2021-11-18
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho
Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 6:00 PM
MINUTES
ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE
PRESENT
Commissioner Rhonda McCarvel
Commissioner Nick Grove
Commissioner Andrew Seal
Commissioner Maria Lorcher
Commissioner Steven Yearsley
ABSENT
Commissioner Bill Cassinelli
Commissioner Nathan Wheeler
ADOPTION OF AGENDA - Adopted
CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] - Approved
1. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Meridian Swim School (H-2021-0069) by
CSHQA, Located at 2730 E. State Ave.
ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\]
ACTION ITEMS
2. Public Hearing for Lennon Pointe Community (H-2021-0071) by DG Group
Architecture, PLLC, Located at 1515 W. Ustick Rd.
A. Request: Annexation of 10.41 acres of land with a request for C-C (2.01
acres) and R-15 (8.3 acres) zoning districts.
B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 43 building lots, 1 commercial
building lot, and 2 common lots on 8.8 acres of land in the proposed C-C and R-
15 zoning districts.
C. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development
consisting of a total of 18 units on 1.18 acres in the proposed R-15 zoning
district.
- Continued to December 2, 2021
3. Public Hearing for K1 Speed (H-2021-0077) by Josh Shiverick of Cushing Terrell,
Located at 1075 N. Hickory Ave. on the northwest corner of E. State Ave. and H.
Hickory Ave.
A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for an approximate 50,000 square-foot
indoor recreation facility for the purpose of an indoor electric go-kart track,
concession area, meeting rooms, and associated spaces for K1 Speed on a
portion of 9.88 acres of land in the I-L zoning district.
- Approved
4. Public Hearing Continued from November 4, 2021 for Black Cat Industrial Project
(H-2021-0064) by Will Goede of Sawtooth Development Group, LLC, Located at
350, 745, 935, and 955 S. Black Cat Rd. and Parcel S1216131860.
A. Request: Annexation of 130.19 acres of land with R-15 and I-L zoning
districts.
- Recommended Denial to City Council
5. Public Hearing for Jamestown Ranch Subdivision (H-2021-0074) by Walsh Group,
LLC, Located Near the Southeast Corner of the N. Black Cat and W. McMillan Rd.
Intersection at 4023 W. McMillan Rd. and parcels S0434223150, S0434212970,
S0434212965, and S0434212920.
A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 80 acres of land with a R-8 zoning
district.
B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 294 building lots and 25 common
lots.
- Continued to January 20, 2022
6. Public Hearing for UDC Text Amendment - Collector Street Setbacks in
Residential Districts and Landscape Buffers Along Streets (ZOA-2021-0003) by
Brighton Development, Inc.
A. Request: Request to Amend the text of the City’s Unified Development Code
(UDC) pertaining to the Dimensional Standards for the Residential Districts in
Chapter 2 and Landscape Buffer along Streets Standards in Chapter 3.
- Recommended Approval to City Council
ADJOURNMENT - 8:58 p.m.
Item 1.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting November 18, 2021.
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of November 18, 2021 , was
called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Rhonda McCarvel.
Members Present: Chairman Rhonda McCarvel, Commissioner Andrew Seal,
Commissioner Nick Grove, Commissioner Steven Yearsley and Commissioner Maria
Lorcher.
Members Absent: Commissioner Bill Cassinelli and Commissioner Nate Wheeler.
Others Present: Adrienne Weatherly, Kurt Starman, Bill Parsons, Alan Tiefenbach and
Dean Willis.
ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE
Nate Wheeler X Maria Lorcher
X Andrew Seal X Nick Grove
_X Steven Yearsley Bill Cassinelli
X Rhonda McCarvel - Chairman
McCarvel: Good evening and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting
for November 18th, 2022. If you are joining us on Zoom this evening we can see that you
are here. You may observe the meeting, however, your ability to be seen on screen and
talk will be muted. During the public testimony of the meeting you will be unmuted and
be able -- and be able to comment. Please note that we cannot take questions until the
public testimony portion. If you have a process question during the meeting, please, e-
mail cityclerk@meridiancity.org and they will reply to you as quickly as possible. Let's
begin with roll call.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
McCarvel: Thank you. First item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. This
evening Lennon Pointe Community, H-2021-0071 will be opened for the sole purpose of
continuing this item to the regularly scheduled meeting of December 2nd. It will open
only for that purpose, so if there is anyone here tonight to testify on that particular
application we will not be taking testimony this evening. So, can I get a motion to adopt
the agenda as amended?
Seal: So moved.
Yearsley: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All those in favor say
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 18,2021 5
Page 2 of 49
aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item]
1. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Meridian Swim School (H-
2021-0069) by CSHQA, Located at 2730 E. State Ave.
McCarvel: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and we only have one item
on the Consent Agenda this evening. It's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for
Meridian Swim School, H-2021-0069. Could I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda
as presented?
Seal: So moved.
Grove: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the Consent Agenda. All those in
favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item]
McCarvel: At this time I will briefly explained the public hearing process. We will open
each item individually and begin with the staff report. The staff will report their findings
on how an item adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code.
After staff has made their presentation the applicant will come forward to present their
case and respond to staff comments. They will have 15 minutes to do so. After the
applicant has finished we will open the floor to public testimony. Each person will be
called on only once during the public testimony. The Clerk will call names individually of
those who have signed up on our website and advanced to testify. If you are here in
person, please, come forward. If you are on Zoom you will be unmuted. Please state
your name and address for the record and you will have three minutes to address the
Commission. If you have previously sent pictures or presentation for the meeting it will
be displayed on the screen and our Clerk will run the presentation. After all those who
have signed up in advance have spoken, we will invite others who may wish to testify. If
you wish to speak on a topic you may press the raise hand button on the Zoom app or if
you are only listening on the phone, please, press -- press star nine and wait for your
name to be called. If you are listening on multiple devices, a computer and a phone, for
example, please be sure and mute those extra devices, so we do not experience feedback
and can hear you clearly. When you are finished if the Commission does not have
questions for you, you will no longer have the ability to speak. Please remember that we
will not call on you a second time. After all testimony has been heard, the applicant will
be given another ten minutes to come back and respond. When the applicant has finished
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 18,2021 6
Page 3 of 49
responding to questions and concerns, we will close the public hearing and the
Commissioners will have the opportunity to discuss and, hopefully, be able to make final
decisions or recommendations to the City Council as needed.
ACTION ITEMS
2. Public Hearing for Lennon Pointe Community (H-2021-0071) by DG
Group Architecture, PLLC, Located at 1515 W. Ustick Rd.
A. Request: Annexation of 10.41 acres of land with a request for C-C
(2.01 acres) and R-15 (8.3 acres) zoning districts.
B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 43 building lots, 1
commercial building lot, and 2 common lots on 8.8 acres of land in
the proposed C-C and R15 zoning districts.
C. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development
consisting of a total of 18 units on 1.18 acres in the proposed R-15
zoning district.
McCarvel: So, at this time we would like to open the public hearing for H-2021-0071,
Lennon Pointe Community, to be continued to December 2nd due to a description noticing
error. Does staff have anything they would like to add to that or -- okay. Can I get a
motion to continue H-2021-0071 to December 2nd?
Lorcher: So moved.
Seal: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to continue H-2021-0071. All those in favor
say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
3. Public Hearing for K1 Speed (H-2021-0077) by Josh Shiverick of
Cushing Terrell, Located at 1075 N. Hickory Ave. on the northwest
corner of E. State Ave. and H. Hickory Ave.
A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for an approximate 50,000 square-
foot indoor recreation facility for the purpose of an indoor electric go-
kart track, concession area, meeting rooms, and associated spaces
for K1 Speed on a portion of 9.88 acres of land in the I-L zoning
district.
McCarvel: Next item on the agenda is H-2021-0077 and we will begin with the staff report.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission ❑
Item 1. November 18,2021
Page 4 of 49
Parsons: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. I'm filling in for Joe
Dodson this evening. Give him a break from his long City Council hearing on Tuesday
night. So, if you would indulge me a little bit this evening. So, the first application before
you this evening is the K1 Speed conditional use permit. The site consists of 9.88 acres
of land, currently zoned I-L in the city limits and this property -- the physical address of
the property is 1075 North Hickory Avenue. Back in 2020 the city did approve a certificate
of zoning compliance to develop the property with an approximately 204,000 square foot
industrial warehouse building that you see here in front of you. This is the approved site
plan. You can see here that the applicant is proposing to take up approximately 50,000
square feet of that existing structure located on the south end of the building. Typically
with I-L zoning the required parking in that zone is one stall for every 2,000 square feet
of gross floor area. In this particular case, based on the square footage, the applicant
would have to have over one hundred stalls to serve the proposed use. In this particular
case there is well over 200 plus stalls on this particular site, which is consistent and
exceeds UDC standards. Staff also finds that the proposed indoor arts and entertainment
use meets the specific use use standards in Chapter 4 of the code as well. Again, here
is some -- the approved landscape plan. So, really, all the applicant is going to need after
their CUP approval has come forward with what we call a tenant improvement with the
building department and do only interior finishes. Everything regarding the exterior of the
building and the site have been approved with the previous certificate of zoning
compliance, which was done at a -- at an administrative level by staff. You can see here
that the proposed development has two access points --or, excuse me, four access points
that were approved with that certificate of zoning compliance. So, the one thing to note
on this particular application is since the applicant is on the south end of the building and
this is more of a commercial use than an industrial use, the patrons that come to this will
have adequate access to get to the site and not interfere with the additional tenant that is
operating on the north side of the building. If you had a chance to look at the staff report,
Joe did note that there is a cabinet maker that is operating on the north end of this building,
approximately 30,000 square feet. So, if you can see how the site's been developed, it's
been situated so that if there is truck traffic for any additional tenant spaces, they could
come in or off of Hickory Way here along the north boundary -- or east boundary and
circle around and get to the loading docks on the back here and still not interfere with that
potential -- the proposed commercial activity that's within this tenant space as well. We
also noted in the -- in the staff report the hours of operation are from 10:00 a.m. to 11:00
p.m., which is, again, consistent with code. I would mention to the Commission that there
is quite a bit of residential that is developing in the area, not only multi-family, but also
single family to the west. So, staff feels that this would be a beneficial residential use in
the area to serve the area. On tonight's agenda you just approved an aquatic swim center
just a little bit to the east of this site. So, you can see although this area is I-L zoned, the
PUD that was approved in 1991 allows for all non-residential uses to incur in this area.
Here is the rendering of the proposed elevations of the building and, again, you can see
my cursor here, this is where K1 Speed is proposing to go. Typically staff would be
concerned with a note --the noise and odor with this associated use, but if you also noted
in the staff report these are electrical -- electric go-carts, not your typical gas powered
equipment. So, staff finds that this is compatible with the adjacent uses in the surrounding
area and we are recommending approval with the conditions in the staff report. I will
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 18,2021 8
Page 5 of 49
stand for any questions you may have.
McCarvel: Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward?
Hersel: Josh Hersel with Cushing Terrell, 800 West Main Street, Suite 800, Boise, Idaho.
83702. We are in full agreement with the staff report. Noise could be a concern. It's also
in a concrete tilt up building that's insulated sandwich panels. It does have loading docks
that face the residential, but they will not be used, other than for deliveries of the carts.
They will never be opened during operation hours. Again, their hours meet what the city
code requires. We are over on parking requirements. So, we are in complete conclusion
that it should be fine and work through with the staff's recommendation. Any questions?
McCarvel: Any questions for staff or the applicant? Okay. Thank you. Madam Clerk,
do we have anyone signed up to testify on this application?
Weatherly: Madam Chair, we do not.
McCarvel: Okay. With that being said, is there anyone in the room or online that would
like to testify on this application? Okay. I'm assuming the applicant has no further
comment. With that could I get a motion to close the public hearing for H-2021-0077?
Grove: So moved.
Lorcher: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded, very quietly, to close the public hearing on
H-2021-0077. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Seal: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Seal.
Seal: I will need to recuse myself from this, because my employer owns the building that
this will be in.
McCarvel: Perfect. We will chat with you in a minute. Any opening comments, motions?
Grove: Make a motion.
McCarvel: Okay.
Grove: Seeing as we have staff and applicant in agreement and no public testimony
against, I move -- let's see. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I
move to approve file number H-2021-0077 as presented in the staff report for the hearing
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 18,2021 191
Page 6 of 49
date of November 18th, 2021, with no modifications.
Yearsley: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve H-2021-0077. All those in favor
say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
4. Public Hearing Continued from November 4, 2021 for Black Cat
Industrial Project (H-2021-0064) by Will Goede of Sawtooth
Development Group, LLC, Located at 350, 745, 935, and 955 S. Black
Cat Rd. and Parcel S1216131860.
A. Request: Annexation of 130.19 acres of land with R-15 and I-L
zoning districts.
McCarvel: Welcome back, Commissioner Seal. Next item on the agenda is continuing
H-2021-0064, Black Cat Industrial Project, originally opened on the hearing date of
November 4th and we will begin with the staff report.
Tiefenbach: Greetings, Madam Chair, Members of the Planning Commission. Alan
Tiefenbach, associate planner with the City of Meridian. This is a request for an
annexation of 130 acres with the I-L and the R-15 zone district. So, the majority of the
property is on the west side of Black cat Road. This is about 129 acres. There is also a
very small -- not quite one acre piece of property that is -- where is my -- there it is. That's
right there that is the -- on the east side of Black Cat. Just a quick history. Staff and the
applicant have met numerous times on this project. We have expressed many concerns.
These include the lack of the compliance with the Ten Mile plan, both in use and design.
Potential traffic impacts, probability of low job generation and whether or not the timing is
actually right for -- for a development of this magnitude when there is other properties to
the east that have yet to be developed. So, again, the applicant proposes to annex and
rezone a little bit less than one acre of property to the east as R-15. The applicant
proposes to annex 129 acres of property to the west as I-L. I want to quickly talk about
the Ten Mile plan. So, the Ten Mile plan -- the purpose of this was to ensure that land
use and transportation planning are integrated. It states that the city knows that these
are one of the last remaining large contiguous areas of highly visible land, meaning the
property that I'm referring to. The Ten Mile plan talks about how this area is intended to
look, feel, and function differently than a typical commercial area or a residential
subdivision and it goes on to talk about that unlike a lot of commercial and employment
districts, the intent here is that the Ten Mile plan wouldn't empty out at 5:00 p.m., it would
be sort of a live-work situation with a lot of employment. This is the land use map for the
Ten Mile plan and so the property is what you see in the -- in the dotted yellow line. This
over here is the one acre property that's being proposed to be rezoned to R -- to be --
excuse me -- annexed and zoned to R-15. That is surrounded by property that's all
recommended as medium density residential. On the west side of Black Cat Road, about
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 18,2021 Flo]
Page 7 of 49
one-third of this, maybe a little bit more, is recommended as low density employment.
The rest that you see here in gray, this is all recommended for mixed use employment.
So, low density -- low density employment, according to the plan, talks about that the
purpose of this is to provide low rise office and specialized employment uses, a variety of
flexible sites for professional offices and similar businesses, and it also should be
designed to provide convenient circulation. One of the things about that circulation is that
it's recommended to be designed with elements of traditional neighborhood design. So,
that's slower streets, traffic calming, wide sidewalks, more walkable, buildings that front
towards the street and buildings in low density employment areas are supposed to range
in height between one and three stories. Typically smaller square footage and land use
types talk about corporate and business offices, research facilities and laboratories. If
you look at the bottom here there is some pictures out of the Ten Mile plan that sort of
give examples of what low density employment could look like. The other land use
recommendation, again, which is the majority of it, is mixed employment and this is to
encourage the diversity of compatible land uses, include -- which includes a mixture of
office, research, and specialized employment areas. It also says that what could be
appropriate there is light industrial, including manufacturing and assembly and I will talk
about that shortly. It should provide for a variety of flexible sites, for small and local start-
up businesses, as well as large national or regional enterprises. It's intended to
accommodate a wide variety of employers and serve as a primary gateway and all of the
-- and as an example, all of the professional office uses along with the -- the restaurant
and retail uses, ancillary uses that you see at the Ten Mile and 1-84, the example of mixed
use employment and that's the type of uses that are proposed in this area as well. So,
the applicant's proposal -- and this is the concept plan. Is for seven buildings ranging in
size between 6,800 and 33,000 square feet. So, that's what you see directly adjacent to
Black Cat. This includes, according to the applicant, flex incubator buildings, which can
be divided into spaces and also it includes a future fire station, which is what you see
here. This also includes nine large buildings. These range in size from 131 square --
131,000 square foot to almost 330,000 square foot, with the entire project being
somewhat more than two million square feet. This concept plan that you are looking at it
shows multiple loading bays. I don't know if you can see it here, but there is loading bays
here. They are pretty much inside of all of the buildings. The concept plan that you see
here shows a wide collector street, which I will talk about, and this is designed to
accommodate large truck traffic and the applicant request is to rezone this entire area to
I-L, which would be light industrial. Again, this is still part of the proposals. The narrative
states that the Black Cat business center would provide in demand manufacturing,
heavier office build out, flex industrial and ancillary retail, warehousing and distribution. It
mentions that the mixed use employment designation does allow light industrial as one
of the appropriate uses. The narrative notes that the City of Meridian has less than a one
percent vacancy rate for industrial business uses and the Treasure Valley as a whole lags
behind its peer markets. So, staff believes that the mixed employment zoning is more
appropriate for this location, not I-L, to follow what the Ten Mile plan designates. The Ten
Mile plan does mention light industrial as one of the appropriate uses in mixed
employment. However, light industrial is defined by this plan as manufacturing and
assembly. Also the Unified Development Code also has a definition of light industrial,
which talks about a use engaged in the manufacture, processing, fabrication, assembly,
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 18,2021 Fill
Page 8 of 49
treatment -- blah, blah, blah, predominantly from previously prepared materials. So, this
would be where your elves would create your widgets and they do the research on the
widgets and they bring them to the warehouse and they -- they could store the widgets
and trucks can come and get the widgets, but the whole point is the building and the
making and the research and the development of the widgets and, then, the widgets can
be taken somewhere else. Now, these definitions that I described are very different than
what will be allowed in the light industrial zone district. Two different things. The definition
of light industrial versus the light industrial zone district are very different. In that particular
zone district warehousing, distribution, self storage and other industrial uses are allowed.
But these uses are actually specifically mentioned in the Ten Mile plan as being in the
industrial area, which is further west of the property directly adjacent to McMillan. I have
put this comparison on just to help clarify, because it is a little confusing, but on the left
would be mixed employment. These are the kind of uses that are recommended by the
Ten Mile plan. They pretty much are exactly in sync what the plan recommends. On the
right is what you see as light industrial zone district. This zone district allows numerous
uses, which includes by right, warehouse, indoor and outdoor storage, car sales,
contractor's yard, equipment rental, sales, and service and all these other types of uses
as well. One of one of the major intentions of the Ten Mile plan is to improve the jobs-
housing balance and there is some information that I have here. What you see on the --
on the right there, those numbers, what that all is is talking about what the existing jobs-
housing balance is in this area. Basically ideal -- in an ideal world you would have one
job to one house is what you are looking for. Anything less than that is less of the jobs-
housing balance. Anything higher than that means you have more jobs than people. The
existing jobs here is that this balance is presently about .2 and, like I said, one is the ideal
one. The intended jobs of the Ten Mile plan talks about 20,000 and this -- the intent of
this, especially with these employment centers, is intended to promote a reverse
commute. As you know to the east there is many subdivisions that are building out now,
hundreds of lots, multi-family over the Ten Mile and Franklin and is also like the Ten Mile-
Meridian, the gateway, numerous types of mixed use and residential projects. This is a
quick list to show you just typically what the typical jobs per acre is. So, for retail you get
Ten Jobs, down to like warehousing, which would be five jobs per acre and self storage
is very few, one or two per facility if that. West Franklin Road presently is two lanes with
no curb or gutter. That's what you see here. Sorry. It's covered by that legend. And it
narrows to one lane west of Black Cat. Black Cat Road, which you see here, is presently
two lanes with no curb, gutter, or sidewalk. Black Cat Road is to be widened to five lanes
between 2036 and 2040. West Franklin Road is planned to be widened to five lanes
between 2026 and 2030 and the West Franklin Road over here is eventually to be
signalized for State Highway 16, which is eventually going in just west of McMillan. So,
the -- the Ten Mile plan, ACHD, both require north-south collectors and a local street. So,
one of these collectors you can see purple here, this was provided by ACHD. Another
one of the collectors is shown to run through the middle of the property here. Also ACHD
is showing a collector running along the northern side of the property along the Rosenlof
Drain. It's important to notice that there is actually another local street, which is shown
on the land use map of the Ten Mile plan that's not, however, shown on the transportation
plats on the ACHD. However, the -- the intent of this local street, obviously, is to connect
between these two these two collectors. Staff has mentioned to the applicant that there
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 18,2021 F12
Page 9 of 49
should be some sort of northern south connection through the middle of this property.
The concept plan that's provided doesn't show this connection. It basically dead ends
here at parking. So, although the immediate area --area is mostly undeveloped, meaning
directly to the east and, then, to the north and to the west is also still unincorporated Ada
county, there is a significant amount of development that's already been built out or is
entitled to that, like I talked about. 330 single family lots and 240 apartments in the Bayara
Baraya Subdivision, which is to the east. There is a large amount of commercial and
residential occurring at Meridian, Vanguard Village, Ten Mile Crossing and TM Creek
crossing. Staff believes that the impacts of two million square feet of new commercial
uses could have significant impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. Now, annexation
-- annexations do not require a traffic study, but staff does believe just because of the
size of this this is one of the things that the applicant should provide and it's one of the
things we can look at to see if it's is in the best interest of the city. We believe that the
uses proposed would generate also a large amount of truck traffic. If you look at what's
being proposed, the -- the numerous large buildings and the wide collector, even in our
narrative it talks about to provide unimpeded access for trucks. So, you are going to get
a lot of trucks going up and down these two lane roads on Black Cat and Franklin or trying
to turn and go into Ten Mile. The Ten Mile plan has design requirements regarding the
road network, streets sections, walkability and architecture. So, in general there is a
Section C, which is sold on the Ten Mile plan, and that is what you see on the left here,
this bottom. Collectors here are supposed to be multi-modal, meaning walking, biking,
and driving with on-street parking and wide sidewalks and buildings that are brought up
to the street. In addition, there is other design standards, such as variation in building
height, ground floor transparency, three different elements to buildings. What you see
here this little section, there is different sections provided in the Ten Mile plan trying to
get an idea of what the building massing and the building height in each area is. What
you see here on the right is showing the mixed use employment area that I'm actually
referring to and, then, there is -- there is numerous pictures of the types of businesses
that would be reflective of that. So, the concept plan that you see here reflects the east-
west connector -- collector bisecting the property and being 60 feet wide. So, again, the
-- the collectors are supposed to be 33 and that's to slow traffic and to make them more
walkable, but what you have here is a 60 foot wide collector. This is easy truck access.
There is no on-street parking. There are detached parkways, but all the landscaping is
outside of this right of way and you can see much of the parking is along the collector.
And, then, the buildings here -- what you see here are they maintain large setbacks. The
large buildings don't contain the kind of ground floor transparency that's talked about in
this plan to make it interesting and pedestrian oriented. They don't address the public
realm and they are all one story in height, even though they are sort of designed to kind
of look like two stories and and the Ten Mile plan, again, is recommending that there is
different building heights, not just all one story. Now, the applicant's narrative states that
due to security and visibility that the industrial uses of these buildings do not support
windows across the entire frontage and certainly we understand that. As an alternative
they propose enhanced glazing at every -- at the corner elements. So, staff believes that
there could be design revisions that could improve the final product, especially some of
the buildings that you see along Black Cat, the smaller ones. We think those could
probably be reconfigured, reoriented and some additional things done to make those
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 18,2021 F13
Page 10 of 49
closer to what the Ten Mile plan recommends. However, it's important to note that given
the use that's being proposed, especially with the western part, the majority of it, we don't
think that the applicant could design in the type of design that's being recommended by
the plan, not -- not as an employment center. I think sort of the point that I'm making here
is the Planning Commission should decide whether warehousing, distribution, and
storage is appropriate in this location, because that's what I-L would allow. If they do
believe that those kinds of uses are appropriate in this location, then, staff would still
recommend that M-E would be the -- would be the -- the appropriate zone district and,
again, some of those warehousing uses are allowed as part of M-E, they just can't be a
standalone use, they have to be part of a larger operation. The applicant proposes to
annex and zone the area to I-L, whereas M-E zoning would be more consistent with the
plan. The applicant also proposes to annex about a one acre lot with the R-15 zone
district just to achieve the contiguity to be eligible for annexation. There is a potential for
significant loss of employment generating activity, monotonous architecture, and building
massive street design, which is not consistent with what the Ten Mile plan shows. In
addition, the traffic impacts of nearly two million square feet of new commercial on the
local network have not been analyzed and staff wonders really if this is about time -- if
this is time, as much of the -- the development to the east has not yet been developed,
the roads aren't ready, and much of the infrastructure isn't in place. The plan says that
the city knows -- like we mentioned as one of the remaining last large contiguous pieces
of highly visible land within the city's area of impact. With that staff finds the application
is not in the best interest of the city. Staff recommends denial and with that I will conclude
my presentation.
McCarvel: Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward?
Tiefenbach: I think we are -- I think we are fighting over the mouse. Hold on sec, Deb.
Nelson: Okay.
Tiefenbach: Okay. There you go.
Nelson: Okay. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, my name is Deborah Nelson.
My address is 601 West Bannock Street. I'm here on behalf of the applicant. So, you
can tell from Alan's presentation we actually have met with staff for a long while. We are
disappointed we have not been able to get staff support, but at this point we feel we have
done as much as we can do to work through these concerns and we need to move forward
with this application. I mean fundamentally -- and I think Alan said this as well -- this is a
decision about what use can go here and staff's vision for this area is an office park. They
asked us to look at El Dorado and Silverstone, instead of this industrial flex park. So, my
presentation is really going to focus on how the light industrial zone and a modern
business park with modular industrial spaces for businesses of all sizes is actually
compatible with your Ten Mile plan and your annexation criteria. Tim Wolfe with A-T
Industrial is going to follow me with some information about the market need and support
for the proposed industrial flex used in this location. Little project evolution. On the left
is our initial concept. Following the pre-app we made some significant changes. We
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 18,2021 F14
Page 11 of 49
rotated the buildings to shield the views of the loading docks from the freeway and the
collector. We enhanced the entrance and added this central amenity area. At significant
expense we purchased and incorporated two outlier parcels along Black Cat to address
staff's concerns that they may be isolated as rural residential in the county. We continued
through discussions to evolve the site. We changed the majority of the buildings to single
loaded and pulled them up to the street to minimize parking at the frontage. We divided
the Black Cat frontage buildings into smaller flex incubator spaces. Added walking paths
throughout. Improved the collector street east-west to match the plan and we added this
fire station site, which we are in discussions with fire about. Here you can see the flex
incubator spaces on Black Cat that will serve those small local and start-up businesses
with adaptable office like space and here is the outdoor amenity space providing that
attractive entry and also serving that as -- as that gathering hub for employees. So, a
couple of key points about what the plan provides. Alan mentioned that the majority of
our site is mixed employment under your Comprehensive Plan where you have the
majority of one designation and mixed designations that calls --that it's appropriate to use
the majority designation, which we have done here with mixed employment. In the zoning
compatibility matrix within the Ten Mile plan it specifically identifies light industrial as an
allowed zone. All of the uses that we propose are allowed within that light industrial zone.
The Ten Mile plan also calls for uses within the mixed employment area to provide a
variety of flexible sites for small local or start-up businesses, as well as sites for large
national or regional enterprises. We do this in a couple of ways. We have got the variety
of building sizes that go all the way from 17,000 feet for the flex buildings up to what we
have shown here as approximately 350,000 feet. That is well within the range in your
plan for mixed employment areas that calls for buildings that range from 10,000 square
feet to one million square feet. The other way we do it is we have demisable buildings.
These are all -- demisable down to 2,500 square feet in the small, 18,000 or 25,000 in
the larger buildings. This allows tenants to come in a variety of sizes of businesses and
then when they grow they can grow into larger space. Ten Mile plan also talks about how
one of its goals is to provide for industrial opportunities and consideration of the future
improvements to Highway 16. Well, at that time that was long in the future and now it is
immediately upon us. The land has now been acquired. This is a priority for the governor
and this is expected to be built out in the next two to three years. The east-west collector
through our site will provide us a direct connection over to McDermott and 16 as the
property to our west develops. There is a lot of details. We don't have enough time to
respond to everything that Alan just raised. I will just try to highlight a few things. He
talked about how we didn't meet the -- the street section. In fact, we do. He said that we
didn't meet it for one reason, because it calls for on-site parking, but, in fact, Street Section
C doesn't call for on-street parking. We do have bike lanes. We should have delineated
them better. The one addition we have is a turn lane in the center of this, but every other
aspect is the same, parkway, hardscape, sidewalks detached. Again, a lot of details
about design. Just to highlight a few. Alan talked about the building heights in his staff
report. He says you have got to be two to four stories. In fact, for mixed employment it's
one to four. We have one and two stories, but our building heights range up to the four
story height in there. We also meet the setbacks. The picture illustrates this well. This
was also in Alan's presentation. The picture on the left is straight out of the Ten Mile plan.
This is our building -- this is from our larger building onset. This is -- our architectural
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 18,2021 F151
Page 12 of 49
features are the same. I would say more attractive and you have got the same
delineation, the same glazing shown. We meet all of the criteria for annexation. We have
services at our site. Public Works has confirmed they have capacity to serve sewer and
water here within the existing trunk lines. The area to our east is building out. Everything
is either got a development application pending or it's owned by developer land. This
area is quickly developing and appropriate for development now. In the end with all of
these points, the city certainly can choose to approve light industrial zoning in this location
and the industrial and flex project based on the guidelines in the plan and the
Comprehensive Plan if this is a use that you determine is appropriate here. With that I'm
going to turn it over to Tim Wolfe.
Wolfe: Hi. Tim Wolfe. 675 Sun Valley Road, Ketchum, Idaho. 83340. What I wanted
to do is just -- we were -- staff-- we have heard repeatedly from staff that office is a more
appropriate use for this location and what I want to do is just take a minute to talk about
what the context was when the specific plan was adopted in 2007, what the context is
today, how that has changed and how the two uses have changed pretty dramatically
over that period of time. So, what's happened is that behavior has fundamentally changed
the way both office and industrial use are used in America. Office space per employee
has been cut in half since the Ten Mile plan was adopted. So, it means that for every
square foot of office you have twice as many employees in it today as you did when that
was adopted. E-commerce growth has more than tripled over the intervening period of
time and it's had a pretty significant impact on the need for local industrial infrastructure.
I'm going to -- I'm going to lay out a whole bunch of things here. You will get the slides.
I'm not going to go through a bunch of details, but in the detail we have kind of laid out
2007 and '19 what happened. Obviously, we had an event -- a pandemic event in 2020
and, then, going forward, you know, what does that mean? What does it mean for office?
What does it mean for industrial? How should you as a city plan going forward to address
the ongoing needs. So, there is a lot of supply chain things that have happened and you
will be able to read this. There is a couple of interesting points down at the bottom here
that I'm going to pop up. In 2007 when the plan was adopted e-commerce was four
percent of total retail sales. 2013 it was 5.8. 2020 it was 14. And it's very close to 20
percent now. So, it's quadrupled, online sales have, and that channel is all going through
an industrial channel. On the flip side of that what's happened is that office square footage
per employee in 2007 was 396 square feet. 2020 was 196 square feet and now what's
happening is with people working from home more and more, that number is continuing
to go down. So, the amount of land necessary to meet an office requirement for a number
of employees has been cut in half and it's continuing to go down. So, what does that
mean for office land in Meridian? More office land is not needed. Obviously, changing
maybe forever and there is some things about studies by Price Waterhouse, Coopers and
others about how that's happening. So, if you actually go look at the office in Meridian
currently there is greater than a 70 year supply of office land that is currently on the
market. Office that is existing and built in vacant or office that is in planning process right
now. This town ignoring land that's zoned that's not on the market right now that there is
also a significant amount of -- has more than 70 years of supply of office. So, we are
confused about why office is being pushed on this site. So, what we did is looked at
what's the average absorption of the last five years of object of office in this town and it's
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 18,2021 F16]
Page 13 of 49
about 200,000 square feet and that includes pre-pandemic when the office uses started
to decline. Office space available for lease is about two point years --two years of supply.
Office projects in planning and process is another 3.2 years of supply. Office land listed
as available for sale just in the City of Meridian is 415 acres, which is a 67 year supply of
office. So, you know, why -- why we would build office in a market that where there is 73
years of supply of current land available didn't make sense to us. So, how does Meridian
sit relative to its peers. And we shared this with staff. So, Meridian right now has a 14
percent office vacancy and Boise is eight percent. So, about half of what Meridian is. So,
relative to Boise it has more office than it needs. But .09 percent industrial vacancy. So,
there is zero industrial availability and what that means is people are leaving Meridian.
Existing businesses right now -- we talked -- we talked to a business a day that doesn't
have room to grow, doesn't have anyplace to go and talked to two businesses this week
that are industrial tenants that are leaving your city because they have nowhere to go and
Meridian compared to peer cities, it's 40 percent behind Boise in terms of total industrial
square footage, 66 behind Spokane and it -- you know, Meridian is the second largest
city in the state of Idaho, so it's -- our feeling is the city should be thinking of itself as a
city and -- and from a planning perspective behaving that way as well and to -- I -- our
feeling is it shouldn't be a badge of honor to be 60 percent below your peers in terms of
the amount of industrial space you have available. So, there is almost no current
inventory of land available for industrial. There is no vacancy. There is no room to grow.
Future land is many years out. There is a significant amount of infrastructure that's got
to deliver that future land and staff itself has said that that is a long ways out. As I
mentioned, we have been talking to existing businesses. I spoke with eight this week.
They are all growing, they all want to stay here, they all have nowhere to grow. Two of
them are leading that I spoke with this week. In addition, we have other tenants that want
to be in this location that are high paying jobs and high density jobs relative to the
industrial space and so I think -- and I just want to leave with a couple of questions for
everybody to think about, which is, you know, are we planning for a diverse and resilient
economy by providing all the needed space for the second largest city in Idaho to grow?
Are we intelligently responding to the escalating need for -- that e-commerce is driving
and that the supply chain issues are driving? And are we really thinking about the
declining need for office space, because it has declined pre-COVID and nobody knows
what this means post-COVID, other than the fact that more and more people are going to
work from home and do we want to force businesses and employees that are successful
out of this community? Because that's happening today. That's it.
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant or staff?
Seal: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Seal.
Seal: Question for the applicant. Out of the -- all the folks that you talked to did any of
them submit any kind of written testimony to the fact that they are leaving the community?
Wolfe: No, but I'm happy to get that -- provide it.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 18,2021 F17
Page 14 of 49
Seal: That would be a good piece of information to have.
Grove: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Grove.
Grove: What -- you said that the -- the companies moving out are moving out because
of space. What -- what are the space needs in terms of general square foot per business
and what does that look like?
Wolfe: So, the eight that I spoke with this week there was a total of just under 300,000
square feet that they occupied with those eight tenants. So, it's, you know, an average
of 35,000 feet or so apiece and they ranged from as low as 4a ,000 foot tenant up to as
high as 50,000 foot tenant and the employee count for those 300,000 feet was about 300
employees. So, about one per -- it was actually higher employment per acre than what
was shown here by about double. So, there is a lot of variability in that employment and
the two that were leaving -- one has 30 employees, one has 20 employees. They both
really want to stay in Meridian. One of them has already signed a lease to move out --
outside of this town and I'm sure he would write a letter saying why. He grew his business
here and wanted to stay here, but at the time there is nowhere to got.
