2022-03-03
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho
Thursday, March 03, 2022 at 6:00 PM
MINUTES
ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE
PRESENT
Commissioner Nick Grove
Commissioner Andrew Seal
Commissioner Maria Lorcher
Commissioner Steven Yearsley
Commissioner Mandi Stoddard
ABSENT
Commissioner Patrick Grace
Commissioner Nathan Wheeler
ADOPTION OF AGENDA - Adopted
CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] - Approved
1. Approve Minutes of the February 17, 2022 Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting
ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\]
ACTION ITEMS
2. Public Hearing Continued from February 17, 2022 for Meridian U-Haul Moving
and Storage (H-2021-0085) by Gurnoor Kaur of Amerco Real Estate Company,
Located on Parcel R8257510015 and at 1230 and 1270 E. Overland Rd., Near the
Northwest Corner of E. Overland Rd. and S. Locust Grove Rd.
A. Request: Conditional Use Permit to allow self-storage, ancillary retail, and
warehousing and vehicle and equipment with outdoor display.
- Approved
3. Public Hearing for Eagle Road Daycare Facility (H-2022-0007) by 814
Development, LLC, Located at 3060 S. Eagle Rd.
A. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a daycare center providing childcare
for up to 216 children in the C-C zoning district.
- Approved
4. Public Hearing Continued from February 3, 2022 for Verona Live/Work (H-2021-
0080) by J-U-B Engineers, Inc., Located at 3020 & 3042 W. Milano Dr., Near the
Northeast Corner of Ten Mile Rd. and McMillan Rd.
A. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for 16 vertically integrated residential
units within four (4) buildings on 1.75 acres in the L-O zoning district.
- Approved
5. Public Hearing for Pinedale Subdivision (H-2022-0001) by Pine Project, LLC,
Located at 3275 W. Pine Avenue (Parcel #S1210417400)
A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 1.22 acres of land with a request for the
R-15 zoning district.
B. Request: A Preliminary Plat for 12 building lots and 2 common lots on 1.22
acres in the requested R-15 zoning district.
- Continued to April 7, 2022
6. Public Hearing for Aviation Subdivision (H-2021-0096) by Jadon Schneider of
Bronze Bow Land, Located at Parcel #S1210325951, near the northeast corner of
N. Black Cat Rd. and W. Franklin Rd., north of Compass Charter School
A. Request: Preliminary Plat or 48 building lots (37 single family attached lots,
2 detached single-family, and 9 multi-family lots), 8 common lots, and 1 other
lot.
B. Request: Conditional Use Permit for 36 multi-family units on 9 lots on 9.8
acres in the R-15 zoning district.
- Recommended Approval to City Council
ADJOURNMENT - 8:11 p.m.
Item 1.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting March 3, 2022.
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of March 3, 2022, was called
to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Andrew Seal.
Members Present: Chairman Andrew Seal, Commissioner Steven Yearsley,
Commissioner Nick Grove, Commissioner Maria Lorcher, and Commissioner Mandi
Stoddard.
Members Absent: Commissioner Nate Wheeler and Commissioner Patrick Grace.
Others Present: Adrienne Weatherly, Kurt Starman, Bill Parsons, Sonya Alan, Joe
Dodson, Alan Tiefenbach and Dean Willis.
ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE
Nate Wheeler X Maria Lorcher
X Mandi Stoddard X Nick Grove
_X Steven Yearsley Patrick Grace
X Andrew Seal - Chairman
Seal: Good evening. Welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for
March 3rd, 2022. At this time I would like to call the meeting to order. The Commissioners
who are present this evening are at City Hall and on Zoom. We also have staff from city
attorney and clerk's office, as well as the city planning department. 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 portion of the meeting you will be unmuted and, then, be able to comment.
Please, take 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 as quick as possible. If you simply want to watch the meeting we
encourage you to watch the streaming channel on the city's YouTube channel. You can
access it at meridiancity.org/live. With that let's begin with a roll call. Madam Clerk.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Seal: At this time we need to -- or the first item on the agenda is the adoption of the
agenda. This evening we have Pinedale Sub, H-2022-0001, will be open for the sole
purpose of continuing to a regularly scheduled meeting. They will all -- they will open only
for that purpose, so if there is anybody here tonight to testify on that particular application
we will not be taking testimony on it this evening. We will also move that to the top of the
agenda for continuation. So, at this point can I get a motion to adopt the agenda as
amended?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. March 3,2022 6
Page 2 of 40
Lorcher: So moved.
Grove: Second.
Seal: It has moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All in favor say aye. Any
opposed? Okay. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item]
1. Approve Minutes of the February 17, 2022 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting
Seal: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. We have one item on the agenda,
which is to approve the meeting -- the minutes of the February 17th, 2022, Planning and
Zoning Commission meeting. Can I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda as
presented?
Grove: So moved.
Lorcher: Second.
Seal: It's been moved and seconded to adopt the Consent Agenda. All in favor say aye.
Any opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item]
Seal: There are no department reports this week and at this point I would like to explain
the public hearing process. We will open each item individually and begin with the staff
report. Staff will report their findings on how the item adheres to the 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 is 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
the -- the names individually of those who have signed up on our website in advance to
testify. You will, then, be unmuted on Zoom or you can come to the microphones in
chambers. Please state your name and address for the record and, then, 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. If you have established that you are speaking on behalf of a larger group,
like an HOA, where others from that group will allow you to speak on their behalf, you will
have up to ten minutes. 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 the topic you may come
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. March 3,2022 7
Page 3 of 40
forward in chambers or on Zoom, press raise hand -- press the raise hand button on the
Zoom app. If you are only listening on a phone, please, press star nine and wait for your
name to be called. If you are listening on multiple devices, such as a computer or phone,
please be sure to mute the extra devices, so we do not experience feedback, so we can
hear you clearly. When you are finished, if the Commission does not have questions for
you, you will return to your seat in chambers or be muted on Zoom and you will no longer
have the ability to speak and, please, remember 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 is finished 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 find -- make a final decision or recommendations to
City Council as needed.
ACTION ITEMS
5. Public Hearing for Pinedale Subdivision (H-2022-0001) by Pine Project,
LLC, Located at 3275 W. Pine Avenue (Parcel #S1210417400)
A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 1.22 acres of land with a request
for the R-15 zoning district.
B. Request: A Preliminary Plat for 12 building lots and 2 common lots
on 1.22 acres in the requested R-15 zoning district
Seal: So, at this time I would like to open the public hearing for Pinedale Subdivision, H-
2022-0001, for continuance. And I think at this point we are looking for a date to continue
that to.
Weatherly: Mr. Chair, the 17th of March currently has four hearings on it. The 3rd -- or,
sorry, the 7th of April currently has three hearings on it and that date is still open for
noticing. So, I will default to staff as well for their opinion.
Seal: Does that work for staff, the 7th probably?
Parsons: The 7th works fine with us.
Seal: Okay. I will take a motion.
Grove: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Go ahead.
Grove: I move to continue file number H-2022-0001, Pinedale Subdivision, to the hearing
date of April 7th.
Lorcher: Second.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. March 3,2022 $
Page 4 of 40
Seal: It has been moved and seconded to continue the Pinedale Subdivision, H-2022-
0001, to the date of April 7th, 2022. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
2. Public Hearing Continued from February 17, 2022 for Meridian U-Haul
Moving and Storage (H-2021-0085) by Gurnoor Kaur of Amerco Real
Estate Company, Located on Parcel R8257510015 and at 1230 and
1270 E. Overland Rd., Near the Northwest Corner of E. Overland Rd.
and S. Locust Grove Rd.
A. Request: Conditional Use Permit to allow self-storage, ancillary
retail, and warehousing and vehicle and equipment with outdoor
display.
