I will drive through a subdivision and I will make a phone call or send an e-mail
say, hey, there is a dry spot there, you might want to call your maintenance guy or
whatever. It's kind of the nature of the beast on a lot of these things. Sometimes it takes
them a little bit to -- the maintenance guys to figure out how to best do that particular site
and there is -- at any given time there might be a dry spot here or there or a dead tree
and, then, you make a phone call and the tree gets replaced and they fix that zone or they
replace that battery in the time clock or -- the nature of maintenance. I do appreciate it.
Page 61
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 19,2021
Page 33—50
I -- I will definitely pass on that there is that perception. I know they work with independent
HOA maintenance management companies that run these. They collect dues at closing,
so that they are funded and, then, if there is any shortfall -- say, for instance, it was a very
slow moving subdivision, but you had a lot of perimeter landscaping, you know, the
developer kicks in to -- to pay for that until that critical mass of number of homes has
contributed to the HOA and that's just being a developer. That's what we do sometimes.
I mean these days -- these things are selling so quickly that the HOA isn't coming to us
saying, hey, we need money, because they have gotten it through their closings and they
actually get double. They usually get a setup fee, plus the first year's dues, so they get a
little extra. So, I will definitely pass that on. I -- and I'm cognizant of it. I have reputations.
I want to -- I want to be responsible for good projects in all areas of Meridian for sure and
it's -- it's something that I -- I think -- I think it's a little bit of a misperception that somehow
the owner isn't collecting enough. I would put the blame on the HOA management
company not making sure their maintenance guys are taking care of some dry spots. I
know that happens, because they are managing, you know, thousands of lots. But it's --
Cavener: Sure.
Schultz: -- it's certainly something that -- that I'm sensitive to as well.
Cavener: And, Mr. Mayor, if I may.
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: And that's sort of-- I mean I love that we have got an R-4 on this corner. I think
it compliments the existing neighborhood fairly well. It's -- it's just one of those things that
when you hear that feedback from enough people you start to think, well, is that -- is that
a perception issue or is that a reality that's being articulated, asking us as Council to not
let future developments to come in and make those same mistakes and, frankly, I don't
-- I don't know what the answer is. I think because you are a straight shooter and an
honest broker, that if you had ideas I -- I would feel comfortable and confident that you
would share those suggestions and, frankly, I would rather hear some of those
suggestions from you and your client, than Council sit around a table and wax poetic
about what we think is best.
Schultz: Oh. And I appreciate that feedback and I know I'm going to have a pretty blunt
conversation with my client about what we are talking about right now, that, you know,
maybe we need to hire an additional, you know, management company, so they are not
spread too thin. Maybe that's what's going on. I don't know. But, you know, some of
these maintenance companies pay more attention than others and so it's an issue that is
certainly relevant and to be -- but I do believe the HOAs are adequately funded. I believe
that's a misperception.
Cavener: Okay.
Schultz: And -- and I think it's just more of a management than funding.
Page 62
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 19,2021
Page 34—50
Cavener: All right. Thanks, Matt. Appreciate your feedback.
Schultz: Yeah.
Nary: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Just for the discussion as Councilman Cavener asked the question and looking at
Google Earth from 2012, which is the last time the Google car must have drove down this
street, but on Bailey Street there are two -- two stub roads that connect to this property
and both of them are signed, at least in the photos that are on the Google Earth today.
Cavener: Thanks, Mr. Nary. I didn't want to go Google searching on my own. Appreciate
you doing that and adding that to the public record.
Simison: Council, any further questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you very much.
This is a public hearing. Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone signed up to provide testimony
on this item?
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, no one's signed up in advance, but the Shaners are online and have
raised their hand, so I will bring them in.
Simison: Okay. And if you could state your name and address for the record and you will
be recognized for three minutes. And -- there you go. You have unmuted.
Shaner: Oh. Do you me to start again?
Simison: Yes.
Shaner: I'm sorry.
Simison: We can hear you now and we will go ahead and start. Can you state your name
and address for the record.
Shaner: Right. Erick Shaner. 1488 East Lake Creek Street, Meridian, Idaho. 83642.
We -- we live in the next subdivision over, the Salmon Rapid Subdivision, and we live --
we live to the north and we live on that access out to Locust Grove. We have lived here
just shy of about 15 years and the traffic has continually, you know, gotten worse and
worse and worse over the years, especially out onto Locust Grove. It's been a little bit
less because of COVID, but I guess the point is is that reading the report the -- Locust
Grove was supposed to be improved in 2020 and it wasn't and the roundabout was
supposed to be in 2022 and I doubt that will happen on time and the amount of congestion
and traffic out from East Lake Creek Street out of Locust Grove is a great concern. There
is a lot of children that play in the -- play in the area. Excuse me. And also we are an
older subdivision and the homes abut right on to -- the closest homes in the subdivision
Page 63
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 19,2021
Page——50
abut right on to Locust Grove and there is no buffer like there is from Bailey Way onto
Victory Road and so we had asked -- we had -- we had submitted our comments, but
none of the discussion tonight has really focused on the comments that we submitted and
that was to delay the project until those improvements on Locust Grove could take place,
so there would be a reasonable access to turn right and -- and take that roundabout and,
then, come back, instead of making that left turn. And the other issue is that also with our
other subdivision, we didn't have any open spaces slash parks and so taking this area
out is disheartening, especially when there has been no replacement by the city for us to
have parks and open spaces. But we really appreciate the changes that were made for
the original plat that were submitted to Planning and Zoning and we want those to be
accepted. It's great and thank you for listening to me.
Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: Not necessarily a question and maybe more of a comment. You know, I
appreciate you stating your perspective and I think we share your frustration when these
road projects are delayed as well. Hopefully, with some new ACHD commissioners we
will start to see better funding and better momentum. I hope at least on some of these
projects. So, appreciated the comment.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: I know Miranda is not on. I guess for Mr. Shaner to respond to your concern
and -- and, frankly, I live just down the street from you, so your concern is -- is somewhat
my concern, particularly about Locust Grove. That is a project that's on a high priority of
our Transportation Commission. I think it's a high priority for the Mayor and Council. It's
a really high priority for me. So, I think there is a lot of eyes on that particular project and
an ongoing communication with ACHD to not have that project be delayed further. I
appreciate you shining a light on that. I think it's something that's top of mind for a lot of
us.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Do we have someone from ACHD on that could kind of speak to the Locust
Grove expansion and the time frame?
Simison: Yes, we do. We have Kristy Inselman on -- Mr. Clerk, I think she is in -- not
been brought in. I see the name in, but I also see it out.
Page 64
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 19,2021
Page 36 of 50
Johnson: She's in where she can unmute. If she would like to be on camera we can
move her in, but I by default make her unmuted at the beginning of every meeting, so she
can interject when requested.
Simison: Okay.
Inselman: Mayor, this is Kristy Inselman. I am on the call if you have any questions for
me. I will speak quick -- just briefly to that intersection at Locust -- sorry. Locust Grove
and Victory. Right? Sorry. Went the wrong direction on my map. Yes, that is -- that
project is in funded year, so it is currently in the plan. So, our five year work plan details
projects we anticipate completing over the next five years. The first two are directly
funded by our budget and that is in there.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Inselman: That's actually scheduled for construction in '22 to '23. So, it will start -- our
-- our fiscal years run from October to September. So, fiscal year '22 starts next year in
October.
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, she -- she answered the question that I had, so -- thanks, Kristy.
Inselman: Uh-huh.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: And from a practical standpoint, I know that -- that the practical thing that they
are doing is finishing up the mile on Eagle, coming back over and doing the mile on Locust
Grove and when that's done going back and doing another mile on Eagle. So, there is a
conscious effort to make these road improvements and -- and keep them moving forward,
because, then, those delays can push everything. Council Woman Strader.
Strader: Maybe just a follow up for Kristy and maybe I'm just being dense and I need to
be hit over the head with it. So, just to clarify -- if you could clarify was that the timing for
both the roundabout and the Locust Grove improvement or is Locust Grove widening still
expected in '20 -- in 2021? That's what I wrote down. If you could just explain. And,
then, are you stating that ACHD has fully funded or has a budget that has fully funded
these projects, so we wouldn't expect a delay?
Inselman: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Strader, that -- that is correct. So, we do have the
Locust Grove, Victory to Overland Road segment, to be widened to five lanes and that
was designed in 2019. We are finishing up right of way acquisition and that one is
scheduled for construction in '22 and the same would go for our -- the roundabout there
Victory and Locust Grove. So, it was designed in '19, right of way is finishing up, and it
Page 65
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 19,2021
Page 0, V,50
is construction in '22. So, yes, they are both in funded years and so I -- I would not
anticipate either one of those moving at all once we get them into a funded year.
Strader: Mr. Mayor, a follow up to the applicant.
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: So, Matt, can you outline your likely timing of when you would expect these lots
will be delivered to the market?
Schultz: Absolutely. Thank you, Mayor and Council Woman Strader. Given the time
frames right now and approvals and engineering times, we would be -- we might get it
done this year. I would say the latest we would have this done would be say May of 2022.
1 know I have been contacted by the -- developer's representative -- gas facility and, you
know, we are setting aside funds for the sidewalk. So, I know it's imminent. I have seen
both sets of plans, one being a roundabout and one being the stretch going north. I
thought the roundabout was going first and, then, the stretch going north was going to
kind of tail behind it -- you know, a year or two behind it. The way it's -- I understand it
now is they are going to go simultaneously or bam, bam. And so I think the timing -- we
are going to be building about-- maybe a little bit before they get it done, but we are going
to do all of our landscaping up to the back of sidewalk and, then, they will do the sidewalk
and it will be -- it should be coordinated pretty well. That's the intent.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Before we go into further questions, I just want to make sure there is no one
else who wishes to testify on this item. Mr. Clerk, we don't have anybody else in the
waiting room?
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we do not.
Simison: Okay. I mean technically we are at the applicant's final comments. So, Mr.
Schultz, if you wouldn't mind making any final comments and it sounds like it will probably
be just for the Council questions after that, if there is anything else you would like to add.
Schultz: No. I think my final comments were going to be to Mr. Shaner's questions and
timing and I think the discussion with Kristy and Councilman Strader kind of clarified all
that. So, with that I will -- I will stand for anymore questions.
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: And that's okay. I think I'm good. I just wanted to make sure -- but it sounded
like the most likely outcome is a delay of less than one year. From what I could gather
between when ACHD is -- is going to complete these projects and when the applicant is
delivering them.
Page 66
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 19,2021
Page——50
Schultz: Correct.
Simison: Council, any further questions or comments for the applicant?
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: The only -- only thing I am kind of a little fuzzy on is how we want to handle the
landscaped -- grass and landscaped ACHD slash development overflow facility that
needs to be built. So, I -- I'm not sure what the recommendation -- the best
recommendation would be on something like that. So, that's -- that's kind of interesting.
I think -- I would prefer to see it maintained within a developer's hands to keep it greened
up. I'm also aware of Councilman Cavener's discussion and concerns, but as opposed
to ACHD. We have one of those at our -- our corner and for the longest time it wasn't
even fenced in, it was just basically a bomb crater and it's now fenced. It doesn't look
any better really. So, have the -- have the homeowners be able to have more say in
making sure that is greened up and appropriate for their area is kind of the direction I
would like to go. But I'm not sure how -- how we go about doing that, so --
Simison: Maybe, Mr. Nary, two questions directly as -- is ACHD subject to any of our --
any code enforcement or otherwise if they become the owners of it. I know we cannot
determine who should be the owner of it. They will decide that.
Nary: So, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, as diplomatically as I can say this -- yes,
believe they are. They don't necessarily agree with me. I do think it is important that it
does be maintained appropriately and whether or not it's maintained by the HOA-- I mean
as Mr. Schultz has stated -- I mean they can work that out. If they are willing to do it --
ACHD normally will take the heavy maintenance burden of these things for that longer
term, kind of cleaning it out, mucking out the -- these things, but the short term stuff they
-- they are fine with other people maintaining it, so they don't have to. So, they have
generally been accepting to do that. But if it's fully on them they generally don't comply
with that. So, whatever conditions and language you would like us to add to the
development agreement that the developer is agreeable to and that the HOA is willing to
at least agree to in -- in the DA, whether or not they can work that out with ACHD is, again,
an unknown.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: If I might, I know Kristy cannot, you know, speak for the commission in terms
of committing them to a course of action, but, Kristy, you heard the discussion. Are you
-- are you able to help reinforce or send the message of what our intent is with this
development and ACHD's cooperation with development to keep that as a green space
and completely understanding from our perspective that ACHD needs this facility and we
Page 67
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 19,2021
Page——50
understand the need, but we just want to make sure it looks nice and if you can convey
to them that we would appreciate their cooperation with Matt and his team in making sure
that that is taken care of.
Inselman: Mr. Mayor, absolutely. I'm more than happy to convey that to the project team
with regards to that facility and, typically, I think as your staff alluded to, we are never
adverse to the developer improving that area, as long as it does not impact the integrity
of the actual drainage system itself and if they are willing to maintain that typically we are
fine with that. We have license agreements that we enter into with a multitude of
developers on this type of situation. So, I will be happy to convey that to the group. I
can't speak for them, but I can say typically we would -- we would allow that if they agree
to maintain it.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor and Kristy, thank you.
Simison: Council, any further questions for the applicant? Comments for the general
good of the order? Or motions?
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: I will make a -- try and make a comment before I make -- before I freeze up.
Matt, I think it's a -- it's a great project in this space. Appreciate the R-4. I think it's
designed well. I think you have hit the mark on all of the issues. I think the idea of limiting
the height on those four lots seems to be appropriate in the circumstances as you have
suggested and I would -- I would suggest that the DA include a provision that the applicant
is going to green up and landscape that southwest portion that will be utilized by ACHD,
that it's an HOA obligation to maintain it in perpetuity as part of the DA. If things down
the road change and ACHD is going to take it over somehow, you might have a DA
modification to accommodate that. You might not ever need to and ACHD is a good
partner and it sounds like they very well may be willing to accommodate the HOA
maintaining it, just so long as it doesn't interfere with their -- with their use. So, everyone
seems to be on the same page. But for the purpose of the DA, would include the provision
that I think the staff report has, is that the HOA would -- would maintain that landscaped
green area going forward. So, with those comments I think you have done a great job
and it's a great project.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: If it's the appropriate time I would move that we close the public hearing.
Simison: This would be the appropriate time. Is there a second?
Page 68
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 19,2021
Page 40 of 50
Borton: Second.
Simison: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Any discussion on
the motion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: Along those lines I would move, after considering all staff, applicant, and public
testimony, to approve file number H-2020-0105 as presented in the staff report for the
hearing date of January 19th, 2021, with the following modifications: That the southwest
corner landscaping be landscaped to Meridian standard for drainage facilities and that
that landscaping become an HOA obligation. And, in addition, that the home Lots 21 to
24, Block 2, be limited to single story.
Borton: Second.
Simison: I have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion on the motion? If not,
Clerk will call the roll.
Roll call: Bernt, yea; Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, yea; Perreault,
yea.
Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is agreed to.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Simison: Council, we will take a ten minute recess and reconvene at 8:15.
(Recess: 8:04 p.m. to 8:15 p.m.)
3. Public Hearing for Daphne Square Subdivision (H-2020-0101) by Matt
Schultz of Schultz Development, Located at 4700 W. McMillan Rd.
A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 4.97 acres of land with an R-15
zoning district.
B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 30 building lots and 3
common lots on 4.97 acres of land in the proposed R-15 zoning
district.
Simison: All right, Council, I will go ahead and call us back in from recess. 8:15. And I
will open Item 3, a public hearing for Daphne Square Subdivision, H-2020-0101, with staff
comments and, Alan, it's back to you.
Page 69
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 19,2021
Page 41 —50
Tiefenbach: Did my screen work this time, Council people?
Cavener: Looks good, Alan.