Lorcher: Madam Chair?
Simison: Commissioner Lorcher.
Lorcher: Knowing that the infrastructure for this particular area, Black Cat and Franklin,
are not even available yet with, Black Cat not even being widened until 2036 to 2040,
why now to change it to light industrial?
Wolfe: Well, there is --there is need and as I mentioned, you know, you are going to have
existing businesses leave, let alone new businesses. Actually, the intersection at Black
Cat and Franklin is a fully developed intersection, so it's built to handle the five lanes that
are going to go along Franklin. So, the intersection itself can handle the traffic and we
have a traffic study that is well along the way and staff has communicated a little bit with
ACHD on that and there will be a traffic study that will be complete prior to any building
permit issued on this site. It's our -- we acknowledge and understand that traffic has to
be resolved, so -- and part of our intent is to enhance Black Cat from the site up to
Franklin.
Lorcher: And the three homesteads that are currently there you purchased?
Wolfe: We purchased the two that are -- that end up squaring up our frontage on Black
Cat.
Lorcher: And the one across the street?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 18,2021 F18
Page 15 of 49
Wolfe: The one across the street is just part of the annexation.
Lorcher: So, that home will remain for now?
Wolfe: Correct.
Lorcher: But the other two will be removed?
Wolfe: Yes.
Lorcher: Thank you.
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: I have a question for Bill. Since you are probably the only one here that was
involved with the Ten Mile plan initially, was State Highway 16 even considered in the
plan as part of this Ten Mile specific plan?
Parsons: Yeah. Commission, Commissioner Yearsley, I wasn't part of that charrette
when that came through, so I don't really have a definitive answer for you, but what I can
tell you is M-E zone wasn't in play when that plan got adopted and so the matrix that the
applicant brought up showing industrial and, then, all the different commercial zones that
were in there as an appropriate fit, M-E did not exist and we have amended the code
since, then, to -- to accommodate M-E zone to go along with that land use and that's why
staff was pushing or felt that M-E was the more appropriate zoning for this particular
property. But we can certainly look through the plan a little bit and dig into that and see
if we can circle back on that discussion for you.
Yearsley: Okay. I was just kind of curious with that, just because the -- the use of this
area kind of has a potential change based on access to the interstate just a mile away.
Parsons: Well, if you look at the -- the land uses that -- as you transition farther to the
west and connect to Nampa, you see we do go from more of a business park setting to
an industrial area around that interchange. So, one would -- would presume that it did
contemplate highway -- or State Highway 16 happening, so that you could get that truck
-- truck traffic happening and try and avoid that conflict with what's occurring as you
transition to Ten Mile.
Yearsley: Okay. Thank you.
McCarvel: Any other questions for staff or applicant?
Lorcher: Madam Chair?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 18,2021 F19
Page 16 of 49
McCarvel: Commissioner Lorcher.
Lorcher: So, if you were proposing -- because I wasn't here for the Ten Mile interchange
either conversation. So, if you were proposing this to be more office space off of Black
Cat, if a company wanted to do light industrial or manufacturing, where do you -- where
were you envisioning to go in the City of Meridian?
Tiefenbach: So, Alan Tiefenbach, associate planner. I was just kind of going through the
Ten Mile plan. It does actually talk about Highway 16 in the future improvements and
how this employment district was supposed to be buffering and residential from the
industrial that was supposed to be directly adjacent to McDermott. So, if you look at the
-- the land use plan, which I think I have here, on all of the industrial -- what you will see
there is to the west and that's intended to be directly adjacent to McDermott and
eventually to Highway 16. The mixed employment area is supposed to, first of all, provide
a buffer and, secondly, to provide jobs to help the job balance from the numerous different
residential subdivisions that are building out to the east.
McCarvel: Any other questions for staff or applicant? Okay. Thank you. Madam Clerk,
do we have anyone signed up to testify on this application?
Weatherly: Madam Chair, we have one. Corinne Caddis. Madam Chair --
McCarvel: Sir, did you want to come forward? And, please, speak right into the
microphone and state your name and address for the record.
Eggers: Yes. Thank you very much. I'm Drew Eggers at 2256 North Waggle Place,
Meridian, Idaho. 83646. 1 apologize I got here a little late, so I wasn't able to sign up.
So, thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak. I'm a fourth generation Idaho farmer
and I grew up on that property and the past 25 years farmed it for my mother and the
family and saw over the years the changes that have come around that property. Well, it
started back when -- in the early '60s when the freeway went through that property and
so I have seen a lot of changes over the years. I -- we accept the Comprehensive Plan
that has been overlaid on this property by the area of the City of Meridian or the powers
to be and with the growth happening in this area it's bound to -- bound to fulfill or come to
fruition, I believe. Light industrial -- this property every year is becoming harder and
harder to farm. It was farmed last year. I farmed it prior to that for 25 years. With the
growth in this valley machinery going down the road, all the obstacles from farming we
were -- stopped aerial application because of population growth. So, I mean I could talk
a half an hour on that and I won't, but -- but the -- the Comprehensive Plan for the way
things are growing I believe is acceptable to my -- our family and -- and a-- nd the way it's
being planned. My family has been involved in Meridian before my life, being a fourth
generation farmer. My grandparents came to Black Cat Road in 1921. It wasn't Black
Cat Road then. It was changed to Black Cat Road in the '30s when my father --
grandfather named his farm the Black Cat farm for selling registered Holstein cattle and,
then, in the '50s everybody called it Black Cat Road because of the sign and so they put
Black Cat road up, the county did, instead of Post Road. So, that shows the history we
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 18,2021 F20
Page 17 of 49
have out there. I can remember in the '50s Black Cat Road being gravel. We have also
been involved in the community over the years. Myself going to the Meridian schools. All
community functions. Being involved in the church in this area is part of what my family
has done for multiple generations. So, at this point you see we do have a willing buyer
to come and do what the Comprehensive Plan wants and so this is why I'm here today to
ask for--for approval of this project. If there is any questions I would be happy to answer
them.
McCarvel: Any questions? Thank you.
Eggers: Thank you very much.
McCarvel: Madam Clerk, anybody else that was signed up?
Weatherly: Madam Chair, no one else was signed in to testify.
McCarvel: Okay. Then let's move on to the raised hands. Sir. In the brown jacket.
Goldthorpe: I wasn't going to do this. My name is Kent Goldthorpe. A live at 1355 South
Black Cat Road, just above the proposed annexation and rezone. Number one, I'm fully
supportive of anything that you decide to do, but I would like to give you a little bit of the
rest of the story. I'm giving testimony today as a private citizen, but you probably already
know that's not necessarily what my day job is. We have talked about -- a little bit about
Highway 16. The Ada County Highway District has absolutely no plans to connect to
Highway 16. We don't have any money for it. When the legislature in their great wisdom
passed the extension and funded it, they left a 34 million dollar unfunded mandate for
those of us living in -- in Ada county to fund to get the loose ends tied up. Right now one
of our biggest -- the biggest sense of urgency we have about Highway 16 is to try and
convince the legislature to do the right thing and fund the rest of it, so that you don't have
to and I don't have to, because it would just be taking money away from every other entity
in this -- in this county that we are already ten to 15 years behind on our infrastructure
improvements in Ada county and you have probably heard that many times. Black Cat
Road, you know, what -- what our plans are as far as when it might be -- might be
extended or expanded or improved. That will all be based on whether or not we have the
funds and right now we are -- are deferring, we are delaying and we are erasing a lot of
projects in our Comprehensive Plan because of the funding that we no longer have. The
inflation that has hit the construction industry and in particular building roads, it's almost
doubled the cost of building roads in the last four years and that's a lot higher inflation
than you see in the general economy. I'm only saying this because you might as well
know that whether you rezone this to mixed employment, which I think would be just
absolutely spectacular, or light industrial, which, according to the Ten Mile plan and your
staff report, isn't necessary -- we will support whatever you do, we just might not be able
to afford any of the improvements. Thank you very much. Do you have any questions?
McCarvel: Thank you. There in the back.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 18,2021 F21
Page 18 of 49
Bottles: Madam Chair and Members, Mark Bottles, real estate broker. 839 -- 839
Bridgeway Place, Eagle, Idaho. I almost forgot my address. Good evening. I have been
a broker in the community a long time and have worked with a lot of our tenants in the
valley and -- local tenants and companies that have built up and grown. The one thing
that I hear all the time from our development people at the city, for expansion is calling
me saying, hey, we got to save industrial ground, we need more industrial ground, and I
hear it all the time. We have a knife -- a business that they manufacture custom knives
in Eagle -- I mean in -- excuse me -- in Meridian by Pine 43, looking for space, looked for
years, going to have to leave the area and they are manufacturers, good paying jobs,
can't find suitable industrial space. Silverstone and El Dorado Business Park -- I have
been around a long time, thirty years in this valley, big, parks still not built out with office.
Silverstone. We started selling apartment ground in there now. The dirt's converted to
apartment ground, because we can't get enough office space and that what I'm stressing
here is we need office space. But we have so much of it that's not getting built out and
that's not what is needed and I'm fine with the zoning of the apartment ground, but in that
business park you have UPS, because distribution in Garden City, we need it right close
to our houses where it's coming and not running, you know, all the fuel and all the people
running clear across town. So, they are in the business park, as you probably know, in
Silverstone in big buildings with parking those trucks inside those buildings, need to be in
there, because there is not enough space in a traditional what I call industrial park.
Gemtech, which is owned by Smith and Wesson, they make gun supplies is in Silverstone
Business Park and it's really an industrial use, but it has gone in there and so they came
in and -- out of Eagle -- again, Eagle didn't have enough space and moved out there. I
say this is -- and even in the back of El -- excuse me -- El Dorado Business Park, we put
apartments in the back of that trying to fill up that park and do some things. Great
business park. I understand we got to be and move the way the markets move in that,
but the industrial market, which the economic development in Meridian keeps telling me
we can't give up space, we need more space. We don't have places. We are the second
largest city and we don't have enough ground for that and where they want to be is by the
freeway. They don't want to be in the middle of the town, they want to be seen by the
freeway distribution. That's the center of the valley. When you have Ten Mile
interchange, when you have the McDermott interchange, which there is a push -- I know
that from the state level. I'm behind it. They have been making their acquisitions as we
speak and -- and they are moving very fast through there and as we say, it's never fast
enough, but there is a press to get it done. All I say that is just representing tenants in
the valley being in the valley, we need -- we need space like that here. We need it for
jobs for our kids, for another folks in here. So, anyway, thank you for the time.
McCarvel: Thank you. And do I see another hand over here?
Cleary: Thank you, Madam Chair, Commissioners. Tori Cleary, economic development
administrator. From an economic development perspective I would say that staff does
prefer zoning that's consistent with the Ten Mile plan, which ensures that balance of the
jobs to housing ratio, which was provided for in the comp plan. The comp plan was a
several month long process that included significant community engagement. Apparently
they felt that mixed employment and low density employment was appropriate for this
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 18,2021 F22
Page 19 of 49
area and they look at the city as a whole to ensure that we do have that jobs to housing
ratio that's appropriate. The COMPASS development review that's in your packet
estimate 620 jobs for this 129 -- excuse me -- acres. Again, that's 0.2 is the ratio and the
COMPASS desired ratio is one to 1 .5. Along with Mr. Bottles I will be the first to admit
that we -- yes, we really do need industrial. We have worked with three different
companies in the past few months to find spaces to accommodate their expansion here
in Meridian and I'm happy to talk to any other industrial business who wants to expand
and we will do whatever we can to find a spot for them. We do have a lot of in-fill sites
that might be appropriate and as Alan said, the mixed employment zoning does allow for
light industrial uses that are ancillary to other operations, much like I guess you could say
the Scentsy property. Regarding specifically the Ten Mile area plan, I think the vision of
that was a mixed use area that would provide jobs and living spaces. As a comparison,
although the zoning is different, at Ten Mile Crossing when they were built out with ten
buildings -- this was almost a year ago -- that 50 acres that has been developed to date
provides over 3,600 jobs, with an average salary of almost 50,000 dollars a year. Let's
see. So, the comp plan, yes, not only do we need a -- an appropriate mix of sectors within
our commercial use zone properties, that being industrial, commercial, mixed
employment, we also need to ensure that we have a mix of uses within each sector. So,
manufacturing -- we have got advanced manufacturers. We have got technology
manufacturers. Right now, yes, e-commerce is huge. We have significant distribution
facilities currently on Franklin in the Ten Mile area, just to the east of Ten Mile, we have
got FedEx and we have got 140,000 square foot Amazon last mile facility that will open
later this year. There is more industrial coming up, but like Mr. Bottles pointed out, it's
not ready today. The infrastructure is not in place. There is more, as Alan pointed out,
to the west of this site. There is some to the north and there is also -- there are also
properties in The Fields area in the city's northwest quadrant. But, yes, that will require
infrastructure in the future. So, I will stand for any questions if you have anything for me.
Okay. Thank you.
McCarvel: Thank you. Yes, Alan.
Tiefenbach: Alan Tiefenbach, associate planner. Just -- just a point of clarification.
want to mention the -- the discussion about the knife manufacturing and the gun
manufacturing would be allowed under M-E. That would be manufacturing and
processing. This is why I put the comparisons. What wouldn't be allowed in
manufacturing and processing would be warehouses as a primary use, outdoor storage
and distribution. But all these making and developing and shipping things -- parts of guns
or knives would all be allowed in the mixed use employment and office is not the only
allowed use there. There has been a lot of focus on office, but if you look what's on the
left there is a lot of different uses that are allowed in M-E that would be allowed under the
Ten Mile plan.
McCarvel: Thank you. Anyone else wish to testify on this application? Anyone online,
Madam Clerk, that you see?
Weatherly: Not I see, Madam Chair.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 18,2021 F23
Page 20 of 49
McCarvel: With that would the applicant like to come back.
Nelson: Thank you, Members of the Commission. Deborah Nelson again. A few points
in response to Mr. Goldthorpe, just --just to be clear. In ACHD's report they do note that
Franklin is funded to be widened to five lanes in 2026 and that will connect directly to the
planned improvements for Highway 16 and was -- as was noted Black Cat and Franklin
are already built out to its full configuration to accommodate that widening. The Fields
industrial area -- I guess just to touch on a few comments from Tori Cleary. The Fields
industrial area is a long way off, not just from time, but also from millions of dollars in
infrastructure that is going to be needed. It is a great plan for the future and it's great to
see Meridian planning for the future, but not at the expense of avoiding the use of the
land that you do have available for industrial now and you are going to need that, as well
as The Fields area, really, to accommodate this demand that is already higher than your
supplies available. She also talked about how -- you know, the vision of the Ten Mile plan
was really to accommodate this --this living, with jobs all in one area and that's true, there
are areas within the Ten Mile plan that that is called for together, but in the -- in the mixed
employment area that's not the case. In fact, even retail is discouraged within that area.
It's really another opportunity for creating space for businesses, so those employees can
live near the commercial and the residential that it's just across the street. So, it creates
that integration within the larger area, but it's not intended to be all integrated within one
site. I think that the -- the information we try to communicate to you tonight and sorry if
it's kind of rushed, there is a lot to respond to -- was that within the plan there is flexibility
and you guys know well that comprehensive plans are guidelines, not code. There is
always within any designation multiple zones that can be appropriate. Certainly office,
certainly M-E is an appropriate zone, as well as the light industrial that is specifically
delineated within your plan as one of the appropriate zones. You have a user that's in
front of you that is responding to market demand and they are presenting an industrial
park that is consistent with the zoning that's called for in your plan. They have laid out
details about how they will meet the design elements that are appropriate for that facility
and will provide the jobs, the business variety -- the variety of businesses that will be
served all for the greater good of Meridian and in the vision of the Ten Mile plan. We ask
that you consider that. We do know that you don't have findings before you for
recommending approval. We recognize the situation we are in that given what's been
recommended to you that we may just be on a course of going to Council with a denial,
but we did want to present to you why we are pursuing this, the justification for the
application and hope that you may be able to weigh in with the Council in your
recommendation about whether this is an appropriate use here and with that I stand for
questions, unless there is somebody else wants to add to that.
McCarvel: Anymore questions for the applicant?
Seal: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Seal.
Seal: Quick question. I'm -- I mean we have --there has been a lot of examples of exactly
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 18,2021 F24
Page 21 of 49
what wouldn't be -- what you wouldn't be able to do with M-E, instead of light industrial,
but the other side of that is what -- what is it about the mixed employment that he would
not be able to do -- that this applicant wants to do?
Nelson: Madam Chair, Commissioner Seal, it creates additional conditional uses and so
if you have some smaller tenants that want to expand and, then, they, for example, trigger
into the distribution, then, they would suddenly need to get into a conditional use permit.
We need to provide that variety right from the get go to have the flexibility to allow all of
those uses and, again, I think that is called for with your Ten Mile plan where they talk
about all the way down from the smaller local businesses up to the large national scale
businesses and that's more accommodated by your industrial -- light industrial zone. So,
those are the --that's the --the business plan we want to put together that accommodates
that entire range.
Seal: Okay. And, then, you made the statement that you have proven that you will be
able to provide the jobs, but the COMPASS report basically says you won't. I mean the
-- the footprint of this is going to supply about 620 jobs. I think they are looking for more
like 3,000.
Nelson: Chair -- Madam Chair and Commissioner Seal, a lot of what COMPASS is
looking at, too, is the existing development with residential versus what jobs are there.
However, you have got large areas within the Ten Mile plan that are already designated
for M-E and if you want to go into this detail we have actually analyzed it in that time to
get to it. All of the jobs that are available already -- even not counting this site within the
Ten Mile plan will greatly exceed the 20,000 jobs within that -- that's the goal of the plan.
We also will have more jobs than COMPASS estimates and I think just the examples that
were given tonight by Tim, talking about the businesses that he's been visiting within
Meridian that are -- have these employees that don't have places to go is already at a
greater ratio than that number reflects. I think we would also like to be able to attract the
type of large employers that are coming and looking for this type of site, but don't have it
ready and they need something that's already available to them. They make decisions
too fast to wait for it to be developed, something like The Fields area.
Seal: Thank you.
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: I understand where Commissioner Goldthorpe is coming from with not having
the infrastructure and what they are not funding with this -- State Highway 16, but was
there supposed to be an interchange at Franklin with the State Highway 16? Do you
know if that's the case or what -- what was planned at that -- because I know that there
were some intersections that were supposed to be interchanges and some were
supposed to be just overpasses and I wanted to confirm that that is an interchange and
is planned to be constructed with the State Highway 16.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 18,2021 F25]
Page 22 of 49
Nelson: Madam Chair, Commissioner Yearsley, that's the case.
Yearsley: Okay.
Nelson: The McDermott line that comes down there and where Franklin comes in it will
connect.
Yearsley: Okay. Thank you.
McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you.
Nelson: Thank you.
McCarvel: With that can I get a motion to close the public hearing on H-2021-0064?
Lorcher: So moved.
Seal: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to closed public testimony on H-2021-0064.
All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: You know, my first look at this I was kind of like, wow, that's a lot of space, but
-- but as you start to think about this -- I mean State Highway 16 is coming like fast and
it's going to come hard and fast and this is a great area to provide some good large
industrial space for businesses. With my job I look and see what's happening throughout
the valley and as I drive out of the -- out of Boise going towards Twin Falls area I have
seen several industrial complexes go up within the last year to two years where no house
is round and so what you are doing is you are causing all this industrial employees having
to go travel long distances to get to work. I think with State Highway 16 here I -- I would
support that whole mile from Franklin to Black Cat, from -- to be all industrial or at least
some -- a good portion of it, because I think there is a huge area of Meridian that we don't
have industrial land identified that I think we could stand to use some -- some large
employers to come in. So, that being said, I kind of was swayed that I think this would be
a good opportunity for -- for some industrial space. I like the way they have oriented the
buildings. I look at what -- what Amazon did and with that building paralleling the
Interstate is just -- it's just this huge eyesore sticking out, so -- I don't know about an
eyesore, but it's just the mass of that is just monstrous and so I think with making it
perpendicular to the interstate will break it up and make it not look nearly as bad. So,
would support that -- this application.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 18,2021 F26]
Page 23 of 49
Lorcher: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Lorcher.
Lorcher: I wanted to be clear on what -- what we are voting on tonight. We are voting on
annexation and an I-L or just an annexation?
McCarvel: Yes. They are bringing -- the annexation is coming in with the I-L and that R-
15 is just that one little -- under an acre on the east side on Black Cat. And that was kind
of my question too, Commissioner Seal, is what is it -- so special about the I-L? What is
-- because it seems like when they--the applicant was talking about the project it seemed
like almost everything they wanted was fitting in the M-E as far as the vision of what it
was. I'm like you, I'm like what it -- what was the big hang up? And I did -- I -- keeping
-- getting more land for industrial use I think is -- is appropriate. We seem to be losing it
in a lot of -- I know we are trying to protect it every chance we get, but I don't know that
there is enough of it the way the markets have changed since we did -- since this was
originated.
Seal: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Seal.
Seal: I'm a little torn on this one, to be honest, so I -- you know, when I first looked at this,
because this was continued, I just breezed over it and I was like, okay, cool, we are going
to put in something that's not houses. Perfect. You know. But I mean looking at it more,
as far as the Ten Mile plan -- I mean if we go too far outside of that, then, that just sets
the precedent for everybody else to kind of come along and try and do the same thing.
So, I -- I trust that staff is looking at that and they are scrutinizing it, as well they should
be, because we are trying to do this -- do it once, do it right and make sure it fits for, you
know, all of Meridian for a really long time. Hopefully for a long time after we are done
doing this as individuals. Some of the things that concern me on this is there is no traffic
study. So, it seems like this got here a little prematurely. I know the connectivity of the
State Highway 16 will start in 2026. This will, obviously, be completed long before then.
So, with no traffic study and the connectivity to the State Highway 16 not coming for a
while and somewhat in question on some things, I think it's a little rushed, maybe. Too
early. The mixed employment, instead of light industrial, to me that kind of comes down
to control. I understand that you want tenants to be able to expand on -- on a whim, but
at the same time I don't think applying for a conditional use permit is something that's
going to be -- is going to sway anybody from doing so in a building that's going to allow
them to do it. So, I think as a -- if I were a business owner and that was one of my choices
were to move or to apply for a conditional use permit, I would be filing the paperwork. I
am concerned about the jobs piece of it. I mean Meridian simply needs more jobs, period,
and a story. So, the fact that this would bring jobs is a really good thing. The fact that it
is industrial, we do need industrial. Also very advantageous. The fact that it's not going
to bring in as many jobs as we think it's going to bring in -- or that's the opinion of staff
and -- and others, that's very concerning. I mean Meridian is -- you know, we are -- we
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 18,2021 F27
Page 24 of 49
are kind of suffering from being too successful, basically, so -- I mean we have a lot of
houses that are very expensive. We have a lot of businesses that are aching for people
to go to work for them. So, that's -- that's a problem. We need to create as many jobs as
we possibly can in Meridian in order to keep the people that live in Meridian working in
Meridian, which will feed -- can feed into itself. So, all that being said, I mean personally
I would be more inclined to give this a continuance, just so we could get a traffic study in.
The one thing that I will say that did bother me about this was the -- the little sliver of land
that's being done in order to annex the greater property. That seems like you are kind of
slipping wanting to get away with it myself. So, that's just my personal feeling on it. I
don't -- I think that, basically, the idea is to develop land as it becomes contiguous, not to
make it contiguous by a technicality in order to bring in something this large. So, I
personally think a continuance might be in order in order to get a traffic study in, to get
more solid information on the connectivity to State Highway 16, to understand a little bit
more about what the employment would look like in something like this. I mean I
understand the flexibility that would be -- that the applicant is wanting in this space, but I
think they could provide that and still stay within the mixed employment designation.
McCarvel: Yeah. I'm curious as well as to -- I know there was a comment made about
-- that they are going to be assisting in the improvements in Blackhat, but I would like to
know exactly what that was and maybe see more of that. Commissioner Grove.
Grove: Thanks, Madam Chair.
McCarvel: Sorry.
Grove: I -- I agree with a lot of what's been said so far by my fellow Commissioners. I
have probably a slightly different take on a few things, but I don't -- I wouldn't be in favor
of a continuance just for the fact that it sounds like they have gone back and forth with
staff enough that at this point for -- for the sake of staff and for the sake of the applicant,
I think either approval or denial is probably a better course of action, just because I don't
know that we are going to get to -- I don't know that more information will necessarily
sway my opinion on this at least and so, you know, I -- I think leaning on the expertise of
the staff, of our other community agencies, I would be in favor of denial for the simple fact
that I -- I think that as we zoom out of this area and look at what the light industrial for this
hard corner -- or close to this hard corner is compared to what mixed employment is, I
think we need to be thinking a little bit more for the long term health of the community
versus the short term needs of what's being told to us right now from a planning standpoint
and so I have a hard time -- I think we do need a lot more industrial, but it -- also don't
want to sacrifice an opportunity to get higher employment and kind of look at this a little
bit different. Also I think the thing that I'm was worried about the most is what does this
look like from the freeway just in terms of -- if we have light industrial and all of a sudden
we have just warehouse storage facilities, what does that -- what does that do to the look
and character of that general area? So, just kind of being cognizant of that as we go
forward. You know, I think Commissioner Yearsley mentioned the giant Amazon facility
that's down the road. I don't want to see, you know, a monstrosity like that right off the
freeway leading into all these homes, so I -- I can't get behind this one, unfortunately.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 18,2021 F28
Page 25 of 49
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: I forgot to mention -- so, our company is -- is having to move offices. You
know, we are a professional office, but -- and so we have looked -- we are -- we are
needing about 15,000 square feet of office space and that size of office space is really
hard to find, except there is -- there is a lot of office space right there off of Eagle Road
and we have debated on it. It's beautiful office space, but my -- my employers have
decided to go off of Vista, because they are afraid of -- they don't like the traffic on Eagle
Road, especially with Eagle Road not even being built out yet. So, I think the -- one of
the big drawbacks for Silverstone and those areas are people -- they are great areas, but
people don't want to go there, because traffic is so bad that they don't want to have to
fight that traffic and it's just going to get worse. I know Ten Mile right now is really bad,
because we are putting so much traffic out there. They want a lot of jobs in this area,
which is going to cause more traffic, so I don't know, it's a -- it's a hard one to manage
with jobs and traffic and where do you put things and so my feel was this being a light
industrial may not have the - the intense use of jobs, but it is a good spot for -- for that.
So, that's my take.
Lorcher: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Lorcher.
Lorcher: I agree with Commissioner Yearsley that, you know, Highway 16 and -- and
eventually this would become possibly -- you know, whether it says mixed employment
or light industrial, but I think the biggest complaint that I hear among my peers is that the
infrastructure in Meridian does not support the businesses that we already have and that
why can't we put the infrastructure first and the business second and I know it's a circle;
right? You need the people to be able to have it and all of that at the same time. But I --
I don't have a problem with the idea of light industrial being here, but I think we are too
soon and, you know, I understand that the intersection of Franklin and Black Cat is already
built out, but Black Cat as a street is not and if you have ever gone to Compass
Elementary School between the hours of, you know, 8.00 and 9:00 and 3.00 and 4.00,
you will understand -- you will understand why and adding more industrial to this area
when the infrastructure is not there is probably not in the best interest of our city. So,
don't mind the project, but I think we are too soon.
McCarvel: Okay. Comments? Motions?
Seal: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commssioner Seal.
Seal: I will throw a motion out there and -- I mean at this point I'm going to trust staff and
that's -- you know, for the most part I can see good and bad from either side of it. That
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 18,2021 F29
Page 26 of 49
said, I mean when I'm highly in doubt or conflicted on something I generally tend to back
staff. I mean they do this -- you know, this is their job, this is what they are paid to do,
and I think they do a pretty good job of it. It would be nice if we could control the roads,
we could control the infrastructure, things would probably be a lot different, but we don't.
So, with that, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
recommend denial to City Council a file number H-2021-0064 as presented during the
hearing on November 18th, 2021, for the following reasons: That mixed employment is
a better use than the light industrial that the applicant is asking for. The jobs --the amount
of jobs that this will generate will likely not meet what COMPASS is looking for. The
COMPASS study is looking for. The Black Cat Road is likely not going to be able to
support the uses that are defined in here and we won't know that, because there is no
traffic -- traffic study at this point.
Grove: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to recommend denial of H-2021-0064. All
those in favor of denial say aye. Opposed?
Yearsley: Nay.
McCarvel: Recommendation of denial passes.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY. TWO ABSENT.
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: Before we start the next one can we do a little bathroom break?
McCarvel: Absolutely.
Yearsley: Thank you.
(Recess: 7:30 p.m. to 7:37 p.m.)
5. Public Hearing for Jamestown Ranch Subdivision (H-2021-0074) by
Walsh Group, LLC, Located Near the Southeast Corner of the N. Black
Cat and W. McMillan Rd. Intersection at 4023 W. McMillan Rd. and
parcels S0434223150, S0434212970, S0434212965, and S0434212920.
A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 80 acres of land with a R-8
zoning district.
B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 294 building lots and 25
common lots.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 18,2021 F30
Page 27 of 49
McCarvel: Okay. All right. Next item on the agenda is H-2021-0074, Jamestown Ranch
Subdivision and we will begin with the staff report.
Tiefenbach: Alan Tiefenbach, associate planner with City of Meridian. I'm rifling through
my work here. Be right with you. Okay. This is a proposal to annex proximately eight
acres with the R-8 zoning district and this would include a preliminary plat for 294 building
lots. So, the property, again, is 80 acres. It's zoned RUT presently in the county. It's
located at the southeast corner of North Black cat and West McMillan. So, the
Comprehensive Plan recommends medium density residential for this property, which is
eight to 12 dwelling units per acre. This would, again, allow 295 building lots, which would
be -- this was just a tweak more than three dwelling units per acre. So, on the low side
of this. There are presently two single family residences on the property. Both of those
are going to go. The proposed project density, like I said, has about three and a half
dwelling units per acre, which would meet the requirements. Minimum lot size -- the
smallest ones would be 4,900 square feet. These are comparable sizes to the adjacent
subdivisions. This development proposes five points of access. So, there would be one
on McMillan here. There would be one here off a Black Cat. There is two stubs here to
the south and, then, there is one stub there to the east. The primary access would be a
collector off of West McMillan, which is what you can see here. It's got this strange little
S curve here. This is about midway and, like I said, there is an S curve here, which I will
talk about just in a second. The other three accesses would be local streets. So, this
would be a local -- all of these would be local streets. This would be the collector running
through the property. One thing to note -- and this has really been the only issue, if you
want to call it, that we have worked through with this one, would be North Grand Lakes
Way and that, again, is this main collector. The -- the ACHD master street map actually
shows this collector aligning with Joy Street, which is here. It's actually over here. The
--the applicant proposes to shift this whole access about 900 feet to the west, so it doesn't
actually align with Joy Street. According to the applicant -- they can probably go into
more detail about this -- this is because there is existing utility poles obstructing the -- the
alignment. We talked to ACHD -- we haven't gotten a traffic study from them yet, but we
have had a lot of correspondence with ACHD sort of informally in e-mail and they have
already told me what the -- what the issue is, if any, are going to be, so there aren't any
surprises, but ACHD does support the shifting of this alignment. There was some
discussion from Brighton, who is the one that's developing the property to the south.
Originally they weren't sure if they were in favor of this. After talking to the applicant and
ACHD they are now in favor of this. The only other comment I have heard is the property
owners that live directly here to the north, they will have that access directly in front of
their house, so they are not in favor of that, they would have preferred it to shift to the
east. This proposes ten foot wide pathways along the north, which would be along here.
Sorry. Along the top here. And along this collector. This would actually be a five foot
wide sidewalk and that's because all the rest of the subdivisions to the south also have
five foot sidewalks, so they would tie into the same size. This came in before our new
regulatory changes and based on that they were still required to only provide ten percent
open space. In this particular case they are proposing 14.5. It's actually a little more than
that. This is the open space exhibit that they provided to us. One thing to note is what
you see in yellow there, the collect -- or, excuse me, are the arterioles and based on our
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 18,2021 F31
Page 28 of 49
regulations they can actually credit one half of the arterial buffers for qualified open space.
They did not do that in their calculations here. So, based on the calculations that they
gave us, which, again, come out slightly less, they are at about 14 and a half percent.
There are required for this development are four amenities and what the applicant
proposes are two large parks -- so, park number one and park number two, and each
park has a clubhouse and a pool. These parks exceed the additional 20,000 square foot
that is required for -- to be called an amenity. So, these parks and those club houses,
those would cound as four and, then, the additional land would actually count as two more
amenities. So, that's six. In addition to that they have got a pickleball court that is shown
here, which is what you see here. There are additional pocket parks shown here. There
is a pocket park here. There is another one, but not -- I can't do it on the fly. There is
also additional pathways that were not required and the way that the code reads you can
count a pathway as an amenity if it is not a required pathway. So, in this particular case
they are showing additional pathways. So, there is significantly more amenities than are
required and they are providing quite a bit more open space than they would be required.
Again, the only thing I have had comments about was about that alignment of the
collector. With that staff recommends approval and would stand for any questions or
comments.
McCarvel: Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward?
Jantz: Good evening, Madam Chair, Commissioners. My name is Josh Jantz with KM
Engineering 5725 North Discovery Way, Boise. I'm here on behalf of the Walsh Group.
We are pleased to present the Jamestown Ranch Subdivision, a single family residential
community, with an age restricted component at the southeast corner of Black Cat and
McMillan. The approximately 80 acre site is near existing and planned single family
residential subdivisions and commercial uses. Consistent with the City of Meridian's
Comprehensive Plan, Jameson Ranch proposes single family residential housing styles,
including traditional detached and alley loaded homes and an age restricted component.