Seal: All right. So, now I would like to open -- or continue the public hearing for Meridian
U-Haul Moving and Storage, H-2021-0085, which was continued from February 17th,
2022, and we will begin with staff report.
Tiefenbach Greetings, Planning Commission. Alan Tiefenbach, associate planner.
Yeah, this was continued due to some sign posting issues. This is a proposal for a
conditional use. The site consists of just a little more than six and a half acres. It's zoned
C-G. It's located at the northwest corner of East Overland Road and South Locust Grove.
So, if you know where the climbing gym is, it's behind the climbing gym next to a church.
There is a roofing company there and as well as I believe a daycare. A quick little
background on this. Okay. So, this is a request for a conditional use to allow self-storage,
vehicle and equipment rentals, with outdoor display and some retail. The property
consists of three lots, totaling, again, six and a half acres. It was annexed into the city in
1999 as what was called the Overland Storage Annexation. That development
agreement at the time allowed the construction and development of only a mini-storage
facility, consisting of eight buildings. It's very specific about that. There was a conditional
use permit that was approved for this in 1999. There was a final plat that was recorded,
which was called the Pack It Up Subdivision. Although the final plat was recorded, the
conditional use for the self storage was never completed. This proposal is also for a
conditional use and is to allow self storage, rental, and outdoor display. As I mentioned,
the existing development agreement was very specific about what you could do there.
Because they wanted to also allow the outdoor equipment rental, they had to do an
amendment to the development agreement. Council did approve that development
agreement, so that's been done now. This is the next step in that process. So, this is the
site plan. I know it's a little tough to -- to make it out, but what they are doing here is eight
buildings, ranging in size between a hundred thousand square feet to fourteen thousand
square foot. So, if you -- see if I can see my printer here -- or, sorry, my pointer. So,
there is building one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. And, then, the outdoor
equipment storage would be in this area. There are -- one of the things I want to mention,
just go through the site plan real quick, there is a couple of buildings that don't meet the
minimum spacing requirements. There is specific use standards for self storage and one
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. March 3,2022 191
Page 5 of 40
of these say that all the buildings have to be at least 25 feet in separation. That's not met
right here and there is another part right here where it's not met and that's not met here.
So, the applicant will have to revise this site plan accordingly to meet those requirements.
One -- one concern that staff has is on the south side of Overland, directly across the
street, is mature existing residential properties. Because of the high visibility of this site
and, again, because of those residential uses, staff did have concerns regarding the
equipment being scattered abroad on that site. We didn't have issues with the actual U-
Haul trucks, but we do know that sometimes these self-storage facilities, the equipment
has a tendency to grow and end up all over the place, so one of our conditions of approval
is that they would be allowed to have the -- the operable moving -- operable -- operable
moving trucks along the front. Obviously, that's where -- where U-Haul wants to be able
to see them, but all the trailers and the miscellaneous equipment would have to be
screened and there is some specific requirements about how that has to be screened.
Also because of the -- the visibility of the site and to -- to screen headlights and to soften
down this -- this facility for the -- both people traveling down Overland, as well as a
residence to the south, staff recommended that there be a combination of landscaped
four foot high undulating berm, meaning kind of changing in height, decorative walls and
evergreen shrubs along the entire front of the property. So, it would be a combination of
all three of those things. Also we know that they generally like to have that kind of
equipment that's being rented lit up. Staff had concerns about the lights being too bright
for the people across the street. So, we also recommended that the lights be limited to
12 foot height, so that people aren't looking way up at the top of a bulb and we are
recommending that they would be directed away from the residents -- from the existing
residences. From my understanding, after talking to the applicant, I do not think that they
have any concerns with these conditions of approval. Just a quick brief look at the
elevations. The applicant has submitted elevations for a few of the buildings. Not all of
the buildings. But these include materials such as cement board, stucco, brick and metal
paneling for accents. Overall staff believes as far as self-storage facilities go they did a
pretty good job designing the architecture on this. There are some elements that probably
need a little bit more tweaking at the time of design review and site -- and CZC. There is
some fenestration that may or may not be met. There might be -- they may not have
made all their modulation, but, again, this is something that -- that staff will work out with
the applicant at the time of CZC and design review. There is a couple of -- a couple of
things, though, we did have comments about. Again, we are concerned about the visibility
of this development. It's very visible coming down Overland. One of the -- one of our
comments was -- I don't know if you can see it here, but they show exposed stairs sticking
-- sticking along the side of the building in a couple of different places. It was -- for a few
different reasons. First of all for maintenance, because outdoor -- outdoor stairs have to
be maintained and if they are exposed to the elements it can end up being more of a
problem for maintenance. Besides that, just because of the look of them, staff
recommended that these either be removed or they would be screened within stairwells
or something like that. My understanding is that the applicant would just do a stairwell or
something, so you are not looking at the exposed stairs. The other thing is is that we
didn't think that there was a very -- we -- we think there could be some better integration
with the orange garage doors, the ones that are visible from Overland. We are not so
concerned about the other -- so concerned about the other ones, but we do, again, think
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. March 3,2022 Flo]
Page 6 of 40
that maybe there could be a little more work to incorporate those garage doors into the
rest of the architecture. So, we also made that recommendation. Again, I have -- I have
spoke to the applicant yesterday and I believe they are okay with all these conditions of
approval. With that staff does recommend approval of this with conditions.
Seal: Okay. At this time would the applicant like to come forward. Good evening. If you
could state your name and address for the record.
Jones: My name is Casey Jones. I live at 11701 West Cross Slope Way in Nampa. I
would rather live in Meridian, but that's where I live. I just want to say first my gratitude
to Alan. It's a -- the length of job. But he put a lot of work into it and I appreciate the staff
report. The only things I would say is, you know, on the orange doors, we can definitely
do something there. Those aren't operational doors. I don't know if you knew. They are
just -- they are -- they are fake doors for display purposes. But, you know, we are
screening anyway, so it makes sense for us to modify those. I would say that, you know,
typically when -- when you guys think U-Haul you can definitely think the equipment's
littered everywhere, but at our corporate stores we do have a lot better structure than like
the typical U-Haul dealer that doesn't care and parks it where ever they can. So, we will
conform to that. I would ask -- I don't know if it's too late to review the -- the language on
only having motor vehicles on the front line. Is that something we can maybe discuss? I
don't know. But just having a few trailers just for display purposes would help -- help us
just to kind of display our product out there. Otherwise, I'm okay with, you know,
screening everything.
Tiefenbach: That would be up to the Planning Commission to make that decision, Mr.
Jones.
Jones: Aside from that, did a great, Alan. Thank you.
Seal: Okay. Thank you very much. Anybody have any questions for the applicant or
staff? No? Not a one? All right. At this time we will take public testimony. Madam Clerk,
do we have anybody signed up?
Weatherly: Mr. Chair, we do not.
Seal: Would anybody in chambers or on Zoom like to testify? Sir, if you would like to
come on up. We will need your name and address for the record.
Konzelman: Yes. My name is Brian Konzelman. I live at 1186 East Shepherd Street.
From my front office and sitting room I look directly across at the roofing company there.
My concern is lighting that comes from the building. Right now there is -- there is a few
lights that in the darker hours of winter they do blaze in that room. But what I'm afraid of
is -- I don't want any signage that requires me to put up blackout shades on my own. I
want to -- right now I look out at the facility where they do the climbing -- climbing wall.