Tiefenbach: All right. Thank you. Okay. This is an annexation, zoning, and preliminary
plat to allow 30 building lots and three common lots. The property is just slightly less than
five acres, presently zoned RUT in unincorporated Ada county, located 47 West -- 4700
West McMillan at the northeast corner of North Black Cat and West McMillan. North is
zoned R-8 was single family residential. That's the Brody Square Subdivision that was
just recently approved. To the south is zoned RUT and east as well, RUT, both within
unincorporated Ada county. To the west is R-15, single family residential. That's the Jump
Creek Subdivision. The Comprehensive Plan recommends medium density residential
for this site. Here are the future improvements. There will be some eventual road
construction along Black Cat and McMillan, although this particular-- with this one we are
going to be looking at this roundabout. That's probably the most recent improvements
that you are going to see for this property. The property presently contains an existing
manufactured home that's over at the northwest -- it's almost all the way over at Black
Cat. Black Cat. And this will be removed. This proposal includes mostly duplexes, in
addition to several detached single family residences. The detached single family
residences are mostly over at the northeast corner. Staff does believe this is a housing
type that will lead to a more diversity in housing, as the majority of housing in this area is
single family residential. There are two points of access proposed. The first would be a
northern stub street, which would go to the Brody Square Subdivision as that is being
developed. The second is a stub street to the undeveloped property to the east, which is
presently in unincorporated Ada county. There is only one street proposed with this
internal development and that will be the cul-de-sac that you see. Black Cat and West
McMillan are presently two lanes that do not contain sidewalk in this area. The applicant
is required to dedicate right of way for future widening and to construct five foot sidewalks
along both of these frontages. This is the same width as is provided by the subdivisions
to the north and the west and as I mentioned there is a future roundabout that's planned
at this intersection. This is the colored landscape plan. I think sometimes this says a lot
more than having the black and white ones, especially in a public hearing. The applicant
-- and I will come back to that. The applicant has provided a parking exhibit, which
indicates 30 additional on-street parking spaces. So, each townhouse in particular has
two in the garage, two in the parking -- or, excuse me, two in the driveway and, then, there
are 30 more that will be here as well. This property is less than five acres in size. The
reason why I say that is that per the UDC it does not have to meet the common open
space and amenity requirements. However, since this is an annexation and the applicant
proposes a density that's at the high end of the medium destiny range, proposes six
dwelling units per acre, staff originally informed the applicant in order for us to support the
density that high this development should contain quality open space and amenities. The
earlier version that we have that went to the Planning Commission -- so, the primary open
space directly on the intersection of Black Cat and McMillan, right on that intersection.
Staff did not believe that that was usable open space. At the Planning Commission staff
recommended that the lot, which was originally shown at the north as a detention pond
be expanded, so that that could be more usable open space. At the December 17th, 2020
Page 70
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 19,2021
Page——50
-- 2020, Planning Commission there was -- it was discussed at length and the following
changes were made. The first change -- and I will show that in this next slide here -- was
that the developer should work with the Brody Square representative. This was sort of
as a suggestion of the -- of the developer. The developer pointed out that Brody Square
and Daphne Square are sort of the same development. They kind of build off of each
other, even though they are not -- they are under different ownership, they are both
basically working together. So, the developer proposed that they would work with the
Brody Square representative to locate a playground amenity in the central parking Lot 9
and that's what you see here right in the middle. That's actually Brody Square and that
they work out an arrangement between these two subdivisions to allow shared open
space and amenities for the residents of both subdivisions. If this -- if this arrangement
can't happen, then, the applicant offered and the Planning Commission recommended
that Lot 1, Block 2, be converted into common open space and that's what you see down
at the bottom, that little red dot. So, they either get the amenities in the open space
shared with the common -- the lot in Brody Square or they add an additional lot as the
common open space. The commissioners also recommended detached sidewalks
should be converted to attached sidewalks. In the earlier versions -- and I will go back
up to what's in color here. You will see that the sidewalk runs directly along the main cul-
de-sac. The original version of this -- these sidewalks had -- they were detached and
they had an eight foot landscaping between the street and the sidewalk and the result of
that was that the setbacks were only 12 -- 12 feet in the rear. The Planning Commission
had some concerns about whether that was compatible with the properties to the north
and whether they can expand the setbacks in a creative way to do that was to take those
detached sidewalks and make them attached, so that you could push the houses further
forward and away from the existing -- away from the houses in Brody Square and provide
wider setbacks. So, that was the second recommendation. Also there was a
recommendation that the Commission wanted to have the lots in the northern side -- and
I will go back to here. Let's see if I can do a better version. Well, you can see it here. If
you will look at the northern lots, it says 25, 35, 30. So, all along those northern lots the
Commissioners had concerns with those lot lines not lining up with the lots to the south
there in the Brody square Subdivision. They recommended that this be revised, so that
those somehow align better with the lots to the north. That particular recommendation
the applicant is not-- not in favor of, does not agree with. So, the applicant is in agreement
with everything else, except for, again, the recommendation to align the lots with the lots
to the north. Other than that, the staff will answer questions or comments if you have any
and that was my presentation.
Simison: Thank you, Alan. Council, any questions for staff? Okay. With that invite the
applicant to, please -- there he is. And, Matt, if you would state your name and address
for the record and you will be recognized for 15 minutes.
Schultz: Thank you, Mayor and Council Members. Matt Schultz. 8421 South Ten Mile.
Here on behalf of Berkeley Communities. I helped them with the project. We are working
on Calistoga on -- on -- on Amity between Locust Grove right now and this is where he
would like to kind of go to next. Berkeley is -- is a home builder as a -- as a developer
and it's -- it's good -- good to know that what he says is going to be done here -- that he
Page 71
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 19,2021
Page 4O of 50
has provided some -- some nice elevations for this product -- square feet even, though it
is attached to a zero lot line. Alan, if you could put up that overall Brody -- on it, please.
What always -- start looking at these four and a half acre sites, it really is -- and, you know,
it was important at some point to do detail, but I think we maybe overcompensate and
zoom in way too far and every single one of these were --were typically --the big picture.
As we -- Brody Square here, which got approved I think last summer. My owner is talking
to them about -- joining the HOA -- I know there was discussions and I think it would be
the greater good for everybody to look at this as --
Simison: Matt?
Schultz: Yeah.
Simison: You are kind of going in and out.
Schultz: Do I sound choppy?
Simison: Yeah. I don't know if you want to turn off your video while you are speaking and
see if that helps. At least skip the audio --
Schultz: Yeah, I can do that. Yeah. Let me see. Let me get -- yeah. So, I will start over.
Can you hear me better?
Simison: So far.
Schultz: Is it still choppy?
Simison: Maybe a little bit. Why don't you try going and see how it works.
Schultz: Yeah. I apologize. My-- my internet connection is fluctuating right now. So, we
thought it was important to look at the big picture and show how this five acre site, which
is really a three and a half acre site once you take away the ACHD right of way -- an
opportunity to do -- and with the R-8 previously -- phase of Brody Square -- road to get
built or waiting for their sewer to get built. Waiting for their access, because our access
is going to -- by its proximity to that roundabout. Let's work out a big picture that improves
the neighbor -- neighborhood roughly for everybody and we have done this before. We
go out and work out a deal -- a cost share -- let's improve both pieces -- where option one
is shown, but if we can't for some reason, we can put it where option two is shown and --
and do it ourselves. So, I think it's a win-win, either option we choose. We -- option one.
Like I said, all these units that we have -- they are attached over there on the east side.
The rest are attached 1,800 to 2,100 square feet. The front yard maintenance will be
included on these, notwithstanding being the -- of ACHD's future cul-de-sac, we still need
to get the -- the R-15 zone. This -- this roundabout is not going to get built next year or
the following year, it's in their ten year plan. So, we use their-- their standard template to
plot in where that might be. Can you switch,Alan, to the--the color zoom on our property,
please. Not that one. And you can see south of the -- the north -- you had it. There you
Page 72
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 19,2021
Page—of 50
go. Just south of the North Black Cat Road level you can see the size of those cars. It's
not me. I swear. I don't know if you can go back to that color rendering. There you go.
You can see the size of the car -- you can see how big of a bite that is. It's a huge take
out of this property. It's like 30 percent of this property. We usually don't point out right-
of-way percentages, because they are usually incidental. But, really, what we are talking
about is a three and a half acre project. Notwithstanding that, we are still proposing the
required landscaping and amenities -- waivers of -- of your requirement -- northeast
corner to the -- we had a -- we had a duplex and a single family. So, we converted that
to be detached that match the streetscape coming from Brody. We did -- we are 29 lots
and we have -- with exception of lining up lot lines on the north side -- when you look at
the buildings here, which I think is important -- P&Z did not have the -- we did not have
the buildings showing how they line up with our buildings and so there was some
confusion about how buildings were going to line up and this and that and I'm confident
that if it would have had this, that that condition about lining up lot lines would not have
come, because there is actually eight houses to our seven buildings slash 14 units that
match up quite well and it's -- it's for a transition -- being on the corner of Black Cat and
McMillan I think R-15 is certainly appropriate and it's -- transition from the R-8 to -- I think
it's pretty subtle and I'm pleased when we did have those plotted out that that was an
important exercise to go through to see how it does look and to see how all these houses
work and the effort that we try to take on these just to be able to intelligently speak about
all these issues and it's our mistake not to have -- we didn't have those done for P&Z.
The real -- little nice project that Berkeley Homes wants -- wants to do and we pick -- a
niche not for everybody, but for those that want -- sized home, but want their front yard
maintained and don't mind having a -- will have -- of each side. It's a duplex where, you
know, two units on one lot. It's -- it's -- lots. Zero lot line. So, with that I will stand for any
questions.
Simison: Thank you, Mr. Schultz. Council, any questions for the applicant?
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: Is Alan controlling the slides? Could we go to the slides and have the open
space. It looked to me like the slide -- yeah. Go back one if you would. So, there is --
there is the green space there on the north side and, then, on the next slide it's not there.
Schultz: If I can comment on --
Perreault: Yes.
Schultz: -- Council Woman Perreault. I did update that exhibit. Alan didn't swap it out. I
did update it to look like what you see there on the --exhibit. If park--we redid the parking
on that and we -- for the updated layout. There is 29 spaces. It looks exactly like what
you have there. It just has a little red -- they need to go. But there are 29 on the -- which
is part of the record -- submitting just to get -- this presentation.
Page 73
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 19,2021
Page—of 50
Simison: Mr. Schultz, the early part of that -- if you wouldn't mind maybe calling in just on
a regular landline. I don't know how much more conversation there will be, but just so we
can make sure we capture any questions or additional comments necessary. You can
stay with us this way for any additional comments for now, but just don't want to miss any
of your comments.
Schultz: What's the number? What's a good number?
Johnson: Mr. Mayor. Mr. Schultz, if you have the agenda in front of you it's there.
Otherwise I can read it off to you.
Schultz: Yeah. That would be great.
Johnson: Okay. It's area code 669-900-6833 and you will --
Schultz: Okay.
Johnson: --then you will need to enter the webinar ID and I will put that up on my screen.
Schultz: Okay.
Simison: Council, any additional questions at this time?
Hoaglun: Matt, I did have a question.
Schultz: What's that ID?
Simison: Okay. One second.
Schultz: There we go.
Simison: Okay. We see your end. Can you hear us without any problem, Matt? You will
need to unmute your phone. Just star --
Johnson: I believe it's star nine to unmute.
Simison: Start nine on your phone to unmute. Still have you muted.
Johnson: I see a hand raised, but I can't do anything but allow you to talk, which I have
already done. So, try star nine. I'm sorry. That probably is what you pressed. Try star
five.
Schultz: Does that work?
Simison: Yep. We got you. Okay. Councilman Hoaglun, your question.
Page 74
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 19,2021
Page 4V of 50
Hoaglun: Yeah. Matt. And if you can stand up and spin around three times and take two
steps to the left that should work just right. But anyway. Thanks for -- thanks for doing
that and your patience with us here. We have been doing this for a while, but sometimes
it's still just -- we got to -- we got to be flexible. Matt, if -- if, Alan, you could put up that
option one, option two screen. One of those. I was just curious for the traffic when that
comes up -- Riva something and that street continues to the east, does that -- where it
says -- actually says option two, that street continues back to the east, is there an exit
point to McMillan Road at some point, do you recall, or --
Schultz: Yeah. Mayor and Councilman Hoaglun, that is a future stub street that will be
connected to McMillan some day when the parcel develops.
Hoaglun: So, it is a future stub street -- with a sign and all that stuff I know. And so --
Schultz: It would be.
Hoaglun: So, the main option for now will be going out -- I don't know if that was Brody
Street or what they called that --
Schultz: Brody.
Hoaglun: -- but going out to Black Cat. I was just curious -- I noticed the two driveways
for those two lots, one being the potential park option, option two, were on that street,
which would be the more heavily traveled street. I was just curious as to why those
weren't flipped to go facing the other way and, then, the -- the option two park, play lot,
whatever, being put on the outside there. Just --just curious. Just because of traffic and
trying to back out when there is a lot more traffic, so -- if you wouldn't mind commenting
on that. I cannot hear you, Matt. You got to hop back this way.
Schultz: Can you hear me now?
Hoaglun: Yes.
Schultz: We initially had those lots backing --or facing onto the cul-de-sac, but that leaves
backyards up against the adjacent lots. So, staff had us split those. So, everything's on
that street.
Hoaglun: Okay. Mr. Mayor. Matt. Yeah. I don't want to redesign the subdivision. I was
just curious about that. You know, I can understand staff's perspective. At the same time
I was thinking about driver safety and you have got this many houses using that street,
you know, it's just a --just an option I was -- I was wondering about. So, thank you.
Schultz: Yeah.
Simison: Council, any additional questions for the applicant? Okay. Well, this is a public
hearing. We have nobody here in the room and I don't think we have anybody online who
Page 75
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 19,2021
Page 47—50
could even offer testimony if they tried. So, I guess I will turn this back over to the
applicant for any final comments.
Inselman: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Yes, Kristy.
Inselman: Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt. I just wanted to speak to -- I apologize. I can't
remember which Council Member asked with regards to access. Daphne Street does
continue to the east and connects to Joy, which does connect to McMillan today. So, if
this were connected there would be another option for people to exit this development. I
hope that helps.
Hoaglun: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Kristy. Appreciate that.
Simison: Okay. With that, Matt, any final comments?
Schultz: I'm getting some feedback, so I'm going to hold it to a minimum.
Simison: Excellent. All right. Council, we will turn this over to you for any -- with that
information any additional questions, comments, or motions.
Hoaglun: Well, Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Thoughts and comments. I -- I can see -- I'm glad we had that slide with the
color and showing how the alignment works and I can understand Planning and Zoning,
you know, wanting lot lines to be aligned, but when they aren't the same -- quite the same
sizes, but to me it didn't look out of place to have those the way the alignment was for
that -- their -- their third recommendation on that -- that the developer was saying they
would rather not, because I -- I don't know how you would do that without changing the
size of the lots and having duplexes, but that was my only thought that -- not quite sure
how you make that work.
Simison: The other option would be to have the next phase align their lot lines if it's really
that important. Council, any motions?
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: I move we close the public hearing for Daphne Square Subdivision, H-2020-
0101.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, I will second the motion.
Page 76
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 19,2021
Page 4V of 50
Perreault: Mr. Mayor, second the motion.
Simison: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Is there any
discussion on the motion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The
ayes have it. The public hearing is closed.
MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: I don't have any comments. Appreciate the presentation by Matt. I think
Councilman Hoaglun touched on kind of the piece that I have wrestled with this week
about the lot lines. I think what we have got presented here makes sense. So, unless
there is -- there is any deliberation or -- amongst the body, I'm happy to make a motion.
Which is, Mr. Mayor, I move we approve No. 3, Daphne Square Subdivision, H-2020-
0101, include all staff and applicant testimony.
Strader: Mr. Mayor, second the motion.
Simison: I have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion on the motion? If not,
Clerk will call the roll.
Roll call: Bernt, yea; Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, yea; Perreault,
yea.
Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is agreed to.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Simison: Thank you, Mr. Schultz, for helping us through the technical difficulties and best
to you.
Schultz: Thanks a bunch.
Simison: Council, anything under future meeting topics?
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: It has been brought to my attention that we have a birthday in the house. True
story. I'm not making things up. So, at this time I wanted to lend a special birthday to our
Clerk Chris Johnson and say happy birthday to you and we as a Council want to let you
know how much we appreciate everything you do for us. I know this evening you
Page 77
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 19,2021
Page——50
absolutely requested and would not take the day off, because you wanted to be here
tonight. Is that true?
Johnson: Absolutely. Where else would I want to be --
Bernt: Birthday party.
Johnson: -- but with Council.
Perreault: I can think of a lot of places.
Bernt: That's a great answer. Well, just know that we appreciate you to death. You --
you are the glue that holds these meetings together. From the past year COVID has been
interesting and we have had challenges in how we have meetings and -- and you have
done a great job with your team and we couldn't do what we do without you, Chris. So,
with that said I have a little present for you. A little mini size cake -- a little birthday cake
for Chris. So, here you go, buddy.
Johnson: Thank you so much. I was told today it's not my birthday, it's the anniversary
of the day I was born.
Bernt: Oh. Okay.
Johnson: But birthday is fine. Thank you all.
Bernt: Very welcome. Thank you.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, I have to ask our Fire Department liaison and Deputy Chief Joe
Bongiorno, is -- is it true you -- you -- you prohibited us to use a full size cake with the
exact number of candles, because it would set the sprinklers off? I was just -- that's what
I heard. I don't know if it's true, but --
Bernt: Not a day over 20. Huh, Chris.
Bongiorno: It might have set the sprinkler system off.
Hoaglun: Yeah. Happy birthday, Chris. We really appreciate everything you do for us.
Bongiorno: Yes. Thank you. Have a great day from the Fire Department, too.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Yes, Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought Council Member -- Council President Bernt
said that you and he and Council Member Hoaglun were going to serenade Chris with a
Page 78
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 19,2021
Page——50
happy birthday and I didn't want to let that opportunity pass without giving you the
opportunity.
Bernt: I agree with that. I don't -- I think that we should include Mr. Nary and Dean, you
know, Lieutenant Leslie, you know. I think everyone here in Council Chambers should
absolutely step up and sing a little rendition of Happy Birthday to you.
Simison: Councilman Bernt, that was my intention as soon as we adjourn the meeting,
because I don't think the people that aren't here should have the privilege of our --
Bernt: If they want to -- if they want to join they absolutely can. One. Two. Three.
(Happy Birthday sung.)
Cavener: That will get our viewership up for sure.
Perreault: I am -- I am new to this group, but I have to say those were lovely singing
voices.
Simison: With that do I have a motion?
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: I move that we adjourn the meeting.
Hoaglun: Second the motion.
Simison: I have a motion and a second to adjourn. All those in favor signify by saying
aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it. We are adjourned.
MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:45 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
2 / 1 / 2021
MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON DATE APPROVED
ATTEST:
CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK
Page 79
Future Meeting Topics — Public Forum
Signing up prior to the start of the meeting is
required. This time is reserved for the public to
address their elected officials regarding matters of
general interest or concern of public matters and is
not specific to an active Land Use/Development
Application.
By Law, no decisions can be made on topics
presented under this public comment section, other
than the City Council may request that a topic be
added to a future meeting agenda for more detailed
discussion or action. The Mayor may also direct
staff to further assist you in resolving the matter
following the meeting.
CITY OF MERIDIAN
CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC FORUM SIGN-IN SHEET
i
Date: January 19, 2021
i
Prior to the commencement of the meeting a person wishing to address the Mayor and City
Council MUST sign in and limit their comments to the matter described below. Complaints
about individuals, city staff, business or private matters will not be allowed. Testimony or
comment on an active application or proposal that is or will be pending before Planning and
Zoning or City Council is strictly prohibited by Idaho law. Each speaker will have up to three
(3) minutes to address the Mayor and Council, but the chair may stop the speaker if the
matter does appear to violate guidelines, varies from the topic identified on this sign in sheet
or other provisions of law or policy.
i
Print Name Provide Description of Discussion Topic
Planning Presentation and Outline for
Land Use Public Hearings
Changes to Agenda:
Item #1: Earl Glen Subdivision Time Extension (TECC-2020-0003)
Application(s):
Time Extension
Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 4.65 acres of land, zoned R-8 & R-15, located at 1780 E.
McMillan, near the northeast corner of McMillan and Locust Grove.
History: RZ-15-009, PP-15-011, CUP-15-015, MDA-15-006 (DA Inst. #2016-021940); A-2017-0132 (TEC); H-2018-0094 (TECC).
Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Medium Density Residential (MDR – 3-8 du/ac).
Summary of Request: The Applicant, Riley Planning Services, requests a 2-year time extension on the preliminary plat in order to
obtain the City Engineer’s signature on a final plat AND extend the time to commence the multi-family use as permitted with the
conditional use permit.
In 2015, this property received rezoning (RZ-15-009) and preliminary plat (PP-15-011) approval from City Council. A conditional use
permit (CUP-15-015) was approved to permit a multi-family development in R-15. A modification to the development agreement was
approved (MDA-15-006) in 2015 as well. A one-year time extension (A-2017-0132) on the preliminary plat and conditional use permit
was approved by the Director on July 17, 2017. This approval expired on September 2, 2018. In 2018, a second time extension was
approved by the City Council on September 27, 2018. With the previous extension the Applicant had until October 16, 2020 to record
the final plat or apply for an additional time extension.
The previous time extension approved by City Council required additional conditions of approval due to code changes at the time. Staff
does not find it necessary to require any other conditions at this time but will require that all previous conditions of approval are
included. However, this would make the third overall time extension for this project and subsequent plat and Staff recommends City
Council determine whether any additional conditions of approval are needed or if an additional time extension is appropriate.
Written Testimony: None
Notes:
Possible Motions:
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number TECC-2020-0003, as presented in the
staff report for the hearing date of January 19, 2021: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions)
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number TECC-2020-0003, as presented during the
hearing on January 19, 2021, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial)
Continuance
I move to continue File Number TECC-2020-0003 to the hearing date of \[date\] for the following reason(s): (You should state
specific reason(s) for continuance.)
Item #2: Cache Creek Subdivision (H-2020-0105)
Application(s):
Annexation, zoning and preliminary plat to allow 41 building lots and 4 common lots.
Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 13.99 acres of land, presently zoned RUT in unincorporated
Ada County, and located at 1560 W. Victory Rd and 2955 S. Locust Grove Rd, at the NW corner of S. Locust Grove Rd. and E. Victory
Rd.
Adjacent Land Use & Zoning:
North: Zoned R-4, Single Family Residential
South: Zoned RUT, Rural
East: Zoned R-8 and R-4, Single Family Residential
West: Zoned R-4, Single Family Residential
Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Low Density Residential, <3 du/acre
Summary of Request:
This proposal includes annexation, zoning and platting to allow 41 building lots and 4 common lots.
Property presently contains two existing homes. The one to the south will be demolished, the one to the north east will remain.
There will be two accesses to the property. Each access will connect to a stub street in the Cabella Creek Subdivision to the west -
Loggers Pass Street and Sagemoor Street. These stub streets terminate at S. Bailey Way for access to E. Victory Rd or S. Locust
Grove. The Cache Creek Subdivision employs a “loop” road which will be constructed at 33’ wide with detached 5’ sidewalks and 8’
landscape strips.
S. Locust Grove Rd. currently has 2 lanes and no curb, gutter or sidewalk. E. Victory Rd. presently has 2 lanes with no curb, gutter or
sidewalk. Both are proposed to be widened in the next 3 years. A roundabout is planned for the E. Victory Rd. / S. Locust Grove Rd.
intersection in 2022.
Sufficient right-of-way presently exists for widening of both S. Locust Grove Rd. and E. Victory Rd. However, the applicant will be
required to dedicate additional right-of-way for the E. Victory Rd. / S. Locust Grove Rd. roundabout. Because both of these roads are
due to be reconstructed in the next 5 years, ACHD has requested the applicant pay $38,425 into a road trust deposit. The road trust
deposit funds will be used by ACHD to construct sidewalks abutting the site as part of the future intersection project.
Staff has received letters from neighbors and the President of the Cabella Creek Homeowners Association. They request NOT to
connect to these stub streets and allow direct access from S. Locust Grove, by lining up with E. Sagemoore Drive. Both the City
Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan discourage new developments directly connect to arterials and collectors. ACHD has
responded that allowing a new access onto S. Locust Grove Rd. would not meet their spacing requirements (1,320 ft). They have
further responded that in order to allow modifications to their policy, it would have to be proven that the local roads could not handle the
traffic – meaning more than 2,000 trips per day. This proposal is estimated to generate 387.
Five-foot detached sidewalks are proposed on both side of all streets within this development. There is also a pedestrian connection
from the sidewalk into Common Lot 3 Block 11 (containing a playground) and a pathway along the detention pond at the southwest to
E. Victory Rd. This development includes two amenities and approximately 16% open space.
There is a 10’ regional pathway that parallels Ten Mile Creek to E. Victory Rd in the Cabella Creek Subdivision to the west (no part of
this pathway is on the subject property), and a 10’ regional pathway that parallels Eight Mile Parallel and ends at S. Locust Grove on
the east side of S. Locust Grove. When this went to the Planning Commission, staff believed there should be a connection across the
property to the two regional pathways. That was a recommendation to Planning Commission. The updated drawings show this
connection.
Although the minimum required square footage of qualified common open space is satisfied (16% is proposed), the arterial buffer along
S. Locust Grove Rd. does not meet the minimum 25’ required width east of the existing house on Lot 18, Block 2. The applicant has
noted due the existing house and the widening of S. Locust Grove Rd. it is not feasible to provide the buffer. At the time of Planning
Commission, the applicant had not convinced staff of this. The Planning Commission recommended the applicant apply for alternative
compliance, or increase the width of this buffer. Since the PC, the applicant did apply and submitted exhibits that showed because all
existing accesses from S Locust Grove were being closed, increasing the 25’ along the existing house would render the internal
driveway to the house and garage unusable. The Planning Director approved Alterative Compliance for this reduced buffer.
The original landscape plan was missing a piece of a lot containing Ten Mile Creek whereas this portion of land is part of the subject
property. As the Comprehensive Plan and UDC speak to preserving and enhancing natural amenities, as a condition staff
recommended the landscape plan be updated to design this waterway in as a natural amenity. The Planning Commission mostly
agreed with staff’s recommendation and added a condition of approval that this area be landscaped with grass.
Staff Recommendation: Approval with conditions as listed in the staff report.
Possible Motions:
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to APPROVE File Number H-2020-0105, as presented in the staff
report for the hearing date of January 19, 2021, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions)
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to Deny File Number H-2020-0105, as presented during the
hearing on January 19, 2021, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial)
Continuance
I move to continue File Number File Number Number H-2020-0105 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for
the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance)
Item #3:
Daphne Square Subdivision (H-2020-0101)
Application(s):
Annexation, zoning and preliminary plat to allow 30 building lots and 3 common lots.
Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 4.97 acres of land, presently zoned RUT in unincorporated Ada
County, and located at 4700 W. McMillan Rd, at the NE corner of N. Black Cat and W. McMillian.
Adjacent Land Use & Zoning:
North: Zoned R-8, Single Family Residential (Brody Square)
South: Zoned RUT, Rural
East: Zoned RUT, Rural
West: Zoned R-15, Single Family Residential (Jump Creek)
Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Medium Density Residential 3-8 du/acre
Summary of Request:
Property presently contains an existing manufactured home that will be removed. This proposal includes mostly duplexes in addition to
several detached single-family residences. Staff does believe this is a housing type that would lead to more diversity in housing, as the
majority of housing in this area is single family detached.
There are two points of access proposed. The first is an internal street which will connect to the Brody Square Subdivision to the north.
The second is a stub street to the undeveloped property to the east (presently in unincorporated Ada County). Only one street will
serve the internal development.
Black Cat and W. McMillian are presently two lanes and do not contain sidewalk in this area. The applicant is required to dedicate
ROW for future widening and construct 5’ sidewalk along both of these frontages. This is the same width as is provided by the
subdivisions to the north and west. A future round-about is planned at the intersection.
The applicant has provided a parking exhibit which indicates 30 additional on-street spaces. This is in addition to the two garage
garages and two car driveways shown for all units. Detached sidewalks of 5’ are provided on both sides of all internal streets.
This property is less than 5 acres in size. This means, per the UDC, it does not have to meet the common open space and amenity
requirements. However, this is an annexation and the applicant proposes a density that is at the high end of the MDR range (proposed
6 du/acre). Staff originally informed the applicant that in order for staff to support a density that high, the development should contain
quality open space and amenities. The earlier version showed the common open space directly adjacent to the Black Cat / McMillian
intersection. At the Planning Commission, staff recommended the lot which was shown as the detention pond (at the time at the
northeast corner of the site) be expanded so it could be useable.
At the December 17, 2020 Planning Commission, the Commissioners discussed this project at length and made the following
recommended changes:
That the developer work with Brody Square representatives to locate a playground amenity in the central park in Lot 9, Block 3 and
allow shared open space and amenities for residents of both subdivisions. If this could not be arranged, the applicant shall convert Lot
1, Block 2 of Daphne Square Subdivision into common open space.
The Commissioners also recommended detached sidewalks shall be converted to attached sidewalks with parkways eliminated along
internal roads and rear setbacks of all building lots shall be increased from 12’ to 20’.
Finally, the Commission recommended Lots 18-29, Block 1 should be aligned with adjacent northern lots in Brody Square Subdivision
to provide better transition.
Staff is supportive of all these recommendations. The Applicant has made all recommended changes except for the third regarding
aligning the northern lots better. Staff recommends approval with the conditions listed in the staff report.
Possible Motions:
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I recommend the City ouncil APPROVE File Number H-2020-0101, as
presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 19, 2021.
Denial
After considering all staff, Commission, applicant and public testimony, I move to DENY File Number H-2020-0101, as presented
during the hearing on January 19, 2021, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial)
Continuance
I move to continue File Number File Number H-2020-0101 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the
following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance)
City Council Meeting January 19, 2021
FLUM
FLUM
FLUM
7/tem 77
(:>
E IDIAN*-----,
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Earl Glen Subdivision (TECC-2020-0003) by Riley Planning
Services, Located at 1780 E. McMillan Rd.
A. Request: A 2-year Time Extension on the preliminary plat in order to obtain the City Engineer's
signature on a final plat and extend the time to commence the multi-family use as permitted
with the conditional use permit.
Page 3
I
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET a
DATE: January 19, 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 1
PROJECT NAME: Earl Glen Subdivision (TECC-2020-0003)
PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify
YES OR NO
1 j
2
i
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Item#1.
C� fIEN ,
IN4,
IDAHG-.
PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION
Staff Contact:Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: January 5, 2021
Topic: Public Hearing for Earl Glen Subdivision (TECC-2020-0003) by Riley Planning
Services, Located at 1780 E. McMillan Rd.
A. Request: A 2-year Time Extension on the preliminary plat in order to obtain
the City Engineer's signature on a final plat and extend the time to commence
the multi-family use as permitted with the conditional use permit.
Information Resources:
Click Here for Application Materials
Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing
Page 4
Item#1.
STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY
N --
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HEARING 1/19/2021 Legend E= _ R-2 RUT 0
DATE:
Project Location �
TO: Mayor&City Council �
FROM: Joseph Dodson,Associate City Planner R='8 R-8
208-884-5533 �qFF7
RUT FB RUT
R-4 •
SUBJECT: TECC-2020-0003 0�
Firenze Plaza RUT [CiR ,RUTg�
LOCATION: The site is located at 1780 E. McMillan ®� R-8 R
Rd., in the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section m
29,Township 4N,Range lE. ® ® RUT-
R
R1
R•8 RT=TRUT
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Applicant, Riley Planning Services, Request a 2-year time extension on the preliminary
plat in order to obtain the City Engineer's signature on a final plat AND extend the time to
commence the multi-family use as permitted with the conditional use permit
II. SUMMARY OF REPORT
A. Project Summary
Description Details Page
Acreage 4.65 acres
Existing/Proposed Zoning R-8 &R-15
Future Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential
Existing Land Use(s) Vacant
Proposed Land Use(s) Single Family Residential&Multi-Family Residential
Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 20 building lots;3 common lots
Neighborhood meeting date;#of November 14,2020(Zoom)—No attendees;received one
attendees: phone call and Applicant sent plat as requested.
History(previous approvals) RZ-15-009,PP-15-011, CUP-15-015,MDA-15-006
(DA Inst. #2016-021940);A-2017-0132 (TEC);H-
2018-0094 (TECC).
Page 1
Page 5
❑ - III.rr r nn� ■ .
►t ■■■r ■ ■'�■■■■rr� �■i:i:,■rr ��� rya:� e �.F�
r■ C7..nunru i■nn■nnnn•�
ii� 'iiii��' ' nlrryi 1 n nor nnrnnn � :'I� �
MEN
.. -■urn ..■■ w _
nmum . /■m mn■ 11.. -4 (
m: ' ' ��:_ m■nr•nn■■Olson .i
1 R■4 1■■■ J �€ � fit■nu � `_- �in
+
—MCMIL-L--AN— MC-MILLAN
now
■ MEN
nor
Emilio
li u■ rnu nm 1 nnri! - � �� J
.01,0111
11
1
1. 1"
1 1 '1 1 1 1■"
11 11 1 1 1
1 1
111 /1 • 1
.•-
Item#1.
granted. With all extensions, the director or city council may require the preliminary plat, combined
preliminary and final plat or short plat to comply with the current provisions of this title."
In 2015,this property received rezoning(RZ-15-009) and preliminary plat(PP-15-011) approval from
City Council. A conditional use permit(CUP-15-015)was approved to permit a multi-family
development in R-15. A modification to the development agreement was approved(MDA-15-006)
and recorded as Instrument No. 2016-021940. A one-year time extension(A-2017-0132)on the
preliminary plat and conditional use permit was approved by the Director on July 17,2017. This
approval extended the time period in which the applicant had to obtain the City Engineer's signature
on a final plat until September 2,2018. In 2018, a second time extension was approved by the City
Council on September 27,2018. With the previous extension the Applicant had until October 16,
2020 to record the final plat or apply for an additional time extension as outlined in the code section
above. The Applicant met the timeline by applying for the applications prior to the expiration.
The previous time extension approved by City Council required additional conditions of approval due
to code changes at the time. Staff does not find it necessary to require any other conditions at this
time but will require that all previous conditions of approval are included.However,this would make
the third overall time extension for this project and subsequent plat and Staff recommends City
Council determine whether any additional conditions of approval are needed or if an additional time
extension is appropriate.
Approval of the subject time extension will allow the applicant to submit a final plat application. The
subject time extension will also allow the applicant to commence the multi-family use as permitted
with the conditional use permit, subject to CZC and DES approval. If the subject time extension is not
granted,the preliminary plat application and conditional use application for this property would
expire and new preliminary plat and conditional use permit applications would need to be submitted
for City approval. The recorded development agreement still allows the development of the property
as approved in Exhibit A.
VI. DECISION
A. Staff:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed time extension of the Preliminary Plat and
Conditional Use Permit for a time period of two (2)years, as requested,to expire on October 16,
2022 if the City Engineer's signature is not obtained on the Final Plat prior to this date.
B. Conditions of Approval:
1. The applicant is to meet all terms of the approved annexation (RZ-15-009), development
agreement(MDA 2016-021940)and preliminary plat(PP-15-011)for this development.
2. The applicant is to meet all terms of the approved conditional use permit(CUP-15-015)for this
development.
3. Future development of the subject property shall comply with the design standards in effect at
the time of development.
4. The applicant shall have until to October 16,2022,to commence construction of the multi-
family development and obtain City Engineer's signature on a final plat OR submit another
time extension in accord with UDC 11-613-7.
Page 3
Page 7
Item#1.
VII. EXHIBITS
A. Approved Preliminary Plat(date: 5/19/2015)
PRELIMINARY PLAT OF
EARL GLEN SUBDIVISION
LOCATED 1N A PORTION OF THE SW V4 OF THE SW 1140E
SECTION 29,TAN,R.1 E,BOISE MERIDIAN,CITY OF MERIDIAN,ADA COUNTY,IDAHO
MAY 19,2015
IIL - r
IL
F—
JIII Z�
a
JI
- 4
1JA.
`-¢ _ anx°mnw¢mw o.wo vxorme rw reiv
CtVa7 —III
..�. II I' ; mow onare,wrtv x.,a J¢s
uort"mP'd'wT"va ill C�1 xmv ®.o er.nwr...�,..ew,exr dab ...
J I
LL>
C
Ir- o
I I,
1µ
e sus—s—
xawe I F ,I.1xfl
vmi xn,nvu,r ma /`
....�...v sa. .a.s.-.won�........
xcu r.nMre,.wmo. wrx .e.
mn wx xa xacuwn naiu,
¢¢srn.von w wns�mnw x,w _
Page 4
Page 8
B. Approved CUP Plan(dated: 5/19/2015)
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SITE PLAN FOR MULTI-FAMILY LOTS IN
T ,
EARL GLEN SUBDIVISION I=
LOCATED IN A PORTION OF THE SW V4 OF THE SW IJ4 OF V�
SECTION 29,TAN,R.1 E,BOISE MERIDIAN,
CITY OF MERIDIAN,ADA COUNTY,IDAHO
MAY 19,2015
Z g
gS
I" LOT I
--------- 7
�n
n
LOT-0
5 050 SF
JV
IN
7
SF
LOT 12
Ld
j,
LOT
70,418 sF LOT 13 T11,
9187 5F
LaT 15
I I F
F GUPSIT
mmu.
L
Page 5
7/tem 77
(:>
E IDIAN*-----,
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Cache Creek Subdivision (H-2020-0105) by Matt Schultz of
Schultz Development, Located on the Northwest Corner of E. Victory Rd. and S. Locust Grove Rd.
A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 15.18 acres of land from RUT in Ada County to the R-4
zoning district.
B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 41 building lots and 4 common lots on 13.99 acres of
land in the proposed R-4 zoning district.
Page 10
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET
DATE: January 19, 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 2
PROJECT NAME: Cache Creek Subdivision (H-2020-0105)
PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify
YES OR NO
1
2
3
4
5 '
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Item#2.
E IDIAN
IDAHO
C�
PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION
Staff Contact:Alan Tiefenbach Meeting Date: December 17, 2020
Topic: public Hearing for Cache Creek Subdivision (H-2020-0105) by Matt Schultz of
Schultz Development, Located on the Northwest Corner of E. Victory Rd. and S.
Locust Grove Rd.
A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 15.18 acres of land from RUT in Ada
County to the R-4 zoning district.
B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 41 building lots and 4 common lots
on 13.99 acres of land in the proposed R-4 zoning district.
Information Resources:
Click Here for Application Materials
Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing
Page 11
Item#2.
STAFF REPORT E IDIANn-=-
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A H O
HEARING 1/19/2021 Legend
DATE:
TO: Mayor&City Council
FROM: Alan Tiefenbach,Associate Planner
208-489-0573
SUBJECT: AZ,PP-H-2020-0105
a
Cache Creek Subdivision
LOCATION: The site is located at 1560 W.Victory Rd
and 2955 S. Locust Grove Rd, in the SE
1/4 of Section 19,Township 3 N.,Range
IE.
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Annexation of 15.18 acres of land from RUT zone in Ada County to the R-4 zone and a preliminary
plat consisting of 41 buildable lots and 4 common lots on 13.99 acres in the proposed R-4 zone.
II. SUMMARY OF REPORT
A. Project Summary
Description Details Page
Acreage AZ acreage is 15.18;Pre-plat is 13.99 acres
Future Land Use Designation Low Density Residential
Existing Land Use(s) Single Family/Rural
Proposed Land Use(s) Single Family
Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 41 Single Family
Phasing Plan(#of phases) 1 phase
Number of Residential Units(type 41
of units)
Density 2.93 du/acre
Open Space(acres,total 97,139 sq. ft(16%)qualified common open space
[%]/buffer/qualified) I
Amenities 3/4 acre park,playground,benches,and pathway.
Physical Features(waterways, Small portion of 10-mile creek bisects extreme SW corner
hazards,flood plain,hillside) of property,500-year floodplain on NW tip of property.
Neighborhood meeting date;#of August 27,2020—3 attendees signed in.
attendees:
History(previous approvals) Kachina Estates Subdivision(County Subdivision)
Page 1
Page 12
Item#2.
Description Details Page
Public Testimony Omar and Rita Green submitted letters of opposition to the
project.Primary concern is that access is occurring through
Cabella Creek Subdivision and not from S.Locust Grove
or E.Victory Rd.The Greens also requested a building
moratorium.
B. Community Metrics
Description Details Page
Ada County Highway District
• Staff report(yes/no) Yes
• Requires ACHD No
Commission Action
es/no
• Traffic Impact Stud es/no No
Access(Arterial/Collectors/State Access is proposed from two western roads(E.Loggers Pass
Hwy/Local)(Existing and St. and E. Sagemoor St)to S.Bailey Avenue in the existing
Proposed) Cabella Creek Subdivision. S.Bailey Rd provides access to
existing local roads,which connect to S.Locust Grove Rd.
and E.Victory Rd.
Traffic Level of Service LOS"F"
Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross N/A
Access
Existing Road Network None
Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ None
Buffers
Proposed Road Improvements Applicant will construct internal roads to 33'template and
dedicate necessary ROW.Applicant will pay$38,425 into a
road trust for sidewalk construction associated with
scheduled ACHD improvement to S.Locust Grove Rd and
E.Victory Rd.
Distance to nearest City Park(+ 1 '/2 miles to Fire Station#4 Park and Gordon Harris Park
size
Fire Service
• Distance to Fire Station 1.8 miles
• Fire Response Time <5 minutes
• Resource Reliability 77%
• Risk Identification 1
• Accessibility Meets all requirements
• Special/resource needs Will not require aerial device
• Water Supply 1,000 gph
Police Service
• Distance to Police Station 2 Miles
• Calls for Service 730
• %of calls for service split 61.1%P2,35.3%P1, .75%P3
by priority
• Specialty/resource needs None needed
• Crimes 111
• Crashes 61
Wastewater
• Distance to Sewer N/A
Services
• Sewer Shed S.Black Cat Trunkshed
Page 2
Page 13
Item#2.
Description Details Page
• Estimated Project Sewer See application
ERU's
• WRRF Declining Balance 13.98
• Project Consistent with Yes
WW Master Plan/Facility
Plan
• Comments • Flow has been committed
Water
• Distance to Water 0
Services
• Pressure Zone 4
• Estimated Project Water See application
ERU's
• Water Quality Concerns None
• Project Consistent with Yes
Water Master Plan
• Comments This development will need to be modeled at each phase to make sure each
phase meets the minimum fire flow requirements.
Ada County Schools
• Impacted Schools Hillsdale ES—2.9 Miles
Victory MS—2.0 Miles
Mountain View HS—1.4 Miles
• Capacity of Schools Hillsdale ES-700
Victory MS—1000
Mountain View HS—2175
• #of Students Enrolled Hillsdale ES-780
Victory MS—970
Mountain View HS—2237
• Estimated New Students Hillsdale ES- 13
Generated by Development Victory MS—7
Mountain View HS—9
C. Project Area Maps
Future Land Use Map Aerial Map
JM=�
Legend
I Projeo -- 0
t Location IetProjeot Location �1
1
1 b e e � r
24
t
iUU�; IY I
Real idl
4 I.
n
ai
_ eviteRZ
Page 3
Page 14
Item#2.
Zoning Map Planned Development Map
Legend R=2 R 0 Legend _ , Tf.
I13Project Location ( Project Location
FF = '
Li City Limits
-$ —Planned Parcels
L' -
R-8 -$ ---�
R
1
R-8 RU d i
-8 R T U
.8
L C=
R UT
8
UT
RUT
R-8 R48 T -
III. APPLICANT INFORMATION
A. Applicant:
Matt Schultz—Schultz Development, 8421 S. Ten Mile Rd.,Meridian, ID 83642
B. Owners:
Mark and Karen Carrington—2955 S,Locust Grove Rd.,Meridian,ID 83642
Open Door Rentals LLC— 1977 E. Overland Rd,Meridian, ID 83642
IV. NOTICING
Planning&Zoning City Council
Posting Date Posting Date
Newspaper Notification 11/27/2020 l/l/2021
Radius notification mailed to
properties within 300 feet 11/23/2020 12/29/2020
Public hearing notice sign posted
12/4/2020 1/6/2021
on site
Nextdoor posting 11/23/2020 12/29/2020
Page 4
Page 15
Item#2.
V. STAFF ANALYSIS
A. Annexation:
The proposed annexation area is contiguous to City annexed property and is within the Area of City
Impact Boundary. To ensure the site develops as proposed by the applicant, staff is recommending a
development agreement as part of the annexation approval.
B. Future Land Use Map Designation(hgps://www.meridiancity.org/compplan)
This property is designated Low Density Residential on the City's Future Land Use Map(FLUM)
contained in the Comprehensive Plan. This designation allows for dwelling units at gross densities of
less than three dwelling units per acre. The zoning to R-4 and proposed density of 2.9 du/acre is
consistent with the density parameters of the Future Land Use Map.
Comprehensive Plan Policies (https://www.meridiancit�or /�pplan):
The following Comprehensive Plan Policies are applicable to this development:
• "Encourage a variety of housing types that meet the needs,preferences, and financial
capabilities of Meridian's present and future residents."(2.01.02D)
The proposed low density single-family detached homes will contribute to the variety of
residential categories in the City; however, there is no variety in housing types proposed
within the development. R-4 and R-8 zoning and detached single-family homes are abundant
in this immediate area.
• "Require pedestrian access in all new developments to link subdivisions together and
promote neighborhood connectivity". (2.02.01D)
Five-foot detached sidewalks are proposed on both side of all streets within this development.
There is also a pedestrian connections from the sidewalk into Common Lot 3 Block 11
(containing a playground) and a pathway along the detention pond at the southwest to E.
Victory Rd.
There is a 10'regional pathway that parallels Ten Mile Creek to E. Victory Rd in the Cabella
Creek Subdivision to the west(no part of this pathway is on the subject property), and a 10'
regional pathway that parallels Eight Mile Parallel and ends at S. Locust Grove on the east
side of S. Locust Grove.Although the proposed plat shows a S'sidewalk running along the S.
Locust Grove Rd frontage and sidewalks along the internal streets in this development, staff
believes there should be a mid-development connection that provides more direct pedestrian/
bicycle access. This should be directly across S. Locust Grove Rd from the Eight Mile
Pathway to the east, and the Ten Mile Creek Pathway and E. Victory Rd to the south and
west.As a condition of approval, staff recommends an east-west pathway connection be
provided directly across from the Eight Mile Lateral Pathway to Common Lot 11, Block 3.
The applicant should work with Meridian Parks and Recreation to determine whether
signage should be erected within Common Lot 11, Block 3 to direct users along this pathway
connection to the Ten Mile Pathway and Eight Mile Pathway.
• "Ensure development provides safe routes and access to schools,parks, and other community
gathering places. (2.02.01 G)"
See staffs analysis regarding sidewalks and pathways above.
Page 5
Page 16
Item#2.
• "Require urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments, including curb and
gutter, sidewalks,water and sewer utilities."(3.03.03G)
Urban sewer and water infrastructure and curb, gutter and sidewalks is required to be
provided with development as proposed.