Jamestown Ranch features enhance walkability and pedestrian connectivity throughout
and the surrounding subdivisions and services in the area and desired amenities for
residential residents, including two clubhouses, pickleball court, and a pond. Applications
for this project include annexation and rezoning -- or zoning to the R-8 zoning district with
a preliminary plat. We have held one neighborhood meeting, participants in various
discussions with city staff -- participated in various discussions with city staff and ACHD
and have researched adjacent properties and recent approvals. Approximately five
neighbors attended the neighborhood meeting and discussion centered on the number
and the density of homes, proposed amenities and open space, proposed access points,
McMillan and Black Cat, and other subdivisions being constructed in the area and the
rate of growth and the area in general. The property is approximately 80 acres. It is
located at the southeast corner of McMillan and Black Cat Roads and it's currently zoned
RUT, rural -- rural urban transition in Ada county. Jamestown Ranch is compatible with
existing and planned land uses surrounding the property. The property is bounded by
north -- to the north by McMillan Road, an arterial roadway, and Daphne Square
Subdivision, zoned R-15 and single family homes in the county zoned RUT to the west,
by Black Cat Road, an arterial roadway, and Oak Creek Subdivision, zoned R-8, and to
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 18,2021 F32
Page 29 of 49
the east by Volterra Heights Subdivision, aka also known as Bridgewater or Bridgetower,
zoned R-8, and to the south by the Quartet Subdivision, zoned R-8. Jameson Ranch will
connect with several stub streets provided by adjacent subdivisions to the east and south
and will complete vehicular and pedestrian connectivity planned in the area. Jamestown
Ranch aligns with the intent of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan future land use
designation of medium density residential by providing a premier community at a gross
density at the low end of the three to eight target density range. As this community
proposes to provide age restricted component, as well as traditional market rate
residential lots for various kinds of families, objective 2.01 .01 is fulfilled by offering
housing options suitable for different household sizes and lifestyle preferences. Goal
2.02.00 supported through the community with the provision of various open space areas
and amenities that will support varied lifestyle choices. We propose to annex and zone
the approximately 80 acre property to the R-8 medium density residential district to
accommodate a mixed -- a mix of single family detached homes, including an alley loaded
product within the west part of the site, and an age restricted component within the east
part of the site. Although R-8 zoning district is requested for the entire project, the differing
housing products proposed will support goals 2.01 .00 in the Comprehensive Plan, while
avoiding the concentration of one housing type in the area. This community will provide
the opportunity for residents to age in place as they transition from standard single family
residential lots to smaller footprints with less ground to maintain in the age restricted
portions. The preliminary plat encompasses approximately 3.3 acres and consists of 294
single family detached residential lots, 25 common open space lots and 15 common
access lots, totaling 334 lots overall. The age restricted component of the project will
consist of 65 buildable lots, where -- whereas the market driven standard single family
lots will consist of 229 buildable lots. An existing home adjacent to McMillan Road at the
northeast part of this site is proposed to remain. The home's existing access point to
McMillan will be eliminated and access to the home will be provided via an internal
connection within the subdivision. The property has been included within the preliminary
plat and will connect to city services, along with the Jamestown Ranch Subdivision, upon
annexation. Residential lot sizes range from approximately 4,952 square feet to about
10,500 square feet to provide a variety of housing types within the development
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The average lot size, excluding the existing
home, was approximately 7,064 square feet. The existing home will remain on
approximately 76,888 square feet or 1.77 acres. In alignment with the Comprehensive
Plan future land use map designation, the gross density of James -- Jamestown Ranch
is 3.66 units the acre. The Creason Lateral is located along the northwest frontage of the
property adjacent to McMillan and bisects the site. Traveling to the southeast and through
the Quartet Subdivision. The Lemp Canal adjoins with the Creason Lateral along the
property's frontage adjacent to McMillan and continues to travel south along Black Cat
Road. We would like to request an exemption of Section 4 of the staff staff analysis, Item
O of the staff report, from tiling the Lemp Canal along McMillan Road due to the size of
the facility. The Lemp Canal would require at least a six -- excuse me -- a 60 inch pipe
to contain it. City Council has regularly -- regularly granted -- granted waivers of this
requirement to tile the Lemp Canal, which is consistent with the neighboring Bridgetower
West Subdivision. In addition, ACHD has confirmed that we will not be required to
relocate the Lemp Lateral from within their right of way and the Lemp Canal will remain
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 18,2021 F33
Page 30 of 49
in its current position. We have coordinated with city staff and they are okay with this
request. For these reasons we are requesting that the Lemp Canal remain open along
McMillan Road. In accord with city code, Jamestown Ranch will utilize city services upon
annexation. Water and sewer will be extended fromMcMillan Road south via the
proposed main entrance of the development. We will coordinate with the Public Works
Department to ensure that adequate public facilities are available to accommodate future
development of the property. The property is within walking distance to the area's
commercial center, including a Walmart, various restaurants, a hair salon -- hair and nail
salon, a future convenience store, a preschool, bank, and professional offices, among
other uses. The future Owynee High School is located a little over a mile and a half to
the west and Ponderosa Elementary School is about a mile to the south and Sawtooth
Middle School is under two miles to the east. Recently the City of Meridian City Council
adopted a 2022 fiscal year proposed budget, which included funds for the construction of
Fire Station No. 8 to serve the northwest Meridian. The fire station will be built near a
Owyhee high School and will provide another point in which emergency services will be
sourced for the area. Exact timing of the design and construction of the fire station is to
be determined, but should coincide with the proposed construction timeline of Jamestown
Ranch. Currently Fire Station No. 2 is approximately one and a half miles to the southeast
off Ten Mile between Ustick and Cherry Lane. With two potential fire stations available
to serve the area, Jamestown Ranch Subdivision will appropriately --will be appropriately
situated should emergency services be required. The primary entrance road for the
subdivision will be Grand Lakes Way, a collector roadway that will connect with the
Quartet Subdivision to the south. The alignment and design of Grand Lakes Way has
been coordinated and approved by ACHD in its current location. A second access point
to Black Cat Road will align with an access point to Oak Creek Subdivision to the west.
Three stub streets will be connected from adjacent subdivisions, two to the south and one
to the east. Grand Lakes will connect with the collector proposed through the Quartet
Subdivision, while Sunnyside will connect through the center of the subdivision. This
street will be connected from the east to connect to Wheel Horse Street. We are
proposing permeable pavers on the interior streets, except for the two collectors, West
Grand Lakes and Quintel Street. Pavers will not only help to alleviate some of the
challenges associated with the high ground groundwater present in the area, but will
foster an exclusive high quality charm for the future residents. Local streets are proposed
throughout the subdivision and will be improved to City of Meridian and ACHD standards.
We would like -- we would also like to note that Item G under section four of the staff
analysis, which states: ACHD is still -- is still discussing whether they will support this
alternative. Since this application has been filed we have been coordinating with and are
expecting approval on this proposal from ACHD shortly and we actually got that approval
this afternoon. Jamestown Ranch will connect existing neighborhoods with planned
transit corridors and will aid in increasing and safety and efficiency of pedestrian and
vehicular traffic in the area. The project includes multiple pedestrian connectivity
connections and pathways with the community and enhanced walkability residents. The
city's ten foot wide multi-use path will be constructed along the project's frontage on
McMillan Road and will continue to the subdivision adjacent to Grand Lakes Way.
Jamestown Ranch offers an opportunity to connect adjacent existing neighborhoods to
the east-west and pedestrian walkways and will connect north and south to planned and
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 18,2021 F34
Page 31 of 49
currently developed subdivisions. Pedestrian connections will enhance walkability in the
entire area and will contribute -- contribute toward fulfilling Meridian Comprehensive Plan
Objective 2.02.01 by enhancing the quality of the connectivity by -- of residential planning
in the area by linking subdivisions together and promoting -- promoting neighborhood
connectivity. A traffic study -- or a traffic impact study has been submitted to Ada County
Highway District and is currently under their review. Jamestown Ranch will be
constructed in two phases as depicted on this exhibit here. The first phase will include
the construction of a portion -- of a portion of the market rate standard residential lots and
the entirety of the age restricted lots. An open space lot with age restricted portion,
including clubhouse -- excuse me -- pool and pickleball court, a market rate open space
lot, including clubhouse, pool, and a play area, access points to McMillan and Black Cat
Road and a portion of Grand Lakes Way. The second phase will connect Grand Lakes
Way and another stub street to Quartet Subdivision to the south, will connect a stub street
to Bridgetower Subdivision to the east and will include the remaining market rate standard
residential lots. development will be market driven. However, we anticipate construction
to commence in 2022 and be completed in 2024. As mentioned, Jamestown Ranch will
include an age restricted housing style community in the northeast part of the site and
market rate standard residential lots for the remainder of the community. The age
restricted portion of the community has been designed to cater a smaller house footprint
with communal open space and a loop road to facilitate -- facilitate walkability and
pedestrian scale. This part of the community includes five -- or, excuse me, ten alley
loaded homes that will front on green space and we have opted to develop an age
restricted portion of the community without a gate to integrate this area with the -- with
the Jamestown Ranch community to ensure easy access for residents and visitors. The
market rate standard residential lots vary in size and style throughout the remainder of
the development. The majority of the standard residential lots are located on the west or
south side of Grand Lakes Way, which creates a natural buffer between the age restricted
community and the standard lots without any physical barriers. This will allow both
sections to interact with one another, while maintaining an individual sense of place. Lots
within Jamestown Ranch have been designed to complement the transition well to
abutting homes and adjacent neighborhoods to ensure a cohesive community overall. As
mentioned, connectivity will be continued through the subdivision with the completion of
transportation networks as pedestrian pathways -- and pedestrian pathways. Jamestown
Ranch will be an asset to the northwest Meridian by completing this undeveloped section
with a consistent product type and neighborhood that will meld well with existing homes.
Overall Jamestown Ranch contains 11.63 acres or 14 and a half percent of qualified open
space as shown here. Each of the proposed areas within the development are detailed
in our open space exhibit and demonstrate compliance with the city code. Two central
parks have been included as focal points, gathering places for residents within the age
restricted parts of the community and the standard residential lots. Both open space lots
will include pools, clubhouse, seating areas and age restricted space will include
pickleball courts. Pedestrian walkways are included within the central open space and
throughout the development to allow for interconnectivity and easy access to amenities.
Several pocket parks are included throughout the development in different phases to
provide a variety of places for residents to re -- excuse me -- recreate or gather. All
common space will be owned and maintained by the homeowners association. These
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 18,2021 F35]
Page 32 of 49
next few slides here are just typical elevations for your single family residential traditional
type homes. There is a couple of the contemporary style, some farmhouse. The market
rate standard residence lots within Jamestown Ranch will incorporate a variety of building
materials and architectural styles. Homes will be complementary to the age restricted
homes proposed in the northeast portion of the site and those can be shown here. the
Walsh Group has -- excuse me. The Walsh Group -- I'm almost there. The Walsh Group
will be designing and building homes in age restricted portion of Jamestown Ranch. The
Walsh Group's flagship 55 plus active adult subdivision, the Village at Bungalows is
located in Meridian with 74 single family homes on 12 acres. Luxury homes are mostly
single level craftsman style homes with front porches, extra wide hallways, nine to ten
foot ceilings, roll in showers, fireplaces, and a butler's pantry. The community features a
clubhouse with a full kitchen, fitness center, and a yoga room. A central park and walkway
path. The Walsh Group designed this neighborhood with community connections in mind
and had a focus on maintenance free lifestyle with all yard, snow removal, sprinkler
maintenance covered by the HOA. So, in conclusion we believe that the proposed zoning,
preliminary plat -- annexation, preliminary plat, and zoning as conditioned with the
exceptions previously-- previously mentioned, Items G and O under Section 4 of the staff
analysis, will complement surrounding uses, fulfill the intent of the Comprehensive --
Comprehensive Plan and provide a unique combination of housing opportunities in
northwest Meridian. We appreciate the time Alan and staff members have spent with us
to help understand the steps needed to accomplish this project. Thank you for your time.
I will stand for any questions. We also have members from the Walsh Group here that
may help answer any that I'm not able to.
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Do we have any questions for the staff or applicant?
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: So, I may have missed it and I apologize if I did. How many homes are in the
age restricted area do you know off the top of your head?
Jantz: Not off the top of my head.
Yearsley: Sixty-five? Okay. So, will the nonrestricted people -- homes be allowed to
play in the pickleball and the pool area of the age restricted homes?
Jantz: That I'm not sure, but, like I said, I have the Walsh Group here that can probably
help out with that question.
Yearsley: Okay. I would be interested to find that out.
Jantz: Yeah.
McCarvel: Do you have somebody here that --
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 18,2021 F36
Page 33 of 49
Jantz: Yes.
Walsh: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, my name is Ron Walsh. I live at
1485 North Eagle Creek Way in Eagle, Idaho. My son Nick and I comprise the Walsh
Group. We will have a clubhouse and possibly a pool in the non-age restricted area, but
our lubhouse, pool, and pickleball court will be limited just to the age restricted residents.
Yearsley: Okay. Thank you.
Walsh: As long as I'm up here, if you don't mind, I will give you a little pitch. We appreciate
all the work that staff and all the city agencies have done in the -- certainly appreciate
their approval of our plat. This is our second age restricted project and we will -- my son
and I will do that, build those and market those and I wanted to tell you that through
working through our -- our Village Bungalows on Ustick Road near Eagle we learned a
lot of lessons with the help of Bill and staff and the city building department and we made
a lot of changes in this -- this plat to accommodate those things. We learned side yard
setbacks are wider. Lot widths are wider. Lot depths are deeper. Street widths are wider.
We limited our alley load lots down and we built in the pickleball court. One thing Josh
mentioned that I just wanted to clear up was the open ditch where Josh asked for a waiver,
but we -- at the time that the staff report was done -- since, then, we have got word from
ACHD that the ditches do not need to be moved and, then, we got a memo from -- staff
city staff that they were in support of us not being required to tile those, because there is
-- no one's tiled them all the way along here, we would be the first, and, then, the other
one is the staff would recommend after the -- the report that we participate in micro paths
throughout the plat and we have no problem with that. It was a great idea. We kind of
had it implemented into our plat, but not to the degree staff would like to see. And the
final thing is that roadway arterial with the S curve, that was a -- kind of a concept that we
wanted to stick with, because coming out of Quartet is a much larger subdivision than
ours, but coming out of there and going straight through us to -- up to McMillan we felt
like it would just be a race track and probably not be healthy for our residents in there.
So, I just want to thank you guys and appreciate staff's support. Any questions?
McCarvel: Any other questions for staff or the applicant?
Seal: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Seal.
Seal: The groundwater issues were one of the things that were mentioned in there and
it looks like there is a pretty large collection area in the middle. Is that something that --
is that something that's going to be full year around or -- my concern here is if there is
groundwater issues that's going to be stagnant water and we are going to have --
Walsh: Yeah. That's actually a -- there will be some overflow in that, but that's
predominantly to fill out for pressurized irrigation, the pond, and all the groundwater is
stored in -- under the pavers in the streets. So, it's just similar to Bridgetower to our east
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 18,2021 F37
Page 34 of 49
and ACHD supported that and I think we actually have more capacity for groundwater
than -- or for surface retention than we needed, because we went back and took the
arterial out at the request of ACHD.
Seal: Okay. Thank you.
McCarvel: Any other questions for staff or the applicant? Okay.
Walsh: Thanks.
McCarvel: Madam Clerk, do we have anyone signed up to testify on this application?
Weatherly: We do not, Madam Chair.
McCarvel: That being said, is there anyone in the room or online who wishes to testify in
this, but did not sign up? Come forward.
Watts: Yes. My name is Rachelle Watts and address is 4676 West McMillan Road and
we are directly across the street from this development. I don't have problems with the
zoning. What we have problems with is where the collector road is coming out. There
have been several comments made about why that is. One of them said that the -- the
resident preferred -- which is -- if you will notice up in the right-hand corner, the yellow
there, that preferred to keep that property, if that connected through it would come very
close to the shop that is located there, but it would connect. Another thing that was said
was that they were conferring and asked the Ada County Highway District to ask for a
variance, so that the collector road could be moved down further, because of multiple
power and utility lines. There is one large power pole that is located there and I did submit
-- I don't know if you guys can see it, but I submitted a written letter, along with some
pictures. I don't know if you loaded that or -- no? But those pictures I took were from
Google and it clearly shows the one power pole that is there. It does come very close to
the edge of what the road would be to connect. The other thing they mentioned was the
calming of the traffic. There are other ways I think that that could be done to curve through
there, as far as the calming, and I know when the Quartet Subdivision was looked at it
was specific that that Joy Street would go through and connect up with the collector on
North Joy Street, which would be directly -- I wish I had a picture of it. But it would run
very close behind that shop that's right there in the yellow. Okay? And it would connect
through. And when I look at it, that does not totally obstruct Joy Street. It would be -- that
one power pole would be on the edge of that road, but all the way down McMillan, when
they put in those power poles, which we were living there when they put that in. We have
been there 30 years. They have maneuvered around those. There are ways to do that
to connect. Now as that growth continues, which if you look at, there is Daphne, there is
Brody Square, there is now Pera Place -- those are all the ones that are surrounding us.
Bridgetower West. I think It's Sunset connected in with that. That now flows on to the
corner of Daphne and Joy Street and runs out to there. That traffic has increased. At
some point that traffic will probably increase dramatically, particularly when you are
talking about that many homes coming out onto the road. That is directly across the street
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 18,2021 F38
Page 35 of 49
from our house and I have some real safety concerns with even getting out of our
driveway where that subdivision is the only -- that -- that was the one entrance onto
McMillan where they could go. They are not going to go down -- they could go up Black
Cat, but they are not going to go down -- all the way down to connect into Bridgetower
West, because that's the far distance. The majority of these are going to funnel out
directly in front of our house onto that road. Now, also, I noticed in the information that
was on the the public -- on your-- on the website for this hearing that there are things that
are missing. I didn't see a traffic study. I didn't see the report from Ada County Highway
District, stating that there was multiple, in their words, at least as far as the e-mails, that
were between Alan and Bill that I saw in regards to the gal at the Ada County Highway
District. I know I'm running out of time. So, that's why I knew it would take some more to
do that. But those pictures to me convey that there -- that that connect collector street
can be extended to Joy into the correct -- into the Joy that exists now on North Joy and
eventually there is probably going to have to be a light there, you know. There is directly
across from that home -- I think the reason that they want to keep this is they want to
keep that home, they want--that the main reason for this is they do not want that collector
street running directly behind that property. Now, that property was owned by the James
family and he passed away. It is unoccupied. It was stated that he wanted to -- Mr.
James wanted to keep the son, who inherited, wanted to keep that as his residence. He
does not live there. Nobody has occupied that since August of 2020 when Mr. James
passed away. Now, he may intend to live there or one of his kids, which is probably why
they want to keep that. I understand that. But, again, when we look at the growth all
around us and what is happening, I didn't-- I think that that collector street where it comes
out is not appropriate and I know that they are talking -- there is going to be a roundabout
at the corner of Black Cat and McMillan, that that will -- and I will also tell you -- I know if
traffic studies have been done, but as soon as Owyhee school opens -- massive increase
in traffic. And Cole Valley Christian School is supposed to be going in down on the north
side of McMillan also on the other side of McDermott. So, there will be increased traffic
there. I just would like you to take into consideration what the Ada County Highway
master plan states in regards to -- and not deviate from that. That I believe that that
collector road for Joy Street can be maintained to connect with the other North Joy Street
on the north side of McMillan. Okay?
Watts: Thank you.
McCarvel: Thank you. Anyone else in the room or online that wishes to testify?
Pachner: My name is Joe Pachner. I'm an engineer with KM Engineering. Sorry, I was
a little bit late to the meeting. Highway 55 just got closed down. My address is 5725
North Discovery Way. I might be able to shed a little bit more light on the -- this road
alignment. The first initial one was -- we have -- we have met with ACHD on numerous
occasions to discuss their master plan, which shows a dashed line going up to Joy. One
of the things that we are looking at with that is what's Joy's future development, because
it kind of veers off. One of the biggest things that they came back with is when -- it's not
a power pole, it is one of the power towers. It's one of the monster towers going up
through there. Then we started looking at the separation between Black Cat, this
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 18,2021 F39
Page 36 of 49
proposed collector, San Vito and the separations and what we are looking to do is get a
more even distribution through there, so that we didn't -- if we moved it over to Joy the
separation between San Vito and Joy is not that significant and it's -- you know, you get
more -- you are -- what ACHD came back with is, you know, we are looking at about a
thousand feet in between each one of these collectors, so it better fits the traffic
movements and the traffic study proves that up. I just wanted to bring that to your
attention and -- anything else?
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else in the room or online that wishes to testify?
Okay. Would the applicant like to come back? No comments on anything? In that case
can I get a motion to close the public hearing on H-2021-0074.
Lorcher: So moved.
Seal: Second.
McCarvel: It's been moved and seconded to close the public testimony on H-2021-0074.
All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
McCarvel: Thoughts? Concerns?
Lorcher: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Lorcher.
Lorcher: I think McMillan has some challenges because of those large power towers and
being able to work around them. I understand the homeowner's concern for things kind
of connecting perfectly aligned, but I mean without -- we don't have a picture of -- we just
had a picture of the Jamestown Subdivision, so it's hard to see what's going on across
the street. Like she had said, we just approved Pera Subdivision. I think Brody is going
in there. It's going to be just more of the same. ACHD is going to have to do something
in regard to traffic, because McMillan is still only, what, two lanes each way and you are
introducing 294 new homes on top of for other subdivisions that are all going in at the
same time.
Seal: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Seal.
Seal: While I'm looking at the two areas and knowing that the age -- age restriction area
has basically exclusive rights to the -- to that area and they there was a clubhouse and
pool that's good -- that makes more sense as to why there is two of them. One of the
things the applicant might want to consider is putting in a water park or a water feature,
instead of a pool. I know there is mixed feelings on pools out there. So, they tend to be
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 18,2021 F40
Page 37 of 49
good for some things, bad for others, and I think long term, you know, something of a
water park, water feature, is going to last a lot better than a pool. One of the things I will
say about the application is I think you have won the contest if you were trying to have
one for common driveways. I think there is 12 of them in here. So, just for your
information it's something that most people up here don't like to see in there and -- or to
have it minimized. So, I would love to see this, if you go forward into City Council, it would
be nice to see if you could get a little more creative and eliminate some of those,
especially in that age restricted area. That's a smaller street, you got quite a few of them
hanging off the end of that thing and, you know, we see the service trucks and anything
that's going through those -- or trying to navigate those common driveways, it becomes a
big hassle and kind of a pain to deal with for anybody trying to navigate those, much less
with a service vehicle. On the canal, hopefully, with the -- I mean it sounds like the staff
is in agreement with not tiling the canal. Hopefully you will take care to make sure that
that-- since you didn't have to tile it maybe spend a little bit of that money that would have
went towards that to beautify it, make it more of a walking path, more of something, you
know, that people are going to be happy to be living out and, you know, that little bit of
nature that's left out there. Other than that I mean it looks like a whole lot of houses in a
little tiny area on some of the maps, but looking at the density and how it's just barely
above the three per acre, I mean it is what it is, so -- but I think it's pretty well planned out.
I wish the infrastructure was more built out to handle it, but, again, we don't control that.
As far as the -- the intersection right there being moved on McMillan Road, you know,
looked at some of the -- the frontage property there for the -- the residence that's to the
-- to the south of this where the road will be coming out and I guess if the house was right
on the road or something like that or there wasn't a lot of vegetation in there to mitigate,
my main thing would be noise and lights especially. You wouldn't want light shining in
your living room all day and night from coming in and out of here and it looks like there is
a lot of vegetation in there that's going to mitigate that on its own.
Grove: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Grove.
Grove: I'm pretty in favor of this project. I think the -- the issue with the collector actually
might -- might help a little bit just in terms of offsetting where those congestion points are
along McMillan, especially with it not being, you know, all the way built out perhaps. One
of the things looking at -- from a usability standpoint for residents on the far east side is
looking at possibly putting in a pathway-- micro pathway to be able to get to the amenities
a little bit easier than having to walk to the south piece of -- you know, if you are in that
cul-de-sac up by the yellow area and you have to walk all the way down and around,
especially since the age restricted as its own, you are going quite a ways away to get to
the amenity. So, if you can find a better cut path through there that would probably be
something to look at doing. I think overall, you know, having as many amenities as you
have and lining things up with the -- the other subdivisions that are going in and being
able to work through that with them versus against them, it sounds like you all have
worked through whatever issues needed to be done. So, I appreciate that and I would
be okay with moving this forward.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 18,2021 F41
Page 38 of 49
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: All I can say is I'm sure glad I don't live in that area and I -- it's not -- not you
guys. I think ACHD kind of really messed up with that area. You have got four collector
-- or are going to end up with four collector streets hitting McMillan and none of them are
in the right location for a roundabout or some sort of a signal, so it's going to be a disaster
through there, especially with the canal right next against the road. I just -- yeah. I would
prefer to see Joy -- the collector tie into Joy and make that an area for a roundabout. I
think that's -- you know, yes, you have to add in probably two extra towers to make that
fit, but I think long term I think that would be a better fit. You are starting to see
development hit Daphne Street, which is the one just above it and so you are going to
have people wanting to dump out there to get to McMillan. So, I see Joy getting busier,
because we just approved a subdivision just to the north of there that's dumping traffic
out onto Daphne, so -- and, then, the other concern that I have is -- I actually feel that the
nonrestricted age area is being underserved with open space. Yes, you are showing one
subdivision, but you have got -- are you one pool -- but you have got one pool and a
pickleball court for 65 homes, but yet you have got one pool and an open area for 229
homes. I think that's -- you are favoring the age restricted homes for -- over the others
and so I think we should -- I think we should -- there should be more open space or more
amenities on the 229 home spots. So, as Commissioner Seal mentioned, it's a lot of
homes and a little space and so I would be in favor of adding a little bit more open space
to the non-age restricted area.
McCarvel: I guess my -- that was the first thing I noticed about it, Commissioners, was
the amount of common driveways and I know it takes out a lot, but I mean charge more
for-- it makes a couple of nice big corner lots in there somewhere. I mean it -- that's a lot
of backing up for the service vehicles and trash day, it's just on every corner -- it's just --
common driveways I thought were originally allowed to be more the exception than the
rule. It just I just don't see how it creates for good neighbors. So, I just -- I -- I think that
would be my biggest suggestion and I do agree, I mean with as many amenities that are
here it is underserved a little in the nonrestricted and I'm not a traffic expert, but I will yield
to those on the panel that are and I guess it would make more sense and more
connectivity later on to be able to have that intersection line up with Joy. I'm not sure
where that really leaves us for --
Lorcher: I know. Madam Chair. So, if truly a roundabout is going to be planned for Black
Cat and McMillan -- I'm assuming ACHD approved your -- your collector streets off of
McMillan already, knowing that that was going to happen, so they have -- they have to
know that there is enough room to be able to make it there; right? Unless they think that's
just a problem for another day.
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 18,2021 F42
Page 39 of 49
Yearsley: Kind of to answer some of that question, so, you know, right now I think
McMillan and Black Cat is supposed to be a roundabout, but if you go just a half a mile to
the west of there at the midblock they actually have a roundabout there already built and
I think what they are trying to do is do roundabouts at the main, but also have a mid --
midblock round about and I think with moving the collector road over and not tying it into
Joy, which one of those four collector roads that tie into McMillan do you put a roundabout
and, you know, I just -- because I think -- I think Joy is going to end up being a collector
street, as all that land gets pressured to redevelop. I mean you have got a lot of five acre
parcels there that are going to redevelop because the development pressure is going to
be big enough they would be stupid not to sell, you know. So, that's my only concern is
-- is which one of those do you put a -- does ACHD put a roundabout on. So, that's why
I like having to tie into Joy Street and -- and having that be a roundabout, so you actually
have some decent access out on the McMillan.
Seal: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Seal.
Seal: I hadn't considered the roundabout aspect and the -- the way the traffic patterns
are tied in there and Commissioner Yearsley brings up some good points, because we
did just approve, you know, subdivisions that we will be using that as they spill out on
onto there and I live very close to this myself, so I don't -- I don't kid myself in any way to
think that Black Cat or McMillan are ready to handle anything along these lines of-- of the
amount of traffic that's coming their way before they are even slated to be improved. I
think probably taking into consideration anything we can do to improve that when they get
developed is something that we should probably take serious consideration of. So, I
would be more inclined to either continue it or deny it based on trying to get that Joy to
line up the way that it, you know, honestly should, as well as some of the age restricted
area. Like I said, the common driveway and there is just -- the instant I saw that it just
looks like trouble. I mean there could be some creative ways to provide the micro path
through -- like Commissioner Grove had brought up by eliminating that common drive --
the lot at the end of that driveway or eliminating that all together, shifting the whole thing
over, whatever you would want to do in order to provide for Joy Street to line up with that
subdivision. So, with that I'm -- I'm at a point of either supporting a denial or a
continuance.
Lorcher: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Lorcher.
Lorcher: Well, one of the reasons why we denied one of the first ones we did today was
because of the lack of infrastructure before, you know, more goes in. I think I would be
interested in hearing more what ACHD has -- I mean if the street of McMilan and Black
Cat aren't going to be approved for, you know, five or ten years, then, putting 294 houses,
even with age restrictions in, and along with the four or five other subdivisions at Brighton
already is working on in that same area, it's just-- I mean McMillan is going to be a parking
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 18,2021 F43]
Page 40 of 49
lot, whether you go to a school or or any other businesses going on there. I don't know
anything about -- what did you call them? Common driveways? I don't think I have ever
seen one, so maybe I need to get out a little bit more, but --
Grove: Madam Chair?
Lorcher: -- I have no comment on that.
McCarvel: Commissioner Grove.
Grove: I understand what Commissioner Lorcher is saying. I think the infrastructure
piece for me is kind of apples and oranges on this one compared to the other one, just in
terms of how much has already been approved in what's being planned and how it's being
planned and what -- you know, where it's at in its Iifecycle with -- in terms of development.
I think we are -- we are completely different places. I would be probably in favor of doing
a continuance and -- and having it conditioned around the redevelopment of being able
to connect to Joy and I think as a few of you have pointed out, the amenities are great
overall, but when we are looking at them for who they are intended for and where they
are at, I think there is some room for improvement and I think if we are talking about
realignment of the street that it's going to have to be addressed anyway, so kind of making
sure that it is understood what we are looking for, so that we -- we give some direction on
that.
McCarvel: And I guess I would add fewer -- way fewer common driveways.
Grove: Yes. Always.
Seal: Madam Chair, quick -- quick question for -- quick question --
McCarvel: I -- it sounded like your voice, but it sounds like it's coming from --
Seal: It's my ventriloquist act. Question for staff on the ACHD report that we are waiting
on, is that a two-way communication that we can have with them as far as the concerns
that we have as a the city, you know, looking at that intersection and how it aligns with
Joy, so that they can take that into consideration into their report?
Tiefenbach: I can certainly e-mail Paige, who is the one that's working on this, and tell
them what your concerns are?
Seal: Okay. I think that would be -- I mean if we do a continuation here I think that would
be probably relevant to the report, because, again, I think Commissioner Yearsley brings
up a really good point, so if they can speak to that in their report that's going to make, you
know, a continuance worthwhile I think.
Parsons: Yeah. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, more than likely won't get
a roundabout. There is not one showing on the master street map that I have in front of
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 18,2021 F44
Page 41 of 49
me. But alignment is always the preferred route for -- for staff and ACHD when it makes
sense. So, certainly whatever you do this evening, Alan and I just request that whatever
changes you want made to the -- to the plat make sure the applicant knows what those
are and, then, brings back what you want to see.
McCarvel: You seem to have a line on --
Yearsley: So, I guess the big question is is when do we want to have this date continued
to I think is going to be the big question, because what we are asking is has all significant
change and -- you know, I don't want to push it to next week or two weeks and not have
enough time to at least address the issues in a perfect manner. Will we need to open it
back up?
McCarvel: Alan?
Tiefenbach: Alan Tiefenbach, associate planner. Yeah. I agree. I mean we are talking
about having to get a -- some pretty big design changes and having achd weigh in on
them, so, you know, the next Planning Commission meeting isn't going to work. We are
talking month or six weeks. I can't control -- and I can't control how quickly ACHD turns
around the traffic part, especially based on some changes. So, it won't be -- it won't be
quick.
McCarvel: I would say January 6th or 20th then.
Tiefenbach: January 20 would definitely give us enough time.
Yearsley: With the holidays in the middle of all that I -- I would almost recommend
January 20th.
Tiefenbach: Yeah. We are going to lose -- we are going to lose a lot of time because of
people being out and everything else, including staff, so --
Seal: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Seal.
Seal: I move to continue file number 2021-0074 to the hearing date of January 20th,
2022, for the following reasons: So, that we can get a final ACHD report and that the city
has time to communicate our concerns to ACHD and that we -- and that the alignment of
the collector to Joy Street be something that can -- that they look out for -- yeah -- future
growth and that we want to see a reduction or even possibly an elimination of the common
driveways.
Yearsley: Madam Chair? Point of order. Can we -- do we need to reopen the public
hearing first?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 18,2021 F45]
Page 42 of 49
Seal: Oh, you're right.
McCarvel: Oh, yeah.
Yearsley: I apologize. It was a great motion, by the way.
Seal: Thank you. I will just rewind. Good point.
McCarvel: Do you want the motion to open as well or do we want --
Yearsley: I will motion to open the public hearing on this application.
Grove: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to reopen the public hearing on H-2021-
0074. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
McCarvel: Commissioner Seal.
Seal: Okay. I move to continue file number H-2021-0074 to the hearing date of January
20th, 2022, for the following reasons: So, that they can get the final ACHD report and
they have a chance to hear our input from the city planning staff. The alignment of the
collector to Joy be strongly considered for the reasons presented in the Commission
hearing this evening and that we see a reduction or possible elimination of the common
driveways.
Grove: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Grove.
Grove: Could we add in a condition for the open space and amenities to be better
distributed through the non-age restricted areas?
Seal: And what Commissioner Grove said.
Yearsley: I will second that.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to continue H-2021-0074 to the hearing date
of January 20th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
6. Public Hearing for UDC Text Amendment - Collector Street Setbacks
in Residential Districts and Landscape Buffers Along Streets (ZOA-
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 18,2021 F46
Page 43 of 49
2021-0003) by Brighton Development, Inc.
A. Request: Request to Amend the text of the City's Unified
Development Code (UDC) pertaining to the Dimensional Standards
for the Residential Districts in Chapter 2 and Landscape Buffer along
Streets Standards in Chapter 3
McCarvel: Last item on the agenda is Item ZOA-2021-0003, UDC Text Amendment, and
we will begin with the staff report.
Parsons: Let me pull that up real quick again. There we go. Let's finish strong this
evening. Last item on the agenda tonight is UDC Text Amendment. This one actually
comes from an applicant, so it's not really city initiated, and we are -- we are here tonight
to really discuss cleaning up some code conflicts with you. We have been working with
the applicant here for several months on trying to solve this puzzle for them. So, over the
last year or so this -- this body has been seeing more and more homes that are fronting
on collector streets and the purpose of that is, one, we want to have these walkable,
livable communities. We call it a traditional neighborhood design where you have on-
street parking, tree lined streets, detached sidewalks and, then, homes that provide
connectivity to those walking paths and what we realized is through some of those
approvals that we have done we have realized that our residential districts don't align with
that design concept and what I mean is in order to achieve what we are talking about this
evening an applicant would need to go through the alternative compliance to do it and so
by us working with the applicant and bringing forth this code change we are eliminating
some steps in the process and trying to get the code to align to allow these types of things,
which is actually more consistent with our traditional neighborhood zoning districts. We
have two. We have traditional neighborhood commercial districts and we have traditional
-- traditional neighborhood residential districts and if you were to compare these side by
side in the TN-R zone person could do what the applicant's proposing this evening under
that zone by-- and all they would have to provide is the on-street parking, parallel parking
is typically what we see, a six foot parkway, a five foot sidewalk and an eight foot setback
to the living area. But that's, essentially, what we are doing here and you would not have
to provide that in a common lot. So, currently the -- the two code -- two code sections
that we are trying to amend tonight is, one, the residential districts in Chapter 2 and, then,
also the requirements for landscape buffers that they are allowed to either be in a common
lot or a landscape easement and addressing the maintenance of that and how that would
be addressed. So, that's what I really want to hit on tonight. If the applicant wants to go
into some of the ACHD requirements and all of that, I will let him do that, but I'm not going
to do that tonight. I'm just trying to lay the context for you that we have a conflict, we are
trying to align with other sections of the code, and, hopefully, this makes it better for others
to do the same thing and we get more variety in the city -- allow people to do this
throughout our community and start getting shorter block lengths and more walkable
communities, particularly in our mixed use areas. So, the graphic that I have before you
this evening is really just one snippet of the changes. So, this really does affect all of our
districts from R-2 all the way to R-40, but the language is consistent throughout. So,
essentially, what the applicant is doing is adding a footnote -- or modifying the footnote to
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 18,2021 F47
Page 44 of 49
say that when you have -- front the homes on collector roads and you are having alley
access or local street access to that you are able to take advantage of a buffer easement,
rather than a common lot. You do a minimum -- eight foot on-street parking, eight foot
tree-lined streets, five foot sidewalks and, then, your setback will be ten feet, for a total
setback of 23 feet. At the end of the presentation there is a nice little illustrative graphic
that the applicant's put together to show you how all this is tied together. But, essentially,
under the TN-R zone, to put it simply, they can have a 19 foot is all that's required for the
building to be from the back of curb. This scenario 23 feet. So, again, the goal is to get
the building set back from the street, but not so far back that it's defeating the purpose of
what we are trying to achieve here. So, again, after the revision of the staff report the
applicant came up with some of this language, but you can see as Today I see that
through logic some common sense approach took place and we decided -- he decided to
provide a preferred language. Staff looked at that and said it makes a lot more sense to
combine it into one cohesive sentence. The only thing that staff would ask to the preferred
language highlighted below is that you add the word homeowners as part of that
sentence. So, it would say maintained by the property owner or a homeowner or a
business owners association, because it's going to be either residential or commercial
and, then, I will go ahead and transition to the graphic here to show you how this will all
work. So, essentially, like I described to you, there is the planner strip. There is the
parking. the parallel parking. Bike lanes. Sidewalk. And, then, overall setback of 23 feet
while still maintaining the required parking standards. So, I also mentioned to you that
this does comply with a lot of ACHD's templates as well. So, again, we are only --we are
cleaning up a conflict. We are trying to align with what ACHD will allow as well and try to
eliminate future, you know, add greater flexibility to code. So, with that I will conclude my
presentation and stand for any questions you may have.