It's a pretty building, but it's -- it's not offensive and what I'm afraid of -- in a recent trip to
Salt Lake City there is a quite a large U-Haul storage facility on the interstate there and
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. March 3,2022 Fill
Page 7 of 40
there is an endless row of these traveling billboards, which I don't fault U-Haul for
advertising, but -- and very -- very brightly lit. So, okay, on the interstate that's quite an
acceptable thing; right? But in a residential area it doesn't fit in. So, our concern is that
to maintain our quality of life and keep our property values good, that these are -- well, I
don't know -- well blended into the neighborhood. So, you know, two or three trailers for
their advertising I guess you could say that would be okay, but what they end up -- really,
these storage facilities, especially U-Haul, they end up -- it does fill up everywhere and
so the concern is that they -- they blend in the neighborhood, preserve our property
values, and they are aesthetically pleasing.
Seal: Thank you very much.
Konzelman: Thank you.
Seal: Okay. Is there anybody else in chambers that would like to come up and testify?
Anybody online?
Weatherly: Mr. Chair, I don't see anybody.
Seal: Okay. At this time would the applicant like to come back up and address anything?
Jones: Yeah. Just as a response, you know, I think everything said is valid. A lot of the
properties we have acquired over the last few years they will come with wall packs. We
have bought a lot of K-Marts and when we bought them the wall packs were shining onto
residential areas behind us and we have replaced them without--without complaints,just
knowing, you know, you don't want to be blasting light in people's property and so I think
screening it and making sure that we are not ugly out there and disorganized. I think he
has valid concerns and I'm pretty excited that we can actually do all of that.
Seal: Okay. Thank you.
Yearsley: Sir, can you come back?
Seal: Sir, if you want to come back up.
Yearsley: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Commissioner Yearsley, go ahead. So, you had asked -- I just want to clarify. You
wanted to be able to allow some trailers up front as well -- to be displayed as well. I'm
just trying to figure out what your request is.
Jones: Sure. Yeah. So, typically, on our business plan it's to have 30 percent of our
frontline display to be trailers. You know, we --we can survive without it, but we are going
to go forward either way. But just -- just so we can showcase what the customers can
and can't get at this facility it would be nice to be able to have that out there.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. March 3,2022 F12
Page 8 of 40
Yearsley: Okay. Thank you.
Seal: Alan, quick -- a quick question on the -- the lights. I mean as far as the mitigation
that you are recommending in there, is that, essentially, going to address the concern of
the gentleman that testified, in your opinion?
Tiefenbach: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I think it does. This is actually pretty
far above and beyond what we require for lighting.
Seal: Okay.
Tiefenbach: We had exactly the same concerns, which is why we added these. There is
a few things. First of all, again, they are -- they are only -- the ones in front can only be
12 feet high if they do any lights in front, which, hopefully, that clears their trucks if they
put them there. They would have to be downcast. They would have to be cast away from
the residences. So, pointing towards. The other thing is that when they do the certificate
of zoning compliance they will also have to give us a photometric plan and when you look
at those photometric plans it shows like what the foot candles are and I think it's -- you
can't have more than .01 foot candles and you can -- so, there can't be any light spill. I'm
pretty -- they are -- they are going to see that there is lights there, but they are not going
to be glaring lights and, again, the reason why we asked for them to be low is so that the
people aren't looking up. Even if you have lights that are downcast, if they are high
enough you are still looking up at these bare bulbs. That's the reason why we asked for
them to be low.
Seal: Okay. As far as the --just listening to the applicant on the -- the trailer portion of it,
I mean would you be okay with something like allowing the trailers there if they were
covered trailers, you know, something along those lines? Because a lot of those are
going to be covered, they are going to have, you know, their logo on them and things like
that. I mean to me they are kind of like having the trucks out there with no windshield.
Tiefenbach: Again, it's not a deal killer for us. Our biggest concern is just to see the --
you know, I can't speak to this particular applicant. U-Haul, equipment stores, those kinds
of things, tend to have a tendency to get away from you and stuff scattered. It's going to
be tough for us to enforce; right? Like 30 percent or five parking spaces, just know that
if the Planning Commission does -- is inclined to approve that, which, again, isn't a deal
killer, it's going to be hard, if not impossible, for us to actually get out there and enforce
it.
Seal: Okay. Understood. Do we have any other questions?
Parsons: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. This is Bill. Just a clarification. The
code doesn't prohibit it from doing that, as long as it's outside of the landscape buffer.
So, if the applicant wants to allow trailers there -- or you want to allow that that's certainly
within your purview and allowed under code. We just want to make sure trailers aren't
being parked in the landscape buffer along Overland Road. Historically, though, from --
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. March 3,2022 F13]
Page 9 of 40
from my experience with equipment rentals, we have -- we try to have those things stay
behind fencing and screens, because we don't want -- because to Alan's point, typically
-- I have experienced a U-Haul business up in Moscow, because my daughter is going to
school there and I can tell you they have trailers all over the place on their facility. So, I
know how many trailers these -- they could end up with on any given site. So, really, the
code requires that it just be screened, so you don't-- don't see it or-- it's not as noticeable.
But the -- the reason why Alan brought up the trucks in the staff report is because that's
-- that's vehicle rental. That's a -- a trailer is not a vehicle -- defined as a vehicle in the
code, so it's really two different standards here that we are looking at. One is equipment
rental versus vehicle rentals and that's why I -- I believe Alan will lean towards, yes,
vehicles can be displayed there, because it's like a car lot; right? Everyone has their cars
visible and he was trying to manage the amount of clutter that could occur on the property.
So, if the applicant's good with making sure that he doesn't have a bunch of trailers stored
blocking drive aisles, that there is fire access for fire department and -- I think from our
perspective we should be pretty good with it.
Seal: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else have questions? Concerns? No? All right. At
this time can I get a motion to close the public hearing on H-2021-0085 Meridian U-Haul
Moving and Storage.
Grove: So moved.
Lorcher: Second.
Seal: It's been moved and seconded to close public hearing for Item No. H-2021-0085.
All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Okay. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Seal: Who would like to start us off -- or motions are always welcome.
Lorcher: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Commissioner Lorcher, go ahead.
Lorcher: I have worked with U-Haul before, not the corporate store, but a neighborhood
store, and having the trailers and some of their dollies exposed in front is important,
because they do get a fair amount of walk-in business. But as long as they have one or
two you don't necessarily need 30 of them to display whether or not that they have those
in stock or not. So, I would support having the 30 percent displayed and it seems that
the corporate stores want to be good neighbors and so, obviously, word of mouth and,
believe it or not, some people go to specific U-Haul dealerships because of the owners
and who they are, not necessarily because it just says U-Haul on it. I used to work with
the one over on Cole Road and we had people coming from all over different towns,
because they knew that they were a reputable dealer. So, as long -- and the corporate
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. March 3,2022 F14
Page 10 of 40
stores usually hold them to a little higher standard than some of the neighborhood stores.
So, I would support displaying some of their other products out in front as well.
Seal: Okay. Anybody else? Mr. Yearsley, go ahead.
Yearsley: Commissioner Chair. I'm kind of torn. I understand wanting to be able to
display what you have, but-- but I think it comes back to the city comment of enforcement,
you know, and -- and -- and getting too much stuff out front, you know. So, I -- I -- I kind
of-- based on that I'm going to lean to leave it the way it is.
Seal: Commissioner Grove, go ahead.
Grove: I was just going to say I don't have very strong opinions on -- one way or the
other, so I could go either way. But I -- when I get to that point I rely on staff's expertise
and so I'm -- I'm good with going with staff's expertise on this one and keeping it how it
is.
Seal: Okay. Commissioner Stoddard, anything to add?
Stoddard: Mr. Chair, I agree that -- because I feel either way as well. I agree with what
the staff said.
Seal: Okay.
Yearsley: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Commissioner Yearsley, go ahead.
Yearsley: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve
file number H-2021-0085 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March
3rd, 2022, with no modifications.
Grove: Second.