• Reduce the number of existing access points onto arterial streets by using methods such as
cross-access agreements,access management, and frontage/backage roads, and promoting
local and collector street connectivity. (6.01.0213)
There will be two accesses to the property. Both accesses propose connectivity from local
roads within the Cabella Creek Subdivision rather than either arterial bordering the
property. In addition, the proposal includes closing S existing curb cuts along S. Locust
Grove Rd.
• Protect and enhance existing waterways, groundwater,wetlands,wildlife habitat, air, soils,
and other natural resources. (4.05.01)
A small portion of Ten Mile Creek crosses the southwest portion of the property. The
applicant has indicated this will be contained within a common lot(Lot 4, Block 2) as a
retention facility. However, the landscape plan omits a portion of this lot although it is on the
subject property.As Ten Mile Creek is a significant natural feature and contains a regional
pathway, staff recommends as a condition of approval that the landscape plan be revised to
reflect the entirety of this lot, and to integrate this important waterway into the development
as a natural amenity.
C. Existing Structures/Site Improvements:
There two existing single-family residence on the site. The residence at the corner of E. Victory
Rd and S. Locust Grove is intended for demolition. The house at the northeast is proposed to be
retained and must connect to City utilities upon annexation of the property.
D. Proposed Use Analysis:
Single-family detached dwellings are listed as a principal permitted use in the R-4 zoning districts
in UDC Table 11-2A-2.
E. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2):
All proposed lots and public streets appear to meet UDC dimensional standards per the submitted
preliminary plat. This includes property sizes,required street frontages of at least 60', and road
widths. Development of the subdivision is required to comply with the subdivision design and
improvement standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3, including but not limited to streets, common
driveways and block face.No common driveways are proposed with this subdivision. The
average lot size is 8,959 sq. ft. and the smallest lot size is 8,003 sq. ft. Minimum lot sizes are
proposed at 8,000 square feet,which complies with the requirements of the R-8 zone district.
Minimum living area for detached homes in the R-4 Zone District is 1,400 sq. ft. The proposed
home size, as indicated in the narrative, is at least 1,800 sq. ft.
Page 6
Page 17
Item#2.
F. Access(UDC 11-3A-3):
There will be two accesses to the property. Each access will connect to a stub street in the Cabella
Creek Subdivision to the west-Loggers Pass Street and Sagemoor Street. These stub streets
terminate at S. Bailey Way which connects to either S. Ascaino Way for access to E. Victory Rd
or E. Lake Creek St. for access to S. Locust Grove. The Cache Creek Subdivision employs a
"loop"road which will be constructed at 33' wide with detached 5' sidewalks and 8' landscape
strips. The applicant proposes to dedicate additional right-of-way to ACHD for construction of
this internal road. There are 5 existing driveways onto Locust Grove Road from the site. This
development includes closing the 5 existing driveways by using landscaping and 5-foot wide
detached sidewalks to match improvements on either side. However,there are two driveways
existing on either side of 2955 S. Locust Grove Dr. (Lot 18,Block 2). Staff questions why two
driveways are necessary for this existing house.
S. Locust Grove Rd. currently has 2 lanes and no curb, gutter or sidewalk. E. Victory Rd.
presently has 2 lanes with no curb,gutter or sidewalk. Both roads operate at a Level of Service
(LOS)"F",which is considered unsatisfactory. S. Locust Grove Rd. is scheduled to be widened
to 5 lanes between E. Overland Rd.to E. Victory Rd. in 2020. E. Victory Rd. is scheduled to be
widened to 3 lanes between S. Meridian Rd. and S. Eagle Rd in 2025. A roundabout is planned
for the E. Victory Rd. /S. Locust Grove Rd. intersection in 2022.
Sufficient right-of-way presently exists for widening of both S. Locust Grove Rd. and E.Victory
Rd. However,the applicant will be required to dedicate additional right-of-way for the E. Victory
Rd. /S. Locust Grove Rd. roundabout.Because both of these roads are due to be reconstructed in
the next 5 years,ACHD has requested the applicant pay$38,425 into a road trust deposit. The
road trust deposit funds will be used by ACHD to construct sidewalks abutting the site as part of
the future intersection project.
ACHD has reviewed this application and supports the proposal with conditions.
G. 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 dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. Future
development should comply with these standards.
H. Pathways(UDC 11-3B-12):
The project includes 5' detached sidewalks on both side of all streets and a pedestrian
connections from the sidewalk into Common Lot 3 Block 11 and on the east side of the retention
pond to E. Victory Rd. All sidewalks and pathways contain landscape strips on both sides of at
least 8' with at least one (1)tree per one hundred(100) feet of pathway.
As mentioned in the pedestrian access section above, staff believes there should be a mid-
development connection that provides more direct pedestrian/bicycle access directly across S.
Locust Grove Rd from the Eight Mile Lateral and sidewalk to the east, and the Ten Mile Creek
Pathway and E. Victory Rd to the south and west. Staff recommends this pathway generally
intersect in the vicinity of Blocks 12-15 Block 2 and Lots 7-4 Block 3 to Lot 11,Block 3 (the
common open space).
Page 7
Page 18
Item#2.
I. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17):
Five-foot detached sidewalks are proposed along internal streets in accord with the standards
listed in UDC 11-3A-17. ACHD has requested the applicant pay into a road trust for sidewalk
construction along S. Locust Grove Rd and E.Victory Rd. after future road reconstruction.
J. Parkways(UDC 11-3A-17):
As ACHD will be reconstructing and widening S. Locust Grove Rd. and E. Victory Rd,the
applicant is paying into a road trust for future sidewalk installation. All internal sidewalks and the
pathways into the common lot include a landscaped area of at least 8' located between the edge of
the street or park and a sidewalk. These parkway strips meet the minimum landscaping
requirement for pathways at one tree per 100 linear feet per UDC 11-3B-7C.
K. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B):
The area of the proposed development is 603,349 sq. ft. The development proposes 97,139 sq. ft.
(16%)of qualified common open space. There are 8' wide parkways along all sidewalks
landscaped at 1 tree per 35 linear feet. Half of each 25' arterial buffer is included. There is a
30,171 sq. ft. common open space. There is also a 23,992 sq. ft.retention pond which meets the
minimum requirement of at least twenty thousand(20,000) square feet and visible from a public
street(s) on at least two (2) sides.
The Landscape Plan indicates 3 trees meeting the mitigation requirements are being removed at a
total of 65 caliper inches. The applicant proposed to replace these with 33 trees of 2 caliper inches
in accord with UDC standards.
Although the minimum required square footage of qualified common open space is satisfied,the
arterial buffer along S. Locust Grove Rd. does not meet the minimum 25' required width east of
the existing house on Lot 18,Block 2. The applicant has noted due the existing house and the
widening of S. Locust Grove Rd. it is not feasible to provide the buffer. Staff is not convinced, as
it appears there is existing paving at the east side of the house to widen this buffer. Prior to the
City Council hearing,the applicant should either revise the plans to reflect a 25' wide buffer, or
apply and be granted a buffer reduction through the alternative compliance process in accord with
UDC 11-5B-5.
At the December 17, 2020 Planning Commission meeting,the Commission supported this
alternative compliance request.
L. Qualified Open Space(UDC 11-3G):
As mentioned above,the development proposes 97,139 sq. ft. (16%)of qualified common open
space(please see attached open space exhibit). Parkways are credited along all sidewalks that
meet the minimum 8' width requirements and are landscaped at one tree per 100 linear feet. Both
arterial buffer is given %credit. The 30,171 sq. ft. central common open space is landscaped with
at least one(1)deciduous shade tree per eight thousand(8,000) square feet as is the 23,992 sq. ft.
retention pond(required trees are along the periphery of this lot). Except for the width deficiency
for one portion of the S. Locust Grove Rd arterial buffer in the vicinity of Lot 18,Block 2 (as
discussed above),the proposal meets the minimum requirements of UDC 11-3G.
Page 8
Page 19
Item#2.
M. Qualified Site Amenities(UDC 11-3G):
Based on an area of 13.99 acres, 2 site amenities are required. This development includes a 3/4
acre centrally located park with a playground and benches. This meets the requirements for an
open space of at least 20,000 sq. ft. from the quality of life amenity category, and a children's
play structure from the recreational amenities category. It is staff s opinion that this is sizable
amenity in an excellent location. However, as mentioned in the pathways section, staff is
recommending a pathway which provides an east/west connection across the property. This
pathway should generally intersect in the vicinity of Blocks 12-15 Block 2 and Lots 7-4 Block 3
to Lot 11,Block 3 (the common open space).
N. Waterways(UDC 11-3A-6):
The FEMA maps indicate a 100-year floodplain at the extreme southwestern corner of the site
along Ten Mile Creek. An ACHD retention basin is proposed in this area(Lot 4,Block 2).No
other development is proposed within the floodplain.
Nampa Meridian Irrigation District(NMID)has mentioned Ten Mile Creek is contained within a
100' irrigation easement,with 50' on either side of the creek. The Plat should be revised to reflect
this easement.
As already mentioned,the landscape plan omits the portion of the property which contains the
waterway, and UDC 11-3A-9 (as well 11-3A-6) states existing natural features that add value to
development and enhance the attractiveness of the community shall be preserved or mitigated in
the design of the development. Staff recommends that prior to City Council,the applicant should
revised the landscape plan to include all of Lot 4,Block 2 and to design this waterway in as a
natural amenity.
O. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7):
The landscape plan reflects 6' tall vinyl fencing along the perimeter of the property and the
driveway accessing the existing residence on Lot 18,Block 2. 4' tall vinyl fencing is shown
around Common Lot 11,Block 3 (the park). 6' high wrought iron fencing is shown bordering the
retention pond in Lot 4,Bloc,2. The fencing meets the requirements of 11-3A-6 and 11-3A-7.
Utilities(UDC 11-3A-21):
Public services are available to accommodate the proposed Development. All lots within the
subdivision will be provided domestic water and sanitary sewer service by the City from 8"water
and sewer mains located in the Cabella Creek Subdivision stub streets to the west.
P. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual):
The Applicant has submitted sample elevations of the single-family homes for this project(see
Section VILE).
The single-family homes are depicted as two-story structures with two-car garages, and a variety
offinish materials with stone and lap-siding combinations. The submitted sample elevations
appear to meet design requirements for single-family homes but do not include elevations of the
sides or rears of structures.
As many of the houses will be very visible from E. Victory Rd. and S. Locust Grove Rd. staff
recommends a condition that the rear and/or sides of 2-story structures on Lots 5 through 16 of
Block 2 that face E. Victory Rd. and S. Locust Grove Rd. incorporate articulation through
Page 9
Page 20
Item#2.
changes in two or more of the following: modulation (e.g.projections, recesses, step-backs,pop-
outs), bays, banding,porches, balconies, material types, or other integrated architectural
elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines. Single-story structures are exempt
from this requirement. Planning approval will be required at time of building permit.
DECISION
A. Staff:
Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation, zoning and preliminary plat with the
conditions noted in Section IX.A per the Findings in Section IX.
B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard this item on December 17, 2020. At the
ublic hearing,the Commission moved to approve the subject annexation and preliminary plat
request•
1. Summary of the Commission public hearing:
a. In favor: Schultz
b. In opposition: Several adjacent neighbors
c. Commenting:None
d. Written testimony: Omar and Rita Green, Steve Thiessen.President of Cabella Creek
Homeowner's Association
e. Staff presenting application: Alan Tiefenbach
f. Other Staff commenting on application:None
2. Key issue(s)of public testimony:
a. Several neighbors opposed to access occurring from stubs into Cabella
Creek Neighborhood. Request connection to S. Locust Grove Rd. instead.
3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission.
a. Discussed reduction of buffer and requested this be handled through alternative
compliance.
b. Discussed future road improvements and round-about.
C. Discussed the retention pond and staff's recommendation to incorporate it into design as
amenity.
4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendations:
a. Recommended Lot 4,Block 2 be landscaped with grass and maintained.
Page 10
Page 21
Item#2.
VI. EXHIBITS
A. Revised Preliminary Plat(date: 12/17/2020)
F'):! 1 HRAT`. iA T�
MAW.S4$= IOW 'I JYrI
+
MEW HM
lA4LE1's x
F
ce
..F
Ili�F
�J
k 51GE]FYJB�7 _
F�I 'iFFr144a�a �5
F
- F F F
Ll
aaa g Ff I II I
4 I� FIAIE
FL L-'E-E E
k# almr '-F
Y�LJi vu.s:.t oL7 ' I I y r FL'T.m
j'4 Z}RF�E+ • \-''}''. F/ Ilf 11F+WCi'
-1:nom '94"S{
Fr.- 9RAc4 '::a} _ __-_ i _E"TICI�1
3' -_ T y'r. 4WNIv., PIS I
t 1�f
Page 11
Page 22
Item#2.
B. Revised Landscape Plan Overview Sheet(date: 1/13/2021)
F � 1
10
+ -3crW7 rru.in
i
I �
I - -
,
1 � r •
. L
' I
r • ' 4 -_ - - �Ir 5T
.H F
�� I• IL +I 1
r � �
1
M
cl:=
Page 12
Page 23
Item#2.
C. Revised Color Landscape Plan (date: 1/13/2021)
r,A%III IN:r, F>ISTKC, RE5.-NTIAL � 3
A R ..v %
LC
, r I
+_, ��. I I � �� � lYfIiTM1611ElZlhIEE
I
I
1 ■LIXR Y }
EYISI�IG RE3LE I
F I
J• � rr ''I p.VSsi is , K
II l
E aesEgvwncK ST.
CCI I
I II
f AZAD. � I ` ~~ I III II
F RLTFNTION %L
I
RM AMP n'PRI'fA{ fENCE
LxN6S€fFf RLIF#ER'F'nH t'Rk {
I"-
.--_ -- F_VIST4RY RP.-- - I AIC.Fi.G I I
I R4UN� I
:'Koo 3 x
Page 13
Page 24
Item#2.
D. Common Open Space Exhibit(date: 9/25/20)
CITY OF M ERI UAN OPEN
SPACE REQUIREMENTS
UALI FI ED CI P E14 SPARE
PBd S,p P5 FREFfEMi Itt� C[a �TJ I iW ■
OF THE A EA OF TFE 511E I94 Id+�
LANDSCAPE LEGEND
tMhLJFED OPEN SPAG&
AFrEA-I TFI SQ.FT.
qL
0
Il II
f �
+.q_j�.3E 01 F III N
rL
rt Co
4
n �
1 .
kREA- =3y 8Q Fr
�MMM—�_
•�. 23 90.FT �� �
ARE -E°a0,'30 EC%:R.c ER. �rfi
Page 14
Page 25
Item#2.
E. Elevations: (date 10/14/20)
I �
MEMO nn nu
=-
j
I Ity -
1"
_a
�s
Page 15
Page 26
Item#2.
F. Annexation Exhibit(date: 8/20/20)
DATE, August 30, 2020
ANNEXATIOFf—CACHE CREEK
A parcel of load being located in the SE 114 of Section 19, Township 3 North, Range 1 East,
Boise Meridian,Ada County, Idaho, and being and comprising of a portion of Victory Road and
Locust Grove Road and all of Lots 1. 2, and 7. BlDrk 1 of the plat of Kachlne Estates Flied In
Book 35. Page 3018-3017 on Nevernber 15, 1974 in the Office of the Ada County recorder and
being more particularly described as follows:
BE INN1NC at the southeast comer of said Section 1'a, mon urn ented by a found 3"Aluminum
Cap stamped"J-U-B Engineers PLS 11334" (Corner Record No 114007715), frorn which the
South 114 comer of said Section 1S, monumented by a found 3" Brass Cap stamped ",I-U-B
Engineers F'LS 11334" (Corner Record No. 114007714), bears South 89'42'08" West, a
-distance of 2540.01 feet;
Thence South 89'42'08"West, coincidentwith South line of said Section 19, a distance of
625.97 feet;
Thence leaving said South line of Section 19, coincidentwith the westerly line of said Lot 2,
.Block 1, North QQ°23'33"West, a distance of 690.31 feet to the northweM corner of said Lot 2,
Block 1;
Thence coincident with the southerly line of said Lot 7, Black 1, South W37'01" West, a
distance of 106.50 feet to the southwest comer of wId Lot 7, Block 1;
Thence coincident with the westerly line cf said Lot 7, Black 1, North 00°21'18'West, a distance
of 305.86 feet to the northwest corner of said Lot 7, Slomk 1;
Thence coincdenl with the northerly line of seld Lot 7, Block 1, South 89a23'52" East, a distance
of 751.95 feet to a point conterminous with the East line of said Section 19,
Thence coincident with said East line of Section 19, South 00°44'46" West, a distance of 984,36
feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
The above described parcel contains 15.18 acres or 661425.33 square feet, more or less.