McCarvel: Okay. Why don't we hear from the applicant first.
Wardle: Madam Chair, Commission Members, Mike Wartell, Brighton Corporation. 2929
West Navigator in Meridian. It is unique that we are here as an applicant, because this
is actually something that would apply to and benefit any such developments in the
community. I'm going to ask Bill --just so that you can kind of understand a little bit more
background of what it is that we are proposing to do and why and it's not really that
complicated, but particularly in our Pinnacle project or Apex Subdivision out in south --
south Meridian we have some alley loaded lots and in the phase that's coming before you
soon to the west of that we have some local street loaded lots that would face -- these
homes would all face onto that residential collector and the -- the graphic to the right
simply shows that there will still be the 20 foot landscape easement. It will be maintained
by the homeowners in this particular case, but at least we don't deviate from the
anticipated benefits of the spacing and the type of tree canopies and so forth that would
be desired in a more traditional neighborhood. There are two graphics that I just want to
show you from ACHD's livable street design guide. This first one is actually the residential
collector with front loaded housing and the reason that I have circled this is to simply
illustrate that that's exactly the street that we would be proposing to construct in this
Pinnacle project where you have the five foot detached sidewalk, eight foot plantar strip,
the -- the parking bay that will be just as it depicts here, will have elements of the -- the
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 18,2021 F48
Page 45 of 49
corners that will identify that, then, bike lanes and, then, the part -- the travel lanes. They
do have the -- the second graphic in their manual shows a rear or alley loaded product in
this particular case, though, they don't show the bike lanes that we have on the street.
So, I just wanted to show that they -- they have provided both possibilities for a residential
collector street in their street design guide. We go for the -- the bigger and more
appropriate and, then, Bill showed you this where we actually maintain the parking off the
alley or the local streets, so there is no --you know, no limit to the off-street parking behind
the garages and, of course, the -- the green outlined landscape buffer and, then, the ten
foot from back of sidewalk set back to -- a minimum ten feet to the face of the homes. Bill
mentioned the traditional neighborhood zoning. That goes down to eight feet, but in this
case we are saying a minimum of ten. Now, Bill showed you this particular item and the
footnote simply states that it has to be alley or rear loaded, has to be on a collector that
has the landscape buffers and a minimum of ten foot setback and it applies -- just this
footnote -- modification applies to all. When we were going through this process -- and
it's been actually over the course of the last three or four months, my original
recommendation was the top part of this was kind of trying to finesse something that was
really unclear, but, then, staff came back with the recommendation -- the or and we
agreed with that is the better way to go, because it clarifies it in much simpler language
and we certainly don't have any issue at all with the inclusion of homeowner maintenance.
So, obviously, we encourage you to --to do this. But one of the reasons that we are doing
it is based on our own experience. We developed -- beginning about 22 years ago a
project -- and this photograph actually is from September of 2006 -- of the Mill District at
Harris Ranch and I have two photographs. The one -- the first one will be the one looking
to the west down -- I can't remember the street name, but this shows what character we
are trying to achieve. Interestingly enough in this particular case, even though this is kind
of the collector street going out to Eggart Road, we would actually have a little bit -- well,
a wider sidewalk, wider planting strip, the on-street parking, plus, then, the bike lanes.
The homes depicted in this particular photograph range from about 78 to 85 feet
separation from face to face as you go down the street and there is articulation, because
not all of them are, you know, set to a rigid standard. There are some closer, some a little
bit further apart. The next view is looking to the east and, again, it shows kind of how
those -- those homes are relatively close to the street. But in this particular case, again,
the sidewalk is new standards a little bit wider. The planter strip is three feet wider. There
are bike lanes on the street and so we -- we provide actually a better scenario than this
and looking down that street the closest separation that I saw on this one when we
measured it was about 78. Now, the reason for it is that we could land a Boeing 737 Max
under the current standards, because it would be -- under the way it's -- your current code
works that's exactly 113 feet face to face across the street, which in a traditional kind of
a feel is a big separation. If we go to the proposed amendments it actually drops 20 feet
out of that, goes back to about 93 feet of separation. But it gives you, then, a streetscape
that provides the type of living environment that I think we all want for the community. So,
it only applies where there is a collector -- a residential collector street. Has to have on-
street parking. It may or may not have bike lanes, but in our particular project it would
and, of course, now that the standards are the eight foot planter strips and the five foot
sidewalks and, then, a minimum ten feet from the back of sidewalk to the face of the
home, it gives us the canopy, it gives us the separation, it gives us all the elements of a
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 18,2021 F49
Page 46 of 49
livable street and accomplishes something that in this particular case is fairly small,
because it's -- some of the conversation that we had with staff we noted that if -- and I
think Bill alluded to it -- we would only have to have about three and a half acres of T-N
zoning in there to accomplish at all, but it just didn't seem appropriate to throw a little bit
of a T-N into a project and we could do this and we agreed with staff that alternative
compliance was really not the best way to do it, because that leaves so much subjectivity
in the process. So, amendment is the proposed and preferred way to accomplish it. Be
happy to answer any questions that you have, but we ask for your recommendation to the
Council that these amendments be approved.
McCarvel: Thank you. Any questions for staff or the applicant?
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
Wardle; Semi applicant.
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: So, I'm just trying to get a feel around this. So, we are talking about a
residential collector. Are we talking like the mid-block collector road or is this -- I'm not
quite sure what -- what type of -- what road we are actually referring to as a residential
collector.
Wardle: You mean specifically here or in any circumstance?
Yearsley: Well, in this circumstances, you know, because when I -- when we -- well, just
as an example, we have just looked at that last subdivision that came through, they have
that -- pretty much that main mid-block collector. Is that -- that section of road that you
are referring to would that be applied to that piece?
Wardle: Yes. Madam Chair and Commissioner Yearsley, those mid-mile collectors that
ACHD has in their master street plan is that type of roadway.
Yearsley: Okay.
Wardle: Now, let me just go back to the illustration that's on the screen. This particular
road system -- you will see that the ones to the right are not a collector, but because of
the way that the -- the grid works there is a draining -- you know, a collection kind of a
thing that's occurring and this particular roadway just happens to have a wider
requirement from ACHD than we would do for our local streets, but, you are correct, any
of those mid-mile collectors would be a residential collector and could use this type of
standard if they chose to design that way.
Yearsley: Okay. And, then, with that ACHD shows on those mid-mlie collectors access
to homes off of that collector. Is that what we are proposing or is this mostly just alley --
we are only allowing alley loaded facing those homes?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 18,2021 F50
Page 47 of 49
Wardle: I was surprised, frankly, when this -- I was searching through ACHD's information
and found this particular illustration where they have a front-on -- you know, front loaded.
Yearsley: Yeah.
Wardle: Obviously, in their planning they anticipated that that could occur. I don't know
that I have seen one that would be -- at least in recent approvals. Certainly there would
be streets from older designs in older subdivisions that would be that particular case, but
they may not have, you know, the -- the type of parking and the bike lanes and so forth
that we would have in the modern standards. So, this was the one that -- that we are
looking at, frankly, is -- it would either have to be an alley -- could be a common drive.
Kind of a nasty term. Or it could be a local street and it will be unique in this particular
one, because the -- the homes will be, essentially, the same -- looking across the street
one will be served by an alley, the other will have a local street and so on that local street
people will be looking at the rear of the homes for about ten or 12 lots versus the front
that they would typically see, but the streetscape going into the project on the residential
collector would have a consistent design and relationship -- functional relationship would
be consistent all the way through.
Yearsley: Okay. And that's what I was just curious about, because I -- I don't know if I
-- actually, this is -- I don't think that this is a bad proposal for an alley loaded home to
bring them a little closer, but I was really concerned that we were going to start allowing
access onto those collectors, which is not what we were -- not what I have typically seen
or --
Wardle: Yeah.
Yearsley: -- I think we don't typically want. So, that's what I was just wanting to clarify.
Wardle: Well, Madam Chair, I agree with that and I don't think you are going to see a lot
of it. I think it will only happen when you are designing a traditional type of product, rather
than a conventional lot. I just don't see conventional lots coming forward, because -- and
this is the other item that -- that we worked through with staff. Under the current code
technically that 20 foot landscape buffer would have to be a common lot. Well, in this
particular case, going back to -- it would mean that the lots on the east side of that
collector, if they had a common lot, the alley could not be public, it would have to be
private, because now ACHD has this strange requirement that if the -- if the lot doesn't
directly have frontage you can't have a public alley.
Yearsley: I see.
Wardle: So, we are just trying to solve a number of little interesting twists and turns in the
city's code and ACHD's requirements and we think that, again, it's -- it's not a dramatic
thing, but it accomplishes an objective that I think will foster good design and --
Yearsley: I agree. I think anything we can do to get rid of private roads in a subdivision
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 18,2021 F51
Page 48 of 49
like that is beneficial, so --
Wardle: I appreciate your time and just ask that you pass it along with an affirmative
recommendation.
McCarvel: Any other questions? Okay. Thank you. Madam Clerk, did we have anybody
signed up to testify on this application?
Weatherly: Madam Chair, we do not.
McCarvel: Okay. I'm assuming no more comments from staff or the semi-applicant. With
that could I get a motion to close the public hearing on H-2021 --
Grove: It's not H.
McCarvel: Oh, ZOA. Sorry. ZOA -- there we go -- 2021-0003.
Seal: So moved.
Lorcher: Second.
Grove: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing ZOA-2021-0003.
All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
McCarvel: Staff and everybody agrees and -- insert -- add the homeowners association
in their for them.
Seal: Actually, quick question on that. Madam Chair, for staff, is homeowners or
homeowners association?
McCarvel: I think he said property owner --
Parsons: We make it grammatically correct.
Seal: Okay.
Yearsley: So, what you are asking for is a modification to change property owner to
homeowner in the motion; is that correct -- what I'm hearing?
Lorcher: I think he's adding it. Property owner might not be the homeowner.
Parsons: No. I want to make it clear that if it's a common lot that's maintained by a
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 18,2021 F52
Page 49 of 49
homeowner's association, but if it's an easement, then, it will be owned by the property
owner -- or maintained by the property owner, unless --
McCarvel: So, property owner or homeowners association or business owners
association. You want all three of them in there.
Yearsley: Oh. Okay.
McCarvel: Yeah.
Seal: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Seal.
Seal: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend
approval to the City Council of file number ZOA-2021-0003 as presented in the staff report
for the hearing date of November 18th, 2021, with the following modifications: That the
language submitted by the applicant be added and the w-- ith the inclusion of the word
homeowners being added to the text.
Yearsley: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve -- recommend approval of ZOA
-2021-0003. All those in favor--with modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed?
Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: I move we adjourn.
Seal: I second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:58 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
12 1 16 12021
RHONDA MCCARVEL - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED
ATTEST:
CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK
Item 1. 3
E IDIAN
'aAHO
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Meridian Swim School (H-2021-0069)
by CSHQA, Located at 2730 E. State Ave.
CITY OF MERIDIAN V IDIAN;---
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
AND ! DAHO
DECISION& ORDER
In the Matter of the Request for Conditional Use Permit for an Indoor Recreation Facility on 1.1-
Acres of Land in the I-L(Light Industrial)Zoning District for Meridian Swim School,Located at
2730 E. State Ave.,by CSHQA.
Case No(s).H-2021-0069
For the Planning& Zoning Commission Hearing Date of. November 4,2021 (Findings on
November 18,2021)
A. Findings of Fact
1. Hearing Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of November 4, 2021, incorporated
by reference)
2. Process Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of November 4, 2021, incorporated
by reference)
3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of November 4,
2021, incorporated by reference)
4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code(see attached Staff Report for the hearing
date of November 4,2021,incorporated by reference)
B. Conclusions of Law
1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the"Local Land Use
Planning Act of 1975,"codified at Chapter 65,Title 67, Idaho Code(I.C. §67-6503).
2. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified Development
Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of
Meridian has,by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan
of the City of Meridian,which was adopted April 19,2011,Resolution No. 11-784 and Maps.
3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A.
4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s)received from the governmental
subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction.
5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose
expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed.
6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this decision,which shall be
signed by the Chairman of the Commission and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER
CASE NO(S). H-2021-0069
Page 1
upon the applicant,the Planning Department,the Public Works Department and any affected
party requesting notice.
7. That this approval is subject to the conditions of approval in the attached staff report for the
hearing date of November 4,2021,incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be
reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the
application.
C. Decision and Order
Pursuant to the Planning & Zoning Commission's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-
5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby
ordered that:
1. The applicant's request for Conditional Use Permit is hereby approved in accord with the
conditions of approval in the staff report for the hearing date of November 4, 2021, attached as
Exhibit A.
D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits
Notice of Two(2)Year Conditional Use Permit Duration
Please take notice that the conditional use permit,when granted, shall be valid for a maximum
period of two(2)years unless otherwise approved by the City in accord with UDC 11-513-6F.1.
During this time,the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the
conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and
acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or
in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting,the final plat must be
signed by the City Engineer within this two(2)year period in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F.2.
Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord
with 11-5B-6.F.1,the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the
use not to exceed one(1)two (2)year period.Additional time extensions up to two (2)years as
determined and approved by the Commission may be granted. With all extensions,the Director
or Commission may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian
City Code Title 11.
E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis
1. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian.
When applicable and pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521, any affected person being a person
who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the final action of the
governing board may within twenty-eight(28)days after the date of this decision and order
seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67,Idaho Code.
F. Attached: Staff report for the hearing date of November 4, 2021
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER
CASE NO(S). H-2021-0069
Page 2
By action of the Planning&Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the 18th day of
November ,2021.
COMMISSIONER RHONDA MCCARVEL, CHAIRMAN VOTED
COMMISSIONER ANDREW SEAL,VICE CHAIRMAN VOTED
COMMISSIONER NATE WHEELER VOTED
COMMISSIONER STEVEN YEARSLEY VOTED
COMMISSIONER WILLIAM CASSINELLI VOTED
COMMISSIONER NICK GROVE VOTED
COMMISSIONER MARIA LORCHER VOTED
Rhonda McCarvel, Chairman 11-18-2021
Attest:
Chris Johnson, City Clerk 11-18-2021
Copy served upon the Applicant, the Planning and Development Services divisions of the Community
Development Department,the Public Works Department and the City Attorney.
By: Dated: 11-18-2021
City Clerk's Office
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER
CASE NO(S). H-2021-0069
Page 3
Item 1.
EXHIBIT A
STAFF REPORTC�WE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT f D A H 0
HEARING November 4,2021
Legend
DATE: ffHof
ILIProject Lacfl-fiar
TO: Planning&Zoning Commission
FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner
208-884-5533
SUBJECT: H-2021-0069
Meridian Swim School -- 0 -
1
LOCATION: 2730 E. State Ave.,in the NE '/4 of
Section 8,T.3N.,R.IE. (Parcel
#R3073780100)
F
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Conditional use permit(CUP) for an indoor recreation facility on 1.1 acres of land in the I-L(Light
Industrial)zoning district.
II. SUMMARY OF REPORT
A. Project Summary
Description Details Page
Acreage 1.1-acres
Future Land Use Designation Mixed Use—Non-Residential(MU-NR)
Existing Land Use(s) Vacant/undeveloped land
Proposed Land Use(s) Indoor recreation facility/swim school
Neighborhood meeting date;#of Sept. 7,2021;one(1)attendee
attendees:
History(previous approvals) A CUP was approved in 1991 for a PUD—General
(Gemtone Inc.).Platted as Lot 1,Block 2,Gemstone
Center No.2.
Page 1
Item 1.
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 One(1)access via E. State Ave.and one(1)access via N.
Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) Rosario St.,both local streets.
Existing Road Network Yes
C. Project Area Maps
Future Land Use Map Aerial Map
(fLegend I ffL��egend
Project Lccafmn a=or
u ribl {'
tom—
E STATE AVE
E IN E A-. E E I N ETAXE -
_ r
r w�
Zoning Map Planned Development Map
Legend � Legend
Project Lacaf n Prniect Lnoafion —
{f { i Cat} Lines {I
— Planned Parcels
m _�
w
III III
z 1
E=P_.I N:E-A1E E=P_I N:E-l11IE
Page 2
Item 1. 1-91
III. APPLICANT INFORMATION
A. Applicant:
Mandie Brozo,CSHQA—200 Broad Street,Boise, ID 83702
B. Owner:
Brock& Sarah Ward, Adventures in Aquatics, LLC—2730 E. State Ave., Meridian, ID 83646
C. Representative:
James Marsh—CSHQA—200 Broad Street,Boise, ID 83702
IV. NOTICING
Planning&Zoning City Council
Posting Date Posting Date
Newspaper Notification 10/19/2021
Radius notification mailed to
properties within 300 feet 10/12/2021
Site Posting Date 10/23/2021
NextDoor posting 10/15/2021
V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (Comp. Plan)
This property is designated Mixed Use—Non-Residential(MU-NR)on the Future Land Use Map
(FLUM)in the Comprehensive Plan.
The purpose of the MU-NR designation is to designate areas where new residential dwellings will not
be permitted,as residential uses are not compatible with the planned and/or existing uses in these
areas. For example,MU-NR areas are used near the City's Wastewater Resource Recovery Facility
and where there are heavy industrial or other hazardous operations that need to be buffered from
residential. Developments are encouraged to be designed similar to the conceptual MU-NR plan
depicted in Figure 3E in the Comprehensive Plan(see page 3-18).
The Applicant proposes to develop the site with an indoor recreation facility(i.e. swim school).
Because the use is non-residential adjacent to office and flex space uses and is located
approximately 570 feet from industrial uses to the north, it should be an appropriate use in the
MU-NR FLUM designation.
hi reviewing development applications,the following items will be considered in MU-NR areas:
(Staffs analysis in italics)
• No new residential uses will be permitted(existing residential may remain).No residential
uses are proposed.
• All developments should have a mix of at least two types of land uses.At L I-acres, the
size of the subject property is too small to allow the development of two land use types.
The overall MU-NR designated area will have a mix of uses; offices,flex space and a
church exist to the north and northwest of this site within the MU-NR area.
• Development is not required to comply with the minimum number of uses in the general
mixed-use standards.Noted.
• Street sections consistent with the Ada County Highway District Master Street Map are
required within the Unified Development Code.No new streets are proposed.
Page 3
Item 1. 10
• There is neither a minimum nor maximum imposed on non-retail commercial uses such as
office, food service/restaurants,industry, or warehouse uses.Noted.
• A transitional use is encouraged on the perimeter of the MU-NR areas between any
existing or planned residential development.Although this site is on the east perimeter
boundary of the MU-NR area, no residential uses exist or are planned to the east.
The following goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan are supported by the proposed
development:
• "Plan for an appropriate mix of land uses that ensures connectivity, livability, and
economic vitality."(3.06.02)
The proposed use will contribute to the mix of uses in this area that ensure livability and
economic vitality of the community.
• "Encourage and support mixed-use areas that provide the benefits of being able to live,
shop, dine,play, and work in close proximity,thereby reducing vehicle trips,and
enhancing overall livability and sustainability."(3.06.02B)
The subject mixed-use area currently contains office and church uses and will eventually
include other non-residential uses. The proposed use will provide a service in close
proximity to residential neighbors to the west.
• "Provide,partner, and preserve public and private indoor and outdoor recreation amenities
for a diverse range of physical activities."(5.01.01 C)
The proposed private recreation facility offering swim lessons to the public will contribute
to the range ofphysical activities offered in the City.
VI. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE UD
The proposed use,an indoor recreation facility, is listed as a conditional use in the I-L(Light
Industrial)zoning district per UDC Table 11-2C-2. Compliance with the dimensional standards listed
in UDC Table 11-2C-3 is required.
VII. STAFF ANALYSIS
As discussed above in Section V,the proposed swim school is considered an appropriate use and
meets the development guidelines listed for the MU-NR designation. The use is also consistent with
the Planned Unit Development approved in 1991 for Gemtone Inc.,which approved a mix of
commercial and light industrial uses in the I-L zoning district.
The proposed building for the swim school will be one-story tall and approximately 8,788 square feet
(s.f.). A covered patio with a seating area is proposed on the west side of the building.
The proposed use is subject to the following Specific Use Standards(UDC 11-4-3-2) -Arts,
Entertainment or Recreation Facility,Indoors and Outdoors: (Staff analysis in italics)
A. General Standards:
1. All outdoor recreation areas and structures that are not fully enclosed shall maintain a
minimum setback of one hundred feet(100') from any abutting residential districts. The
playing areas of golf courses, including golf tees, fairways, and greens, are an exception
to this standard. (Ord. 07-1325, 7-10-2007).No outdoor recreation areas are proposed;
all activities will take place within the structure.
Page 4
Item 1. F111
2. No outdoor event or activity center shall be located within fifty feet(50')of any property
line and shall operate only between the hours of six o'clock(6:00)A.M. and eleven
o'clock(11:00)P.M.No outdoor events or activities are proposed.
3. Accessory uses including,but not limited to,retail, equipment rental,restaurant, and
drinking establishments may be allowed if designed to serve patrons of the use only.
4. Outdoor speaker systems shall comply with section 11-3A-13, "Outdoor Speaker
Systems", of this title.No outdoor speakers are proposed.
B. Additional Standards for Swimming Pools: Any outdoor swimming pool shall be completely
enclosed within a six foot(6)non-scalable fence that meets the requirements of the building
code in accord with title 10, chapter 1, of this code.An indoor swimming pool is proposed;
therefore, this standard is not applicable.
C. Additional Standards for Outdoor Stage or Musical Venue: Any use with a capacity of one
hundred(100) seats or more or within one thousand feet(1,000')of a residence or a
residential district shall be subject to approval of a conditional use permit. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-
30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005). No outdoor stage or musical venue is proposed.
Access(UDC 11-3A-31:
Two(2) driveway accesses are depicted on the site plan—one(1)via E. State Ave. and one(1)via N.
Rosario St.,both existing local streets. ACHD has approved the location of both access driveways.
Because local street access is available to this site and adjoining properties and a cross-access
easement was not provided to this property with development of the property to the west(A-2021-
0021 Hickory Flex Building), Staff is not recommending cross-access easements are required to
adjoining properties.
Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17):
There are existing 5-foot wide attached sidewalks along E. State Ave. and N. Rosario St. that meet
UDC standards. Any damaged curb, gutter or sidewalk is required to be replaced by ACHD.
A 5-foot wide continuous internal pedestrian walkway is required to be provided from the
perimeter sidewalk to the main building entrance(s); the walkway should be distinguished from
the vehicular driving surfaces through the use of pavers,colored or scored concrete, or bricks
as set forth in UDC 11-3A-19B.4. The plans should be revised to reflect compliance with this
standard.
Parking(UDC 11-3C):
Based on 8,788 s.f. of gross floor area, a minimum of 17 off-street parking spaces are required. A
total of 48 parking spaces are proposed, exceeding UDC standards. Based on 48 parking spaces
provided, a minimum of one(1)bicycle parking space is required to be provided. Bicycle parking
facilities should be designed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C.A detail
demonstrating compliance with these standards should be included on the plans.
Landscaping(UDC 11-3B):
A 10-foot wide street buffer is required to be provided along E. State Ave. and N. Rosario St.,both
local streets, landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. Shrubs should be added within
the street buffers in accord with UDC 11-3B-7C.3a.
There are no residential uses abutting this site that require buffering.
Parking lot landscaping is required per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C. Staff recommends
adding a tree within the planter area where the two rows of parking converge at the southeast
corner of the site.
Page 5
Item 1. 12
Outdoor Lighting(UDC 11-3A-11):
All outdoor lighting is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-11C unless
otherwise approved through alternative compliance. Light fixtures that have a maximum output of
1,800 lumens or more are required to have an opaque top to prevent up-lighting;the bulb shall not be
visible and shall have a full cutoff shield in accord with Figure 1 in UDC I I-3A-1 IC.
Details of the lighting proposed on the site that demonstrate compliance with the standards
listed in UDC 11-3A-11 should be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance
application.
Fencing(UDC 11-3A-�:
A privacy fence is depicted on the site plan along portions of the north and west property boundaries.
A detail of the proposed fencing should be included on the plans that demonstrates compliance with
the standards in UDC 11-3A-7.
Building Elevations:
Conceptual building elevations and perspectives were submitted for the proposed structure as shown
in Section IX.C. Building materials consist primarily of EIFS and stone with glazing and wood
accents/trim and metal roofing. The elevations appear to generally comply with the standards in the
Architectural Standards Manual; however,a detailed review will take place with the administrative
Design Review application.
Certificate of Zoning Compliance (UDC 11-5B-1):
A Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC) is required to be submitted for the proposed use prior to
submittal of a building permit application to ensure compliance with UDC standards and the
conditions listed in Section X.
Administrative Design Review(UDC 11-5B-8):
An application for administrative Design Review is required to be submitted concurrent with the CZC
application. The design of the site and structures is required to comply with the standards listed in
UDC 11-3A-19 and in the Architectural Standards Manual(ASNI).
VIII. DECISION
A. Staff:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed conditional use permit with the conditions in Section
X per the Findings in Section XI.
B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard this item on Nov. 4t''. At the public hearing
the Commission moved to approve the subject CUP request.
1. Summary of the Commission public hearing:
a. In favor: Mandie Brozo, CSHOA
b. In opposition:None
c. Commenting: None
d. Written testimony: Mandie Brozo, CSHOA
e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen
f. Other Staff commenting on application:None
2. Key issue(s)of public testimony:
a. None
3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission:
a. In favor of the proposed indoor recreation facility/swim school.
4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation:
a. None
Page 6
Item 1. 13
IX. EXHIBITS
A. Site Plan(date: 9/10/2021)-Updated
�iA
AYYE111WRES IRYuIiICs ADVENTURE IN AQUATICS I MERIDIAN Swill SCfIOOL I 10 SEPTEM6ER,2021
------------
--------------
47
-
_._._. *WT NOTE&
iwa II� ADVENTURE IN AQUATICS I MERIDIAN SWIM SCHOOL 1 10 SEPTEMBER,2021
TRASH ENCLOSURE-WALL SECTION ENCLOSURE FRONT-ELEVATION
1�4__w
7!N 'LOSURE 31DE—ELEVATION 4ENC,LDSURE REAR-ELEVATION 5 HI[CE RACK DETAIL
Page 7
Item 1. ■
B. Landscape Plan(date: 9/17/2021) -Updated
� ADVENTURE IN*QU*T1C5 I MERIDIAN SWIM SCHOQL 1175EPTEM6ER,1021
somom
_
I I
- I 1
I I
L:----------------- I a� CCU r,r.
h'
Li
1 gala
¢. t
I -
Seel._11�-2014'a LANDSCAPE PLAN
21161.am SERE MATIC QESIG N Ip$-1
Page 8
Item 1. ■
C. Floor Plan&Building Elevations(dated: 8/31/21)
AAA
nrvEnrvRFRnwuRnFEI MERIDIAN SWIM SCHOOL "A".,2021
J
b
0 0
e
a
LS
® o
Scale:3/16"=1'-0" FLOOR PLAN
21161 SCHEMATIC DESIGN I pg.SD51
•
w /CIA
FSRERNRFRn RR4RtlLEl MLRIOIhN SWIM SCHOOL 131 AVGVST,2021
— -- MATERIALS FINISH
SCHEUl1LE_
SOUTH ELEVATION
r•�L� r� J '""'r
- _ _ _ _ - -——- -"Y
-- _—gym
—41
2WEITELEVATION 3�'T ELEVATION
NORTH ELEVATION
Scale:As indicated ELEVATIONS
21161 SCHEMA'L1C DESIGN I pg.S053
Page 9
Item 1. F
6
p�hill
urnmauprwnca I MERIDIAN SWIM SCHOOL 1 31 AUGUST,2021
y�
'-Ill will
IF
'� ���
Scale: PERSPECTIVES
21161 SCHEMATIC DESIGN I pg.S654
Page 10
Item 1. 17
X. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS
A. Planning
1. Future development shall substantially comply with the site plan,landscape plan and building
elevations in Section IX.
2. The Applicant shall comply with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-2—Arts,
Entertainment or Recreation Facility, Indoors and Outdoors, including but not limited to the
following:
a. Accessory uses including,but not limited to,retail, equipment rental,restaurant, and
drinking establishments may be allowed if designed to serve patrons of the use only, and
not the general public.
3. Outdoor lighting shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-11. Lighting details
shall be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application that demonstrate
compliance with these standards.
4. The site/landscape plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance shall be revised
as follows:
a. A detail of the proposed fencing shall be included on the plan that demonstrates
compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7.
b. A detail of the bieyele r-aek that demonstrates eemplia-nee with the standards listed in
Depicted on revised plan.
e. Depiet a 5 feet wide eentinuetis intemal pedestrian walkway ffem the perimeter-sidewalk
to the main bttildiag efAfanee(s); the walkway shall be distinguished fFem the vehieul
fefth i T DG 11 3-,4 '-�T Depicted on revised plan.
d. Shfubs shoti4d be added within the street buffer-s in aeeer-d with UDG 11 3B-7C1.3,�t,
Depicted on revised plan.
;rotitheast eefner-of the site in T�1-3B-80�2d.Depicted on revised plan.
5. Submit a detail of the tfash enelesufe that eemplies with the standards listed in UDG 11 3A-
LZ-.Depicted on revised plan.
6. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and administrative Design Review application is
required to be submitted to the Planning Division and approved prior to submittal of a
building permit application.
B. Public Works
1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval
1.1 A geotechnical report must be submitted and reviewed with the building permit
application.
1.2 Utility plans must be submitted and reviewed by Public Works prior to building permit
approval.
1.3 The proposed pool must not be connected to the sewer system for drainage.
1.4 Any existing water or sewer services or mains that will be unused must be abandoned
back to the main that is to remain in service.
Page 11
Item 1. 18
2. General Conditions of Approval
2.1 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works
Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to
provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is
three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate
materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments
Standard Specifications.
2.2 Per Meridian City Code(MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and
water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a
reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5.
2.3 The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of
public right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall
be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. Submit an executed easement
(on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho
Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,which must include the area of the easement
(marked EXHIBIT A)and an 81/2"x I I"map with bearings and distances (marked
EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional
Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD.
2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-
round source of water(MCC 9-1-28.C). The applicant should be required to use any
existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not
available,a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a
single-point connection is utilized,the developer will be responsible for the payment of
assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval.
2.5 Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible
reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC.
2.6 All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals,or drains, exclusive of natural waterways,
intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall
be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply
with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation.
2.7 Any wells that will not continue to be used must be properly abandoned according to
Idaho Well Construction Standards Rules administered by the Idaho Department of
Water Resources. The Developer's Engineer shall provide a statement addressing
whether there are any existing wells in the development, and if so,how they will continue
to be used,or provide record of their abandonment.
2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City
Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment
procedures and inspections(208)375-5211.
2.9 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to
occupancy of the structures.
2.10 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and
construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process,prior to the
issuance of a plan approval letter.
2.11 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features
comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act.
Page 12
Item 1. 19 1
2.12 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404
Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers.
2.13 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office.
2.14 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.
2.15 The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set
a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is
to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above.
2.16 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.
2.17 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.
2.18 A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light
plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street
Lighting. A copy of the standards can be found at
http://www.meridiancity.oMIpublic works.aspx?id=272.
2.19 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the
amount of 20%of the total construction cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse
infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost
estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an
irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for
surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please
contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211.
C. Ada County Highway District(ACHD)
https://weblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=239067&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
hty
A Traffic Impact Study(TIS) was not required for this project.
D. Nampa&Meridian Irrigation District(NMID)
https://weblink.meridianciU.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=239641&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
hty
E. Settler's Irrigation District(SID)
https://weblink.meridianci y.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=238539&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
Page 13
Item 1. 20
XI. FINDINGS
A. Conditional Use Permit
The Commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the
following:
1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and
development regulations in the district in which the use is located.
The site meets all the dimensional and development regulations of the I-L zoning district for the
proposed use. Therefore, the Commission finds the site is large enough to accommodate the
proposed use.
2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord
with the requirements of this title.
The Commission finds the proposed use will be harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan in that
it will provide an indoor recreation use which will contribute to the mix of uses desired in the
MU-NR designation.
3. That the design,construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in
the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and
that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area.
The Commission finds the design, construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed use
with the conditions imposed, should be compatible with other uses in the general vicinity and
shouldn't adversely change the character of the area.
4. That the proposed use,if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not
adversely affect other property in the vicinity.
If the proposed use complies with the conditions of approval in Section X as required, the
Commission finds the proposed use should not adversely affect other properties in the vicinity.
5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as
highways, streets, schools,parks,police and fire protection, drainage structures,refuse disposal,
water, and sewer.
The Commission finds the proposed use will be serviced adequately by all of the essential public
facilities and services listed.
6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services
and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
The Commission finds the proposed use should not create any additional costs for public
facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials, equipment and
conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by
reason of excessive production of traffic,noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors.
Although traffic will increase in this area due to the proposed use, it shouldn't be excessive. The
Commission finds the proposed use shouldn't involve any other activities that would be
detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare.
8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction,loss or damage of a natural, scenic or
historic feature considered to be of major importance. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005)
Page 14
Item 1. ■
The Commission finds the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a
natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance.
Page 15
E K IDIAN:---
iuAn
Planning and Zoning Presentations and outline
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting November 18, 2021
Item #3: K1 Speed CUP PLANNED DEVELOPMENTZONINGFLUM Maps–
Approved Site Plan
Item #10: Meridian Swim School AERIALZONINGFLUM
Site Plan Updated –
Item #11: Outer Banks Subdivision Preliminary Plat & PLANNED DEVELOPMENTZONINGFLUM The 10 Meridian Conditional Use Permit
Preliminary Plat & Phasing Plan (updated)
Striping PlanStreet SectionStreet SectionComprehensive Plan
Open Space Exhibit
Flats (Building F)
Flats (Building F)
High2)--(Buildings HDDensity Apartments -
High2)--(Buildings HDDensity Apartments -
High3)-(Building HDDensity Apartments -
High3)-(Building HDDensity Apartments -
Townhome3)-2 & D-1, D-(Buildings DStyle -
Clubhouse
Clubhouse
First Floor ClubhouseSecond Floor Clubhouse
Changes to Agenda: Item #2, Lennon Pointe Community – Requires continuance due to a project description error by Staff.
nd
Request to continue project to the December 2 P&Z hearing.
Item #3: K1 Speed CUP (H-2021-0077)
Application(s):
Conditional Use Permit
Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 9.88 acres of land, zoned I-L, located at 1075 N. Hickory
Avenue.