Seal: It has been moved and seconded to approve item number H-2020 -- H-2021-0085.
For clarity you did say approve; correct?
Yearsley: I did. Approve.
Seal: Since it's a CUP, so -- with no modifications. All those in favor say aye. Any
opposed? Okay. Motion carries. Thank you very much.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
3. Public Hearing for Eagle Road Daycare Facility (H-2022-0007) by 814
Development, LLC, Located at 3060 S. Eagle Rd.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. March 3,2022 F15
Page 11 of 40
A. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a daycare center providing
childcare for up to 216 children in the C-C zoning district.
Seal: Okay. At this time I would like to open the public hearing for item number H-2022-
0007, Eagle Road Daycare Facility. We will begin with the staff report.
Allen: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The next application before
you is a request for a conditional use permit. This site consists of 1.15 acres of land. It's
zoned C-C, community commercial district, and it's located at 3060 South Eagle Road on
the east side of South Eagle Road, just north of East Victory Road. A little history on this
property. A modification to the existing development agreement was recently approved
by City Council to update the conceptual development plan approved for the site to allow
for development of the proposed use and the site layout, but has not yet been recorded.
The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is mixed use community. A
conditional use permit is proposed for a 13,660 square foot day care center in the C-C
zoning district to accommodate a maximum of 216 children and 24 staff members. Child
care and early education is proposed to be provided for children ages six weeks to six
years with after-school programs for children up to age 12. The proposed site plan is
consistent with the updated conceptual development plan and uses approved with the
recent development agreement modification. The amended development agreement and
final plat for Inglewood Subdivision No. 2, within which this site is located, must be
recorded prior to submittal of a certificate of zoning compliance application for the
proposed use. Daycares are required to comply with the specific use standards listed in
the UDC. Access is proposed via a right-in, right-out driveway from South Eagle Road
and by an access easement through the adjacent properties to the south and east from
Titanium Way from Victory Road. A minimum of 27 parking spaces are required for the
size of building proposed. A total of 29 spaces are proposed. Although the proposed
parking exceeds the minimum standards by two and the number of staff members on site
at any one time will likely fluctuate, staff is concerned that if the facility is at full capacity
and up to 24 staff members are on site at any one time, there may not be adequate
parking or pick up and drop off area for the proposed use. Therefore, staff recommends
a shared use agreement for parking is required with the property to the south. Conceptual
building elevations were submitted as shown for a single story building that incorporates
a mix of materials consisting of hardie panels, board and batten siding with stone veneer
accents and metal roofing. Final design is required to incorporate some of the same or
similar design elements and materials as those of the residential portion of the
development per the development agreement and shall comply with the design standards
listed in the architectural standards manual. Written -- written testimony was received
from Samantha Kozlowski, the applicant's representative. They are in agreement with
the staff report, except for a few items that I will run through. They can't comply with a
few of these conditions due to site constraints associated with the proposed building size.
Condition number 4-D, requirement for a minimum five foot wide pedestrian walkway to
be provided from the perimeter sidewalk along Eagle Road to the main building entrance,
this standard is eligible for a request for alternative compliance through our code. It's not
a given that it will be approved, but it is something that the applicant can request should
the director be able to make the findings to approve that. Conditions 4-E and 4-F, the
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. March 3,2022 F16
Page 12 of 40
requirement for a 25 foot wide landscaped buffer to be provided adjacent to residential
uses and that applies to the north and east boundaries of the site. This standard may be
reduced by City Council at a public hearing with notice to surrounding property owners.
The mechanism to do that would be for the applicant to request City Council review of the
Commission's decision, which would enable them to get before Council for that request
should they decide to do that. Then, lastly, they had noted that the outdoor-- excuse me.
Condition number nine, requirement for the outdoor play equipment over six feet in height
basically can't be located in a front yard or a required -- any required yard. They do have
some play equipment that is over six feet in height proposed in the play area between the
structure and the street buffer along Eagle Road. How that -- however, that is not
considered a required yard area. Required yards are defined as the setback area and in
the C-C district there are no required front setbacks. So, they would be okay with having
play equipment over six feet in height in the area between the buffer and the building.
So, I don't think there is an issue there. Staff is recommending approval of this application
with the conditions in the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions.
Seal: Thanks, Sonya.
Allen: And the applicant is here tonight to present their project.
Seal: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward?
Kozlowski: Hi. My name is Samantha Kozlowski with 814 Development. I'm the
development manager working on this project and, Sonya, thank you for your review and
the staff report. It was very comprehensive. I think gave a lot of details and great
discussion on our project. I know we were able to speak before the meeting. I actually
was able to speak with the tenant regarding Item 4-D. So, we will be able to meet that
requirement or that condition of approval regarding the five foot wide sidewalk. So, we
will be able to extend the sidewalk from Eagle Road connecting to the future business to
the south and the business to the east as well. So, just wanted to let you guys know that
that would be one condition that we would be able to meet, but we would like to request
a potential variance through City Council for the setback along the northern border of our
site, just due to the existing parcel size. It's a little bit constricted, so we don't think with
our building site we would be able to meet that buffer, but we do think that we would be
able to meet the buffer to the east, which is the 12.5, 1 believe, is what's proposed. We
currently have a ten. So, we should be able to meet that, but we would potentially need
to seek City Council approval for a variance on the north buffer.
Seal: Thank you.
Yearsley: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Commissioner Yearsley, go ahead.
Yearsley: I have a couple of questions. So, the site plan you would -- the -- I'm a little
concerned with over 200 children dropping off. I'm -- the plan doesn't show how well
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. March 3,2022 F17
Page 13 of 40
circulation is going to be to -- for people to come in and out of here. Is there a way that
we have a better site plan to show the overall site and -- and how we are going to get cars
in and out of here without causing a traffic jam or can you speak to circulation, if you
would.
Kozlowski: Absolutely. So, just kind of some background on the enrollment numbers for
this one in general. This floor plan here -- or this building footprint is based off of a
prototype floor plan that we use for this tenant all across the nation. So this is just kind
of based on maximum enrollment numbers. It's not based on Idaho State Code just yet.
So, once we get to the CZC submittal we will have the correct numbers for the state ratio
for Idaho. So, that number may be reduced from the 216 students and the 24 staff
members. That will just kind of be determined once we get to the CZC submittal. But just
kind of -- to speak to our operation of the facility, all of the parents or guardians are
required to actually park their car and walk the kids in. So, it's not like they have a drop-
off lane or anything of that nature. So, you shouldn't have a lot of cars that are just coming
in, dropping off, and zooming out. So, they do actually -- they are actually required to
park. So, that kind of helps with the flow of the parking lot a little bit.
Yearsley: So, that speaks to the other question. If we have got 24 staff members and
three extra spaces, I mean that's three parking spaces for how many ever parents to get
in and out of here. I still see it becoming a big issue of access to this site getting in and
out of here. So, can you speak to that. I mean how do you -- how do you park that many
kids coming in and out of here?
Kozlowski: Absolutely. So, the way that we like to think of it is it kind of operates like a
restaurant. When it opens up in the morning it opens with a couple of staff members on
site. The max -- the average -- or the highest drop-off time is usually in the morning. So,
the kids will come and get dropped off and as more kids are getting dropped off that's
when the staff members kind of -- kind of fluctuate in. And, then, we see the opposite
pattern in the afternoon. So, as a lot of the kids are leaving the staff will start to leave as
well. So, the numbers do end up kind of balancing each other out. But we will be able to
provide the final numbers again with that CZC submittal once we have everything updated
per the Idaho state ratios.
Yearsley: Okay. Thank you.
Kozlowski: Uh-huh.
Grove: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Commissioner Grove, go ahead.