Together with and subject to covenants, easements, and restrictions of record.
The basis of bearing far this parcel is South 89°42'08" West between the southeast comer and
the South 'Yd comer of said Section 19.
Robert Gramatzky. P.L.S. License No. 17216
o
IL
Page 16
Page 27
Item#2.
h P UR-FI ON OF
SE1 4 EC70N 19 IHSI o SPIKE
T, 3 N.; R. 1 E., B.M.
I
589'2S3ZE 751.W
s. LOGGERE
PASS ST. , ION �
m �
S39.37'01'W 106.ZV U;
LM
W
i
ANNEKATION AREA
15.18 ACRES
651425.33 SQ. FT. m
L AGEMR ST.
* op,1r L{A $ tors LOT
` , a 1E Ar
3 -• 6
PWT OF KGINWING
8942' W 21541 1 r VICMY SAD
Y BRASS CAP STAMPED "J-U-8 BASIS OF BEARINGS Y ALUMUM CAP STAWEa
ENGINEERS PL5 1133C 'J-U-B WHIEUS M 11 W
S1 f4 MIER 5EC11011 19. INSTR SE tNm norm 1B. INIS'IR, i
114007714 ii�00�7i5
�ktLiWWifi c0..i1rX9ND alrrrnrn
LEGAL DESCRIPTION � --
#+� CACHE CREED(ANNE ATION ��1z�anal7�oa °� •*3
wx
QI G OFiitL6FR LfrOAI Me Flu
GN 41,l,F- aER uarfa�r aarr�mo I.r d—W 49447
}417-ii�.14 vrv.N4l.co�
MENNEN
Page 17
Page 28
Item#2.
VII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS
A. PLANNING DIVISION
1. A Development Agreement(DA) is required as a provision of annexation of this property.
Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance, a DA shall be entered into between the City of
Meridian,the property owner(s) at the time of annexation ordinance adoption, and the
developer.
Currently, a fee of$303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to
commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the
Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA
shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions:
a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the
preliminary plat, landscape plan and conceptual building elevations for the
single-family dwellings included in Section VII and the provisions contained
herein.
b. The rear and/or sides of 2-story structures on Lots 5 through 16 of Block 2 that
face E. Victory Rd. and S. Locust Grove Rd. incorporate articulation through
changes in two or more of the following: modulation(e.g.projections,recesses,
step-backs,pop-outs),bays,banding,porches,balconies,material types, or
other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and
roof lines. Single-story structures are exempt from this requirement. Planning
approval will be required at time of building permit.
c. The existing residence at 2955 S. Locust Grove Rd. (Lot 18,Block 2)will be
required to abandon the well and septic system and connect to City water and
sewer with development of the property.
2. Wier-to City Getmeil,the appliean4 shall revise the plans to inelude a path-wa-y
eenneetion dir-eedy aer-ess from the Eight Mile La4er-al Pathwa-y(east side of S.
T o st Grove D.1 )to the p.,tl..,ay s1.o...., .,t Common Tot 11,Bleek 2 Pathway
should generally i terse.t i the vicinity of Blocks 12 15 TR1eek 2 and Lots 7 4
>?1eek 3 to Lot 11.
r-efleet all of Lot , area.
4. Prior-to the City Couneil the applieant shall either-r-evise the plans to r-efleet a e
hearing,
wide > ineluding along Lot > Bleek >
hough the—alter-native compliance preee'4s in-asse it'� UDC DC11
5. Wier-to the City Gaiineil heafing,the appheant shall r-&vise the plans to inelude all of Let-4-,
Bleek 2 and integr-me Ten Mile Creek into the site as a nattir-al amenit�-
6. The Ten Mile Creek Nampa Meridian Irrigation District easement shall be reflected on the
Preliminary Plat and Landscape Plan.
7. The applicant shall coordinate with Meridian Parks and Recreation to determine
whether signage shall be installed to direct users to the pathway connection
paralleling Retention Basin Lot 4,Block 2 to the Ten Mile Pathway to the
southwest, and the connection to the Eight Mile Pathway across S. Locust Grove
Rd.
Page 18
Page 29
Item#2.
8. All 5 (five) existing driveways onto Locust Grove Road shall be closed with landscaping and
5- foot wide detached sidewalks to match improvements on either side as proposed.
9. The Preliminary Plat included in Section VII, dated 10/29/20, is approved with the conditions
listed in 3,4 and 5 and with the addition that Note 6 be revised to include Lots 11 and 12,
Block 3 instead of Lots 1 and 3 (regarding common lots).
10. The Landscape Plan included in Section VII, dated 9/30//2020, is approved with the
conditions listed in 3,4 and 5 with the addition that the Landscape Requirements box on Page
L-1 be changed to indicate a 25' buffer along S. Locust Grove Rd.
11. The applicant shall construct all proposed fencing and/or any fencing required by the UDC,
consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-7 and 11-3A-6B, as applicable.
12. The applicant shall comply with all provisions of 11-3A-3 with regard to access to streets.
13. The applicant shall comply with the sidewalk and parkway standards as set forth in UDC 11-
3A-17.
14. The development shall comply with standards and installation for landscaping as set forth in
UDC 11-313-5 and maintenance thereof as set forth in UDC 11-313-13.
15. The plat shall comply with the provisions for irrigation ditches, laterals, canals and/or
drainage courses,as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6. Ten Mile Creek shall remain protected during
construction on the site.
16. Pathway and adjoining fencings and landscaping shall be constructed consistent with the
standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-7A7, 11-3A-8 and 11-313-12C.
17. The applicant shall 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 11-313-1OC.
18. The development shall comply with all subdivision design and improvement standards as set
forth in UDC 11-6C-3,including but not limited to driveways, easements,blocks, street
buffers, and mailbox placement.
19. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table
11-3C-6 for single-family detached dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit.
20. The Applicant shall have a maximum of two(2)years to obtain City Engineer's signature on
a final plat in accord with UDC 11-613-7.
21. The Applicant shall comply with all conditions of ACHD.
B. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS:
1. A street light plan will need to be included in the final plat application. Street light plan
requirements are listed in section 6-7 of the City's Design Standards. A future install agreement
and deposit is required for the Type 1 streetlights on Locust Grove and part of Amity Road due
to upcoming ACHD roadway construction.Contract the Transportation and Utility Coordinator
for additional information.
2. This development will need to be modeled at each phase to make sure each phase meets the
Page 19
Page 30
Item#2.
minimum fire flow requirements.
3. The geotechnical investigative report for this development,prepared by SITE Consulting,LLC,
dated 12/11/2020 indicates some very specific construction considerations. The applicant shall
be responsible for the adherence of these recommendations to help ensure that groundwater
does not become a problem within crawlspaces of homes.
GENERAL CONDITIONS:
1. Sanitary sewer service to this development is available via extension of existing mains adjacent
to the development. The applicant shall install mains to and through this subdivision;applicant
shall coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works Department,and execute standard
forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service. 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. Water service to this site is available via extension of existing mains adjacent to the
development. The applicant shall be responsible to install water mains to and through this
development, coordinate main size and routing with Public Works.
3. 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.
4. Upon installation of the landscaping and prior to inspection by Planning Department staff,the
applicant shall provide a written certificate of completion as set forth in UDC 11-3B-14A.
5. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all incomplete
fencing, landscaping, amenities,pressurized irrigation,prior to signature on the final plat.
6. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post with the City a performance surety in the
amount of 125% of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer, water 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 applicant shall be required to enter into a Development Surety
Agreement with the City of Meridian. 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.
7. 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, and water infrastructure for a
duration of two years. This surety amount will be verified by a line item final cost invoicing
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.
8. In the event that an applicant and/or owner cannot complete non-life,non-safety and non-health
improvements, prior to City Engineer signature on the final plat and/or prior to occupancy, a
surety agreement may be approved as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3C.
9. 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.
Page 20
Page 31
Item#2.
10. 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.
11. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting
that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers.
12. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office.
13. All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-1-4B.
14. 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.
15. The 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-7 of the Improvement Standards for Street
Lighting (http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272). All street lights shall be
installed at developer's expense. Final design shall be submitted as part of the development
plan set for approval, which must include the location of any existing street lights. The
contractor's work and materials shall conform to the ISPWC and the City of Meridian
Supplemental Specifications to the ISPWC. Contact the City of Meridian Transportation and
Utility Coordinator at 898-5500 for information on the locations of existing street lighting.
19. 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 signature of the final plat by the City Engineer.
20. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES permitting that
may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency.
21. 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 Water Department at
(208)888-5242 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.
Page 21
Page 32
Item#2.
22. Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City
Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact the Central District Health Department for
abandonment procedures and inspections.
23. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round
source of water(MCC 9-1-28.C.1).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 development plan approval.
24. 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.
C. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL IMPACTS
https://weblink.meridiancity.org WWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=216460&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
Lty-
D. ACHD
https://weblink.meridianci(y.org WWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=21661S&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
Lty
E. MERIDIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT
https://weblink.meridiancioy.orkIWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=216639&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
Lty-
F. MERIDIAN FIRE DEPARTMENT (MFD)
https://weblink.meridiancioy.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=215854&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
Lty
G. ADA COUNTY
https://weblink.meridianciby.or lWebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=215861&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
hty
H. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
https://weblink.meridiancioy.orz/WebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=216380&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
hty
I. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT
https://weblink.meridianciU.org WWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=217644&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
hty
VIII. FINDINGS
A. ANNEXATION AND/OR REZONE (UDC 11-511-3E)
Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full
investigation and shall, at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an
annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings:
Page 22
Page 33
Item#2.
1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan;
Commission finds annexation of the subject site with an R-4 zoning designation is consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan MDR FL UM designation for this property if the Applicant complies with
the provisions in Section VII.
2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically
the purpose statement;
Commission finds the lot sizes and layout proposed will be consistent with the purpose statement
of the residential districts in that a range of housing opportunities will be provided consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan.
3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare;
Commission finds that the proposed zoning map amendment should not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, or welfare. Commission recommends the Council consider any oral or
written testimony that may be provided when determining this finding.
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
Commission finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not result in any adverse impact
upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services to this site.
5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city
Commission finds the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the City if the property is
developed in accord with the provisions in Section VII.
B. PRELIMINARY PLAT (UDC 11-611-6)
In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat,or short plat,the
decision-making body shall make the following findings: (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-
2005)
1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified
development code; (Ord. 08-1372, 7-8-2008, eff. 7-8-2008)
Commission finds the proposed plat is generally in conformance with the UDC if the Applicant
complies with the conditions of approval in Section VII.
2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the
proposed development;
Commission finds public services can be made available to the subject property and will be
adequate to accommodate the proposed development.
Page 23
Page 34
Item#2.
3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the city's capital
improvement program;
Commission finds the proposed plat is in substantial conformance with scheduled public
improvements in accord with the City's CIP.
4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development;
Commission finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed
development.
5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and
Commission finds the proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or
general welfare.
6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-
2005, ef£ 9-15-2005)
A portion of Ten Mile Creek is on the subject property.As mentioned above, the Commission
should revise the plans to show the entire Retention Basin Lot 4, Block 2 landscaped with grass.
C. ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE (UDC 11-5B-5)
Following the December 17,2020 Planning Commission meeting,the Director approved the
applicant's request for alternative compliance to allow a reduction in the landscape buffer along
S. Locust Grove Rd from 25' to 12' at the east side of the existing house on Lot 18,Block 2, and
to a width of 22' north of this existing house.
Per UDC 11-5B-5-E,to grant approval for an alternative compliance application,the Director
made the following findings:
1. Strict adherence or application of the requirements are not feasible; or
The existing house presently has 3 driveways that access S. Locust Grove Rd, these driveways
will be eliminated and access to this house will now occur from internal roads. Due to the
configuration of the existing house and the driveways, any additional width would impede
driveway access to the house and the garage. In addition, the portion that is proposed at 22'is
the same width of the existing landscape buffer to the north.
2. The alternative compliance provides an equal or superior means for meeting the requirements;
and
Based on a frontage of 1,388 feet along S. Locust Grove Rd. and E. Victory Rd and a width of
25', 34,700 square feet of buffer would be required. The landscape plan reflects a total of 36,900
sq.ft. of landscape buffer as several areas are wider than the required 25'. Also, this
development proposes a 6'high vinyl fencing along the entirety of the buffer.
3. The alternative means will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or impair the
intended uses and character of surrounding properties.
The development proposes more total landscape buffer area than would be required, and the
areas of reduced buffer are adjacent to the existing house of which the owner is one of the
applicants and to the north of the house of which the existing buffer is already 22'. The
alternative means will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or impair the intended
uses and character of surrounding properties.
Page 24
Page 35
7/tem 77
(:>
E IDIAN*-----,
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Daphne Square Subdivision (H-2020-0101) by Matt Schultz
of Schultz Development, Located at 4700 W. McMillan Rd.
A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 4.97 acres of land with an R-15 zoning district.
B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 30 building lots and 3 common lots on 4.97 acres of
land in the proposed R-15 zoning district.
Page 47
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET
a
DATE: January 19, 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 3
PROJECT NAME: Daphne Square Subdivision (H-2020-0101)
PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify
YES OR NO
a
1 '
2
3 '
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Item#3.
E IDIAN:---
IDAHO
C�
PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION
Staff Contact:Alan Tiefenbach Meeting Date: January 19, 2021
Topic: public Hearing for Daphne Square Subdivision (H-2020-0101) by Matt Schultz of
Schultz Development, Located 4700 W. McMillan Rd.
A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 4.97 acres of land with an R-15 zoning
district.
B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 30 building lots and 3 common lots
on 4.97 acres of land in the proposed R-15 zoning district.
Information Resources:
Click Here for Application Materials
Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing
Page 48
Item#3.
STAFF REPORT C:�*%-
W IDIAN --
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HEARING 1/19/2021 Legend
DATE:
TO: Mayor&City Council _
RI:RMS
FROM: Alan Tiefenbach
208-489-0573
Bruce Freckleton,Development
Services Manager
SUBJECT: H-2020-0101 �
Daphne Square Subdivision
LOCATION: 4700 W. McMillian Rd.
NE corner of N. Black Cat Rd and W. _
McMillan Rd. -�- -- -----_____
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Annexation&zoning of 4.97 acres of land with an R-15 zoning district, and preliminary plat
consisting of 30 building lots and 3 common lots,by Schultz Development,LLC.
II. SUMMARY OF REPORT
A. Project Summary
Description Details Page
Acreage 4.97
Future Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential 3-8 du/acre
Existing Land Use(s) Existing manufactured home
Proposed Land Use(s) Single Family Attached and Detached
Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 30 single family lots and 3 common lots _
Phasing Plan(#of phases) One Phase
Number of Residential Units(type 30
of units)
Density(gross&net) 6 du/acre gross
Open Space(acres,total 26,749 sq. ft.(12.36%)qualified open space.
[%]/buffer/qualified)
Amenities 5,611 sq.ft.common lot with shade structure and benches.
Physical Features(waterways, An irrigation lateral runs east to west along McMillian Rd.
hazards,flood plain,hillside)
Neighborhood meeting date;#of August 25,2020,4 attendees
attendees:
Page 1
Page 49
Item#3.