History: A CUP was approved in 1991 for a PUD – General (Gemtone Inc.). Platted as Lots 1-4, Block 4, Gemtone Center No. 3; H-
2020-0094 (Vacation); A-2020-0165 (Hickory Warehouse CZC).
Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Mixed-Use Non-Residential
Summary of Request: The Applicant proposes to develop the site with an indoor recreation facility (i.e. an indoor electric go-kart
business) within a portion of an existing warehouse building. The warehouse was approved under an administrative application (A-
2020-0165) due to the existing industrial zoning and planned unit development from 1991 (through Gemtone CUP). The planned unit
development approved in 1991 allows a myriad of uses beyond just those typically allowed in the I-L zoning district.
Staff finds proposal complies with the required specific use standards outlined in UDC 11-4-3-2 and the dimensional standards for the
I-L zoning district.
Proposed hours of operation vary but do not exceed 10am-11pm. This is consistent with code requirements for commercial uses
adjacent to residential – Staff has included a condition of approval consistent with noted hours of operation throughout the week.
Four (4) driveway accesses are depicted and approved on the overall site plan – two (2) accesses via E. State Avenue (local street) to
the south and two (2) accesses via N. Hickory Avenue (industrial collector) to the east. ACHD has approved the location of all access
driveways with the administrative approvals for the overall warehouse (A-2020-0165).
Based on a proposed tenant space of approximately 50,000 s.f. of gross floor area, a minimum of 100 off-street parking spaces are
required. According to the submitted site plan showing the existing site conditions, a total of 106 parking spaces are outlined in blue
directly adjacent to the area proposed for K1 Speed, exceeding UDC standards. Because a vast majority of the area proposed for K1
Speed is the actual track that has limited capacity of karts, Staff does not have concern on the number of parking spaces available for
the proposed use.
Within the subject warehouse where this use is proposed only one other tenant is known at this time and that is a cabinet maker in the
northwest corner of the building utilizing approximately 30,000 square feet of the 204,000 square foot building. Therefore, this industrial
zoned area is already providing a number of varying uses in the vicinity of the proposed go-kart use.
Directly to the west of the subject warehouse is an area of Mixed-Use Community and multi-family housing in the R-15 zoning district
that is partially constructed (Pine 43 project). A number of residential units are occupied at this time with additional units under
construction; a mix of commercial buildings are also under construction further to the north and along Fairview Avenue.
Staff finds the proposal to place an indoor recreation facility adjacent to multi-family residential as a benefit to both uses for the
following reasons:
The residential would activate the recreation component of the proposed use;
An indoor go-kart facility would offer an additional recreation opportunity for residences nearby and for those throughout the
City;
Existing conditions of landscaping, physical separation, ingress/egress, and the use being indoors offers adequate mitigation
of any noxious outcomes.
Written Testimony: None
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval.
Notes:
Possible Motions:
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2021-0077, as presented in the staff
report for the hearing date of November 18, 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-2021-0077, as presented during the
hearing on November 18, 2021, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial)
Continuance
I move to continue File Number H-2021-0077 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following
reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance)
Item #4: Black Cat Industrial (H-2021-0064)
Application(s):
Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of \[#\] acres of land, zoned \[district\], located at \[address/general
location\].
History: \[if applicable\]
Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: \[details\]
Summary of Request: \[details\]
Written Testimony: \[name(s)\] - \[issue(s)\]
Staff Recommendation: \[Approval/Denial\] Why? \[i.e. what is unique/premier (Comp. Plan policies/goals), meets minimum
requirements or not, process comments/story\]
Notes:
Possible Motions:
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number \[#\], as
presented in the staff report for the hearing date of \[date\], with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to
conditions)
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number \[#\], as
presented during the hearing on \[date\], for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial)
Continuance
I move to continue File Number \[#\] to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You
should state specific reason(s) for continuance)
Item #5: Jamestown Ranch Subdivision (H-2021-0074)
Application(s):
Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of \[#\] acres of land, zoned \[district\], located at \[address/general
location\].
History: \[if applicable\]
Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: \[details\]
Summary of Request: \[details\]
Written Testimony: \[name(s)\] - \[issue(s)\]
Staff Recommendation: \[Approval/Denial\] Why? \[i.e. what is unique/premier (Comp. Plan policies/goals), meets minimum
requirements or not, process comments/story\]
Notes:
Possible Motions:
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number \[#\], as
presented in the staff report for the hearing date of \[date\], with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to
conditions)
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number \[#\], as
presented during the hearing on \[date\], for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial)
Continuance
I move to continue File Number \[#\] to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You
should state specific reason(s) for continuance)
Item #6: UDC Text Amendment (ZOA-2021-0003)
Application(s):
Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of \[#\] acres of land, zoned \[district\], located at \[address/general
location\].
History: \[if applicable\]
Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: \[details\]
Summary of Request: \[details\]
Written Testimony: \[name(s)\] - \[issue(s)\]
Staff Recommendation: \[Approval/Denial\] Why? \[i.e. what is unique/premier (Comp. Plan policies/goals), meets minimum
requirements or not, process comments/story\]
Notes:
Possible Motions:
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number \[#\], as
presented in the staff report for the hearing date of \[date\], with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to
conditions)
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number \[#\], as
presented during the hearing on \[date\], for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial)
Continuance
I move to continue File Number \[#\] to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You
should state specific reason(s) for continuance)
Item 2. 22
(:>
E IDIAN*-----,
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Lennon Pointe Community (H-2021-0071) by DG Group
Architecture, PLLC, Located at 1515 W. Ustick Rd.
Project Requires Continuance to December Z 2021 Due to Project Description Noticing Error
A. Request: Annexation of 10.41 acres of land with a request for C-C (2.01 acres) and R-15 (8.3
acres) zoning districts.
B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 43 building lots, 1 commercial building lot, and 2
common lots on 8.8 acres of land in the proposed C-C and R-15 zoning districts.
C. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of a total of 18
units on 1.18 acres in the proposed R-15 zoning district.
Item 2. F23
(:�WE IDIAN:---
IDAHO
PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION
Staff Contact:Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: November 18, 2021
Topic: Public Hearing for Lennon Pointe Community (H-2021-0071) by DG Group
Architecture, PLLC, Located at 1515 W. Ustick Rd.
Project Requires Continuance to December 2,2021 Due to Project Description
Noticing Error
A. Request: Annexation of 10.41 acres of land with a request for C-C (2.01 acres)
and R-15 (8.3 acres) zoning districts.
B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 43 building lots, 1 commercial
building lot, and 2 common lots on 8.8 acres of land in the proposed C-C and
R-15 zoning districts.
C. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting
of a total of 18 units on 1.18 acres in the proposed R-15 zoning district.
Information Resources:
Click Here for Application Materials
Item 3. 24
(:>
E IDIAN*-----,
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for K1 Speed (H-2021-0077) by Josh Shiverick of Cushing
Terrell, Located at 1075 N. Hickory Ave. on the northwest corner of E. State Ave. and H. Hickory
Ave.
A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for an approximate 50,000 square-foot indoor recreation
facility for the purpose of an indoor electric go-kart track, concession area, meeting rooms, and
associated spaces for K1 Speed on a portion of 9.88 acres of land in the I-L zoning district.
Item 3. F25
(:�N-WE IDIAN
IDAHO
PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION
Staff Contact:Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: November 18, 2021
Topic: Public Hearing for K1 Speed (H-2021-0077) by Josh Shiverick of Cushing Terrell,
Located at 1075 N. Hickory Ave. on the northwest corner of E. State Ave. and H.
Hickory Ave.
A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for an approximate 50,000 square-foot
indoor recreation facility for the purpose of an indoor electric go-kart track,
concession area, meeting rooms, and associated spaces for K1 Speed on a
portion of 9.88 acres of land in the I-L zoning district.
Information Resources:
Click Here for Application Materials
Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing
Item 3. ■
STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY
N --
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HEARING November 18, 2021
Legend
DATE:
01 Proiect Location ®®
TO: Planning&Zoning Commission
FROM: Joe Dodson,Associate Planner
208-884-5533
SUBJECT: H-2021-0077 --
K1 Speed—CUP ' !/
LOCATION: 1075 N. Hickory Avenue, in the SW 1/4 of
the NE '/4 of Section 8,T.3N.,R.IE. m
(Parcel#R3073790250)
L AF
�m Fin rr
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Conditional Use Permit to operate a 50,000 square foot indoor arts,entertainment and recreation
facility within an existing 204,000 square foot industrial building. The proposed use includes an
indoor electric go-kart track,concession area,meeting rooms, and associated spaces for KI Speed on
9.88 acres of land in the I-L zoning district.
II. SUMMARY OF REPORT
A. Project Summary
Description Details Page
Acreage 9.88 acre site
Future Land Use Designation Mixed Use—Non-Residential(MU-NR)
Existing Land Use(s) 204,000 square foot warehouse building(under
construction)
Proposed Land Use(s) Indoor recreation facility/go-kart track
Neighborhood meeting date;#of Sept.20,2021;no attendees -
attendees:
History(previous approvals) A CUP was approved in 1991 for a PUD—General
(Gemtone Inc.).Platted as Lots 1-4,Block 4,Gemtone
Center No. 3;H-2020-0094(Vacation);A-2020-0165
(Hickory Warehouse CZC).
B. Community Metrics
Description Details Page
Ada County Highway District
Page 1
Item 3. 27
Description Details Pale
• Staff report(yes/no) Yes
• Requires ACHD Commission No
Action es/no
Access(Arterial/Collectors/State Two(2)accesses via E. State Avenue(local street)and two
Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) (2)accesses via N.Hickory Avenue(industrial collector).
All access points are existing and approved from previous
approvals(A-2020-0165)for the overall warehouse
building.
Existing Road Network Yes
C. Project Area Maps
Future Land Use Map Aerial Map
Legend 0 Legend
Project Location Project Location
i
Densit
Y
Res!ential m
lIAU
N R Office
o m
MU-RG <=y
General
Industrial '
CIVIC � Yt t
R
Zoning Map Planned Development Map
Legend B Legend ®®
0
Project Location L�0 L"� C G , Project Location
city Limits
Planned Parcels
m o
I-L ao
R-8 R-40 m o
R-15 � I-L _ --
RUT
LSO C-G
L-O
L-O
C-G In
777
c-=G Rl,�Tn �1TI�1
Page 2
Item 3. 28
III. APPLICANT INFORMATION
A. Applicant:
Josh Shiverick,Cushing Terrell—800 W. Main Street, Suite 800,Boise,ID 83702
B. Owner:
H.O.T. 2, LLLP—PO Box 1335, Meridian, ID 83680
C. Representative:
Same as Applicant
IV. NOTICING
Planning& Zoning
Posting Date
Newspaper Notification 11/2/2021
Radius notification mailed to
properties within 300 feet 10/27/2021
Site Posting Date 11/3/2021
NextDoor posting 10/28/2021
V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (Comp. Plan)
This property is designated Mixed Use—Non-Residential(MU-NR)on the Future Land Use Map
(FLUM)in the Comprehensive Plan.
The purpose of the MU-NR designation is to designate areas where new residential dwellings will not
be permitted,as residential uses are not compatible with the planned and/or existing uses in these
areas. For example,MU-NR areas are used near the City's Wastewater Resource Recovery Facility
and where there are heavy industrial or other hazardous operations that need to be buffered from
residential. Developments are encouraged to be designed similar to the conceptual MU-NR plan
depicted in Figure 3E in the Comprehensive Plan(see page 3-18).
The Applicant proposes to develop the site with an indoor recreation facility(i.e. an indoor electric
go-kart business)within a portion of an existing warehouse building. The warehouse was approved
under an administrative application(A-2020-0165)due to the existing industrial zoning and
planned unit development in 1991 (through Gemtone CUP). The planned unit development
approved in 1991 allowed a myriad of uses beyond just those typically allowed in the I-L zoning
district.
Across both adjacent streets there is a church, offices,flex space, other warehousing uses, and an
indoor recreation facility for a swim school was recently approved—within the subject warehouse
where this use is proposed only one other tenant is known at this time and that is a cabinet maker
in the northwest corner of the building utilizing approximately 30,000 square feet of the 204,000
square foot building. Therefore,this industrial zoned area is already providing a number of varying
uses in the vicinity of the proposed go-kart use. In addition, directly to the west of the subject
warehouse is an area of Mixed-Use Community and multi-family housing in the R-15 zoning
district that is partially constructed(Pine 43 project). A number of residential units are occupied at
this time with additional units under construction; a mix of commercial buildings are also under
construction further to the north and along Fairview Avenue. Staff finds the proposal to place an
indoor recreation facility adjacent to multi-family residential as a benefit to both uses for the
following reasons: the residential would activate the recreation component of the proposed use; an
Page 3
Item 3. 29
indoor go-kart facility would offer an additional recreation opportunity for residences nearby and
for those throughout the City; existing conditions of landscaping,physical separation,
ingress/egress, and the use being indoors offers adequate mitigation of any noxious outcomes.
Therefore,because the use is adjacent to residential, office, flex space, and other recreation
facilities uses,it should be an appropriate use in the MU-NR FLUM designation for the reasons
noted above.
In reviewing development applications,the following items will be considered in MU-NR areas:
(Staffs analysis in italics)
• No new residential uses will be permitted(existing residential may remain).No residential
uses are proposed.
• All developments should have a mix of at least two types of land uses.Because the use is
proposed within an existing building, it is too small of an area to allow the development of
multiple land use types. However, the overall MU-NR designated area does have a mix of
uses; offices,flex space, and a church exist to east of this site within the MU-NR area.
• Development is not required to comply with the minimum number of uses in the general
mixed-use standards.Noted.
• Street sections consistent with the Ada County Highway District Master Street Map are
required within the Unified Development Code.No new streets are proposed.
• There is neither a minimum nor maximum imposed on non-retail commercial uses such as
office,food service/restaurants, industry, or warehouse uses.Noted.
• A transitional use is encouraged on the perimeter of the MU-NR areas between any
existing or planned residential development.As discussed above, Staff finds an indoor
recreation facility as a transitional use between the existing multi family to the west and
the western boundary of the MU-NR area where this use is proposed.
The following goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan are supported by the proposed
development:
• "Plan for an appropriate mix of land uses that ensures connectivity, livability, and
economic vitality."(3.06.02)
The proposed use will contribute to the mix of uses in this area and should add to the
livability and economic vitality of the community.
• "Encourage and support mixed-use areas that provide the benefits of being able to live,
shop, dine,play, and work in close proximity,thereby reducing vehicle trips,and
enhancing overall livability and sustainability."(3.06.02B)
The subject mixed-use area currently contains office, church uses, and a swim school. The
proposed use will provide a recreational opportunity in close proximity to residential
neighbors to the west thereby reducing vehicle trips and enhancing livability of the area.
• "Provide,partner, and preserve public and private indoor and outdoor recreation amenities
for a diverse range of physical activities." (5.01.01 C)
The proposed private recreation facility offers opportunities for recreation through
electric go-karts to the public and will contribute to the range ofphysical activities offered
in the City.
Page 4
Item 3. ■
VI. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE UD
The proposed use,an indoor recreation facility, is listed as a conditional use in the I-L(Light
Industrial)zoning district per UDC Table 11-2C-2. Compliance with the dimensional standards listed
in UDC Table I1-2C-3 is required and are met because the proposed use is internal to an approved
structure.
VII. STAFF ANALYSIS
As discussed above in Section V,the proposed indoor go-kart facility is considered an appropriate use
and meets the development guidelines listed for the MU-NR designation.The use is also consistent
with the Planned Unit Development approved in 1991 for Gemtone Inc.,which approved a mix of
commercial and light industrial uses in the I-L zoning district.
This use is proposed to be contained within an existing warehouse,as noted above. The tenant space
for the go-kart facility will be approximately 50,000 square feet within the warehouse with no
exterior spaces or modifications proposed. The Applicant submitted a conceptual floor plan showing
internal spaces that include a reception area, concession and seating area, and a few meeting rooms—
these areas constitute a few of the accessory uses within the proposed space and are allowed per the
specific use standards outlined below. In addition,the hours of operation are a key component of
analysis when determining the compatibility of adjacent uses. The Applicant's narrative states the
planned hours of operation for the proposed use vary throughout the week but do not exceed 1 Oam to
1 1pm. Because of the nature of the proposed use and the existing multi-family residential to the west,
Staff is recommending a condition of approval consistent with these hours of operation.
The proposed use is subject to the following Specific Use Standards(UDC 11-4-3-2) -Arts,
Entertainment or Recreation Facility,Indoors and Outdoors: (Staff analysis in italics)
A. General Standards:
1. All outdoor recreation areas and structures that are not fully enclosed shall maintain a
minimum setback of one hundred feet(100)from any abutting residential districts. The
playing areas of golf courses, including golf tees, fairways, and greens, are an exception
to this standard. (Ord. 07-1325, 7-10-2007).No outdoor recreation areas are proposed;
all activities will take place within the building.
2. No outdoor event or activity center shall be located within fifty feet(50) of any property
line and shall operate only between the hours of six o'clock(6:00)A.M. and eleven
o'clock(11:00)P.M.No outdoor events or activities are proposed.
3. Accessory uses including,but not limited to,retail, equipment rental,restaurant, and
drinking establishments may be allowed if designed to serve patrons of the use only.
Noted.
4. Outdoor speaker systems shall comply with section 11-3A-13, "Outdoor Speaker
Systems", of this title.No outdoor speakers are proposed.
B. Additional Standards for Swimming Pools: Any outdoor swimming pool shall be completely
enclosed within a six foot(6)non-scalable fence that meets the requirements of the building
code in accord with title 10, chapter 1, of this code.Not applicable.
C. Additional Standards for Outdoor Stage or Musical Venue: Any use with a capacity of one
hundred(100) seats or more or within one thousand feet(1,000) of a residence or a
residential district shall be subject to approval of a conditional use permit. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-
30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005). No outdoor stage or musical venue is proposed.
Page 5
Item 3. 31
Access(UDC 11-3A-3):
Four(4)driveway accesses are depicted and approved on the overall site plan—two(2)accesses via
E. State Avenue (local street)to the south and two (2)accesses via N. Hickory Avenue(industrial
collector)to the east. ACHD has approved the location of all access driveways with the
administrative approvals for the overall warehouse(A-2020-0165).
The proposed use is located at the south end of the warehouse with the public entrance at the
southeast corner of the building,closest to the"corner"accesses of State and Hickory. Staff
anticipates these two access points will be the main points of ingress and egress for the facility due to
their proximity to the business entrance. Should warehouse uses be introduced in the remaining area
of the warehouse that require large truck traffic, Staff anticipates the other access points to the site
located in close proximity to the west and north property boundaries will be used for ease of access to
the roll-up doors on the west side of the building. Staff has no concerns with the ingress and egress to
the proposed business.
Parking(UDC 11-3C):
Based on a proposed tenant space of approximately 50,000 s.f. of gross floor area,a minimum of 100
off-street parking spaces are required.As noted throughout the staff report,the building and other site
improvements are existing and include the off-street parking for the entire warehouse building.
According to the submitted site plan showing the existing site conditions,a total of 106 parking
spaces are outlined in blue directly adjacent to the area proposed for K1 Speed, exceeding UDC
standards. Based on 106 parking spaces provided for this use,a minimum of four(4)bicycle parking
spaces are required to be provided. Bicycle parking facilities were approved at the time of CZC
submittal but the submitted plans do not appear to clearly depict where they are located.At the
time of Certificate of Zoning Compliance Change of Use(CZCU) application,the Applicant
should provide plans that clarify the bicycle parking location(s)for this use.
Because a vast majority of the area proposed for Kl Speed is the actual track that has limited
capacity of karts, Staff does not have concern on the number of parking spaces available for the
proposed use.
Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-1
There are existing 5-foot wide attached sidewalks along E. State Avenue and N. Hickory Avenue that
meet UDC standards.Any damaged curb,gutter or sidewalk is required to be replaced.
A 5-foot wide continuous internal pedestrian walkway is required to be provided from the
perimeter sidewalk to the main building entrance(s); the walkway should be distinguished from
the vehicular driving surfaces as set forth in UDC 11-3A-19B.4.
Landscaping(UDC 11-3B):
A 10-foot wide street buffer is required to be provided along E. State Avenue,a local street,and a 20-
foot wide street buffer is required along N. Hickory Avenue, a collector street,landscaped per the
standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. Parking lot landscaping is required per the standards listed in
UDC 11-3B-8C.A 25-foot landscape buffer to the existing multi-family residential to the east is also
required.
All required landscaping has been proposed and approved with previous approvals.Staffs analysis
of the approved landscape plan show compliance with all applicable landscaping code sections.
Staff anticipates the proposed use to be less noxious or detrimental to the existing residential so no
additional landscaping is recommended by Staff at this time.
Outdoor Lighting(UDC 11-3A-11):
All outdoor lighting is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-11C unless
otherwise approved through alternative compliance. Light fixtures that have a maximum output of
Page 6
Item 3. 32
1,800 lumens or more are required to have an opaque top to prevent up-lighting;the bulb shall not be
visible and shall have a full cutoff shield in accord with Figure 1 in UDC 11-3A-I IC.
All outdoor lighting was approved with the CZC approval in 2020. However, any future business
signage must comply with all standards outlined in UDC 11-3D.
Fencing(UDC 11-3A- :
According to the approved landscape plans,it is unclear if any fencing is existing or proposed along
the west boundary between the building and the multi-family residential. Code does not require
perimeter fencing but if any fencing is proposed in the future, a detail of the proposed fencing
should be included on with the CZCU application that demonstrates compliance with the standards
in UDC 11-3A-7.
Building Elevations:
The approved building elevations and perspectives were submitted for the warehouse structure as
shown in Section IX.D.As stated throughout this report, these elevations have already been
approved through the administrative process and the building is already existing. The submitted
elevations are for supplementary purposes only.
Certificate of Zoning Compliance (UDC 11-5B-1):
A Certificate of Zoning Compliance Change of Use(CZCU)is required to be submitted for the
proposed use prior to submittal of a building permit application to ensure compliance with
UDC standards and the conditions listed in Section X.
VIII. DECISION
A. Staff:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed conditional use permit with the conditions in Section
X per the Findings in Section XI.
Page 7
Item 3. ■
IX. EXHIBITS
A. Approved Site Plan(date: 9/11/202 1)
GEN— Cushing
L NOTES Terrell.
-------------
...........
F K1 Speed Tartan[
P""'f.,Kl sp.d
50a square feet.
LLI
cn
0
Uj
ix
- ---- ----- ---- ------ --------- --------- --------
O
A002
Page 8
EEI 0
B. Approved Landscape Plan(date: 10/7/2020)
00,
asnOHAHMANON01H
AM171"="O H
dA 1,
Unn L a IM -A AW" M
o!
a raw,0111 M 1 in
to I NO Eel it kit 1 N
%%Wyu
oil 1,103 R M
M
cc!AMU pmuml 10 a a
Q Q Mush"Mu"M
TOM
di
J1
o
FARM, 1
II
Page 9
Item 3. F35]
C. Conceptual Floor Plan(dated: October 2021)
Cushing
Terrell.
-------------------------t------------------- -7 -----_
II ��
-
U',
\ I
_ �
T" :.
I
---_- --- --------------------- --.
',.
z
w
l w
O
Z
JJIII � Y
w
f V �
I r
i O
U
FIRST FLOOR PLAN EN LARGEG FIRST FLOOR PLAN r ocrc nn
o H
A101
Page 10
Item 3. F36
D. Approved Building Elevations (dated: 8/7/2020)
HICKORY WAREHOUSE
- --
-
Y
_ a
ti
F,t
-
nso nso 03
\sJ lei
Page 11
Item 3. 37
X. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS
A. Planning
1. The applicant shall comply comply with the site plan,landscape plan,and building elevations
approved with A-2020-0165.
2. The Applicant shall comply with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-2—Arts,
Entertainment or Recreation Facility,Indoors and Outdoors,including but not limited to the
following:
a. Accessory uses including,but not limited to,retail, equipment rental,restaurant, and
drinking establishments may be allowed if designed to serve patrons of the use only, and
not the general public.
3. Hours of operation for the indoor recreation facility shall be limited to 12:00pm— 10:00pm
Monday-Thursday, 10:00am— 10:00pm on Sundays, and 10:00am— 11:00pm Fridays and
Saturdays as proposed.
4. Prior to building permit submittal,the Applicant shall obtain Certificate of Zoning
Compliance Change of Use approval to establish the use and provide staff with any revised
plans.
5. The site/landscape plans submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance Change of Use
application shall depict the following:
a. A detail of any proposed fencing that demonstrates compliance with the standards listed
in UDC 11-3A-7.
b. A detail of the location of the required bicycle parking.
6. The conditional use approval shall become null and void unless otherwise approved by the
City if the applicant fails to 1)commence the use, satisfy the requirements,acquire building
permits and commence construction within two years as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6F.1; or 2)
obtain approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6F.4.
B. Ada County Highway District(ACHD)
https:llweblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=242188&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC
ky
A Traffic Impact Study(TIS)was not required for this project.
C. Nampa&Meridian Irrigation District(NMID)
https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=242001&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC
iv
D. Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ)
https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=242183&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC
iv
XI. FINDINGS
A. Conditional Use Permit
The Commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the
following:
Page 12
Item 3. 38
1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and
development regulations in the district in which the use is located.
The site meets all the dimensional and development regulations of the I-L zoning district for the
proposed use. Therefore, Staff finds the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use.
2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord
with the requirements of this title.
Staff ,finds the proposed use will be harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan in that it will
provide an indoor recreation use which will contribute to the mix of uses desired in the MU-NR
designation and should act as a transitional use to the existing residential to the west as desired.
3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in
the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and
that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area.
Stafffinds the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed use with the
conditions imposed, should be compatible with other uses in the general vicinity and shouldn't
adversely change the character of the area.
4. That the proposed use,if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not
adversely affect other property in the vicinity.
If the proposed use complies with the conditions of approval in Section X as required, Staff finds
the proposed use should not adversely affect other properties in the vicinity.
5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as
highways, streets, schools,parks,police and fire protection, drainage structures,refuse disposal,
water, and sewer.
Staff finds the proposed use will be serviced adequately by all of the essential public facilities and
services listed.
6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services
and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
Staff finds the proposed use should not create any additional costs for public facilities and
services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials,equipment and
conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by
reason of excessive production of traffic,noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors.
Although traffic will increase in this area due to the proposed use, it should not be excessive and
would be less impactful than a warehouse use requiring additional truck traffic. The proposed
use should not involve any other activities that would be detrimental to any persons,property or
the general welfare.
8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or
historic feature considered to be of major importance. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005)
The proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic
feature considered to be of major importance.
Page 13
Item 4. 39
(:>
E IDIAN*-----,
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing Continued from November 4, 2021 for Black Cat Industrial
Project (H-2021-0064) by Will Goede of Sawtooth Development Group, LLC, Located at 350, 745,
935, and 955 S. Black Cat Rd. and Parcel 51216131860.
A. Request: Annexation of 130.19 acres of land with R-15 and I-L zoning districts.
Item 4. F40
(:�N-VE IDIAN
IDAHO
PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION
Staff Contact:Alan Tiefenbach Meeting Date: November 18, 2021
Topic: Public Hearing Continued from November 4, 2021 for Black Cat Industrial Project
(H-2021-0064) by Will Goede of Sawtooth Development Group, LLC, Located at 350,
745, 935, and 955 S. Black Cat Rd. and Parcel S1216131860.
A. Request: Annexation of 130.19 acres of land with R-15 and I-L zoning
districts.
Information Resources:
Click Here for Application Materials
Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing
Item 4. ■
STAFF REPORTC�WE IDIANn-=-
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A H O
HEARING 11/18/2021 Legermd
DATE:
TO: Planning&Zoning Commission
FROM: Alan Tiefenbach Li
208-884-5533
SUBJECT: H-2021-0064
Black Cat Industrial
LOCATION: The site is located at 350, 745, 935, and
955 S. Black Cat Road and Parcel
S1216131860 i r
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Annexation of 129.21 acres of land with the I-L zoning districts to allow industrial development. This
application also includes a proposal to annex a 0.98-acre property with the R-15 zone district to
provide the required annexation path.
NOTE:Staff has met with the applicant numerous times to discuss this project.Staff has expressed
many concerns including the lack of compliance with the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan
(TMISAP) in both use and design,potential traffic impacts,probability of low job generation, and
whether the timing is right for a development of this magnitude in this location when other
properties on the east side of N. Black Cat Road have not fully built out as approved.
II. SUMMARY OF REPORT
A. Project Summary
Description Details Page
Acreage 130.2 acres
Future Land Use Designation Medium High Density Residential for the 0.98-acre parcel
to the east,Mixed Employment and Low-Density
Employment for the 129 acres to the west.
Existing Land Use(s) Vacant and Single Family Residential
Proposed Land Use(s) Industrial business complex
Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 5 existing lots,no platting proposed with this application
Phasing Plan(#of phases) Phase Plan indicates 3 phases
Number of Residential Units(type One single family residence being retained.
of units)
Page 1
Item 4. F42]
Description Details Page
Density(gross&net) N/A
Physical Features(waterways, The Rosenlof Drain is indicated along the northern
hazards,flood plain,hillside) property line,but not on the subject property.
Neighborhood meeting date;#of August,9,2021,22 attendees including the applicants
attendees:
B. Community Metrics
Description Details Page
Ada County Highway District
• Staff report(yes/no) Yes
• Requires ACHD No
Commission Action
es/no
Access(Arterial/Collectors/State S.Black Cat Rd.is existing,concept plan indicates east-
Hwy/Loca1)(Existing and Proposed) west collector through the middle of the site,and new
north-south collector at west property line.
Traffic Level of Service Better than"E".
Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross East west collector bisecting the property,and a north-
Access south collector running along western property line
proposed.
Existing Road Network S.Black Cat Rd and W.Franklin Rd
Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ There are no existing buffers or sidewalks along S.Black
Buffers Cat Rd.
Proposed Road Improvements Applicant would be required to improve S.Black Cat Rd
with 17 feet of pavement and curb,cutter and sidewalk.
Applicant would also be required to construct two east-
west collectors(one through the middle of the site,one
along the northern property line,and one north-south
collector along the western property line.
Fire Service
• Fire Response Time • Project can be served,but will be out of 5-minute
response time. _
• Comments • Station 6 is closest at about 6 to 7 minutes away.All
buildings will be sprinklered and may need fire pumps
to meet fire flow.The entire project will require
secondary access that meets the 2018 IFC.
• The proposed fire station property is in a good location
for the MFD future station areas,but at this time there
is no avenue to trade the property for impact fees.The
city would need to purchase the property outright.
Police Service
No comments
Wastewater
• Distance to Sewer Directly Adjacent
Services
• Sewer Shed 1 South Black Cat Trunkshed
• WRRF Declining Balance 14.21
• Project Consistent with Yes
WW Master Plan/Facility
Plan
• Issues/Comments • Flow is committed.
Page 2
Item 4. F43
Description Details Page
Public works is okay with the building up of the site to
accommodate sewer as long as surface slopes are no
more then 3:1
All drainage is retained onsite.
• There are multiple 8"lines without easements.
Easements must be provided for 8"mains,however,
based off flows these could be decreased to 6" service
lines.
• Ensure no sewer services pass through infiltration
trenches.
Water
• Distance to Water Services 340 ft.
• Pressure Zone 1 T
• Water Quality No concerns
• Project Consistent with Yes
Water Master Plan
• Impacts/Concerns • Water will be provided initially from pressure zone 1,
but will be from pressure zone 2 when development
from the east connects. Pressure change will be
approximately 22 psi higher.
• Provide for water connections at future road
connections to east and west(blind flange or stub to
PL as appropriate.
• Ensure adequate valving is provided to allow future
pressure zone change.
• Existing wells must be decommissioned according to
IDWR rules which include employing methods to
ensure grout fills the annular space outside of the well
casing. Record of abandonment must be provided to
the City prior to final plat signature.
Page 3
Item 4. F44
Project Area Maps
Future Land Use Map Aerial Map
Legend High r Legend
Re�sid n 0 let
� P•o"eo' Lxa�or IetP• ea Lxa or,
J yni2oikkUl f -kef
u-C&in-
xe i •1�� a�
¢' High A.
Em p
w nsrty
Resideniiol
FTT
Zoning Map Planned Development Map
Legend Legend
iP•a�ec*Lcca�ar 1M=E �Fr�c#Lacoi�n _
R1 R 5 R1 + C City L j
R=15 Pore
MI M1
R-
R1 �� - I
R1
d RR i a
L�
Applicant Information
A. Applicant/Owner:
Will Goede, Sawtooth Development—371 N. Main St. Ste 201, Ketchum, ID 83340
B. Representative:
The Land Group—462 E. Shore Dr, Ste 100, Eagle, ID 83616
Page 4
Item 4. 45
III. NOTICING
Planning& Zoning City Council
Posting Date Posting Date
Newspaper Notification 11/2/2021
Radius notification mailed to
properties within 300 feet 10/28/2021
Sign Posting 10/29/2021
Nextdoor posting 10/28/2021
IV. STAFF ANALYSIS
This is a proposal for annexation of 129.21 acres of land with the I-L zoning districts to allow an
industrial development including 9 buildings ranging in size from 131,000 to 342,160 sq. ft.
(Buildings A-J) and 7 smaller commercial buildings ranging in size between 6,800 to 33,600 sq.
ft. (Buildings K1-MI). This application also proposes to annex an 0.98-acre property with the R-
15 zoning district for the sole purpose of making this property contiguous with City limits in
order to request annexation.
A. Annexation and Zoning
The applicant proposes to annex the 0.98-acre parcel with the R-15 zoning district in order to
achieve the contiguity to be eligible to annex the 129.21 acres of property on the west side of S.
Black Cat Rd. The applicant proposes to rezone the remaining 129.21 acres west of S. Black Cat
Rd.to I-L(Light-Industrial).As is discussed below, staff does not support rezoning to I-L and
finds M-E would be the appropriate zoning as indicated in the TMISAP. Staff does find the Plan
supports rezoning the 0.98-acre parcel to R-15, although the applicant has not offered any
additional details regarding future use of this property other than the existing residence will
remain.
B. Future Land Use Map Designation(https://www.meridianciu.or /�comQplan)
The subject properties are within the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan (TMISAP). The
Plan designates 745 S. Black Cat Road and the eastern half of Parcel#S 1216131860 for Low
Density Employment(Buildings K1-M1). The Plan designates the western half of Parcel
#51216131860, 935 S. Black Cat Rd and all of Parcel#51216417365 for Mixed Employment
(Buildings A-J). The property at 350 S. Black Cat Rd(east side of N. Black Cat Rd) is designated
for High Density Residential(density range of 8 to 15 dwellings/acre).
i. Low Density Employment
This use is defined by the TMISAP as low-rise office and specialized employment areas.
Low Density Employment areas should provide a variety of flexible sites for professional
offices and similar businesses. Low Density Employment areas should be designed with
elements of Traditional Neighborhood Design. Design and development standards such
as landscaping,pedestrian circulation and connection to open spaces, are recommended
to help make developments more attractive, engaging and accessible places. Appropriate
land uses include corporate and business offices as well as research facilities and
laboratories.
ii. Mixed Employ
This use is described by the TMISAP as an area to encourage a diversity of compatible
land uses that may include a mixture of office,research and specialized employment
Page 5
Item 4. 46
areas,light industrial including manufacturing and assembly,and other miscellaneous
uses.Mixed Employment areas should provide a variety of flexible sites for small,local
or start-up businesses, as well as sites for large national or regional enterprises.Mixed
density employment will accommodate a wide variety of employers and serve as a
primary gateway to Meridian and Meridian's prosperity.