Grove: I have a few questions. Mostly similar to Commissioner Yearsley. We had --
believe you -- you had spoken to us a few months back -- or this was one that we had
similar in north Meridian; is that correct?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. March 3,2022 F18
Page 14 of 40
Kozlowski: Yes, it is.
Grove: And we had parking and other concerns related to that one as well. So, I -- I'm
guessing this is not going to be a surprise that it's an issue here as well with the site
constraints. So, do we have a shared parking agreement in place with your neighbors?
Kozlowski: It's currently being drafted at this point, so it's not in place or recorded at this
point, but we are working with the seller or the master developer for the Inglewood
Subdivision to get the shared parking agreement in place. Both shared parking and, then,
cross-access as well.
Grove: Okay. And does this facility have a set of vehicles for the facility for transportation
of the -- the children to schools or activities that it would have parked on site?
Kozlowski: They do not. Nope. They don't have any kind of bus or anything like that for
the school.
Grove: Okay. All right. I think that's my questions for right now.
Seal: I got a couple questions. So, Sonya, for condition nine, essentially, that can stay
in there, but it really has no effect; is that correct? Or does that need to be stricken?
Allen: Mr. Chair, that--that is correct. I will provide a clarification in the findings document
to avoid future issues.
Seal: And, then, as far as the site constraints, it sounds like they will be able to comply
with 4-D, possibly with 4-F and, then, not at all with 4-E; is that correct?
Kozlowski: That's correct.
Seal: The 4-E is the -- is that the northern site boundary?
Kozlowski: Yes, it is.
Seal: Okay.
Yearsley: Can I ask one more beyond that, Commissioner? So -- so, with the way the
condition's written we don't need to change anything with that, because we won't act upon
that, that will be a City Council decision to waive that, so -- okay.
Seal: That -- yeah. Good question, Sonya and Bill. So, if we feel strongly on the site
constraint pieces of it, I mean in order to get a review at City Council, does that have to
be a recommended denial for us or -- I mean because if we approve, but they -- I mean I
guess I'm asking logistical questions here -- process questions to figure this part of it out.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. March 3,2022 Fig]
Page 15 of 40
Allen: Yeah. Mr. Chair, Commissioners, the applicant is able to request City Council
review of the Commission's decision in any matter, whether it's a recommendation -- or,
excuse me, a decision of denial or whether it's a certain condition or conditions that are
included in the approval. If Commission feels those should be conditions then -- and the
applicant has the ability to request Council review of any of those things.
Seal: Okay. Thank you. Do we have any other questions for the applicant? No? Okay.
Thank you very much.
Kozlowski: Thank you.
Seal: Okay. At this time we will take public testimony. Do we have anybody signed up?
Weatherly: Mr. Chair, we do not.
Seal: Do not? Anybody online raising a hand at all or --
Weatherly: I don't see anybody.
Seal: Anybody in the chambers want to come up? All right. Last chance. Unless the
applicant has anything else to add -- nothing else? Okay. So, at this time I would like to
get a motion to close public testimony for H-2022-0007.
Grove: So moved.
Lorcher: Second.
Seal: It's been motioned and seconded to close the public hearing for item number H-
2022-0007. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Okay. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Seal: Who would like to go first? Commissioner Lorcher, go ahead.
Lorcher: It seems like we have had a couple of these over in the past. I think I would feel
more comfortable with it -- that we had an official shared parking agreement and cross-
access. In order for daycares I think to work in communities such as this, it's important
to have that. I do know that when I worked for a tow company -- there is a daycare by
the water tower and they did not have any shared parking and if anybody parked in their
lot, you know, we ended up towing them. So, being a good neighbor is going to be I think
important for not only this location, but for the P&Z. So, I am in support of just seeing
possibly an official agreement before we say yes or no.
Seal: Okay. So -- and I was going to say, Sonya, that's -- that is one of the conditions of
approval.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. March 3,2022 F20
Page 16 of 40
Allen: It is, Mr. Chair. So, they cannot move forward without submitting proof of a
recorded cross-parking agreement.
Seal: Okay. Commissioner Lorcher, does that solve that for you? Okay. Thank you very
much. Anybody else? Commissioner Grove, go ahead.
Grove: I was just going to go ahead with a motion, if --
Yearsley: Can I speak really quick?
Seal: You can, Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: So, I struggle with this one, because we have got two facilities that are high
capacity uses in the morning. We have got the Starbucks to the south of this property
that's -- that just got approved and, then, we are trying to approve this one as well and
I'm trying to resolve, me personally, you know, at 27 spaces, you know, even at a hundred
kids, assuming you have two people coming in, you are looking at 50 vehicles in the
morning trying to get in and out of here at some point during the day--during the morning.
My -- and, then, you have got Starbucks with people through drive-throughs on this -- I
am just -- I -- I can't get around the -- for better words -- the disaster that might could
happen and I -- I just -- I don't have a good feeling that we have enough parking here,just
because of the use and, you know, with the two uses together we are cramming that spot
in the mornings really bad is my concern and I don't know anybody else's thoughts on
that or not.
Grove: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Commissioner Grove, go ahead.
Grove: I -- I can see Commissioner Yearsley's point. Having to go to a daycare almost
every day that has a large number of students and is in a busy parking lot, the -- the drop-
off times and the drop-off congestion is -- in the even the pick up times is not as much of
a concern for me, just because unlike -- at like an elementary school they are not all
getting there at the same time. It's very staggered over the course of four hours typically.
So, that congestion from the parental side is not as high. I think getting the cross -- or
the shared use agreement for parking is really going to be beneficial from the staff side
and as long as they can offset some of their staff parking needs with the shared use
agreement I'm less concerned about it from that perspective. I think overall that -- that
area is going to be highly traveled, but I don't see the congestion of the -- of the -- the
parents dropping off as -- as -- as big of an issue. I would say that this is a very tight fit.
It would make me a lot more comfortable if this lot size was -- was bigger or the building
was smaller. I know with this one when we had it at Meridian and McMillan they were
unable to change the building size at all. I don't know if rotating the building would change
this for this parcel. Overall I'm going to be in favor of it, because we absolutely need more
childcare facilities in Meridian. We are running at a very, very, very low number for
families and so whatever we can do to bring those in right now is -- is very important to
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. March 3,2022 F21
Page 17 of 40
me and so while I have some less than stellar feelings about how tight it is, I do -- I do
feel okay overall moving forward with it.
Yearsley: Thank you.
Seal: Yeah. And I have also concern -- the business to the -- directly to the south of
there doing the parking agreement, what is that business? Because Starbucks is on the
corner and so is there something in between?
Allen: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, there is -- there is no business currently
in between the -- the coffee shop and the -- and this business.
Seal: Okay.
Allen: It's a building pad.
Seal: A building pad? Got you. So, something -- something is on -- on its way. There
-- there is an owner involved in that, so -- yeah. And I have had some similar concerns.
The traffic coming through here is a concern, but I'm -- I'm kind of with Commissioner
Grove on that, I'm a little less concerned with that. I mean we are -- we are all battling
traffic where ever we go. The streets that are involved here are able to kind of help
accommodate this and -- I mean if this were on the other side of the street I can see where
it would be a bigger problem, but just where people are coming out of subdivisions and
this is going to be a little bit more accessible as far as that goes and, then, dumping onto
Eagle Road, I would hope that it would be less of a problem. The biggest issue that I
have with it in general is this is the second time that the applicant's come forward with a
building of this size that doesn't really fit the lot. So, I think we are starting to see, you
know, something repeatable happen here. So, we have kind of got a 13,000 square foot
building trying to be squeezed onto something that would be more appropriate for, you
know, a 10,000 square foot, for instance. So, I mean if the building size was able to be
smaller in this instance, as well as the last time that the applicant was here, there
generally wouldn't be any problems. But the inability to change the building size seems
-- I -- I think a request to change the building size to fit the lot is -- is in line with what is
best for the city. So, the inability to change that building size seems like it's -- that -- that
seems unreasonable to me in order to make it fit to the size and standards that are there
for--for Meridian. So, my opinion is that, you know, if-- if they want to have that reviewed
by City Council, then, I would personally leave all -- all the stipulations in there that Sonya
has in the staff report if we did approve it. And with that does anybody else have anything
to add or would like to make a motion?