Description Details Page
History(previous approvals) N/A
B. Community Metrics
Description Details Page
Ada County Highway District
• Staff report(yes/no) Yes
• Requires ACHD Commission No
Action es/no
Access(Arterial/Collectors/State Northern access from N.Eynsford Ave(local road in
Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) Brody Square)to N.Black Cat Rd via W.Daphne St,there
is also an eastern stub proposed.
Traffic Level of Service D
Existing Road Network No existing internal roads.
Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ Buffer and sidewalk exists on west side of N.Black Cat
Buffers Road(part of the Jump Creek Subdivision.)
W.McMillan Road—no sidewalks or buffers
Proposed Road Improvements Applicant required to construct all internal roads to 33'
width. 5'wide detached sidewalks will be constructed
along N.Black Cat Rd and W.McMillan Rd.
Distance to nearest City Park(+ +/- 1.25 miles,Keith Bird Legacy Park, 1.5 miles,Heroes
size) Park
Fire Service
• Distance to Fire Station 2.4 miles
• Fire Response Time 5 minutes
• Resource Reliability 86%
• Risk Identification 1
• Accessibility Roadway access,radio coverage
• Special/resource needs No aerial device necessary
• Water Supply 1,000 gpm
• Other Resources None needed
Police Service
• Distance to Police Station 7 miles
• Police Response Time >6 minutes
• Calls for Service 631 within one mile
• %of calls for service split by 40.3%P1,53.2%P2, 1.4%P3
priority
• Accessibility Satisfactory.
• Specialty/resource needs None necessary.
• Crimes 115
• Crashes 40
Page 2
Page 50
Item#3.
Ada County Schools
• Impacted Schools Pleasant View ES- .7 Miles
Star MS—7.7 Miles
Meridian HS—4.1 Miles
• Capacity of Schools Pleasant View ES-650
Star MS— 1000
Meridian HS—2075
• #of Students Enrolled Pleasant View ES-356
Star MS—701
Meridian HS— 1975
• Estimated New Students Generated by Development Pleasant View ES- 10
Star MS—5
Meridian HS—7
Wastewater
• Distance to Sewer Services N/A
• Sewer Shed N.Black Cat Trunkshed
• Estimated Project Sewer ERU's See application
• WRRF Declining Balance 13.98
• Project Consistent with WW Master Plan/Facility Yes
Plan
• Impacts/Concerns Additional 543 gpd committed to
model
Water
• Distance to Water Services Directly adjacent
• Pressure Zone 1
• Estimated Project Water ERU's See application
• Water Quality No concerns
• Project Consistent with Water Master Plan Yes
• Impacts/Concerns Dead-end water mainline
Future Land Use Map Aerial Map
Legend 0 legend
Pra}eat Lcca-iar. Project Lacc:Sm
I4ediu'm Q nMtyr
Resld I
mu
I
1 -
hAl7[ use - , f�
�Inte�rc range d
Page 3
Page 51
ttem#3. Zoning Map Planned Development Map
Legend Legend
0Pro}ect Laca�ian R- RIM
I Project Locaian
CityLir.&
— Plonrred C-
Parses ,
R• C•C
LIT
RUT
R- R: C- -
R-8 L
R-8 R-
•R. -RU -
RUT T ----
1-1.
R- _
III. APPLICANT INFORMATION
A. Applicant:
Matt Schultz, Schultz Development LLC—8421 S. Ten Mile Rd,Meridian ID 83642
B. Owner:
Kristie and Jeffrey Harrison—Box 136,Adams, Oregon, 97810
C. Representative:
Matt Schultz, Schultz Development LLC—8421 S. Ten Mile Rd,Meridian ID 83642
IV. NOTICING
Planning&Zoning City Council
Posting Date Posting Date
Newspaper Notification 11/27/2020 1/l/2021
Radius notification mailed to
properties within 300 feet 11/23/2020 12/29/2020
Nextdoor posting 11/23/2020 12/29/2020
Sign Posting 12/04/20 1/6/2021
V. STAFF ANALYSIS
This proposal includes annexing 4.97 acres of land,zoning to R-15, and platting 30 building lots and
3 common lots. The majority of the housing is proposed to be single family attached with several
additional single family detached homes.
Page 4
Page 52
Item#3.
A. Annexation:
The proposed annexation area is contiguous to City annexed property and is within the Area of
City Impact Boundary. To ensure the site develops as proposed by the applicant, staff is
recommending a development agreement as part of the annexation approval.
B. Future Land Use Map Designation(hgps://www.meridianciU.or /g compplan)
This property is designated Medium Density Residential on the City's Future Land Use Map
(FLUM)contained in the Comprehensive Plan.
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 annexation area is near existing public services and not on the periphery of corporate city
limits; existing City of Meridian zoning and development is directly adjacent to the west, north
and nearby to the east. The property is directly adjacent and south of the Brody Square
Subdivision, of which the final plat was approved by City Council on December 15, 2020. The
proposed land use of single family residential is consistent with the recommended uses in the
FLUM designation, however the proposed density of 6 du/acre is on the higher end of the
recommended density range.Accordingly, staff has conveyed to the applicant that if this higher
density is proposed, the project should incorporate quality open space and amenities. This is
discussed in the open space section later in this staff report.
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.A. 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.
C. Comprehensive Plan Policies (https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan):
(Staff analysis is in italics after the cited policy)
• Encourage a variety of housing types that meet the needs,preferences, and financial
capabilities of Meridian's present and future residents. (2.01.02D)
This proposal includes single family attached and several single-family detached homes.As
this project is within an area surrounded by primarily single family detached homes, it will
contribute to the variety of housing type.
• Avoid the concentration of any one housing type or lot size in any geographical area;provide
for diverse housing types throughout the City. (2.01.01 G)
As mentioned above, this proposal would allow for a more diverse type of housing.
• With new subdivision plats,require the design and construction of pathway connections, easy
pedestrian and bicycle access to parks, safe routes to schools, and the incorporation of usable
open space with quality amenities"(2.02.01A).
The proposed plat depicts 5'sidewalks on both sides of all local roads.A 5'detached
sidewalk runs along Black Cat Rd. and connects to a sidewalk of the same width at the Brody
Square Subdivision to the north, and there is a 5'detached sidewalk along W. McMillian
which is the same width as the pathway along W. McMillan Ave provided by the Oakwinds
Page 5
Page 53
Item#3.
and Oaks Subdivisions to the west. The sidewalks will result in both external and internal
multi-modal connectivity.
• "Permit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities
and urban services at the time of final approval, and in accord with any adopted levels of
service for public facilities and services."(3.03.03F)
City water and sewer service is available along Black Cat Road and can be extended by the
developer with development in accord with UDC 11-3A-21.
• Require urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments, including curb and gutter,
sidewalks,water and sewer utilities. (3.03.03G)
The applicant will dedicate right-of-way for future widening off. Black Cat Rd. and W.
McMillian Rd, will construct all internal roadways, and will construct detached sidewalks of
5'in width. Curb and gutter is not being constructed along N. Black Cat Rd or W. McMillian
Rd at this time due to the future plans for ACHD to widen both these roads. Water and sewer
will be provided by 8-inch mains constructed in 2021 in the stub street from the Brody Square
subdivision to the north.
• "Require pedestrian access in all new development to link subdivisions together and promote
neighborhood connectivity."(2.02.01D)
Detached sidewalks are proposed on both side of all internal streets. Sidewalks will be
completed to the terminus of the stub street to the east and the border of the property to the
north (to Brody Square) which would connect to any future development.A 5'detached
sidewalk is proposed along the length of the development paralleling Black Cat Road and a
5'detached sidewalk is proposed along W. McMillian Rd.
"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).
Two points of access are proposed, both from local streets. There will be a northern access
via N. Brody Ave. which will connect to W. Daphne St in the Brody Square Subdivision and to
N. Black Cat Rd. or W. McMillian Rd.An eastern stub is proposed to provide access if the
properties to the east are development(presently in unincorporated Ada County).
D. Existing Structures/Site Improvements:
There is an existing mobile home on the property which will be removed.
E. Proposed Use Analysis:
The applicant proposes single-family attached and detached homes,which are listed as a principal
permitted use in the R-15 zoning district per UDC Table 11-2A-2.
F. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2):
The preliminary plat and future development is required to comply with the dimensional
standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-7 for the R-15 district. All lots meet the minimum 2,000 sq.
ft. requirements, and future structures should comply with the minimum setbacks of the district.
UDC 11-6C-3-regulates block lengths for residential subdivisions. Staff has reviewed the
submitted plat for conformance with these regulations. The intent of this section of code is to
ensure block lengths do not exceed 750 feet, although there is the allowance of an increase in
block length to 1000 feet if a pedestrian connection is provided.
Page 6
Page 54
Item#3.
W. Riva Capri Ct. (the internal road) is approximately 575 feet in length. This exceeds the
maximum of 500' for dead end streets. However,UDC 11-6C-3-B-4 allows the City Council to
approve dead-end streets up to 750' in length where a pedestrian connection is provided from the
street to an adjacent existing or planned pedestrian facility. A pedestrian connection is provided
from the end of the cul-de-sac to the sidewalk along W. McMillian Rd.
G. Access(UDC 11-3A-3,
Two accesses are proposed for this property. The first is a 33' wide internal street which will
connect to the Brody Square Subdivision to the north. The second is a stub street to the
undeveloped property to the east(presently in unincorporated Ada County). Only one street will
serve the internal development—W. Riva Capri Ct-which ends in a cul-de-sac.
N. Black Cat Road, an arterial road, is presently improved with two travel lanes and transitions to
three travel lanes at the site's north property line. There is no curb, gutter or sidewalk on the east
side along the subject property although it is improved with detached sidewalk on the west. The
applicant proposes to dedicate right-of-way,widen the pavement, and construct a 5-foot detached
sidewalk that will connect to one of the same width at the Brody Square Subdivision to the north.
W. McMillian Rd. an arterial road, is improved with 2 travel lanes and no curb, cutter or
sidewalk.A roundabout is planned for the McMillan/Black Cat intersection. The applicant
proposes to dedicate right-of-way,widen the pavement and construct a 5-foot detached sidewalk.
ACHD reviewed this proposal and in a staff report dated November 13,2020 stated the project is
anticipated to generate approximately 210 additional trips per day and supports the project as
proposed. Meridian Fire has responded the project meets all required access,road widths and
turnarounds.
Common Driveways(UDC 11-6C-3):No common driveways are proposed with this
development.
H. Parking(UDC 11-3C):
Off-street parking is required to be provided for single-family attached based on the number of
bedrooms per unit(i.e. 2, 3 and 4 bedroom units require 4 per dwelling unit with at least 2 in an
enclosed garage, other spaces may be enclosed or a minimum 10' x 20' parking pad) in accord
with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6. All elevations show at least two car garages, and
the landscape plan shows parking pads of least 20' x 20'in front of the single family attached.
The applicant has provided a parking exhibit. The parking plan provides a 33' local street section
which allows for additional on-street parking of up to 30 on-street spaces. This on-street parking
does not count toward meeting minimum requirements.ACHD and Meridian Fire have both
reviewed the plan and have not expressed concerns.
I. Pathways( UDC 11-3A-8):
The development proposes one 5' micro-pathway connecting the cul-de-sac to the common open
space in Lot 17,Block 2. However,because it is proposed within the common open space it
would still count as useable open space. The micro-pathway does appear to meet the tree
requirement of at least 100 tree per hundred linear feet as required by UDC 11-3B-12.
J. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17):
Detached sidewalks are proposed throughout the development on both sides of all roads and meet
the minimum 5' width of UDC 11-3A-17.
Page 7
Page 55
Item#3.
K. Parkways(UDC 11-3A-17):
Parkways are shown on the landscape plan adjacent to the detached pathways along the N. Black
Cat Rd. and W. McMillian Rd. frontages as well as along internal sidewalks. The parkways
exceed the minimum requirement of 8' in width and are landscaped with turf.
L. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B):
The landscape plan reflects 26,749 sq. ft. of open space(12.36%). This includes 25' wide arterial
buffers, 8-foot parkways on the internal streets, a 5,611 square foot common lot, and 6,844 sq. ft.
stormwater facility.As required by UDC 11-313-5-3,when more than 50 trees are required,there
shall be at least 5 species of trees. 8 species of trees are proposed.
The landscape plan indicates 5 trees totaling 68 inches will be removed which require mitigation.
34 trees at 2"caliper will be planted equaling 68 inches.
M. Qualified Open Space(UDC 11-3G):
The applicant provided an open space exhibit as well as open space calculations on the landscape
plan. The landscape plan reflects 12.36%of qualified open space. This includes several linear
open spaces of at least twenty feet(20') and longer than fifty feet(50')with accesses at both ends
and landscaped at as required per UDC 11-3G-3-E. A 5,611 sq. ft. landscaped common lot is also
proposed.
Staff is not confident this project actually proposes 12.36%of qualified open space. The Open
Space Exhibit indicates the entire parkways along the internal sidewalks being credited,but
driveways cannot be included in this total.Also, only of the required arterial buffers can be
counted, and the applicant is counting both'/2 of the buffers and the parkways within these
required buffers as qualified open space. Finally, a round-about is proposed at the N. Black Cat
Rd/W. McMillian Rd intersection, and the landscape plan suggests the open space is being
counted prior to the round-about construction. It is possible some of the landscaping as shown
will be removed with the road project.
UDC 11-3G-1 requires at least 10%of qualified common open space and site amenities when a
development is more than 5 acres in size. This property is less than 5 acres and therefore would
not be required to meet UDC 11-3G-1. However, at a July 20,2020 Pre-Application meeting,
staff informed the applicant that in order for staff to support the density as proposed,the
development should include high-quality and useable amenities as part of project. The
development as proposed includes a 5,611 common open space which contains a sitting area and
benches located directly on an arterial intersection, and a 6,844 sq. ft. stormwater facility. It is
staff s opinion this development does not include quality useable open space or amenities. Staff
recommends that prior to City Council meeting,the plat and landscape plan be revised to merge
Lots 28 and 29 of Block 1 into Lot 30,Block 1 and provide a quality amenity and useable open
space.
N. Qualified Site Amenities (UDC 11-3G)
As mentioned above,the proposal includes a 5,611 sq. ft. common lot with a shade structure and
benches located directly on an arterial intersection. Although the UDC does not require common
open space or amenities for developments of less than 5 acres,the applicant is requesting the City
annex this property(there are presently no City entitlements) at a density at the high end of the
density range recommendations. Staff has informed the applicant that if a higher density is
proposed, quality open space and amenities should be provided. Staff does not believe this
development includes high quality or useable open space or amenities that justifies higher
density.
Page 8
Page 56
Item#3.
O. Waterways(UDC 11-3A-6):
The applicant has mentioned an irrigation lateral runs along the southern property line, adjacent
to SW. McMillian Ave. The applicant shall comply with the provisions for irrigation ditches,
laterals, canals and/or drainage courses, as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6.
P. Fencing(UDC I1-3A-6, 11-3A-7):
All fencing constructed on the site is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-
7. A 6-foot tall solid vinyl fence is proposed along the periphery of the property and along the
rear lot line of all single-family units. At least one side of all common open spaces does not have
any fencing. If fencing is proposed, all fencing abutting pathways and common open space lots
not entirely visible from a public street shall be open style of up to six feet(6)in height or closed
vision fencing not exceeding four feet(4')in height as required by UDC 11-3A-7.
Q. Utilities(UDC 11-3A-21):
Connection to City water and sewer services is proposed. Water and sewer will be provided by fl-
inch mains constructed in 2021 in the stub street from the Brody Square subdivision to the north.
Street lighting is required to be installed in accord with the City's adopted standards,
specifications and ordinances.
R. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual):
Conceptual building elevation renderings were submitted for the future detached and attached
homes within the development.All housing types are proposed at two story,with clapboard or lap
siding, dormers and gabled roofs. Overall,the elevations proposed are satisfactory but do not
include elevations of the sides or rears of structures.As many of the houses will be very visible
from N.Black Cat Rd. and W. McMillan Rd. staff recommends a condition that the rear and/or
sides of 2-story structures on Lot 18 of Block 1 and Lots 2-16 of Block 2 that face N. Black Cat
Road and W. McMillan Rd. incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the
following: modulation(e.g.projections,recesses, step-backs,pop-outs),bays,banding,porches,
balconies,material types, or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall
planes and roof lines. Single-story structures are exempt from this requirement. Planning approval
will be required at time of building permit.Also,Per UDC 11-513-8,administrative design review
will be required for all new attached residential structures containing two (2)or more dwelling
units.
VI. DECISION
A. Staff:
Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation, zoning to R-15 and preliminary plat for
this property with the conditions noted in Section VII. per the Findings in Section IX.
B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard this item on December 17,2020. At the
public hearing,the Commission moved to approve the subject annexation and preliminarypl
request.
1. Summary of the Commission public hearing_
a. In favor: Matt Schultz,
b. In opposition:None
C. Commenting: Matt Schultz
d. Written testimony: None
e. Staff presenting application: Alan Tiefenbach
f Other Staff commenting on application: Bill Parsons
Page 9
Page 57
Item#3.
2. Key issue(s) testimony;
a. Representative of the Beach Lateral Water Users Association commented the ditch
along W. McMillian was an important source of irrigation and wanted to ensure there
was no interruption or impact on services.
b. Property owner east of the site at 4520 W. McMillan Ave commented their property
shares a property line with much of the subject property,they actively graze livestock
and wanted to make sure there was a fence or other barrier preventing impacts to their
livestock.
3. Ke, ids)of discussion by Commission:
a. Discussed whether enough open space was being provided for this project.
b. Discussed the future round-about and how much landscaping would be lost.
C. Discussed how the retention pond would be constructed and whether it would be a
legitimate open space area.
d. Discussed whether internal sidewalks could be extended to connect to N. Black Cat Rd.
e. Discussed how the lot lines of Lots 18-29 Block 1 did not line up with the lots of the
adjacent Brody Square Subdivision to the north and whether a better transition could be
provided.
£ Discussed whether additional open space could be provided by using Lot 1,Block 2 as
open space verses a building lot.
g Discussed whether additional open space could be provided to all lots by converting the
detached sidewalks to attached with no parkways and increasing rear setbacks to 20'
versus 12'.
4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation:
a. Align Lots 18-29,Block 1 with adjacent northern lots in Brody Square Subdivision to
provide better transition.
b. Applicant shall increase quality open space and amenities by one or both options:
1. Work with Brody Square representatives to locate a playground amen, in the
central park in Lot 9,Block 3 and allow shared open space and amenities for
residents of both subdivisions.
2. Convert Lot 1, Block 2 of Daphne Square Subdivision into common open space.
C. Detached sidewalks shall be converted to attached sidewalks with parkways eliminated
along internal roads and rear setbacks of all building lots shall be increased from 12' to
20'.
Page 10
Page 58
Item#3.
EXHIBITS
A. Revised Preliminary Plat(date: 1/11/2021)
Updated since Planning Commission—moved detention pond adiacent to cul-de-sac open
space, reflected open space conflguration after construction of round-about, converted all
sidewalks from detached to attached, reduced three lots on east side of N.Brody Ave from 3
lots to two lots.
I I :»
r i-' .Kv -- •,� i'
I I 11 17 1% r9 OD
Yc KJ ']I 4+ I �F;. } •I I 1
c r v .. .-
� 6[
• b b•f dar %; xr s= — [y 7u' k•.' x' 74' JJ 0' I �.
I {
■+'
7Gfi JGY JFY JO' 17
,•I . Ik:
I.'•I G L' S k k k t r, k k l
R Ira a a R a •�
° fi g #� = a te a0 ; R � ;��,•'„'
N N I
I I� � �� ��I Rom__ -.,• 11 la � la 1 � �
Rabb it ' — up 5h.7 1 --
LT. •�nr _! R -
TYiR_:klC -�_
---- •� •V AIJ�
-� —_ — T • YN 1 YN Y•n — — —
..11�Rl•JJ�•ia•1��11
Rrrm codre �c —JZ JI■WE L eM i O.TW 2kw
AI AR;Fm mx cl.
A GI YQ n Ws6K
� I-e••w.0
Page 11
Page 59
B. Revised Landscape Plan (date:1/7/2021)
'LL].
15"
...................
I G ID
..............
it Tr
-—-—-—-—-—--
-,-:-�7 7
C. Revised Color Landscape Plan (date: 1/8/2021)
—011j, E1
I pn
BRODY susoiwsm
77,
23 19
<
PIVA CAPM STRUT
RETENTION
W.MCMILLAN ROAD
Page 12
Item#3.
A Revised Qualified Open Space Exhibit(date: 1/7/2021)
CITY OF MERIDIAN
SINGLE FAMI LY V15 0 P E N SPACE
REQUIREMENT
QUALIFIED OPEN SPACE
10lLOPB4 SPACE RB9111RED rrn..l. ueYt. RLdl1R�� P�o�i
IhIkR PI kR 1`•+ ? C�14 sl' S 1 fa3E dca hW-Cl QocH fc.1
f3w Ac;1 Irk I A/a
LANDSCAPE LEGEND
:mow f-hr �t+a r
I I
1
J
I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I
I I I I I I I I I I II II
RIVA-CAMI STREET
J ++
1
� I
I I I I I i I I I I I
I I IA
+F2TERu5L 9UF�ER]:
I E..I 184.T.
I
� I
Page 13
Page 61
Item#3.
E. Daphne Square/Brody Square Amenity Exhibit Demonstrating Option One and Option
Two as recommended by Planning Commission. (date 1/10/2021)
IT
■ ■
i
a
■
■
i
i
BRODY ■
SQUARE
w -
MiL
i� ■
� PAR�
i
i ■
A �
■
i a
i_ �
■ ■
M Emil al milli mil Jim m
r _ �
i ■
■ I �
MIN Ew-Moilimmimmilif
i
LOAM
DAPHNE f OPTION 2 ;
SQUARE ! -
cMILLAN
Page 14
Page 62
Item#3.
F. Parking Exhibit(date: 10/5/2020)
25' 35' 30' 30' 30' 30' 30' 30' 30' 30' 30' 30' 30' Lo
115' a
o
Q
y f 8' PARK STRIPS AND PARKING
U w w w w w w w
m
u o
m , PARKING
30' 30' 30' 30' 30' 30' 30' 30' 30' 30' 30' 30' 30' 30' 35'
BERM a
M cM I LLAN
❑APHNE SQUARE
30 ON—STREET PARKING SPACES
r-�r
Page 15
Page 63
Item#3.
H. Annexation Exhibit(date: 10/7/2020)
EXHIBIT
ANNEXATION AND R-15 ZONING DESCRIPTION FOR
DAPHNE SQUARE SUBDIVISION
A portion of the VV 114 of the SW 1M of Secticn 27, T_f1N.. R.1 W., B.M..Ada County,
Idaho more particularly described as follows;
BEGINNING at the SVV corner of said Section 27 frorn which the W114 comer of said
Section 27 bears North East, 2637.33 feet
thence along the West boundary line of said Section 27 North UU°31'08" East. 329.50
feet a angle poird in the exterior boundary line of Black Cat Estates Subdivision No- 1 as file in
Book 29 of Plats at Pages 17 and 1799, records of Ada County, I-daho;
thence along the exterior boundary line of said Black Cat Estates Subdivision Na. 1 the
following courses and di,5tances-
thence leaving said West boundary ling South 80"'I T5Z East, 660.80 feet.
thence South 00'31'08" W&st, 326.04 Feet to a point on the South boundary line of said
Section 27,
thence along said South boundary line North 89"35'5Z'West, WO.8 0 feet to the REAL
POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 4-$7 ao , more or less.
t -
ENS
OL 7729
Page 16
Page 64
+m#a
1/4
27
�)
�§ BLACK CAT ESTATES SUB NO- I
2 �
589 1 732"E Saea' ____�--- —�
BK
k ' z
U | [ §
= z |in �3
m
/
Nf 6§m [ �f j
4 G7 c.c. �\ k
21 /
� r
S2827 ._ W. McMILLAN . --
&33 S.34
2222
N
�
A� �&,m� 77249 m
0 25 2 !m 200 � E
Page !7
h9 S
Item#3.
VII. 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. The rear and/or sides of 2-story structures on Lot 18 of Block 1 and Lots 2-16 of Block 2
that face N. Black Cat Road and W. McMillan Rd shall incorporate articulation through
changes in two or more of the following: modulation(e.g.projections,recesses, step-
backs,pop-outs),bays,banding,porches,balconies,material types, or other integrated
architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines. Single-story
structures are exempt from this requirement. Planning approval will be required at time of
building permit.
b. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the preliminary plat,
landscape plan and conceptual building elevations for the single-family dwellings
included in Section VIII and the provisions contained herein.
c. If an agreement cannot be reached with the Brody Square Homeowner's
Association (HOA)in regard to locating an additional playground amenity within
Lot 9,Block 3 of the Brody Square Subdivision and sharing amenities and common
open space between the two subdivisions,the applicant shall revise the preliminary
plat to convert Lot 1,Block 2 of the Daphne Square Subdivision into common open
space.
d. Rear setbacks of all homes in Lots 18-29,Block 1 shall be 20'.
2. Prior-to the City Geiineil meeting,the plat and landseape plan shall be revised to mefge Lots
28 and 29 of Bleek 1 into Let 30,Bleek 1 and pr-evide a"ality amenity a-ad useable open
3. Applicant shall align lots 18-29,Block 1 with adiacent northern lots in Brody Square
Subdivision to provide better transition.
4. Detached sidewalks shall be converted to attached sidewalks with parkways
eliminated along internal roads and rear setbacks of Lots 18-29, Block 1 shall be
increased from 12'to 20'.
5. Prior-to the Git-y Couneil meeting,the plat and!a-ndseape plan shall be r-evised to r-efleet the
landseaping lot shown as Let 17,Week 2 after-all AC14D read impr-eveffients.
6. Administrative design review will be required for all new attached residential structures
containing two(2)or more dwelling units.
7. The applicant shall comply with all provisions of 11-3A-3 with regard to access to streets.
Page 18
Page 66
Item#3.
8. The applicant shall construct all proposed fencing and/or any fencing required by the UDC,
consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-7 and 11-3A-6B, as applicable.
9. The development 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.
10. The plat shall comply with the provisions for irrigation ditches, laterals, canals and/or
drainage courses,as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6.
11. The development shall comply with all subdivision design and improvement standards as set
forth in UDC 11-6C-3,including but not limited to cul-de-sacs, alleys,driveways, common
driveways, easements,blocks, street buffers, and mailbox placement.
12. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table
11-3C-6 for single-family detached dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit.
13. The Applicant shall have a maximum of two(2)years to obtain City Engineer's signature on
a final plat in accord with UDC 11-6B-7.
14. The Applicant shall comply with all conditions of ACHD.
B. PUBLIC WORKS
SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS:
1. The water main ending at the cul-de-sac should connect to the existing mainline in Black Cat Road
to avoid dead-end main and to provide a dual connection.
2. The geotechnical investigative report for this development,prepared by ATLAS Materials Testing
& Inspection, dated 08/17/2020 indicates some very specific construction considerations, such as
ensuring that the bottom of crawl spaces must be elevated at least 2-feet above seasonal
groundwater elevation,and the installation of foundation drains. Foundation drains are not allowed
to discharge into the sanitary sewer, or the sanitary sewer/water service line trench. The applicant
shall be responsible for the adherence of these recommendations to help ensure that groundwater
does not become a problem within crawlspaces of homes.
GENERAL CONDITIONS:
1. Sanitary sewer service to this development is available via extension of existing mains adjacent to
the development. The applicant shall install mains to and through this subdivision; applicant shall
coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms
of easements for any mains that are required to provide service. 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. Water service to this site is available via extension of existing mains adjacent to the development.
The applicant shall be responsible to install water mains to and through this development,
coordinate main size and routing with Public Works.
3. 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.
4. Upon installation of the landscaping and prior to inspection by Planning Department staff, the
Page 19
Page 67
Item#3.
applicant shall provide a written certificate of completion as set forth in UDC 11-313-14A.
5. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all incomplete fencing,
landscaping, amenities,pressurized irrigation,prior to signature on the final plat.
6. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post with the City a performance surety in the amount
of 125% of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer, water 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 applicant shall be required to enter into a Development Surety Agreement with the City
of Meridian. 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.
7. 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, and water infrastructure for a duration
of two years. This surety amount will be verified by a line item final cost invoicing 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.
8. In the event that an applicant and/or owner cannot complete non-life, non-safety and non-health
improvements,prior to City Engineer signature on the final plat and/or prior to occupancy,a surety
agreement may be approved as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3C.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that
may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers.
12. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office.
13. All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-14B.
14. 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.
15. The 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-7 of the Improvement Standards for Street
Page 20
Page 68
Item#3.
Lighting (http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272). All street lights shall be
installed at developer's expense. Final design shall be submitted as part of the development plan
set for approval, which must include the location of any existing street lights. The contractor's
work and materials shall conform to the ISPWC and the City of Meridian Supplemental
Specifications to the ISPWC. Contact the City of Meridian Transportation and Utility Coordinator
at 898-5500 for information on the locations of existing street lighting.
19. 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
signature of the final plat by the City Engineer.
20. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES permitting that
may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency.
21. 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 Water Department at(208)888-
5242 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.
22. Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance
Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact the Central District Health Department for abandonment
procedures and inspections.
23. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round
source of water(MCC 9-1-28.C.1). 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
development plan approval.
24. 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.
C. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT(SCHOOLS ANALYSIS)
https://weblink.meridiancity.or lWebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=216458&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
hty
D. ACHD
https://weblink.meridiancioy.orkIWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=216805&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
Lty-
D. MERIDIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT
by s://weblink.meridianciU.org_/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=216307&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
hty
Page 21
Page 69
Item#3.
E. MERIDIAN FIRE DEPARTMENT
https:llweblink.meridiancioy.or zlWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=215774&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
Lty-
F. ADA COUNTY
https:llweblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=215849&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
Lty
G. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
https:llweblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=216378&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
Lty
H. SETTLERS IRRIGATION
https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=216404&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCi
ty
Page 22
Page 70
Item#3.
VIII. FINDINGS
A.Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-5B-3E)
Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full
investigation and shall, at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation
and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings:
1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan;
Commission finds annexation of the subject site with an R-15 zoning designation is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan MDR FL UM designation for this property if the Applicant complies
with the provisions in Section VII.
2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically
the purpose statement;
Commission finds the lot sizes proposed combined with the housing types proposed will be
consistent with the purpose statement of the residential districts in that a range of housing
opportunities will be provided consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare;
Commission finds that the proposed zoning map amendment should not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, or welfare. Commission recommends the Council consider any oral or
written testimony that may be provided when determining this finding.
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
Commission finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not result in any adverse impact
upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services to this site.
5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city
Commission finds the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the City if the property is
developed in accord with the provisions in Section VII.
B.Preliminary Plat(UDC 11-613-6)
In consideration of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat,the
decision-making body shall make the following findings: (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-
2005)
1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified
development code; (Ord. 08-1372, 7-8-2008, eff. 7-8-2008)
Commission finds the proposed plat is generally in conformance with the UDC if the
Applicant complies with the conditions of approval in Section VII.
2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the
proposed development;
Commission finds public services can be made available to the subject property and will be
adequate to accommodate the proposed development.
Page 23
Page 71
Item#3.
3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the city's
capital improvement program;
Commission finds the proposed plat is in substantial conformance with scheduled public
improvements in accord with the City's CIP.
4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development;
Commission finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed
development.
5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and
Commission finds the proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety or general welfare.
6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-
30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005)
Commission is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that need to be
preserved with this development.
Page 24
Page 72