-a USTrr
LoVv Den ity _;I
-- --
'Med:High
Densit'
Residential
E lUk`U .
High Deny
• Ern pl.
Applicant's proposal:
The applicant requests to annex and zone the 129.21 acres of property west of S. Black Cat Rd to
I-L. The applicant requests to annex and zone the 0.98-acre parcel at 350 S. Black Cat Rd to R-
15. The applicant's narrative states their proposal meets the TMISAP intent of low-density
employment and mixed employment areas as it would provide a variety of flexible sites and allow
the larger double and single loaded light-industrial buildings to be divided into spaces as small as
18,000 square feet. The narrative states the Black Cat Business center would provide in-demand
manufacturing,heavier office build-out, flex industrial and accessory retail,warehousing and
distributing facilities in this region. It mentions the Mixed Employment designation in the
TMISAP does list light industrial as one of the appropriate uses. Finally,the narrative notes the
City of Meridian has less than a 1 percent vacancy rate for industrial business uses, and the
Treasure Valley as a whole lags behind its peer markets.
The concept plan submitted by the applicant indicates 7 buildings ranging in size between 6,800
to 33,600 sq. ft directly adjacent to the west side of S.Black Cat Rd(Buildings K1-M1). The
applicant's narrative states that in this area the project includes flex incubator buildings which
could be divided into spaces as small as 2,500 square feet. The applicant also proposes to set-
aside an approximately 18,000 sq. ft. lot for a potential 10,000 sq. ft. fire/emergency services
station.
On the remainder of the subject properties to the west,the concept plan reflects 9 very large
buildings ranging in size from between 131,820 sq. ft.to 293,280 sq. ft. to a total of 1,897,480 sq.
ft. (Buildings A-J). These buildings are oriented with one row north of a new collector and one
row south of the new collector. The concept plan shows multiple loading bays on all buildings
and a wide collector street to accommodate large truck traffic.
Page 6
Item 4. 47
Staff Response:
Staff does not support annexation and zoning to I-L as I-L would allow uses not supported by the
Plan in this area. Staff s response to the applicant has been that the TMISAP vision for the area
adjacent to I-84 is an employment district that will support the creation of more than 20,000 jobs
offered by a wide variety of employers. It should serve as a primary gateway to Meridian and
Meridian's prosperity, and provide local employment to the large amount of new residential
across S. Black Cat Rd to the east and W. Franklin Rd to the north and east. Staff notes the
TMISAP states"the City knows that this is one of the last remaining large, contiguous areas of
highly visible,easily accessible, and developable land within the City of Meridian's Area of
Impact."
The applicant's narrative mentions light industrial is listed as one of the appropriate uses in the
Mixed Employment Plan Area. This is correct,but the TMISAP refers to light industrial as
manufacturing and assembly,which is consistent with the definition of light industrial per UDC
11-1A-1. Although the I-L Zoning District could allow numerous primary jobs,it also
allows uses by right that would not be consistent with the goal for Mixed Employment per
the TMISAP.This includes warehousing, distribution and self-storage,which typically does
not produce a large number of primary jobs. Other uses allowed by right which staff believes
are not consistent with the Plan include contractor's yards, equipment rental and sales,vehicle
repair, and car dealerships. The plan designates these types of industrial uses to occur adjacent to
W. McDermott Rd, further west of the subject property, away from the residential that is intended
to develop across S. Black Cat Rd to the east.
Based on the concept plan that has been provided by the applicant,the majority of the plan
suggests a warehouse and distribution/storage development. This is in contrast to the TMISAP
vision for sense of place,traditional neighborhood design, streets designed to serve all users,and
multi-story construction(although the smaller Buildings K1-M1 directly adjacent to S. Black Cat
Rd,would be closer to the TMISAP vision).
Staff has recommended the applicant apply to rezone to Mixed Employment(M-E),which allows
the mixture of office,research, specialized employment areas and the type of light industrial
(manufacturing and assembly)which is intended for this area by the Plan. The applicant has
elected to proceed with I-L zoning.
Staff agrees there may be a strong market demand for industrial uses,but the Plan specifically
says the intent of the TMISAP is to create a place that will add to the long-term economic
stability of the City of Meridian,not just respond to immediate market forces and trends(page 3-
3).
C. Comprehensive Plan Policies(https:llwww.meridianciU.or /g compplan):
• Focus on developing industries that exceed the living wage, such as technology, healthcare
and other similar industries. (2.06.01E)
The TMISAP designates the subject property (except for 0.98-acre 350 S. Black Cat Rd)for
low density and mixed employment. These areas are intended to capture full economic
advantage of the Ten Mile interchange to enhance the long-term fiscal health of the City of
Meridian and the Treasure Valley.Although annexing and zoning this area to I-L could
create primary jobs as anticipated by the Plan, it could also allow uses such as distribution,
warehousing and self-storage that would not create a significant amount ofprimary-wage
jobs.
• Ensure that regulations and plans support and encourage desired development and land use
patterns within the Area of City Impact. (3.01.01 C)
Page 7
Item 4. 48
The TMISAP specifically targets the subject property to accommodate a wide variety of
employers and serve as a primary gateway to Meridian and Meridian's prosperity. There are
additional design guidelines to create an environment that has a significant degree of
coherence and continuity. The annexation of the subject property for the industrial uses
described by the narrative and depicted on the concept plan do not meet the intent of the
Plan in both use and design.Also, the Community Planning Association of Southwest
Idaho (COMPASS) has submitted a development review letter. The summary of the letter
indicates that COMPASS finds the level of stress on the roads would be "R"
(unsatisfactory), it would lead to further decrease in the jobs/housing balance, and is not
within the%mile walkable distance preferred for transit and goods and services.
• Evaluate development proposals based on consistency with the vison as well as physical,
social,economic, environmental, and aesthetic criteria. (3.01.01D)
The TMISAP vision for this area is an employment-generating center that buffers the
community from I-84 and the future extension of Highway 16, and serves the employment
areas with easy access to markets, high-speed transportation facilities, and employees across
the Treasure Valley. The TMISAP contains additional design standards for this area to create
a sense of place and a unique identity. The proposed annexation and zoning to I-L to allow
an industrial development of large distribution-style warehouses bisected by a wide collector
road to facilitate freight traffic is not consistent with the Plan vision or the design for this
area.
• Promote Ten Mile,Downtown,and The Village as centers of activity and growth. (2.09.0313)
As already mentioned, the TMISAP designates this area for an employment center for the
local population in close proximity to nearby residences. Rezoning to I-L to allow a
distribution and warehousing development would provide growth, but not the type
anticipated by the Plan.
Establish distinct, engaging identities within commercial and mixed-use centers through
design standards. (2.09.03A)
The Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan focuses on developing an area that has an
identity of its own, but which links to the nearby development. The current application could
allow numerous uses not desired by the Plan, with monotonous architecture and design not
consistent with the design guidelines. This does not further the intent of the Plan to create a
unique sense ofplace.
• Slow the outward progression of the City's limits by discouraging fringe area development;
encourage development of vacant or underutilized parcels currently within City limits.
(4.05.03B)
This applicant proposes to annex 129 acres of undeveloped property which is surrounded by
unincorporated land on all sides except at the northeast corner, in which the 0.98-acre parcel
is being annexed in order to achieve the required contiguity. Further, much of the property to
the east is not annexed or annexed with development agreements, but not built-out to their
full capacity,further exacerbating the strain on the transportation network in the area. Full
impacts on the transportation system will not be known with this development until the
applicant completes a traffic study for ACHD to review and approve. There are no
anticipated improvements to S. Black Cat Rd and W. Franklin Rd in the short term, and
the closest water and sewer connection is approximately 340 feet to the north of the
property. This would be considered unorderly and fringe development.
Page 8
Item 4. 49
D. Existing Structures/Site Improvements:
The majority of the property is vacant, except there is single family and agricultural development
located at 935 and 745 S. Black Cat Rd. If these properties were rezoned to I-L,the residential
and agricultural buildings should be removed.
E. Proposed Use Analysis:
The applicant proposes to zone to I-L. As mentioned above, staff believes the I-L district allows
uses by-right which are not consistent with the high employment-generating uses intended for this
area by the Plan, and the concept plan suggests a distribution and warehousing(or self-storage)
development. Staff finds Mixed Employment(M-E)is the zone district which is more
consistent with the TMISAP for this area.
Staff believes the proposal to annex and zone 350 S. Black Cat Rd to R-15 would generally be
consistent with the Medium High-Density Residential designation of the TMISAP. The applicant
has not submitted any additional information for this property other than annexation of this
property is necessary for the remaining 129.21 acres to be eligible for annexation. If the subject
annexation is approved,the existing residence would need to connect to City services.
F. Specific Use Standards(UDC 11-4-3):
UDC 11-4-3-25 (Industry, light and heavy)requires all shipping and delivery and outdoor activity
areas to be at least 300 ft. from any abutting residential district. Applications should identify how
proposed use will address impacts of noise and other emissions on residential districts.
The concept plan shows the outdoor loading and activity areas are at least 300 ft. from the
adjacent residential district to the east. The applicant does not provide an explanation regarding
potential impacts and/or how they would be mitigated.
G. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2):
The I-L zoning district requires a 35' street setback,20' landscape buffer along collector streets,
25' wide buffer along arterial streets,and allows height up to 50'. The concept plan and
elevations submitted appear to meet these requirements.
The TMISAP introduces basic rules of good design. This includes buildings built to public rights-
of-way, easy pedestrian access,narrow streets to slow traffic,and the facades of larger
commercial buildings being broken down into short frontages with"big boxes"being wrapped in
smaller commercial,residential,and office uses.
With some revisions, staff believes Buildings K1-MI as shown on the concept plan could mostly
reflect these principles, although the buildings are oriented around a central parking lot rather
than a courtyard. Also,the TMISAP mentions building frontages,rather than surface parking lots
and landscaped areas,should"hold the corners"by framing sidewalks or public spaces whereas
the entrance of this development from S. Black Cat Rd consists of landscaping and parking lots
with building maintaining larger setbacks.
The larger buildings A-J are oriented to a wide collector street,have larger front setbacks,have
single building frontages between 180 ft. and 470 ft. in length, and are not broken down or
wrapped with smaller buildings. Staff does not believe this encapsulates the TMISAP principals
for design envisioned for this area and is skeptical the concept plan could be designed to meet
these principles for the use as proposed. The Planning Commission and City Council should
decide whether this type of industrial use is appropriate in this area.
Page 9
Item 4. 50
H. Access(UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4):
W.Franklin Rd west of the subject property is presently 2 lanes with no curb, gutter or sidewalk,
and narrows to one lane west of S. Black Cat Rd. S. Black Cat Rd. is presently 2 lanes with no
curb, gutter or sidewalk. The ACHD Capital Improvements Integrated Five Year Work Plan
(IFYWP) shows the intersection of Franklin Road and McDermott Road to be constructed as a
multi-lane roundabout sometime after 2026. Black Cat Rd is listed to be widened to 5 lanes
between W. Overland Rd. to W. Franklin Road in 2036 to 2040. W. Franklin Rd. is planned to be
widened to 5 lanes between W. McDermott Rd and S. Black Cat Rd from 2026 to 2030. W.
Franklin Rd is eventually intended to connect to SH 16 by a signalized intersection.
The TMISAP Transportation System Map shows a new collector street bisecting the property east
to west and a new north-south collector street at the western property line(page 3-18). The
TMISAP notes the primary purpose of the collector is to serve short length neighborhood trips
and to channel traffic from local streets and abutting properties to minor and principal arterials
(page 3-19).
Subject Property ..w --�- Pne■1A wu[F.Opm—
�� calactw
PalenUl Co/edal Esreneian
_ Lrr#W Am"%[H-Jhnra yr
a Pt—dabm
The TMISAP Street Section Map designates new collectors in this area to be Street Section C
(page 3-20). Section C represents the major collector streets to provide access from adjacent
arterial streets into the employment areas. Street Section C(below)includes 11 ft.wide travel
lanes, 6 ft. wide bike lanes, 8 ft.wide parallel parking, 8 ft. wide carriage strips, 6 ft. wide
sidewalks and approximately 10 ft. setback from the back of detached sidewalks to the building
wall(to a total width of 68'). This is consistent with the"complete street"concept discussed by
the TMISAP to provide a street that works for motorists,bus riders,bicyclists,and pedestrians,
including people with disabilities and to provide traffic calming.
JrayelLane
lane 34, Lane
Wb•to-curbdistaxe
The concept plan provided by the applicant reflects the east-west collector bisecting the site to be
60' wide with all of this being travel lanes,no on-street parking and detached pathways and
landscaping outside of the 60' of travel lanes. Rather than on-street parking,there are several
rows of parking between building fronts and the road. Page 7 of the narrative states that the"new
Page 10
Item 4. ■
collector road bisecting the development site will"provide easy freight access to the project"
which is indicative of a typical industrial development. This is not consistent with the mixed
employment area and with the street design principals on Page 3-20 of the TMISAP which state
that"streets should be designed and sized to optimize pedestrian comfort and to facilitate slow-
moving vehicular traffic."
t J
]1jF�7
{d'! i,+.l.l Ili .1 MMIT. I 111,11W �' ...
-_L ] i h
- -- � 11 'll.Jl11 1 j I li�
�_
- - Plan street t1aout,L—
Concept -
In addition to the collectors shown on the TMISAP Transportation System Map,the TMISAP
Land Use Map(Page 3-16) shows a desired local street bisecting the site north to south. Also,
ACHD has commented a third collector street is required along the Rosenlof Drain, at the
northern perimeter of the property(the local street would connect the two east-west collectors).
Although staff has mentioned to the applicant to provide this north-south local street,this
connectivity is not provided on the concept plan. The northernmost collector as required by
ACHD is also not shown.
A traffic impact study is not a required item for an annexation application. However, staff notes
this application proposes almost 2 million sq. ft. of new commercial or industrial square footage.
Although the immediate area is mostly undeveloped,there is a significant amount of development
in the vicinity which can be or has already been built,has been approved, or is in the development
application stage. This includes 330 single family lots and 240 apartments in the Braya
Subdivision across S. Black Cat Rd. to the east, and the large amount of commercial and
residential development occurring at the 10 at Meridian,Vanguard Village, Ten Mile Crossing
and TM Creek Crossing developments on both sides of N. Ten Mile Rd. south of W. Franklin Rd.
Staff has mentioned to the applicant that the traffic impacts of nearby development already
entitled have yet to be realized,there are no anticipated road improvements to W.Franklin Rd
and S. Ten Mile Rd. in this area in the short term, and has expressed concerns regarding how the
impacts of 2 million square footage of new industrial would affect the road network. The
applicant has not provided any additional analysis.
1. Parking(UDC 11-3C):
UDC 11-3C-6 requires one space for every two thousand sq. ft. of gross floor area in industrial
districts.With Buildings A-J listed on the concept plan as comprising 1,900,000 sq. ft. +/-,this
amounts to 950 parking spaces,whereas based on the numbers given on the concept plan,the
number of parking spaces provided well exceeds this requirement. Future planning land use
applications will determine the required number of parking spaces for all uses.
The TMISAP encourages on-street parking throughout the Ten Mile Interchange Area where
appropriate.Not only does on-street parking significantly add to the supply of needed parking
Page 11
Item 4. 52
spaces, it provides an additional layer of physical and psychological separation between cars
moving along the street and pedestrians, shoppers, diners and others on the sidewalks. Parking
lots should not dominate the frontage of pedestrian-oriented streets or interrupt key pedestrian
routes. Ideally,parking lots should be located behind or underneath buildings or within the
interior of blocks. Less ideally, lots can be located beside the structures they serve. All parking
lots visible from public thoroughfares should be screened by plantings or walls or a combination
of the two. (page 3-26).
As mentioned in the access section above,the concept plan reflects a wide collector street
designed for truck traffic with no on-street parking. The majority of parking is provided to the
side of Buildings A-J,but there are two rows of parking between Buildings G,H and the collector
street. There is also a parking lot directly adjacent to S. Black Cat Rd south of Building M1, and
Buildings L2 and L3 are oriented around a central parking lot which is adjacent to S. Black Cat
Rd and parking. This is not consistent with the Traditional Neighborhood Design principles of the
TMISAP which would support buildings oriented around a plaza, open space or courtyard and
buildings rather than landscaping or parking"holding the corners."
J. Pathways ( UDC 11-3A-8):
The Pathways Master Plan(PMP)reflects a 10 ft. wide multiuse pathway aligned east-west at the
southern perimeter of the site, adjacent to I-84. The concept plan indicates a 10' wide pathway
along the southern perimeter of the site in the general location of the alignment shown on the
PMP. It does appear the required 5 ft. wide landscape strip is provided along both sides of the
pathway except near the southwest portion of the site.
K. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17):
The concept plan indicates detached sidewalks of an unspecified width paralleling the new
collector street on both sides,along S. Black Cat Rd.,along the western property line,and along
landscaped islands running north-south between Buildings K1-M1 and Buildings A-J.
Landscaping and/or parkways of an unspecified width are provided on both sides of the
detached sidewalks. The sidewalks do provide connectivity throughout the development and to
adjacent properties to the north and south. As mentioned in the access section above,the
sidewalks are not consistent with Street Section C as it is reflected in the TMISAP. Instead of
being components of a walkable street section,they run along a series of parking lots and drive
aisles, consistent with what would be expected in a large industrial development.
L. Parkways (UDC 11-3A-17):
UDC 11-3A-17 requires parkways of a minimum width of 8 feet. It does appear parkways are
incorporated into both sides of all detached sidewalks, although the width of these parkways is
not provided.
M. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B):
A 50 ft.buffer is required along 1-84, a 20-foot wide landscape buffer is required adjacent to
collector streets,and a 25-foot wide buffer required adjacent to arterial streets(S. Black Cat Rd).
UDC 11-313-8 has landscape requirements for parking lots including 5 ft.perimeter streets and
islands of at least 50 sq. ft.per every 12 parking spaces. The concept plan as submitted does
appear to show the minimum landscape requirements are met,although as mentioned in the
access section,the proposed collector streets do not appear to meet the Street Section C
requirements as mentioned in the access section above. Landscaping requirements would be
analyzed with future development.
Page 12
Item 4. 53
N. Qualified Open Space (UDC 11-3G):
As the development is proposed to be an industrial development,it is not subject to the qualified
open space requirements of UDC 11-3G. However,the concept plan does indicate small parks on
either side of the collector at the entrance of the development near where it connects to S. Black
Cat Rd. Staff does believe this is a nice amenity, although the TMISAP notes that care must be
taken to ensure that the programming and use of the space is not disrupted by vehicular traffic
(page 3-43).
O. Utilities
Connection to City water and sewer services is required in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. Water
and sewer are available in S. Black Cat approximately 340 feet north of the property. The
applicant will be required to extend the sewer main and provide a connection for the properties
across S. Black Cat to the east and south. The applicant will be required to extend the water main,
stub the water line at the west property line and loop the line to the north to W. Franklin Rd.
Street lighting is required to be installed in accord with the City's adopted standards,
specifications and ordinances and the TMISAP. See Section VIII.B below for Public Works
comments/conditions.
P. Architecture(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual):
The Architectural Standards Manual(ASM)has specific requirements for industrial
developments. Building design should address scale,mass, form, and use a variety of materials
and architectural features to ensure an aesthetic contribution compatible with surrounding
buildings. There should be modulation in surface plane at no less than 50 ft. intervals.
Developments should consider the scale of surrounding buildings. There should be at least 2
pedestrian-scale architectural features,physical distinctions to anchor the building. There should
be at least two different field materials,with at least one accent material.
The Design Section of the TMISAP is intended to serve as the basic framework on any given
project within the Ten Mile Interchange Area and the basis for development of future design
guidelines. Guidelines include the primary facades always including entries into buildings,being
faced toward the streets,and entries being located so as to provide direct access from adjacent
public spaces,primary streets and activity areas. In the low-density employment and mixed
employment areas, low rise buildings of 2-4 stories with shallow setbacks are recommended over
much of the area(page 3-38). At least 40%of the linear dimension of the street level frontages
shall be in windows or doorways, and buildings should have three separate components—base,
body and top. Page 1-3 of the TMISAP contains photographs and design graphics to illustrate the
architectural character desired in the Low Density and Mixed Employment Areas.
Page 13
Item 4. F54]
• �rr.r
T
Mai nil
Low Density Employment Mixed Employment
Mixed Employment
Mo*detached�v r lI 7_15!�-x_ 5 a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .No more fhan 30%parfung on the FonE
T5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......
f to 4 stories Q
Rase Rods-&Top fcjq gd R
3 .......
20 l61M Omn.Single pine wa1 i
mawnun distance=tou* og height E ......-
Mixed
Employment
The concept elevations provided by the applicant reflect large one-story industrial buildings(with
higher ceilings and upper windows to appear as two-story)comprised of tilt-up concrete, CMU,
moderate to large setbacks from the street, and frontages with less than the 20%required
windows along the streets. Primary entrances are oriented inward toward the parking lots rather
than toward the street. The applicant's narrative states that due to security and visibility concerns,
the light industrial use of the buildings does not support windows across the entire frontage. As
an alternative,they propose enhanced glazing at corner entry elements as shown in the
renderings.
Page 14
Item 4. 55
Staff notes design can be addressed during the time of the Certificate of Zoning Compliance
(CZC). However, due to the proposed use it is unlikely the applicant's proposal as submitted
could meet all the design requirements of TMISAP for Low Density and Mixed Employment in
this area(such as variation in building height, orientation of primary frontages and massing and
ground floor transparency). This proposal is for a large industrial complex with a concept plan
suggesting warehousing, storage and/or distribution which would be challenging to design as the
TMISAP discusses. The Planning Commission and City Council should discuss whether the
I-L zone district,and the uses that would be allowed,is appropriate in this location.
V. DECISION
A. Staff:
Staff recommends DENIAL of the requested annexation and zoning to I-L and R-15 based on the
Findings in section IX.
Page 15
Item 4. F56]
VI. EXHIBITS
A. Proposed Concept Plan(date: 10/14/2021) (NOT APPROVED)
L4 ... • r�'„� i' �a� c gin'-I �r. _ r
_
-j
--1 .
-4u - - k
tG»NJ
�. 0
r^
�
_
V.. ik
I! �.i� F.. 41
40
AN
>��- — - w ;.; I.J. ,j � L.`• ,
- • t
Page 16
Item 4. F57]
B. Axonometric Views(date: 10/14/2021)
i
II ��
M1 �I
l
�y d
Page 17
Item 4. F58
C. Building Elevations(date: 10/14/2021)
_ r
I
J
F
Page 18
Item 4. 59
D. Building Heights Graphic (date 10/14/201)
DOUBLE LOADED BLUGS REAR LOADED SLOGS FLEX BLUGS
40-48'TALL 38-42'TALL 263O'7ALL
75'........................................................... ................................. ...............I... ................ ..................................................�
F 60.............................................................................................. .......................
............................................................ . ..
2
Medium High Density Mx Uw Hign Densiq
L Black Cat Business Park Residen al CmToWW Resideriai
Page 19
Item 4. F60
E. Annexation Legal Descriptions and Exhibit Maps
September 10,2021
Project No.121102
EXHIBIT A
BLACK CAT ROAD-CHESTER PARCEL
ANNEXATION DESCRIPTION
A parcel of land located in the East Half of Section 16,Township 3 North,Range 1 West, Boise Meridian,
Ada County,Idaho, being mare particularly described as#allows:
Commencing at the Section Corner common to Sections 9,10,15 and 16 of said Township 3 North,Range
1 West,(from which point the{North One Quarter Corner of said Section 16 bears North 89"24'22"West,
2 64 1.42 feet distant);
Thence from said Section Corner,South 00'43' 09'' West,a distance of 1328.57 feet on the East line of
said Section 16 to the North 1/16th Cornercommon to said Sections 15 and 16,said point being the POINT
OF BEGINNING;
Thence South 00"43' 09"West,a distance of 1328.69 feet on the East line of said Section 16 to
the East One Quarter Corner of said Section 16;
Thence South 00"43'07"West,a distance of 1014.37 feet on the East line of said Section 16 to a
paint on the centerline of Interstate 1-84;
Thence North 80'32'51"West,a distance of 2659.94 feet on the centerline of Interstate 1-84 to
a point on the north-south mid-section line of said Section16;
Thence North 00` 29' 23" East, a distance of 606.72 feet on the north-south mid-section line of
said Section 16 to the Centel Quarter Corner of Section 16;
Thence North 00"29'04"East, a distance of 1327.72 feet on the north-south mid-section line of
said Section 16 to the Center-North 1f16th Corner of said Section 16;
Thence South 99" 23' 16" East, a distance of 2635.98 feet on the east-west 1/16th line of the
Northwest Quarter of said Section 16 to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
The above described parcel contains 129.21 acres more or less.
PREPARED BY: F Kati° � 1V '� 1
THE LAND GROUP,INC.
P. 7880 om
9-10-2021
James R.Washburn
12,WA
Page 20
Item 4. F61
LEGAL DESCRIPT10N
+M ifg{.En' Page 1 of 1
im LAND
EWEG R 0 U P
September 10,2021
Project No-121102
EXMIBITA
BLACK CAT ROAD-CH ESTER PARCEL
AttiNNEXATrON DESCRI#TrON
A parcel of land located in the East Half of Section 16,Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Eoise Meridian_
Ada County, rdaho,being more particularly described as follows-
Commencing at the Section Corner common to Sections 9,10, 15 and 16 of said Township 3 North, Range
1 West,(from wh ich poi nt the North One Quarter Corner of said Section 16 bears North 89"24'22"West,
2641A2 feet distant);
Thence from said Section Corner,South 00°43'09" West a distance of 1328-57 feet on the East line of
said Section 16 to the North III Eth Corner common to said Sections 15 and 16,said point being the POINT
OF BEGIN NING;
Thence South 00*43'09"West, a distance of 1328-69 fee#on the East line of said Section 16 to
the East One Gmafter Corner of said Section 16;
Thence South W 43'07"West,a distance of 1014-37 feet on the East line of said Section 16 to a
point on the centerline of Interstate r 84;
Thence North 80°32'51"West,a distance of 265.8-94 feet on the centerline of Interstate I-84 to
a poi nt on the north-south mid-secti on line of said Section16;
Thence North 00° 29' 23" East, a distance of 606.72 feet on the north-south mid-section line of
said Section 16 to the Ceater Quarter Corner of Section 16,
Thence North CV 29'04" East,a distance of 1327-72 feet on the north-south mid-section line of
said Section 16 to the Cerrter-North 1J16th Comer of said Section 16;
Thence South 99D 23' 16" East, a distance of 2635-98 feet on the east-west 11 16th line of the
Northwest Quarter of said Section 16 to the POINT OF B EG I FINING.
Th a above described parcel contains 129-21 acres more or less-
PREPARED BY- 0. •LAJ�Tp
THE LAND GROUP, INC-
I
9-10-2021
James R-Washburn -4p OF�pF'
� . WAS
Page 21
Item 4. F62
Annexation Map
`IFlFWFFRARRLM ROAD
AT Ayuisitions, LLC
p ��u SiNaie ntnEFBLI72 mseUion 15
41� i 91 98 T—Np a NDrin,Range 1 WE L Ro Mend-
C IQ A4a County,Warm
p— yen,re¢ ian[o1 unrcn,yen �nren-ee ox v_�.r=¢ �xr_A:re¢ �
, .x. —'_
Ilvnv;vt6,Hcwe, � AY
7 I er'3sam.�Frir¢Frmm}.r � .. i.
l
I I
I
Y'lcicity Map: �T •,.....'(
1 ca
m
--� 129_211 ACRES aF�aan�ws+rtuw,n
I �—
I 1
I� i fI
6 I II
L
a..— ------------ -
THE
LAN
GROUP
r�Rnr.er 5�'2' ta,e la eam¢�:�a ea-.+d
nwwm xn mrEaE� ryxm ax
wascmrn.mxu�sV Fx vnm ax�,vn
Page 22
Item 4. F63
September 10,2021
Project No.121102
EXHIBIT A
BLACKCAT ROAD-MOORE PARCEL
ANNEXATION DESCRIPTION
A parcel of land located in the West Half of the Northwest One Quarter of Section 15,Township 3 North,
Range 1 West, Boise Meridian,Ada County, Idaho, being more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the Section Corner common to Sections 9,10, 15 and 16 of said Township 3 North,Range
1 West, (from which point the West One Quarter Corner of said Section 15 bears South 00'43'09"West,
2657.26 feet distant);
Thence from said Section Corner, South 00'43'09"West,a distance of 1117.31 feet on the West line of
said Section 15 to the Northwest Corner of that Parcel shown on Record of Survey Number 639 of Ada
County Records,said point being the POkNT OF BEGINNING;
Thence South 89°16'46" East, a distance of 176.25 feet on the north line of said Record of Survey
Number 639;
Thence South 00°43'09"West, a distance of 263.50 feet on the east line of said Record of Survey
Number 639;
Thence North 75°41'51"West,a distance of 181.32 feet on the south line of said Record of Survey
Num ber 639 to a point on the west line of said Section 15;
Thence North 00'43'09" East, a distance of 220.92 feet on the west line of said Section 15
to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
The a bone described parcel contains 0.98 acres more or less.
PREPARED BY: L LA
THE LAND GROUP, INC.
r
a 7880
9-1a-2021
James R. Washburn OF
Page 23
Item 4. 64
VII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS
A. PLANNING DIVISION
No conditions of approval are included due to Staffs recommendation of denial.
B. PUBLIC WORKS
Public Works acknowledges the recommendation for denial mentioned above,and is providing
site specific and general conditions in the event that an approval is granted.
Site Specific Conditions of Approval:
1. Surface slopes shall not exceed 3:1
2. All drainage must be retained onsite
3. If the onsite 8" sewer lines are services,they should be decreased to 6", based off flows this
should be sufficient.
4. Any 8" water or sewer main outside of right-of-way shall be covered by a City easement.
5. Sewer services shall not pass through infiltration trenches.
6. When the development connects to the east,the water pressure zone will change from 1 to 2
which will result in an approximately 22 psi pressure increase. Provide stubs or blind flanges
to the property lines at the future road connections to both the east and west.
General Conditions of Approval:
1. Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works
Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide
service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover
from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in
conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications.
2. Per Meridian City Code(MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water
mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement
agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5.
3. The applicant shall provide easement(s)for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of
way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a
single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat,but
rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The
easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed
easement(on the form available from Public Works),a legal description prepared by an Idaho
Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,which must include the area of the easement(marked
EXHIBIT A)and an 81/2"x I I"map with bearings and distances(marked EXHIBIT B) for
review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO
NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be
submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval.
4. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round
source of water(MCC 9-1-28.C). 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
Page 24
Item 4. ■
connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized,
the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to
prior to receiving development plan approval.
5. All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat
by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and
possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC.
6. All irrigation ditches, canals,laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways,intersecting,
crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per
UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207
and any other applicable law or regulation.
7. Any wells that will not continue to be used must be properly abandoned according to Idaho Well
Construction Standards Rules administered by the Idaho Department of Water Resources. The
Developer's Engineer shall provide a statement addressing whether there are any existing wells in
the development, and if so,how they will continue to be used, or provide record of their
abandonment. Record of abandonment must be provided to the City prior to signature of the final
plat.
8. Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance
Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and
inspections(208)375-5211.
9. Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated,
road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision
shall be recorded,prior to applying for building permits.
10. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all uncompleted
fencing, landscaping, amenities, etc.,prior to signature on the final plat.
It. 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.
12. Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review,and construction
inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process,prior to the issuance of a plan
approval letter.
13. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with
the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act.
14. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting
that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers.
15. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office.
16. Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building
pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material.
Page 25
Item 4. F
6
17. The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a
minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure
that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan
requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A copy
of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org1public_works.aspx?id=272.
21. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount
of 125%of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer,water and reuse infrastructure
prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by
the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit,cash
deposit or bond.Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the
Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for
more information at 887-2211.
22. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of
20%of the total construction cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse infrastructure for
duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the
owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash
deposit or bond.Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the
Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for
more information at 887-2211.
C. ACHD
https.11weblink.meridiancity.orp/WebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=242157&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCit
V
D. COMPASS
https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=240474&dbid=O&roo=MeridianC
i &cr--1
Page 26
Item 4. 67
VIII. FINDINGS
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:
A. ANNEXATION AND REZONE
1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan;
Staff finds the proposed development is not consistent with the TMISAP designations of Low
Density and Mixed Employment which are intended to provide a variety of flexible sites for
professional offices, small, local or start-up businesses, as well as sites for large national or
regional enterprises.Although the I-L zoning district does allow some of these uses, it also allows
uses which provide a low number of primary employment and could also allow uses contrary to the
Plan in this area including warehousing, distribution and outdoor storage.
2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district,
specifically the purpose statement;
Staff ,finds the proposed map amendment to I-L and the proposed industrial use generally
complies with the purpose statement of the industrial area, but the type of industrial uses
proposed for this area are not supported in this area by the TMISAP.
3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health,safety,and
welfare;
This application proposes to annex 129.21 acres of property designated as an employment center
with the I-L zoning district to allow a "modern industrial business"center with a concept plan
that resembles a warehousing and distribution uses. The potential for loss of significant
employment generating uses, use and design contrary to the TMISAP, and the potential
significant traffic impacts on the existing road network which have yet to be analyzed, could be
materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare.
4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by
any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited
to, school districts; and
Staff finds 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.
The application proposes to annex and zone an area to I-L whereas M-E zoning would be more
consistent with the Plan. The applicant also proposes to annex a 0.98-acre lot with the R-1 S
zoning district to achieve the contiguity to be eligible for annexation. There is the potential for
significant loss of high employment generating activity, monotonous architecture, and building
mass and street design which is not consistent with the TMISAP. In addition, the traffic impacts
of nearly 2 million square feet of new commercial on the local network have not been analyzed.
The TMISAP states: "The City knows that this is one of the last remaining large, contiguous
areas of highly visible, easily accessible, and developable land within the City ofMeridian's Area
of Impact"and staff does not support development of this area that is contrary to the vision of the
Plan. Staff finds this annexation is not in the best interest of the City.
Page 27
Item 5. 68
(:>
E IDIAN*-----,
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Jamestown Ranch Subdivision (H-2021-0074) by Walsh
Group, LLC, Located Near the Southeast Corner of the N. Black Cat and W. McMillan Rd.
Intersection at 4023 W. McMillan Rd. and parcels 50434223150, 50434212970, 50434212965,
and 50434212920.
A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 80 acres of land with a R-8 zoning district.
B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 294 building lots and 25 common lots.
Item 5. F69
(:�N-VE IDIAN:--
IDAHO
PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION
Staff Contact:Alan Tiefenbach Meeting Date: November 18, 2021
Topic: Public Hearing for Jamestown Ranch Subdivision (H-2021-0074) by Walsh Group,
LLC, Located Near the Southeast Corner of the N. Black Cat and W. McMillan Rd.
Intersection at 4023 W. McMillan Rd. and parcels SO434223150, SO434212970,
SO434212965, and SO434212920.
A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 80 acres of land with a R-8 zoning district.
B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 294 building lots and 25 common
lots.
Information Resources:
Click Here for Application Materials
Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing
Item 5. ■
STAFF REPORTC�WE IDIANn-=-
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A H O
HEARING 11/18/2021 Legend I
DATE:
F�;ev•LcoflTion
TO: Mayor&City Council AIWI
FROM: Alan Tiefenbach -
d�
208-884-5533
M MU
SUBJECT: AZ,PP -H-2021-0074
Jamestown Ranch Subdivision --------}
LOCATION: Parcels 50434223150, 50434212970,
SO434212965, SO434212920, and 4023
W. McMillian Rd, located at the ;---
southeast corner of the N.Black Cat/W. -----
McMillian Rd intersection.