Grove: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Commissioner Grove.
Grove: Making sure -- this is a CUP, so we are approving and not -- or denying and not
recommending; correct?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. March 3,2022 F22
Page 18 of 40
Seal: That's correct.
Grove: Okay. Just wanted to double check. All right. After considering all staff, applicant,
and public testimony, I move to approve file number H-2022-007 -- did I get all the zeros?
As presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 3rd, 2022, with no
modifications.
Seal: Do I have a second?
Lorcher: Second.
Seal: Okay. It's moved and seconded to -- moved and seconded to approve Eagle Road
Daycare Facility, H-2022-0007, with no modifications. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
Yearsley: Nay.
Seal: Did you get that, Madam Clerk?
Weatherly: Commissioner Yearsley, for the record that is a nay from you; correct?
Yearsley: It's a nay for me, yes.
Weatherly: Thank you, sir.
Seal: Okay. Motion passes.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY. TWO ABSENT.
4. Public Hearing Continued from February 3, 2022 for Verona Live/Work
(H-2021-0080) by J-U-B Engineers, Inc., Located at 3020 & 3042 W.
Milano Dr., Near the Northeast Corner of Ten Mile Rd. and McMillan
Rd.
A. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for 16 vertically integrated
residential units within four (4) buildings on 1.75 acres in the L-O
zoning district
Seal: All right. At this time I would like to reopen the public hearing for Verona Live-Work,
H-2021-0080, and we will begin with the staff report.
Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is -- I guess this is officially the second time we have
heard this, but it's been continued multiple times. I'm not going to go through the whole
project again, but just briefly it is for a conditional use permit for 14 vertically integrated
residential units within the L-O zoning district. The 14 units are in three buildings on 1.75
acres. This would be the latest site plan. However, just to be clear again, the lot line is
right here. This is shown for reference only. It's a future office building in the L-O zone,
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. March 3,2022 F23
Page 19 of 40
but it's common ownership, so the applicant wanted to show that this is their intent with
the remaining area, but it is not part of the application. At the last Commission hearing
there was a lot of discussion regarding the proposed use, specifically the integration of
the commercial and residential component, as well as parking, marketability, and as well
as whether or not they should be for rent or for sale product. The applicant responded
by writing a memo, which I hope everybody read, that has some of the specifics regarding
all of those discussion points. They did revise the floor plans as well. That's the only
change to the plans. The most noticeable change is that they removed any interior access
between the commercial and the residential component and, then, for the larger units,
which would be for the four on the north end of the site, there used to be a wall here that
had a -- essentially two commercial suites and they removed that wall to have one larger
suite for each of those four units. So, really, that's -- that's all I have as my presentation
tonight. If you have any questions I will be free -- feel free to ask them.
Seal: At this point would the applicant like to come forward? Good evening. Just need
your name and address for the record and the floor is yours.
Shrief: Good evening, Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Wendy Shrief, I'm a
planner with JUB Engineers and my business address is 2760 Excursion Way in Meridian,
Idaho. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to come back here and address some of
your concerns. I'm going to go through some of the changes that we have made and I
want to answer some of the questions that had come up last week, but we definitely are
here for -- to answer any questions and if you -- and we were hoping for approval this
evening. We had some questions at the last hearing about parking and this is included
in our memo. We are required to have a total of 28 parking stalls on the site. We are
including 52 inside that parking lot. There is additional on-street parking. We are not
including that in our totals. But, again, we --we are required to have 28. We will have 52
spots. One of the big issues that came up in the last hearing was how do we ensure that
these commercial areas stay commercial areas and that they don't become sort of a
bonus room for these live-work spaces. We have removed that door that connects the
commercial space to the residential space. So, it is now the insular commercial space
and we think it's -- it was a good idea. Thank you. We think it's much less likely that it
would become, you know, a teenager's -- but, actually, my -- my kids would love it -- then
it would become a spot for a teenager or a den or a bonus room with storage. We think
it's much more likely with this being no longer connected physically through that doorway
to the living unit, that this retains itself as a commercial space. So, those are really --
those are -- are significant changes -- that is the most significant change, but we are we are here for any -- any other questions. We think we have addressed everything in
the letter that we put forward for you guys and I want to thank Joe for running through
everything with us again and for putting together his -- his memo and his staff report for
us this evening. We are here for questions.
Seal: Okay. Thank you.
Shrief: Oh. And I wanted to -- I wanted to actually remind you -- when you go through
and, hopefully, you are making your motion for approval this evening, because we had
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. March 3,2022 F24
Page 20 of 40
lost two units from our original rendition we were coming in with 16 proposed units, we
lost two units, we are now 14. There are several conditions of approval that -- that have
changed. So, Joe has gone through in his memo and included language and how these
conditions are going to change or when we lost those two units we have added additional
open space, a community gathering area, and his conditions address those -- those
changes that will need to be made to -- to those initial conditions in the staff report and a
lot of this has to do with the two units that we did lose to make some changes. We also
have Dave Yorgason here, who is the developer, if you have any questions for him.
Seal: Okay. And I was going to say -- the first question is you are in agreement with the
-- with Joe's addendum and the staff report that he has provided? Okay.
Shrief: Chair, Commissioners, yes, we are. Thank you.
Seal: Thank you. Okay. Anybody have questions for staff or the applicant?
Lorcher: I have one question.
Seal: Commissioner, go right ahead.
Lorcher: For the interior door space -- so, if I'm -- own one of these or rent one of these
live-work units, if I have the commercial space and I live upstairs, I have to go around the
outside of the building to come into my commercial, I can't access it from the inside; is
that correct?
Shrief: Chair, Commissioners, correct. We made that modification. That was a
suggestion of the Commission to make that more of a separate commercial space and
make it less likely to become an extension of the living area. So, we have room -- so,
yes, you -- you would go outside -- you would go outside the front -- to the front or the
commercial, go around the building to go into the interior to the living unit.
Lorcher: Would there ever be a circumstance where you would rent out the commercial
separately from the apartment or living space above?
Shrief: Potentially that could happen. Yes.
Lorcher: Thank you.
Shrief: And we think that that could possibly be a good thing, depending on market
conditions.
Seal: Anyone else?
Shrief: Okay. Thank you.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. March 3,2022 F25]
Page 21 of 40
Seal: All right. At this time we will take public testimony. Do we have anybody signed
up?
Weatherly: Mr. Chair, we do not.
Seal: Nobody signed up, nobody waving their hand on Zoom. Anybody in chambers like
to come up and testify? Sir, come right on up. Just need your name and address for the
record again and it's all yours.
Yorgason: You are welcome. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. My name
is Dave Yorgason, the developer of the application and online Zoom, I think he might still
be on, is Craig Hammett, he is the builder. He and I are together building this -- this
development and -- and I just want to say thank you for giving us a chance to come back
and make some changes and some clarifications with regard to the application. I
happened to run into a few others in the marketplace and ask the questions -- because I
appreciate some of the questions about is this marketable. I don't want it to fail. That's
the last thing I want to have is a failure project and so we have done a lot of additional
research and market research and we feel very confident that there is an absolute market
need and a market demand for this spot. We are grateful, which is not typical, to see no
opposition in the room. A lot of times you have opposition to something that might be
unique or -- or anything that's residential in my backyard. We worked very closely with
the residents in -- in through the process and they were very supportive of -- of the
architecture and the design as well and so with that we just asked for approval tonight
and to reconfirm what Wendy had said, we agree with Joe's memo of the revised
conditions in this recommendation of approval and stand for any questions.