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Annexation with the R-8 zoning district,and preliminary plat to allow 294 building lots and 25
common lots on 80.3 acres of land.
IL SUMMARY OF REPORT
A. Project Summary
Description Details
Acreage 80.3
Future Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential 8-12 du/acre
Existing Land Use(s) Vacant and 2 single family residences
Proposed Land Use(s) Single Family Residential
Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 294 building lots,25 open space lots, 15 access lots
Phasing Plan(#of phases) 2 phases
Number of Residential Units(type 294
of units)
Density(gross&net) 3.66 du/ac gross,6.17 du/ac net
Open Space(acres,total 11.63 acres of qualified open space(14.5%)
[%]/buffer/qualified)
Amenities Two large parks,each with a swimming pool and
clubhouse,a pickleball court, several pocket parks and
internal landscaped trail connections.
Physical Features(waterways, Lemp and Creason Lateral run along the western property
hazards,flood plain,hillside) line,Lemp Lateral also runs along the northern property
line.
Neighborhood meeting date;#of July 21,2021 —5 attendees
attendees:
Page 1
Item 5. F71
Description Details
History(previous approvals) None
B. Community Metrics
Description Details
Ada County Highway District Report Pending,preliminary comments submitted
• Staff report(yes/no) Yes
Access(Arterial/Collectors/State N. Black Cat Rd and W.McMillian Rd
Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed)
Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross Three internal connections—two aligning with N.
Access Bartok St. and N. Grand Lake Wy. at the Quartet
Northeast No 2 subdivision to the south,and one
aligning with W.Viso St. from the east through the
Volterra Heights subdivision.
Existing Road Network N.Black Cat Rd.and W.McMillian Rd
Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ None along the subject property.There is a 25 ft.wide
Buffers buffer and 5 ft.wide sidewalk on the west side of N.Black
Cat Rd installed with the Oak Creek No 3 Subdivision.
Proposed Road Improvements No right-of-way dedication is required along W.
McMillian Rd as it will be offset to the north when
widened in the future.ROW dedication of 50'from
centerline will be required from N.Black Cat Rd. The
applicant will be required to construct westbound turn lane
on McMillian at the collector.
Fire Service
• Distance to Fire Station 2.7 miles to Fire Station 5
• Fire Response Time >5 minutes
• Resource Reliability >80%
• Risk Identification 2,resources are not adequate
• Accessibility Yes
• Special/resource needs Aerial device will be required
• Water Supply 1,000 gpm required
• Other Resources None
Police Service
• Distance to Police Station 7.4 Miles
• Police Response Time P3 4:11
P2 8:16
P1 12:57
• Calls for Service IL 792
• %of calls for service split %of P3 CFS 1.4%
by priority %of P2 CFS 72.2%
%of P1 CFS 25.5%
%of PO CFS .9%
• Crimes 59
• Crashes 27
Page 2
Item 5. F
2
Wastewater
• Distance to Sewer Directly Adjacent
Services
• Sewer Shed North Black Cat Trunkshed
• WRRF Declining Balance 14.22
• Project Consistent with Yes
WW Master Plan/Facility
Plan
• Comments • Flow is committed
• Do not have mains in common driveways.There are
multiple common driveways for 2 or 3 lots. These
should all have sewer services run from the main in
the street.
• Do not extend sewer main outside of Right-of-Way.
Instead run services from main that reside in the road
to each lot.
• Sheet PP2.3 at the bottom left corner has a sewer line
running through a common lot and part of a residential
lot. The City does not want sewer in common lots or
residential lots.Reconfigure so sewer is in Right-of-
Way.
• Angle of pipe going into/out of manhole in the
direction of flow needs to be a minimum of 90
degrees. This is not the case for manhole at
intersection of Doctor Brunn Ln and Cattleman Way.
• Applicant to ensure that no sewer services cross
infiltration trenches.
Water
• Distance to Water Services Directly Adjacent
• Pressure Zone 1
• Water Quality No concerns
• Project Consistent with Yes
Water Master Plan
• Comments • Remove water mains in common driveways and run
services to the lots,place meters in Right-of-Way.
• There are no water main sizes listed on the plans.
Make sure that the water main in N Grand Lakes Way
is 12".
• Remove the water main in the alley in Sunday Loop.
Place water meters at the Right-of-Way and then run
water services to houses in the alley.
Each phase will need to be modeled to make sure
minimum pressure is met at each phase
Page 3
Item 5. F73
Project Area Maps
Future Land Use Map Aerial Map
Legend 0 Legend
CEM-0ff t
leiF-aject Laoaion I P�ajec'Lccafion F.
LJ -vW r r rvx iL
WOW
&. amp
Zoning Map Planned Development Map
Legend eegend
[CF:eject Laeafon R. 0PAaJJec*Loeaiian
R T R-4 + City Lnwt
U� R — K3prned Pamea s _ liar
Up 'RUT p I
r i
IR-8
RUT _
v .,
Applicant Information
A. Applicant Representative:
Stephanie Hopkins,KM Engineering LLP 5725 N. Discovery Way,Boise,ID 83713
B. Owner:
Walsh Group—PO 1207,Eagle,ID 83616
Page 4
Item 5. 74
III. NOTICING
Planning& Zoning City Council
Posting Date Posting Date
Newspaper Notification 11/2/2021
Radius notification mailed to
properties within 300 feet 10/27/2021
Nextdoor posting 11/28/2021
Sign Posting 10/29/2021
IV. 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(https:llwww.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 is surrounded on three sides by the City
limits. The proposed land use of single family residential is consistent with the recommended
uses in the FLUM designation. The proposed project has a gross density of 3.66 du/ac, meeting
the required density range listed above. Therefore, Stafffinds the proposed preliminary plat and
requested R-8 zoning district to be generally consistent with the Future Land Use Map
designation of Medium Density Residential.
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:llwww.meridiancioy.or /g compplan):
• 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 traditional single-family detached and alley-loaded homes will contribute to the
variety of residential categories in the City; however, there is no variety in housing types
proposed within the development. Daphne Square Subdivision (zoned R-15)and single-family
homes in the County(zoned RUT) are across W. McMillan Rd. to the north. To the south is the
Quartet Subdivision (zoned R-8). To the east is the single family detached Volterra Heights
Subdivision (zoned R-8)and across N. Black Cat Rd. to the west is the Oakcreek Subdivision
(zoned R-8). Given the property is completely surrounded by single-family detached, single family
detached with comparable lot sizes is appropriate for the subject property.
Page 5
Item 5. ■
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 ft. wide detached sidewalks on both sides of roads internal to the
subdivision. There are also S ft. wide detached sidewalks along N. Black Cat Rd.
This is the same width provided along N. Black Cat Rd. by the Quartet Northeast No 1
Subdivision to the south and the Daphne Square Subdivision to the north. 10 ft. wide pathways
are provided along W. McMillian Rd, which is consistent with the pathway alignment shown on
the Pathways Master Plan, and along one side off. Grand Lakes Wy(the internal collector).
Staff does believe there are portions of the development where there could be more direct non-
motorized connectivity to the amenities and common open space within the development as well
as to the detached sidewalk along N. Black Cat Rd. Staff has red-marked these recommended
connections on the landscape plan below.
As will be mentioned in the Qualified Open Space and Amenities Sections below, the applicant
proposes several connected common open space areas and amenities throughout this
development.
• "Require pedestrian access in all new development to link subdivisions together and promote
neighborhood connectivity."(2.02.01D)
As mentioned above, 5 ft. wide detached sidewalks are provided along all internal roadways,
along N. Black Cat Rd, and 10 ft. wide pathways are provided along W. McMillian Rd and N.
Grand Lakes Way. Staff is recommending several additional micro pathway connections as a
condition of approval.
"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)
The development can be adequately served by critical public facilities and urban services. Water
and sewer will be extended along W. McMillan Rd. to the south.
• Ensure that new development within existing residential neighborhoods is cohesive and
complementary in design and construction. (2.02.02F)
Daphne Square Subdivision (zoned R-1 S)and single-family homes in the County(zoned RUT)are
across W. McMillan Rd. to the north. To the south is the Quartet Subdivision (zoned R-8). To the
east is the single family detached Volterra Heights Subdivision (zoned R-8)and across N. Black
Cat Rd. to the west is the Oakcreek Subdivision (zoned R-8). These subdivisions have comparable
densities to what is being proposed.
This development proposes architecture consisting of one and two-story homes with pitched
roofs, stone bases and/or lap siding with gabled roofs and dormers comparable to what has
been approved with adjacent subdivisions. In order to ensure compatibility and quality of design
with existing and approved residential uses surrounding the property,staff recommends a
condition that rear and/or sides of 2-story structures on facing W.McMillan Rd,N.Black Cat
Rd. and N. Grand Lakes Wy. 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.
Page 6
Item 5. 76
• 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)
There are presently 3 accesses off of W. McMillian Rd., two of which are being used by existing
single-family residences. There is one access on N. Black Cat Road at the south property line.
This proposal would remove two of the W. McMillian Rd. accesses and provide a new collector
access approximately hal6vay between the east and west property lines. The N. Black Cat Rd
access would be shifted to the north to align with W. Quintale St. in the Oak Creek Subdivision.
There are three internal accesses—two aligning with N. Bartok St. and N. Grand Lake Way.from
the Quartet Northeast No 2 to the south, and one aligning with W. Viso St.from the east through
the Volterra Heights Subdivision.
D. Existing Structures/Site Improvements:
There are two existing single-family residences on the subject properties. One residence(4023 W.
McMillan Rd.)is proposed to remain on a 76,888 sq. ft. lot.
E. Proposed Use Analysis:
Single-family detached dwellings are listed as a principal permitted use in the R-8 zoning districts
in 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-6 for the R-8 district.All proposed lots and public streets
appear to meet UDC dimensional standards per the submitted preliminary plat. This includes
minimum lot size of 4,000 sq. ft., and required street frontages of at least 40 ft. Development of
the subdivision is required to comply with the subdivision design and improvement standards
listed in UDC 11-6C-3.
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 ft,although there is the allowance of an increase in block
length to 1,000 feet if a pedestrian connection is provided.No block length exceeds 750 ft.
Eleven common driveways are proposed with this subdivision. The applicant has provided
common drive exhibits which demonstrate no more than 3 units are served whereas a maximum
of 4 units are allowed. The common driveway meets the minimum width of 20' and does not
exceed the maximum length of 150'. Solid fencing adjacent to common driveways is prohibited,
unless separated by a minimum five-foot wide landscaped buffer.
G. Access(UDC 11-3A-3):
W. McMillian Rd along the property frontage is 2 lanes with no curb,gutter or sidewalk.N.
Black Cat Rd is 2 lanes with a 5' detached pathway on the western side(Oak Creek Subdivision).
This development proposes five points of access. The primary access will be a collector street off
W. McMillian Rd. (N. Grand Lakes Wy.) approximately midway between the east and west
property lines,making an"S"curve through the property and connecting into Quartet Northeast
No 2 at the southeast corner of the property. The other three accesses would be local streets-one
is a western access to N. Black Cat Rd. which aligns to W. Quintale St., an eastern access which
Page 7
Item 5. ■
connects to W.Viso St. from the Volterra Heights Subdivision, and an additional southern access
which connects to Sunnyside Ave.,also in the Quartet Northeast No 2.
N. Grand Lakes Way(the collector)does not align with N.Joy St. to the north as is shown on the
ACHD Master Street Map. Instead, it is offset approximately 985 feet to the west. This offset
occurs because there are existing utility poles obstructing the ACHD-preferred alignment with N.
Joy St. During preliminary discussions ACHD has responded that they support this proposed
alignment.
Although ACHD is still working on a staff report, staff has been in communication with them
regarding this project.All roads in this development are proposed to be built to ACHD standards.
ACHD will not be requiring any additional dedication along W. McMillian Rd.because it will be
shifted to the north during a future widening project. ACHD is requesting ROW dedication along
N. Black Cat Rd. of 50 ft. from centerline. The applicant will be required to construct a
westbound turn line at the intersection of the collector with W. McMillian Rd. Staff is
recommending as a condition of approval that required frontage improvements along N. Black
Cat Rd and W.McMillian Rd including pathways, landscape buffers,detached sidewalk and left
turn lane shall be constructed with the first phase of development.
The applicant proposes pavers on the local roads instead of standard pavement. The applicant
states pavers will not only help to alleviate some of the challenges associated with the high
groundwater present in the area,but will foster an exclusive and high-quality charm for future
residents. ACED is still discussing whether they will support this alternative.
H. 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.
1. Pathways ( UDC 11-3A-8):
A 10 ft.wide detached pathway is reflected along W. McMillian Rd. which is consistent with the
alignment shown on the Pathways Master Plan.There is also a 10 ft. wide detached pathway
along one side of N. Grand Lakes Way. (the internal collector)which connects to the W.
McMillian Rd.pathway. Several micro-pathways are reflected providing connectivity to internal
portions of the development. As mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan analysis above,to
improve more direct pedestrian connectivity, staff is recommending additional micro-pathway
connections(red-marked on the landscape plan below).
J. 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 (except for a 10 ft.wide pathway along one side of N. Grand Lakes
Way). There is also a 5 ft.wide detached sidewalk provided along N. Black Cat Rd. This 5 ft.
width is consistent with the width of the sidewalk along N. Black Cat Rd. provided by Quartet
Northeast No 2 to the south as well as the Daphne Square Subdivision to the north.
K. Parkways (UDC 11-3A-17):
Parkways are provided between the detached sidewalks and road on both sides of all local roads
except for Sunday Loop (Lot 1-27,Block 5). All parkways meet the requirements of 11-3A-17
and 11-313-7 including at least 8 ft. in width and landscaped with at least 1 tree per 35 feet.
Page 8
Item 5. 78
L. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B):
UDC 11-2A-6 requires 25 ft. wide buffers along arterial roads(N. Black Cat Rd. and W.
McMillian Rd.)and 20 ft.wide buffers required along collector roads (N. Grand Lakes Way).
The landscape plan reflects a buffer from the N. Black Cat Rd. edge of pavement ranging in
width from between 70 ft. from the at the south to 120 ft. wide at the north. The Creason Lateral
and the Lemp Lateral as well as a maintenance road are both located within this buffer, although
there is an additional landscape strip width of 25 ft.wide between the laterals and the exterior
property fences.Along W.McMillian Rd.to the north,there is a buffer ranging in width from
between 64 ft. and 80 ft. in width. The Creason Lateral is also located in this buffer;there are
landscape strips of at least 25 ft. in width between this lateral and the exterior property fences.
Both arterial buffers meet the minimum requirement for at least one tree per 35 ft. in width; the
areas containing laterals are shown to be sod. Buffers of at least 30 ft. in width are provided along
N. Grand Lakes Way(20 ft. is required). 8 ft wide landscaped parkways are provided along most
of the internal local streets with the exception of the Sunday Loop at the NE portion of the site.
The landscape plan includes 11.63 acres of qualified open space(14.5%)as will be discussed in
the Qualified Open Space and Amenities sections below.
The landscape plan indicates there are no healthy existing trees meeting the preservation
requirements on the property.
M. Qualified Open Space (UDC 11-3G):
14.5%(11.63 acres) of qualified open space is shown. This includes 1.19 and 2.42-acre
neighborhood parks, several smaller pocket parks, landscaped pathways, 8 ft.parkways and 100%
of the collector buffers.
The common open space exhibit indicates the arterial buffers as"non-qualified open space"
whereas '/z of this area can be counted as qualified open space per UDC 11-3G-3.
N. Qualified Site Amenities (UDC 11-3G):
Based on the area of the proposed plat(80.3 acres),4 amenities are required(one for the first 5
acres, one for each additional 20 acres). The subdivision provides two large parks,each with a
pool and clubhouse(counting as six amenities because the parks are at least 20,000 sq. ft. in
excess of the minimum 5,000 sq. ft. requirement). A pickleball court is provided within one of
these parks (Lot 7,Block 5). There are two pocket parks(Lot 6,Block 9 and Lot 46,Block 2).
There is also an additional 4%of open space beyond the required 10%and internal pedestrian and
bicycle pathways bisecting several of the blocks which are not required pathways. The proposed
development exceeds the minimum requirements.
O. Waterways(UDC 11-3A-6):
The Creason Lateral runs along the western property line paralleling W. McMillan Rd. and
connecting through the Quartet Subdivision to the south. The Lemp Canal adjoins with the
Creason Lateral along the property's frontage adjacent to McMillan and continues to travel south
along Black Cat Road. Both laterals will be piped per UDC 11-3A-6. Maintenance roads are
indicated along both laterals. Coordination will be ongoing with the irrigation districts managing
the waterways to meet their requirements.
P. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7):
The landscape plan includes a fencing plan. 6 ft.high solid vinyl fencing is provided along the
entire perimeter of the property and along the sides of most residential lots that are adjacent to
detached sidewalks(with visibility from the road maintained). 5 ft.high open vision fencing is
provided around the open spaces, a 6 ft.high open style fence is provided around both pools, and
Page 9
Item 5. 79
there a 4 ft.high open style fence is provided around the pickleball court. The fencing appears to
meet the requirements of 11-3A-6 and 11-3A-7.
Q. Utilities (UDC 11-3A-21):
Public services are available to accommodate the proposed development. Water and sewer will be
extended along W. McMillan Rd to the south. There appears to be an Idaho Power utility
easement indicated on the public utility plan that is not shown on the plat. All easements should
be shown on the preliminary plat and only Class I trees may be planted within these areas per
UDC 11-313-5.
R. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual):
The Applicant has submitted a large number of elevations of the single-family homes for this
project as well as the clubhouses(see Section VI.F below).
The single-family homes are depicted as one and two-story structures with attached garages, and
a variety of architectural elements and finish materials including gabled roofs,covered porches,
dormers, stone wainscoting, and lap siding. 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 noted in the Comprehensive Plan section, a large number of the houses will be very visible
from W. McMillian Rd.N. Black Cat Rd. and N. Grand Lakes Wy. Therefore, staff recommends
a condition that the rear and/or sides of 2-story structures that face W. McMillian Rd. and N.
Black Cat 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.
V. DECISION
A. Staff:
Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation, zoning and preliminary plat with the
conditions noted in Section IV.per the Findings in Section VIII.
Page 10
Item 5. F
0
VI. EXHIBITS
A. Annexation and Rezoning Exhibit(date: 9/17/2021)
September 17,2021.
Project Nul 21-048
Jamestown Ranch Subdivision
Exhlbit A
City of Meridian Annexation Legal Descriptian
A parcel of land being all of the North 1/2 of the Northwest 7/4 of Section 34,Township 4 North, }Range
I West, Boise Meridian,Ada County, Idaho,and being more partitularly described as follows:
BEGINNING at a found brass cap m arking the Northwest corner of said Section 34,thence following the
northerly line of said Northwest 1/4, 589°35'51"E a distance of 2,653.92 feet to a found aluminum cap
marking the North 1/4 corner of said Section 34;
Thence leaving said northerly line and following the easterly line of said Northwest 1/4,500'43'47"W a
distance of 1,323.32 feet to the Center North 1/16 corner of said Section 34;
Thence leaving said easterly line and following the southerly line of said North 112 of the Northwest 1/4,
N89°26'06"W a distance of 2,647.62 feet to the North 1/16 corner of Section 33 and said Section 34;
Thence leaving said southerly line and following the westerly line of said Northwest 1/4, fv00`27'24"E a
distance of 1,315.80 feet to the POINT OF BIG INNING.
Said parcel conW1 ns 80.299 acres,mere or less,and is 5ubject to a I I existing easements and/or rights-cF-way of
record or imp?ied-
Attached hereto is Exhibit 8 and by this referehCe is hereby made a part hereof.
P.l L A No S
q � t
16662
Un
Y KE
Page 11
Item 5. F
1
POIiNT OF BEGINNING VOLIND ALUMINUM CAP
FOUND BRASS CAP N 1/4 CORNER SECTION 34
NW CORNER SECTION 34 W. McMillan Rd.
28 2T BA515 OF BEARINGS
S 89'35'51"E 26 53.92' �7
33 34 34
ao „�
-ZD LO
= "}
; {
4- M
u
V w
u
� n1 fti
2 � �
N 1/16 CORNER, FOUND ALUMINUM CAP �
SEGTION!� 33 AND 34 C-N 1/16 CORNER SECTION 34
33 N89'26'46"W 2647.62'
34
Nseq
LEGEND
a r� - —
1 662 FOUND ALUMINUM CAP
(k FOUND BRASS CAP
250 500 1000 � E �� A CALCULATED POINT
�t or — — — SECTION LINE
Y
Plan Scale ANNE)WION BOUNDARY
d 1 — ————— — —SURVEY TIE LINE
Page 12
� m
FM
. .
------------
_-_-_-----------
-_---_-- _____---- ----------
___-_-____--_----
mm
® II
-al
- - = - _:
_ - -___ _____--_=_-:
-------------------------------------- __ ____
-------- ........------ moll
I m -
Mkw
40
}_ ILi '`tea,,, Ai-
Pit
aim:. i
Item 5. F83
D. Landscape Plan Marked Up with Recommended Pathway Connections(date: 9/9/202 1)
tIO—WO
4=
1 W
2
kill
Ike
I
.21 %L161L11.11
�4
-v oo S
v co n
A.
I.. P
tot
E. Fence Exhibit(date: 9/9/2021)
ii, ND 6 S 8 S tR 8
0 0 C9
Q� 9 IEP
P
REU MIN ARY PLAT FENCE EXHI BIT
-Tir
Page 14
Item 5. F84]
F. Common Open Space Exhibit(date: 9/9/2021)
' � —a+ V' n� �r—R+—�w— - .nRYN k+ M� V� nNrN�n, .n- •.�. —...
W k1Gl16fRN�D .•
ISM _ �IEklk ulBoll r'v _ - li —
I
II I rj CG C C @ c � � ® C C«I C� Cw C � '� � 0U C 9CO)
k s glkkml W u mll.fnl Ilk u:
Q @ 1 WLVE Ntl5E 4T
woulrruks 9 @ elntlli _ 1• r Q 0� 9 Q 9 0_ Q
!a C+ r"
DWIXwMa
/I4 ,
•I I �� � � � k'� � O lfllYi � V � V i_J V:' � � YJ V L' V � 5 6 r � � 'til
FlUM 1REF LYIk ■r
l FwtlA TIEE IAIkF -[' S
C.}
csrx w uhnA�—
guar urek.� —�
a7'
LEGEND�� Yra.�RW dCl-0F
_ nN6
I�1�
PARKWAY (OUAUFIE6 OPEN SPACE)
COMMON LOT (QUAUFIEO OPEN SPACE)
COMMON LOT (NOT SuIAURE❑ OPEN SPACE)
Page 15
Item 5. 85
G. Common Drive Exhibits
•L W N � r
R R
EA, REaR + EAR I —1 FREAR L �
Iw N I� I N IN Ire T V IN l IN V 1 L A V
v n v o P.n 6 n !n
0 m 8LOC101 m� rn � m m �, b. I.�-.5• P.�5• S.�.J
•` �5 y T 5T
12
Ing
" �ARAOE r N GARRGE ��c^` + BLpCR 1
o� FRQN—TI
Nut
20 COMMON' L. 4 KENNEDY W kENNEDY LN COMMON L c5m q;
11 sD'—�I O DRIVE
." 1.1—SIDE J DRIVE O ` 3. � ils L L sTDE J
_ DRIVEWAY FOR LOT 8 pklvEWar FOR LOT
12 BLOCK 1 TO RE
SIDE �'� BLOCK 1 TO THE
LCCATEP ON THE 10 SIDE
_LOCATED ON lHE ppPp51}E SIRE OF
OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE SHARED
•af f THE SHARED WMMOn 1
+ � DRIVE PROPERTY LINE COMMON DRIVE
77
I PROPERTY LINE
20, 1
I 'r' 20' -I' � LOT g IS A LfiT 15 IS A 4 10' SIDE
L SIDE 1D NON-301LDABLE NON-R❑ILOARLE COMMON �+
I ] l COM4AON LOT WITH A Lpr WITH A BLANKET
BLANKET INGRESS/-R—
N g
a IGRESS/EGRESS EASEMENT IN FAVOR OF
3 EOSEMENT IN FAVOR OF LOTS 13i 14 AN 1fi,
„r LOTS 5,7 AN
8, BD 1 DRIVEWAY FOR LOT 17
BLOCK} BLOCK I TO 8E LQC 7ED RM-DINO
04 THE QPHO$ITE SIDE ENVELOPE,
OF THE 5HARED COMMON TYPICAL
BOILDINP ErWELQM ORNEWAT FOR LOT 4 PRIME PROPERTY uNE
TYPICAL 9LOCK I TO BE LOCATED
ON THE OPPOSITE 510E
OF THE SHARD]COMMON
DRIVE PROPERTY LINE
LOTS 4-9,BLOCK 1 LCIT512-17 BLOCK 1 i C
C 40 8G 12Q D 4O BO 120
Plan 5-1,_1"=40' P'ian Scale=l"=40'
N r Y
REAR rREAR T REAR�� fREAR + I—KEIVR + EAR
I i r T
M M Irn M 4 m
g• 5' � 5' S'�
33LOCR1 � _ dye 6LOCK1 � f
L
AAGE
FROMY f
w LRPNT
16— COMMON (GENNE➢YLN KENNEDY LN m10,
COMMON tD'
s C I J DRIVE 'T1- W, DRIVE O `_�_s1Ds
DRIVEWAY F9fl LOT 44
OLOCK 1 TO BE DRIVEWAY FOR LOT 47
SIDE ��yJ ' LOCATED ON THE QLOGK i Tp HE L9GATEP C'-d SZOE A�
12� gg7 OPPOSITE 51OE OF ON THE OPPOSITE 510E CC'x h
THE SHARED COMMON OF THE SHARED DDMMON
J DRIVE PROPFRIY LINE DRIVE PROPHUY LINE 1�
20' i12.
LOT 41 IS A
10, E NON-BOILG I_E COMMON LOT 50 IS A
�." LOT WITH A BLANKET NON-BUILDABLE COMMON -
NGRE55/EGRESS LOT WITH A BLANKET 20'
EASEMENT IN FAVOR OF INGRESS/EDRE5S EASEMENT 1L
LOTS Q.42 AND 43, IN FAVOR OF LOTS 45,49 SIDE
1 -' —
° W BLOCK I A.N7 51,BLOCN 1 .. +.
o DRIVEWAY FOR LOT 79 DRIVEWAY FOR LOT 51 �^ '
n BLOCK I TO BE LOCATED BLACK I TO BE LOCATED o
ON THE OPPOSITE S1DE ON THE ORPGSITE SIDE OF 11
TYPICAL.
ENVELOPE_ THE SFWRED COMMCN
'TYPICAL. m OF THE SHARED COMMON p
QRNE PROPERTY LINE DRIVE
PROPERTY uNE QQIIAI NG EM1NELAPE,
— TYPICAL.
LOTS 39-44 BLOCK 1 LOTS 47-52 BLOCK 1
4❑ 80 I2D ❑ 40 80 12O
Plan Scale:L"=4❑' PFan Scale:Y"=40'
Page 16
LOT 29 15 A NON-BUILDABLE BLOCK 2 TO BE LOCATED
COMMON LOT WITH A BLANKET ON THE OPPOSTIE 510E OF 86
INGRESS/EGRESS EASEMENT THE SHADED COMMCKJ
IN FAVOR OF LOTS 26. 27 DRIVE PROPERTY LINE
+ , AND 2B, BLOCK 2 Q -
wJa Y y
` 5' DRIVEWAY FOR LOT O0 M SIDE
I �_4 REAR BLOCK 2 1p BE LOCATED �Mi, :f20•O� 1 ON THE OPPOSITE 51DE OFTHE ON
SI.00K2 Np w DRNE RED PAROPERTYMLIINE ' 11 �12'
12 L Q
q GARAGE
L 1 FRONT A 51
Tn I I
•� � SIDE _ � r
Y
SItlE 4 �— — oo SUN DAY LOOP
10,
v <2� �4f I F f•1 ICE t�•� _
0 0 - 4iAM� 4 O �' 26 �1p'
z �OI,Ir _ - F
3
L SIDE a
m❑ m❑ LIm 51aE J
. ? In�
" _ + SIPE 2p. SUNI]AY LOOP
•� ^,12 f o�fl DRIVEWAY FOR LOT 7
_ IZCK 2 TO RE
SIDE ��n BLOCK2 w'
_ _ ]`! LOCATED ON THE O 8 '��g� 2 iq
'• ,� OPP051TE ROE OF Pi `;1 L J
Z THE$HARED COMMON n Sf
DRIVE PROPERTY UNE _
`13UILp ING ENVELOPE. LOT n INON sBUILOABLE GOMMON `IF---_�— J 519E
TYPICAL. p _LOT WITH A BLANKET40'
DRVEWAY FOR LOT 3 INGRESVEGRE55 EASEMEM
BLOCK 2 TO IRE LOCATED IN FAVOR OF LOTS 4 AND + �
ON THE 0 FOSRE SIDE 5, BLOCK 2
OF THE SHARED COMMON
DRIVE PROPERTY UNE -: v r C�
N GRAND LAKES WAY W 4
BUILDING ENVELOPE- m `
TYPICAL- ' •.
LOTS 3-7,BLOCK 2 �n LOTS 25-30, BLOCK 2
0 40 so 120 40 s0 120
Plait Scale 1"=40' Pl-Sale:1"=40'
3 COMMON➢RIVE PROPERTY LINE
c
LOT 14 IS A NON-BUILDABLE
¢ GOtlMDk LOT WITH A LOT 22 IS A NON-BUILDABLE
Pd BLANKET INGPi65lEGRESS COMMON LOT WITH A Q
EASEMENT IN FAVOR OF LOTS BLANKET INCF?=JEGRESS
13 AND 15, BLOCK 6 EASEMENT IN FAVOR OF LOTS 2
PT!ANfl 2$, BLOCK B
DRIVEWAY FOR LOT 1fi DRIVEWAY FUR LOT iB
OLOCK 6 TO OE LOCATED 6L.00K 6 TO RE LOCATED r —
SO' ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE ON THE DPPOSITE 51DE - 2D: TSIOE ,yi
pF THE SHARER COMMON OF THE SHARED CD41bFDN
I� DRIVE PROPERTi LIRE DRIVE PROPERT LINE _ _ 12,
SIDDA — — �,� Q HAYFIE LDST FIAYFI E LD ST SIPE
_ _
_ 20'
12 10' rn 2 ANT _ - - FROM 1p'
GARAGE GARAG C-m I
co uo I'1 0
p I =1 la Nr Nr z A
LIB _ 1
IDE
SIPtl —FIR 16 a FRONT _ — SIDE
ONT
STOCK 6hAoarF 6 a c _ JGARgGE 6LOCK 6 -
o
�r 12
12' 15
l �5
— — s� �5, I�
L SIDE RERR — y SIUE
Y Y t
LOTS 12-16, BLOCK 6 LOTS 19-23,BLOCK 6
0 40 so 120 - 40 S° 126
Plan Scale:l"=43, Pl..S,a I,r=4D'
Page 17 —
Item 5. F87
Ovii-DNG ENYELDPE, PRIVEWAY FOR LOT�9$LOCK BUILDING ENVELOPE.
TYPICAL 6 TO BE LOCATED ON THE TYPICAL
CPPO ITE SIDE OF THE SHARED
COMMON PRIVE PROPERTY LINE
c LOi 30 IS A NON-941LpRBLE
❑ COMMON LOT WITH A
BLANKET INGRESS/ECRESS
m EASEMENT IN FAVOR OF LOTS
29 AND 31,BLMK 6
_ DRIVEWAY FOR LOT 32
BLOCK 6 TO RE LOCATED
1p' ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE d r' _ •n_ W y y w
°1 �� OF THE SHARED COMMON �2•� SIDE _`-
12'� 2g 1 DRIVE PROPERTY LINE /
RFPit�
HAVP]ELQ ST ]9
�12' tea'
SIDE 'T Zoe 130 LL � GARAGE n _ I 5
FRONT
12 `-' C 3RACE - SICE IO' n a
gg w Fy c a GARAGE
,FRONT
0
g ° _ -i
SIDE ZD
FRONT I + SIDE FARM TREE NE
n BLOCK E GARAGE _ I _
SInEDRIVEW
tll BLOCK
FOR OT 1A
JJ ON THE
$Yp BE SIDE
ON THE OPPOSSHARED E SIDE
"' ^I �` `TII BIZ 22 pF THE SHARED C4UMPN
L LR DRIVE PROPERTY UNE
20
516E $ N REAR
L — — E=11'E 10 CO 26 IS A NON-HPILORR LE
.. - ODMMOk LOT WITH A
_ y;yj T^a _ q�_�B3 S • + BLANKETINGRESS/EGRESS
EASEMENT IN FAVOR OF LOTS
19 AND 21.BLOCK B
4 PkIVE a FOR LOT 22
K
a ON THE
$TO BE LOOATEP
ON THE OPP04TE SIDE OF
'� THE SHARED COMMON
2 DRIVE PROPERTY HNE
2
n *.
LOTS 28-32,BLOCK 6 { l LdT518-22,BLOCKS =
Io as Bo _D
PI—SIEW-1"=40' `LY Plan Scale I" 4U'
"IVEWAY FOR LOT 9 BLOCK
10 TO BE LOCATED ON THE
OPPCSTTE SIDE OF THE SHARED
LOT 12 IS A NON-PUILDARLE BUILDING ENVELOPE, COMMON DRIVE PROPERTY LINE
COMMON LOT WITH A G TYPICAL.
BLANKET INGRESS/EGRESS �? LOT 12 IS A NON-BUILDABLE
EASEMENT IN FAVOR OF LOTS r-
T 1 AND 13, BLOCK 9 COMMON LOT WITH A ,n T
- BLANKET INGRESS/EGRESS - SIDE
IN FAVOR OF LOTS EASEMENT
DRIVEWAY FOR LOT,A 1O AND 1l, BLOCK 7O -, 1. 10'
BLOCK 9 TO RE LOCATED +
ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF
THE SHARED MON DRIV COM ` EWAY FOR LOT 1-3 s 1 1 � '�12,
DINE PRORElll LINE :O ' - BLOCK 10 TO BE LOCATED $
ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE
OF THE SHARED COMMON yI
COMMON � 2O' BIllE DRIVE PROPEFEY LINE f, 'J, I.E
DRIVE
DAVEYSTZ " r
QAYEY ST � / f4�slue
10,
�I� 26'
FIZOR7� GTx" ry 6LOCK9 .,1 DNRI.. 17
o fGARA,+III 12 8 RA �}1
_ 5'IUE 1
B
5. 9 — —
��SI
rFRONT DE �I
GARAGE BLOCI.Z IO
m a o
I ( 11 Im
(REAR
N N
SIDE .. J
o-
LOTS 11-14,BLOCK 9 LOTS 9-13,BLOCK 10
❑ 4O d0 120 0 40 80 120
P an SEaie�1'=40' Plan Scdle=1"=40' _
Page 18
F88
H. Conceptual Elevations
Val
■
LY �
d a ---mow • !M4 I�
NOW
Ju
Qw
Page 19
� m
, 1 ei
Page 20
op
I ` El
� I
VNfIIllF' pp
.
-
t. .' ;.
-------
� �A '•'` •"• -� .:�fi�.F;.a;�,.>.,-.� .Sri _ � �'.
i
a � C
Page 21
� F9-11
-L WIN
soon is IS
H. Clubhouse Elevation
nWL
i
= F
■ ". .
Item 5. F
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 VI and the provisions contained
herein.
b. The rear and/or sides of 2-story structures that face N.Black Cat Rd. ,W.
McMillian Rd and N. Grand Lakes Wy 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.
c. Required frontage improvements along N. Black Cat Rd and W.McMillian Rd
including pathways, detached sidewalk,landscape buffers and left turn lane
shall be constructed with the first phase of development.
2. The Preliminary Plat included in Section VI, dated 9/9/21, is approved with the following
revisions:
a. All utility easements reflected on the utility plan shall be included on the plat.
b. All pathways and micropathways shall be within a separate common lot or easement as
required per UDC 11-3A-8.
3. Prior to final plat,the Landscape Plan included in Section VI, dated 9/9//21, shall be revised
to reflect the red-marked pathway connections as illustrated in Exhibit D.
4. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy/signature on the final plat by the City Engineer,
the applicant shall submit a public access easement for the multi-use pathway along W.
McMillian Rd and N. Grand Lakes Wy. to the Planning Division for approval by City
Council and subsequent recordation.
5. 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.
6. The existing residences being retained will be required to abandon well and septic systems
and connect to City water and sewer with development of the property.
Page 23
Item 5. 93
7. The applicant shall comply with all provisions of 11-3A-3 with regard to access to streets.
8. 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 11-3B-13.
9. The ditches to the west, south and north shall comply with the provisions for irrigation
ditches, laterals, canals and/or drainage courses, as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6.
10. 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 11-3B-12C.
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 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. All common driveways shall meet the requirements of 11-6C-2-D including a perpetual
ingress/egress easement being filed with the Ada County Recorder,which shall include a
requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and
equipment.
14. 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.
15. The Applicant shall comply with all conditions of ACHD.
B. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Site Specific Conditions of Approval
1. Sewer mains should not be run in common driveways or out of Right-of-Way to serve
building lots. Mains should be constructed in Right-of-Way and service lines extended within
common drives or through Right-of-Way to serve each lot.
2. Sheet PP2.3 shows a sewer main being extended through a common lot and part of a
residential building lot. Sewer mains should not be extended through these areas.Reconfigure
so sewer mains are located in Right-of-Way.
3. Angle of pipe going into/out of manholes,in the direction of flow,need to be a minimum of
90 degrees. The manhole at the intersection of Doctor Brunn Lane and Cattleman Way
currently does not meet this requirement.
4. Sewer service lines should not run through infiltration trenches.
5. Water mains should not be run in common driveways to serve building lots. Mains should be
constructed in Right-of-Way and service lines extended within common drives or through
Right-of-Way to serve each lot.
6. Water main sizes are not listed on the plans. The water main in North Grand Lakes Way
should be 12" diameter.
7. Remove water main in Sunday Loop(alley). Place water mains in the Right-of-Way and run
service lines to each house in the alley.
Page 24
Item 5. 94
8. Each phase will need to have water modeling completed to verify minimum pressure is met
for each phase.
General Conditions of Approval
1. Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works
Department,and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to
provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three
feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall
be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard
Specifications.
2. Per Meridian City Code(MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water
mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement
agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5.
3. The applicant shall provide easement(s)for all public water/sewer mains outside of public
right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet
wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via
the plat,but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard
forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit
an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works), a legal description
prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,which must include the area of
the easement(marked EXHIBIT A)and an 81/2"x 11"map with bearings and distances
(marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a
Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this
document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to development
plan approval.
4. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round
source of water(MCC 9-1-28.C). The applicant should be required to use any existing
surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a
single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point
connection is utilized,the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for
the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval.
5. All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final
plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to
evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC.
6. All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting,
crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed
per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-
1207 and any other applicable law or regulation.
7. Any wells that will not continue to be used must be properly abandoned according to Idaho
Well Construction Standards Rules administered by the Idaho Department of Water
Resources. The Developer's Engineer shall provide a statement addressing whether there are
Page 25
Item 5. 95
any existing wells in the development, and if so,how they will continue to be used,or
provide record of their abandonment.
8. Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City
Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment
procedures and inspections(208)375-5211.
9. Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and
activated,road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this
subdivision shall be recorded,prior to applying for building permits.
10. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all uncompleted
fencing,landscaping,amenities,etc.,prior to signature on the final plat.
11. All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to
occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a
performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the
final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B.
12. Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction
inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process,prior to the issuance of a plan
approval letter.
13. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply
with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act.
14. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404
Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers.
15. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office.
16. 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.
17. The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a
minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to
ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan
requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A
Page 26
Item 5. 96
copy of the standards can be found at
http://www.meridianciU.or"lublic_works.aspx?id=272.
21. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the
amount of 125%of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer,water and reuse
infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost
estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an
irrevocable letter of credit,cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,
which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact
Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211.
22. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount
of 20%of the total construction cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse infrastructure
for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by
the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit,
cash deposit or bond.Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the
Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service
for more information at 887-2211.
C. MERIDIAN FIRE DEPARTMENT
https://weblink.meridianciU.oL-glWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=239381&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
fty
D. MERIDIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT
https://weblink.meridiancily.or /WebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=239381&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
E. SETTLLERS IRRIGATION
https://weblink.meridiancily.or /WebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=239143&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
F. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT
https://weblink.meridiancily.org/WebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=240462&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
hty
G. COMPASS
https://weblink.meridiancily.org/WebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=240472&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
H. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
https://weblink.meridiancily.org/WebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=239400&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
iv
Page 27
Item 5. F
7
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;
Staff finds annexation of the subject site with an R-8 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;
Staff finds the lot sizes and layout proposed will be consistent with the purpose statement of the
residential districts in that 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. Staff recommends the Commission 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
Staff finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not result in any adverse impact upon the
delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services to this site.
5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city
Stafffinds 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 11-6B-6)
In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat,the
decision-making body shall make the following findings: (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-
2005)
1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified
development code; (Ord. 08-1372, 7-8-2008, eff. 7-8-2008)
Staff finds the proposed plat is generally in conformance with the UDC if the Applicant
complies with the conditions of approval in Section VII.
Page 28
Item 5. 98
2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the
proposed development;
Staff finds public services can be made available to the subject property and will be adequate
to accommodate the proposed development.
3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the city's
capital improvement program;
Staff finds the proposed plat is in substantial conformance with scheduled public
improvements in accord with the City's CIR
4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development;
Staff 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
Staff 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)
There are several laterals along the property that will be piped, but are not natural features.
According to the landscape plan, there are no healthy trees onsite meeting the requirements
for preservation.
Page 29
E IDIAN;---
Applicant Presentation
Jamestown RanchPlanning and Zoning Commission Annexation, Zoning and Preliminary Plat
Project Location & Information
Future Land Use Map LDRC-MXNR-MXMDRMDRMDRMDRJamestown Ranch
Zoning Map 8 Zoning-RJamestown Ranch3-R
Preliminary Plat
Access and Connectivity
Phasing Plan PHASE 2PHASE 1
Community Integration
Open Space and Site Amenities
Single Family ResidentialTypical Home Elevations (Traditional)
Single Family ResidentialTypical Home Elevations (Contemporary)
Single Family ResidentialTypical Home Elevations (Farmhouse)
Age RestrictedTypical Home Elevations
Conclusion
C E IDIAN�--
Public Presentation(s)
5
November 18, 2021
To : Meridian Mayor, City Council, Planning and Zoning
RE: Jamestown Ranch Subdivision, W2021-0074/MPP21-0019
From : Mike and Rachelle Watts, 4376 W McMillan Rd, Meridian, ID 83646 y rr� n Corn
We are asking for consideration regarding the location ofthe collector street, shown as N Grand Lakes
Way on the preliminary plat map for Jamestown Ranch Subdivision, which will enter/exit McMillan Rd .
When the Quartet Subdivision development to the south of this property was under review, Joy St was
to become a designated collector roadway which would connect to the existing N Joy St on the north
sideof McMillan once the James property was developed . The Jamestown development has offset the
collector street further west so it does not connect with N JoyStonthe north sideof McMillan . This is
not compliant with the MasterStreet Map guidelines forcollector streets .
The Community Development Dept staff report states on page 8, "This offset occurs because there are
existing utility poles obstructing the ACHD- preferred alignment with N Joy St". Attached are photos
showing the location of the one powerpole located on the James property. Exhibits A and Bare looking
north, exhibits C and D looking south . This pole would be close to the edge of the street should Joy
Streets be connected . However, we believe there is sufficient space forthe street between the pole and
the retained property. There are multiple examples of new construction working around the steel poles
along McMillan Rd .
In addition, within the public records, there are two separate emails that state "the property owner
wants to retain his existing residence " . Please note this is not the owner's residence as it has been
unoccupied since his late father's passing in August of 2020. Mr James continues to live in Cambridge ,
Idaho . Whether he or one of his children move into the home or sell it in the future, if Joy St continued
as the collector street from the Quartet Subdivision to connect with N Joy St at McMillan , it would be
located along the west side of the retained property. We believe the ownerdoes not preferthis
location of the street and this is the main reason for requesting the offset.
The proposed collector street will enter/exit McMillan Rd directly in front of our home which is located
on the north side of McMillan . The developer is required to construct a west bound turn lane at this
intersection which is nearour driveway . This is a major safety concern for us based on the numberof
vehicles entering/exitingthe sole connection to McMillan . In addition , our well is on the south
boundaryof our property along McMillan Rd . Attached are photos of our home showing our driveway
and the location of the proposed collector street. Exhibit E looking north, exhibit F looking south . For
perspective , exhibit G shows the James property looking north with N Joy St on the east and the
proposed collector street on the west.
There are close multiple developments to the north of McMillan Rd that have either been developed,
are approved for development, or proposed for development . These include Summerwood Estates at
the Daphne St/N Joy St intersection which tied into Bridgetower West and is almost complete, Daphne
Square, Brody Square, and Pera Place . The owner ofthe acreage that abuts N Joy St on the east and
Bridgetower Weston the west contacted neighbors last year regarding proposed Pickle ball Court
_ j R
xr
ra
70
3 #•
a op
i • � - w
MAE
Ali
- p) z
OL
Ale
moo.
lift
a WTI
ww
_ -
- - - .
-
_It
op
£Cold
t At
MOP
.1�� sFs i a • � - z
- I
b'
a a
Awl
O
p *8 lue
z
*
y
i
it �� IF
i
JeUeO dLLIII
i
11
I
i
r[JI
I
I
I 1
JrIII 1
1A
f y � i
E ! -
r � �
i a .t.
1 �
do
if
1
F
•
f -
Item 6. 99
E IDIAN*-----,
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for UDC Text Amendment - Collector Street Setbacks in
Residential Districts and Landscape Buffers Along Streets (ZOA-2021-0003) by Brighton
Development, Inc.
A. Request: Request to Amend the text of the City's Unified Development Code (UDC) pertaining
to the Dimensional Standards for the Residential Districts in Chapter 2 and Landscape Buffer
along Streets Standards in Chapter 3.
Item 6. 1 00
(:�N-WE IDIAN
IDAHO
PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION
Staff Contact:Bill Parsons Meeting Date: November 18, 2021
Topic: Public Hearing for UDC Text Amendment- Collector Street Setbacks in Residential
Districts and Landscape Buffers Along Streets (ZOA-2021-0003) by Brighton
Development, Inc.
A. Request: Request to Amend the text of the City's Unified Development Code
(UDC) pertaining to the Dimensional Standards for the Residential Districts in
Chapter 2 and Landscape Buffer along Streets Standards in Chapter 3.
Information Resources:
Click Here for Application Materials
Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing
Item 6. ■
STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY
N --
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HEARING 11/18/2021 44
DATE: 0
TO: Planning&Zoning Commission 16 26 55
FROM: Bill Parsons, Current Planning
Supervisor --Ti
208-884-5533
SUBJECT: ZOA-2021-0003 —
2021 UDC Text Amendment— Legend �.
Collector Street Setbacks in Residential .AOCI
Districts and Landscape Buffer along
Streets County — 69
Line
LOCATION: City wide Future
Road
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Request to amend the text of the City's Unified Development Code(UDC)pertaining to the
Dimensional Standards for the Residential Districts in Chapter 2 and Landscape Buffer along Streets
Standards in Chapter 3.
II. APPLICANT INFORMATION
A. Applicant:
Brighton Development Inc.
2929 W.Navigator, Suite 400
Meridian,ID 83642
Page 1
Item 6. F102
III. NOTICING
Planning& Zoning City Council
Posting Date Posting Date
Notification published in
newspaper
11/2/2021
Public Service Announcement 10/28/2021
Nextdoor posting 10/28/2021
IV. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS (Comprehensive Plan)
A. Comprehensive Plan Text(https:llwww.meridianciU.or/p lan):
3.01.01B -Update the Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code as needed to
accommodate the community's needs and growth trends.
Over the last year, the City has seen an increase in the number of residential units that have collector
street frontage. Typically, homes are designed with the rear yards oriented towards a 20 foot wide
common lot. There has been an increase with the front doors of the homes oriented towards the
collector street with on-street parking and alley access. City code conflicts with this traditional
neighborhood design making it impractical to do given the parameters of the setback and landscape
buffer requirements. Therefore, the applicant has consulted with City staff to propose the UDC text
amendment to allow more of this type of development throughout the City.
V. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ANALYSIS (UDC)
As noted by the applicant, strict adherence to the Unified Development Code(UDC)can result in
unanticipated constraints,particularly when traditional neighborhood elements are integrated into a
conventional development. Typically, direct vehicular access to residential lots on collector streets is
discouraged and prohibited by code. However,ACHD does have livable street designs for residential
collectors and residential collectors for traditional neighborhoods. The template depicts both front
and rear lot vehicular access,pedestrian buffers and on-street parking.
UDC Setback Standards
The City's UDC Dimensional Standards Tables for residential zoning districts,R-2 through R-40,
require collector street setbacks of 25 feet for lots with front-loaded garages. The R-4 and R-8
zoning districts also specify a 25-foot street setback for"living area and/or side loaded garage." This
dimensional requirement is reduced to 20 feet"to living area" in R-15 and R-40 zones. By contrast,
the TN-R(Traditional Neighborhood Residential)zoning district's front setback minimum is 8 feet
for"alley-accessed"properties without a reference to street classification.
UDC Landscape Buffers
A 20-foot wide street landscape buffer is required along all collector streets which include a 5-foot
wide detached sidewalk; measured from the back of curb in the R-2 through R-40 zoning districts.
Further,UDC I I-3B-7C.2a requires residential buffers to be located within a common lot. With the
inclusion of the common lot,ACHD no longer recognizes the lot as having the required street
frontage and requires a minor local street to be constructed in lieu of a public alley. To achieve what
is being proposed with the subject UDC text amendment, an applicant would need to seek alternative
compliance approval to either reduce the buffer or place the landscape buffer in an easement rather
than a common lot.
Page 2
Item 6. F103
The purpose of the common lot is to establish the maintenance of the landscape buffer by a
homeowner's association. The applicant has indicated if the landscape buffer is depicted as an
easement as proposed,planting materials will be installed by the homebuilder and will be maintained
by the individual home owners as required in the recorded CC&R's.
PROPOSED UDC AMENDMENTS
Collector Street Setback Reduction
Modification of Dimensional Standards Table Note I in each of the Residential Zoning Districts R-
2,R-4,R-8,R-15 and R-40 will allow reduced setbacks for alley or rear-loaded lots,if the required
20-foot collector landscape easement is provided and the dwelling's street setback is not less than 10
feet from back of sidewalk.
Landscape Buffers Along Streets
As noted above,UDC Section 11-3B-7C.2a requires "all residential subdivision street buffers"to be
in a common lot maintained by a HOA. This is a problem for alley or rear-loaded lots regardless of
zoning district or street classification. Thus, amendment of Section 11-3B-7C.2a, OR striking that
section and mending Section 11-3B-7C.2b. Staff recommends that both sections be amended as
stated below so it is clear when a common lot is or isn't required.
For illustrative purposes the applicant has provided an exhibit the demonstrates how the proposed
code changes would be implemented.As shown,the graphic depicts an 8-foot wide parkway, 5-foot
wide detached sidewalk and a I0-foot building setback, measured from the back of sidewalk. The
proposed text change establishes a minimum setback(23') and specifies parameters in order for a
project to take advantage of the reduced street setback.
In summary, staff believes the proposed changes removes ambiguity from the code,aligns with
ACHD livable street design guides and eliminates the additional need to process alternative
compliance to allow for an alternate design.
VI. DECISION
A. Staff:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed text amendment to the UDC based on the analysis provided
in Section V, modifications presented in Exhibits below and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law in Section VIII.
B. Commission:
Enter Summary of Commission Decision.
C. City Council:
Enter Summary of City Council Decision.
Page 3
Item 6. F104
VII. EXHIBITS
CITY OF MERIDIAN UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT
STREETS ETBACK FOR RESIDENTIAL UNITS ABUTTING COLLECTOR STREETS
PROPOSED AMENDMENT; 11-2A-4,—Low-density residential district(R-2)
dimensional standards for development in the R-2 residential district shall be as follows:
TABLE 11-2A-4-DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR THE R-2 DISTRICT
R-2 Standard Requirement
Minimum property siaefdwelling unit(in squan=feet} 12PM
Minimum street frontage(in feet) 80
Rear setha&(in feet) 15
Interiorside setback(in feet) 7.5fstaffy
Street setback 1(in feet):
Local 20
Collector 25
Street landscape buffer (in feet):
Collector 20
Anwial 25
Entryway corridffr 35
I nters#ate 50
Maximum building height(n feet) 35
Minimum living area(in squarELfeet) 1,500
M ini m u m ground floor area far multi-sorry units(in square feet) 80D
Notes: 1_Measured from back of sidewalk or property line where there is no adjacent sidewalk.A
reduction of the street setback shall be 0ranted for homes that front on a collecto r street with
on street park ing and garage access from an alley,common drive or local street,if the req uired
twenty400t(20')landscape buffer easement from back of curb is provided and the dwelling
setback is not less than ten feet(17)from the back of sidewalk.
2.A reduction to the width of the buffer may be requester as set forth in subsection 11-36 7.C_1.c of this
title.
1
Page 4
Item 6. 105
dimensional standards for development in the RA residential district shall be as follows:
TABLE 11-2A-45—DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FORTf-IE RA DISTRICT
R-4 Standard Requirement
Minimum propertysiWdwellingunit jin square feet) spw
Minimum street frontage(in feet) 60
Rear setback(in feet) 15
Interior side sethadc(in feet) 5
Street setback 1 to front loaded garage[in feet):
Local 20
Collector 25
Street setback Ito Wmg area and/or side loaded garage(in feet]:
Local 15
Collemr 25
street landscape buffer 2(in feet♦:
Collector 20
Arterial 25
Entryway corridor 35
Interstate 50
Maximum building height(in feet) 35
Minimum tiring area[in squarefeetE:
Detached 1AM
Attached 900
M inimum grc nd floor area for multi-s4ary units(in square feet) 900 I
Noes: 1.Measured from back of sidewa Ik or property line where there is no adjacent sidewal k.A
reduction of the street se-tback shall be granted for hames that front on a collecwrstreet Wth
an street park inq and paraiae access from an alley,camman drive or lc-al street,if the requ ired
twentyfioot(20')landscape buffer easement from back of curb is provided and the dwell ing
setback is not less than Len feet(10')from the hack of sidewalk-
s.A reduction to the width of the buffer may be requested as set forth in subsection 11B-7.C.1.c of this tide-
2
Page 5
Item 6. 106
PROPOSED AMENDMENT: 11-2A-6.—Medium-density residential district(R-8)
dimensional standards for development in the R�13 Residential District shall be as follows:
TABLE 11-24�—DIME NSIONAL STAN DARES FORTH E R-B DISTRICT
R-6=rkdard Requirement
minimum property size/dwel ling unit(in square feet) dpw
Minimum street frontage(in feet) 40
with alley loaded garage,side ent,ygarage,or private rnew Iota 32
Street setback'to ga rage;in feet):
Local 20
Collector 25
Alley 5
street setback 1 to living area andforside loaded garage(in feet):
Local 10
Collector 25
Alley 5
1 nterior side setback(n feet) 5
Rear setback(in feet) 12
Street landscape buffer'{n feet):
Collector 20
Arterial 25
Entryway rorrid6r 35
Interstate 50
Maximum building height*feet) 35
Notes: 1-Measured from back of sidewalk or property line where there is no adjacent sidewal k.A
reduction of the street setback shall be granted far hannes thatfront on a colledmrstreet with
on street parking and garage access from an alley,carman drive or local street,if the required
twenty-foot{20')land mape buffer easement from back of curb is provided and the dwelling
setback is not less than ten feet(10')from the back of sidewalk-
2.A neduation to-the w,dtn of the buffer may be requestec as set forth in subse lion 1 1-3B-7.C-1.c of this
lisle.
3
Page 6
Item 6. 107
PROPOSED AMENDMENT: 11-2A-7.—Medium high-density residential distric•t(R-761
Dimensional standards for development in the R-15 Residential district shall be as follows:
TABLE 11-2A-7—DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR THE R-15 DISTRICT
R-15 Standard Requirement
Minimum property sae dwelling unit din square feet) 2,D00
Minimum street frontage{in feet) 0
Street setback itv garage(n feet):
Local 20
Collector 25
Alley 5
Street setback t to living area(in feet):
Local 10
Collector 20
Alley 5
Interior sidle setback(in feet) 3
Rear setback(in feet 12
Street landscape buffer}(n feet):
Collector 20
Arterial 25
Entryway corridor 35
Interstate Sd
Maximum building height(n fL-et) 40
No"e5: '. Measured from back of sidewalk or property line where there is no adjacent sidewalk.A
reduction of the street setback shall be jlranted for harnes thatfront on a collectorstreet with
an street parking and garage access from an alley,ccrnman drive or local street,if the required
twentyfv3t(20')landscape buffer easement from back of curb is pravfded and the dwelling
setback is not less than ten feet(10')frarn the back of sidewalk-
s.A%ew coon to-the width of the buffer may he requestec as set forth n sabsec G&n 11-3B-7.C-1.c of this
title.
4
Page 7
Item 6. 108
PROPOSED AMENDMENT: 11-2A-8,—High-density residential district JR-40],
Dimensional standards for development in the R-40 residential district shall be as follows:
7AOLE 11-2A-8—DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR THE R-40 DISTRICT
R44Standard Requirement
Minimum property sae{dwelling unit lin square feet) 1,Odd
Minimum street f untage{in feet] a
Rear sethark(in feet) 12
Interiiorside seibark{in feet] 3
Street setback to garage(in feet):
Local 20
C,Dlle€tor 25
Alley 5
Street setback i to living area(in feet):
Local 1�
Colle€ter 2�
Alley 5
Street landsciape buffer 2(n feet):
GnlIe€tor 20
Arterial 25
Entryway cmrridor 35
Interstate 50
Maximum building height(in feet) 160
Notes: 1. Measured from back of sidewalk or property line where there is no adjacent sidewalk.A
reduction of the street setback shall be i1ranted for homes thatfront on a collectorstreet with
on street parking and jara%e access from an alley,common drive or local street,ifthe required
twentyfoot(20')landscape buffer easement from back of curb is provided and the dwelling
setback is not less than ten feet(10')from the back of sidewalk-
s.A reduction to-the width of the buffer may be requested as set forth in 5thsection 11.3B-7.C-1.c of this
title.
5
Page 8
Item 6. 1 o9
Modify UDC Section 11-3B-7C.2a:
2a_ 'All residential subdheision street buffers located at the rear lot line of abutting lots shall be on a
common lot,maintained by a homeowners'association_"
OR
+ Strike 2a entirely wid modify Sec.tio�n 11-3B-7C.2b, as follows:
2b. "Al street landscap-e buffers sha I be on a
common lot or an a permanent aedicated t.uf er easement,maintained by the property owner
or business owner's assoriation.'
6
Page 9
Item 6. Fl-lo
o ALLEY ILOCAL 9TREETf COMM014 DRIVEWAY
OFF-STREU PROPERTY
PARKING LINE
I I SIDE SETBACK
VAR!ES
� i•
I� I
� 1 1
°df 1 A
� I I
" TePICdL
L9
o BUILDING
m I ENVELOPE I
1 I
PROPERTY
uNE
,• W
I:Eh.LK C
� PLANTER STRIP
i-�
PARKING LANE CURE
in BIKE LANE
TRAVEL LANE
------------------' ----------------
TYPIAL SETBACK CONFIGURATION FOR
ALLEY-OR REAR-LOADED LOTS
FRONTING,COLLECTOR STREETS
WITH ON-STREET PARKING 7
Page 10
Item 6. F-1111
VIII. FINDINGS
1. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS: (UDC 11-5B-3E)
Upon recommendation from the Commission, the Council shall make a full investigation
and shall, at the public hearing, review the application. In order to grant a text amendment
to the Unified Development Code,the Council shall make the following findings:
A.The text amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan;
Staff finds that the proposed UDC text amendment complies with the applicable provisions of
the Comprehensive Plan. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section IV, of
the Staff Report for more information.
B. The text amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and
welfare; and
Staff finds that the proposed zoning ordinance amendment will not be detrimental to the
public health,safety or welfare if the changes to the text of the UDC are approved as submitted.
It is the intent of the text amendment to further the health, safety and welfare of the public.
C. The text amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services
by any political subdivision providing public services within the City including, but not
limited to,school districts.
Staff finds that the proposed zoning ordinance amendment does not propose any
significant changes to how public utilities and services are provided to
developments. All City departments,public agencies and service providers that
currently review applications will continue to do so. Please refer to any written or
oral testimony provided by any public service provider(s)when making this finding.
Page 11
C E IDIAN�--
Public Presentation(s)
! it Ir Wrr�a•�sr�ai *.� aM�ms�r
loma�_
I + �IAll
,� .� �, ICI ,.., ■
ali �I.41
IL
F �_ �� �� ■
COLLECT
I
BUFFER
FROM
11 . 1
20' 209 COLLECTOR STREET
COLLECTOR LANDSCAPE BUFFER
LAN 'CAPE
EASEMENTS
W ..._ FROM
MMEA5UR
d
15 • �- - ~
+ - i�ir��S• li���ii� rl.--III. �i�®rI_I• ` Ir�e�CURB
No
r'� {1
IVAN
PINNACLE ft'TWEL — -------- -- ---
r--i�
(APEX)
t STREET DESIGN: RESIDFNTIAL COLLECTOR
K z � DesignlDperating Speed 25-30 mph
Number of Travel Lanes
...... (per diredian)
Travel Lane Pmensions 11'riext�o hike or n lanes and 14'
pa fag
preferred if no bike lanes LAst.
Center Turn LaneDimenslons centeriane not used
-��- - Right Turn Lanes Allowed for heavy tuming movements,or
_ * ---�
h eauy truck traffic
Medians none
Median Openings none
9icycle Lanes optional(S'if used);necessary if part of a
regional plan
- r a On-Street Pak ng optiona'„7'p aiall e I vyh en used(indudes
/` r ■ ° gutter pan vridth);when used,one or both
sides may be applied(as needed)
u / Curfi 6'with 1 S gutter pan
J Buffer Area 5'(see dear zone and buffer zone below);
- this dimension can accemmoda:e utilities
Sidewalk Y mi nim um Nee walkzone be ow)
Intersection Control signal.stop or roundaraour
_ lighting Standards veNcle/roadway only
•. off r �" �`
Y _ _ Pedestrian Zone
This is an illustrative legend m explain how the pedestrian lone h bra-
ken dvm:the colors do NOT indicate color-based surface treatments,
3' s• _ , Clear zone:2'
Buffer Zone:4'
he
47• aE Walk Zone:5'minimum recommended
9, 4nr,r X I _:
_` ° S "�" Frontage Zane-riot needed;utility placement
in Buffer Zone acceptable
TheFRONT LOADED LOTS cro�vpds-sec kfisd2 a ndenhantedpedeirig n rone rre mfunt t deplcred rn the
� cross-sectran3 depend arc{uturelimding arrdlutrrre mamter>ance by a derelaper
of locodjurisdiction_These costa are not borne byACr D..Street tines placed in srx
(0-1ootbuffef toombinedCfeor andblul`ferZ_nnes)requireront br:rrien,or,dtyf
cauntyfdevelapel can prov+de additionof two 42)feet of nght-of-corny—see ACHD
7reL Plaurk g Poiicy
2009 ADA COWTV ITIMWAY D=GT I LIVABLE STRUT DESIGN GUIDE
2
SOURCE - ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT LIVABLE STREET DESIGN GUIDE, SECTION 2.10
COLLECTOR2.11 STREET DESIGN: RESIDENTIAL •
-
f l DesdgnlpperatingSpeed 25-30mph �v
f I. 111 Number of Travel Lanes(per dkec .L
tion)
l ravel Lane D rnensians 11'nextt a hike yr parking Parties and 14'tT
-- - - there arc bike
bike and parking lanes
-- Center Turn Lane Dirrenslens center lane not Lied
Right Turn Lanes Not appropriate to context.can be used
q451 1W�� _ for heavy tummg movements but should
- f - not be needed based on surrounding
street network
` - Medians none t
Median Openings none
4 bicycle Lanes generally do not fit within existing eurb
y dimensions if parking is retained;5'ifpark-
ing is not used
I f _ On-Street Parking optional,85 parallel when used{includes
f gutrer pan w dth];when used,one x both
sides may he applied(as needed)
_ Curb 4'vertical with 1.5'guttei pan
Buffer Area vanes according to existing right of-way,f, a typically 4-5'ysee clear zone and buffer
ak f CP n t zone belowr];this dimension can accorn-
�y f v o _�� modate utilities
f,
f t Sidevalk Ynninimum 15ee walkzone below]
Intersection Control Signal,stop or roundabout
Lighting Standaids vehicir/roadway only
p 4� es f ff Pedestrian Zone
This h an ilustrative legend to explain how thepedestrian zone k bro-
"�t / __— ken doarn:the colors do RQTindicate color-based surfare treat ments-
w.�y+QI. Y'
S;-'6 .��„ _ 'a Cl ear zone:2'
The!an dscapingandenharxedpedestrr- nay rya,■; "' ' -.
an zone treotmentsdeptc red'in the uosr-sernor s Buffer Zone.2-4';range is specified to recog-
drpe.rcfon Furore f0ridut9 Grid futWe rnn;nren004rt+ayn devei- x nize pre-existing dimensions on some streets
operorfaroljurrsdictiora These casts ore not borne byACHl7 Street
treesplacedinawb)-foatbuffer(cam birwdCLur and Spifferlornes; 613` . Walk Zane 5'minimumrecommended
require maw rrie s; r tylcvun tyiderefvper can prude addrt ar al two REAR LOADED LOTS Y p
fzerofr t-Qf-wa _see ACHD Tree Planrin Pork. - s -- fronts Zone:riot lacement
f in Buffer Zone acceptable
3
SOURCE - ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT LIVABLE STREET DESIGN GUIDE, SECTION 2.11
ALLEY f LOCAL STREET 1 COMMON DRIVEWAY
OFF-STREET r PROPERTY
PARKING / LINE
I I I I
■ 1
/ 1
I I SIDE SETBACK
VARIES
/
N I I
� / 1
o I I
_ TYPICAL
BUILDING
m I ENVELOPE I
I I
/ 1
I I
/ 1
■ 1
PROPERTY
■ ■■ ■ ■■■■■■■■� LINE
—.� ---- -- -------T----------r
■ Ed
i -- _ -- -- ---- w�
y, SIDEWALK :f o
00 ' . PLANTER STRIP
is
n
PARKING LANE CURE
Tr, BIKE LANE
TRAVEL LANE
-----------------•�E -----------------
TYPICAL SETBACK CONFIGURATION FOR
ALLEY-OR REAR-LOADED LOTS
FRONTING COLLECTOR STREETS 4
WITH ON-STREET PARKING
PROPOSED AMENDMENT: 11-2A-6.—Medium-density residential district(R-8)
Dimensional standards for development in the R-8 Residential District shall be as follows-
TABLE 11-2A-6—DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR THE R-8 DISTRICT
R-8 Standard Requirement
Minimum property size/dwelling unit(in square feet) 4,000
Minimum street frontage(in feet) 40
With alley loaded garage,side entry garage,or private mew lots 32
Street setback'to garage(in feet):
Local 20
Collector 25 AMENDED
Alley 5
Street setback 1 to living area and/or side loaded garage(in feet): APPLIES TO
Local 10
collector 25
Alley 5 RESIDENTIAL
Interior side setback(in feet) 5
Rear setback(in feet) 12
Street landscape buffer 2(in feet):
ZONING
Collector 20
Arterial 25 DISTRICTS
Entryway corridor 35
Interstate 50
Maximum building height(in feet) 35
Notes- 1. Measured from back of sidewalk or property line where there is no adjacent sidewalk. A
reduction of the street setback shall be granted for dwellings that front on a collector street with
on-street parking and garage access from an alley, common drive or local street,if the required
twenty-foot(20)landscape buffer easement from back of curb is provided and the dwelling_
setback is not less than ten feet(10')from the back of sidewalk.
5
2.A reduction to the width of the buffer may be requested as set forth in subsection 11-3B-7C.1.c of this
title.
RELATED TED LANDSCAPE BUFFER AMENDMENT
Modify UDC Section 11 - B-7 .2a -
a. " II residential subdivision street buffers located at the rear lot line of abutting lots shall be on a
common lot, maintained by a homeowners' association ."
mmmmmORmmmmm
I �
I I
Strike 2a entirely and modify Section 11 - B-7 .2b, as follows :
I I
"
I I
I TI
I
I I
:6a. "All street landscape buffers shall be on a
common lot or on a permanent dedicated buffer easement, maintained by the property owner
1
or business owner's association.{' PREFERRED .-. **
6
W NCOURAGE THE
CITY TO APPROVE
THE PROPOSED
UDC AMENDMENT
S
THE MILL" STRIC.
.a T H IS RANCH _
_ •s i
16
!j+ /, •. �(�jY�S b y f ��d/y/' + � //JJJ�
5,
r -.�4' - 1 � / �'�//ff//,,�� .�• � 7 �'+ter- .
�k el
r' A Fri ram' l 1 f r• /f
ter `
14
� p
.i AFy e c. f muUz a -Ge :a 'cai urve; 1 ,f '
�Z;�,11J
44 yr
7
op J,
AMC
dro
Ov
FN -rw
All
lop—
q0:.
Jof
1is
-lo-
-or
.1e
AV=
_JV -v
A
—000j, --tau*
.02r.2.7w Is
po
TRI P12,
-� i�wow,.;.
•' 'ti\ 'e, '•� -;^s �� �• _.r - `.fir :1, •. ; `I• 1� }, !'A f% S'�1°•' R��e'.C' ■ .ir ,y! " •^C
3j, l A +'�. � �.�rF ► T� � €r '.ice"r'vt � �.._�-- �� x�
iC
Am
ItT
id
stidw
' *`_ s- .;a" r•' ��1 Y-?' ._. :k ��, � "� � *. v4 �. " Y , .e 4
J ifs. ..+ i - `" f GT!"A ;{.M' - ^4"�? '• �a�� aG- •a ' ,y r
�
f ,,� _ ' �• ,, ;R �, .{i,r`ir,y r•'. f r� i� ALL rya s �'� .1 - *�-': :'�-6
-t - --. - ~� ��� '�_ '�\'� t� r '� ��ge�•jy f � ��i}gj�•1r'�.� .Y�.. + ^w 'L�..`�_• �y k'. y_ 9�
1
it
Ilk
a ate, rs• f`' r_ "ti a
'�.r �� ice' �. f. �'3 h F ;- [s• �F.1�..., ,"�. �Y� ass- `• a..;
1 h � ►IT,Ef� /._ .ter
BOEING 737 MAX WINGSPAN IS 113' 0" . . .
olkAW
z
. . SAME AS CURRENT UDC SETBACK SEPARATION