Seal: Thank you, sir. Anybody have questions, anything they would to pose? All right.
Thank you very much.
Yorgason: Thank you again.
Grove: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Commissioner Grove.
Yorgason: Oh, sure.
Grove: So, you said you did market research on this and when I -- I'm just curious with
the ones that -- because like we said at the -- at the last hearing, this is a different style
of live/work than what we traditionally see and where we traditionally see it. Were the
other ones that you found -- are they in this neighborhood environment versus a more
traditional mixed-use environment?
Yorgason: Mr. Chairman and Commissioner Grove, all Commissioners, I will point to
local market research. I could talk about Utah and other places. But I think what's more
important is local. I happened to have a conversation today with Eagle's economic
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. March 3,2022 F26
Page 22 of 40
development director and -- Robin. And when I talked to her about a different project, I
said, oh, by the way, what's going on in Eagle with live/work and she shared with me two
specific examples where there were some remodels of some -- of some buildings and
they were adjacent to residential, near office, so a very similar-- not downtown Eagle, but
kind of on the semi-fringe of Eagle and they actually are full. They need more -- if there
is a demand for them -- there is more of a demand if you will. So, those two examples.
And there is a third one that's soon to be under construction that's a little closer to
downtown, but it's that kind of a concept. So, there is that -- they are all leased up is the
short answer. Boise --there is one on Hill Road near 36th Street, so that's not downtown,
that's maybe far north -- north end, if you will. Here we are on Ten Mile. This is walking
distance to restaurants and to Walmart across the street across Ten Mile. So, we actually
find this to be actually closer to some of the shopping, some of the others that -- that I
have found in the -- in the close proximity of the Treasure Valley. So, I'm very confident
that there is -- there is -- not only those are successful, but this is a better fit for where the
market need is. Hope that helps.
Grove: Thank you.
Yorgason: You are welcome. You are welcome.
Seal: Anybody else? No? All right. Thank you, sir.
Yorgason: You are welcome. Thanks again.
Seal: Okay. I would ask if the applicant would like to come back up, but the applicant
spoke, so -- we are good, so -- can I get a motion to close the public hearing for Verona
Live/Work, H-2021-0080?
Lorcher: So moved.
Yearsley: Second.
Seal: It's been moved and seconded to close H-2021-0080. All those in favor say aye.
Any opposed? Motion passes. Oh. Hearing is closed. Public hearing -- public hearing
is closed. Sorry about that.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Seal: So, who would like to jump in? Make a motion? Talk at length?
Grove: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Commissioner Grove, go ahead.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. March 3,2022 F27
Page 23 of 40
Grove: I appreciate the -- the work that the applicant's done. I -- I'm still not a huge fan
of losing true commercial space and losing some of the -- what I would like to see there.
But I don't have any code reason to deny.
Seal: Okay. I will throw my opinion in here. So, I mean at first I was a little leery of this,
mainly because the commercial space was really small, the fact that it was rent, instead
of own, kind of the idea -- the perception behind it as far as trying to, you know, kind of
seeing somebody that was going to -- getting ready to retire and maybe they just needed
a place to, you know, age their business out and -- and move into retirement gracefully
and things. So, the modifications that have been done, increasing the size of the
commercial space, closing it off from the residential -- residential portion of it, to me it
makes it -- I mean I have shared this earlier, but to me I think it's -- this is a good place
for somebody that's probably more young and up and coming. They are trying to make
their side hustle their hustle. They can't afford to purchase in Meridian, so they are looking
to rent and get their business started. You know, move down that path. That's -- that's
where I see something like this being successful. That said, that's also my biggest
concern. So, I think its biggest strength is its biggest weakness, which is true for a lot of
things in life, where if you have somebody that's up and coming, they are trying to make
their side hustle their hustle and they fail miserably and, then, the next thing you know
they are -- you know, they are going to try to take advantage of the situation in order to
improve their own situation. So, that's my concern with it. I think the applicant's probably
done as much as they can with this application in order to make sure that that's not going
to happen. You know, I do agree with Commissioner Grove, there is some other things
that we have seen with live/work where the emphasis is really on the work portion of it.
The live is more of a convenience where it's reversed on this application, so --the parking
seems -- you know, with the loss of the units, the addition of the parking, the confirmation
that we have on-street parking, you know, things like that, I think that the parking situation
will probably be handled in its own -- in its own way, you know, and within -- within the
specs that we need it to. So, I'm a little less concerned with at this point. I mean it's still
not quite my cup of tea, but I understand it and I would be willing to give it a chance in
Meridian to see what the outcome is. Anybody else?
Yearsley: I have no comments.
Seal: None? Okay. So, at this point we are looking for motions.
Grove: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Commissioner Grove.
Grove: Sorry. All right. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move
to approve file number H-2021-0080 as presented at the hearing date of March 3rd, 2022,
with no modifications.
Yearsley: Second.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. March 3,2022 F28
Page 24 of 40
Seal: It has been moved and seconded to approve item number H-2021-0080 with no
modifications. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Yearsley: Mr. Chair, do you mind if we take a quick break?
Seal: Absolutely. We will take a five minute bio break and, then, we will be back.
(Recess: 7:15 p.m. to 7:20 p.m.)
6. Public Hearing for Aviation Subdivision (H-2021-0096) by Jadon
Schneider of Bronze Bow Land, Located at Parcel #S1210325951, near
the northeast corner of N. Black Cat Rd. and W. Franklin Rd., north of
Compass Charter School
A. Request: Preliminary Plat or 48 building lots (37 single family
attached lots, 2 detached single-family, and 9 multi-family lots), 8
common lots, and 1 other lot.
B. Request: Conditional Use Permit for 36 multi-family units on 9 lots
on 9.8 acres in the R-15 zoning district.
Seal: All right. We will go ahead and get things going here again and it looks like we are
down to the Aviation Subdivision, H-2021-0096 and if we are ready we can go ahead and
start with the staff report.
Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Chair. This one will be a bit of a lengthy presentation, but --
mean I apologize, but it's a small site, complex site, but complex project, so I apologize.
The applications before you tonight for Aviation Subdivision are a preliminary plan and a
conditional use permit. The site consists of 9.8 acres, currently zoned R-15, located near
the northeast corner of Black Cat and Franklin and directly -- well north -- northeast of the
Compass Charter School. The map shows ME for the zoning. And I apologize, it's not
an old map, it's the -- there was an issue internally that we didn't send out the zoning
ordinance to the county when we approved it, so it just hasn't been updated on the maps,
but it is R-15 zoning. The site does have history with the city, starting in 2018 where it
was actually annexed with the Compass Charter School and they changed the comp plan
and the zoning, then, to ME and mixed employment in general. Still wrapping my mind
around why, but they did that. 2020 we came in and rezoned it, DA modification, and a
comp plan map amendment, again, to change it back to what it was, which was medium
high density residential. So, currently, the future land use designation on the site is
medium high density residential, which expects residential densities at eight to 12
dwelling units per acre. The plat before you tonight is for 48 building lots, eight common
lots and one other lot and a conditional use permit for 36 multi-family units within the R-
15 zoning district. The other lot is an irrigation pump house lot, I believe for Nampa-
Meridian, which is this little random square in the corner. That's the other lot. The building
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. March 3,2022 F29
Page 25 of 40
lots are delineated as follow: There is six single family attached lots, 31 townhome lots,
two detached single-family lots and nine multi-family lots. So, there is an array of
residential uses. The total residential unit count, therefore, is 73 currently. The subject
9.8 acres were annexed into the city in 2018 as noted. Well, I will just skip all that. In
addition to the medium-high density residential future land use designation that is on the
site, it is also within the Ten Mile interchange specific area plan or as planning likes to
call it just the Ten Mile plan. It recommends a mix of housing types within this MHDR
designation. It specifically notes row houses, townhouses, condominiums, alley loaded
homes and apartments. Within this designation and noted within the existing DA
residential gross densities should range from eight to 12 units per acre. With the
applicant's proposal of 73 units on the subject 9.8 acres the gross density is 7.44, which
does not currently meet the minimum density required. This density needs to be
increased and can -- as long as it's over 7.5, which would only be one additional unit, we
can use the Comprehensive Plan and we can round up to eight and, then, they meet the
plan. Staff has a condition of approval that the applicant should revise the plat to include
at least one more dwelling unit to meet the minimum density requirement. In general this
site is part of a larger area of medium-high density residential that is slowly redeveloping
from both the west and the east and development of the subject site is a logical direction
for development to occur in terms of both density and the road improvements. However,
the transportation element of this area of the Ten Mile plan is important and there are
known traffic issues within this area caused by the Compass Charter School, most notably
at pick up and drop off times. The congestion associated with the school and this area
creates traffic along the entire Black Cat corridor between Franklin and Cherry and
significantly impedes the intersections of Aviator and Black Cat and Black Cat and
Franklin during the peak times noted. Staff notes that applications for the site to the east
are likely forthcoming. Granted they have not been submitted yet, but they are
forthcoming or expected to be forthcoming, which would connect Aviator from Black Cat
to North San Marco Way within the Entrada Farm Subdivision to the southeast and I will
get into that more later. This east-west connection would create the needed secondary
access for the --for fire, as well as provide a different connection to Franklin Road for this
entire area. To help mitigate the issue associated with the future expansion of the road
network, staff is recommending conditions of approval around the phasing of the project
in relation to the extension of West Aviator Street. In addition to the general comp plan,
the applicant is expected to meet certain design criteria found within the Ten Mile plan as
well. The applicant is in compliance with these criteria, except for the street oriented
design outlined on Page 3-33 was in the Ten Mile plan. This criteria discusses that front
loaded units should be located no less -- I should say the garages should be located no
less than 20 feet behind the primary facade of the residential structure. As noted in the
staff report, the existing site constraints of extending the collector street along the south
boundary, as well as the hundred foot easement of the Purdam Drain on the site make
full compliance with the standard unlikely. Therefore, staff recommends the applicant
explore alternate design options to be more consistent with this requirement, while
maintaining a gross density of at least eight units per acre or 7.5 to roundup and
consistent with an alternate floor plan -- or sorry. An alternate floor plan should be
submitted, as well as revised elevations that show compliance with the recorded DA.
Because in the DA there is existing floor plans -- conceptual floor plans that are vastly
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. March 3,2022 F30
Page 26 of 40
different than what is proposed. The proposed plat complies with all UDC dimensional
standards, road widths, and the proposed single family uses are principally permitted --
permitted within the R-15 zoning district. The applicant is proposing detached sidewalks
and parkways throughout the single family portion of the project to help activate the street
and provide more compliance with the Ten Mile plan and the street oriented design. The
proposed plat meets all the landscape requirements, except for the required 20 foot buffer
along the south side of Aviator extension, which would be here. Sorry. However, staff
does recommend that the applicant coordinate with the irrigation district to see if trees
can be added within the easement area of the Purdam Drain, specifically on the interior
side of it. Due to the proposal of two types of residential uses in the same project,
meaning single-family and multi-family, the open space requirements vary for each. The
single-family area is approximately five acres and the multi-family area is approximately
4.8. Total property size 9.8. So, one of them has to be less; right? Therefore, the
minimum amount of qualified open space required to meet our general open space
standards, 11-3G-3, for the single family portion of the site is three quarters of an acre or
approximately 32,700 square feet. The minimum amount of qualified open space that is
needed for the multi-family standards, which are in the specific use standards, 11-4-3-27,
is an amount per unit based on the size of the units. This provision -- the -- there is a
section in that -- in the specific use standards that requires a minimum ten percent, but
the area of multi-family is not over five acres, so that's not required. With the 36 units
proposed the minimum amount of qualified open space for the multi-family development
is 12,600 square feet. So, in total, the total amount of open space for the project should
be at least 45,300 square feet or just over an acre. According to the submitted plans the
applicant is proposing three and a half acres of common open space within common lots,
of which approximately two and a half acres is qualified open space. Therefore, they are
vastly exceeding the minimum amount of open space required. However, this area is
actually still not fully accurate, as the Purdam Drain easement area is located on buildable
lots and not in the common lot, so there is additional area that could be qualified and it
does -- the open space does not include the parkways, which are also a qualifying open
space where no driveways exist. So, this shows that the actual open space is even
greater than what is currently listed as the two and a half acres. Again, the proposed
open space vastly exceeds the minimum requirements. The applicant is required to
provide a qualifying amenity worth at least one amenity point for the single-family portion
of the site. The submitted plans do not show compliance with this requirement, but staff
has included a recommendation of approval -- or sorry -- a condition of approval and a
recommendation of approval. I will spoil the ending there. But a condition of approval to
include an amenity that counts as one point for the single-family portion of the site.
Specific to the multi-family portion of the site the applicant complies with all the
requirements, except as follows: There is no property management office or maintenance
storage area shown on the plans, which is required for all multi-family developments with
20 units or more. They are required to propose three amenities and they are only showing
one, which is the children's play structures, which I appreciate that it's not just one
playground, they actually have multiple things. I definitely appreciate that. Lastly, they
do not comply with the number of off-street parking spaces required. They meet the
minimum for the per unit, but they do not meet the minimum per unit plus the required
guest spaces. So, they need to add, I believe it was four spaces total. In response to
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. March 3,2022 F31
Page 27 of 40
that I have included conditions of approval to reduce the bedroom count of some of the
units, because they are all two or three bedroom, which requires the same amount, but if
they go to one bedroom reduces the requirement. I also am proposing that they revise
the plans to add the required spaces in some of the areas noted. So, they have some
areas here -- like they can add at least one more here. I believe they can fit a few here
as well. In addition to what's within the site, I did not put this in the staff report as a
condition, but code allows alternative compliance to allow other areas of parking to count
and, in general, all of this north side and the east side of this street where there isn't these
drive aisles on-street parking is going to be available, because there is no driveways. So,
in short, I do not anticipate parking be a major issue in this development. Now, to the
meats and potatoes here. The applicant is required and proposing to extend West Aviator
Street along the southern boundary. It is a collector street that currently exists -- I believe
it ends right about here with a temporary cul-de-sac here and connects out to West
Aviator. That is the only access for the site currently. According to the plat the applicant
is showing a small portion of this road extension on a property to the south, which would
be right here. I will go to the next -- this is a property that they do not own and they are
showing a portion of the extension on that site. That -- that site is not annexed into the
City of Meridian. It is not typical of road extensions to utilize area not on the subject
property, but it allows the applicant to have more usable land area that is significantly
reduced already to the existence of the Purdam Gulch Drain easement. The placement
of Aviator extension requires a formal agreement with the adjacent property owner. If the
applicant cannot reach an agreement with that property owner, the submitted plat will
have to be revised to show Aviator wholly on the subject site. To ensure this occurs prior
to development, staff has included a condition of approval that a final plat for this project
will not be accepted until an agreement has been formalized and the right-of-way has
been dedicated to ACHD for this portion of Aviator Street. Vehicular access for the single
family, which I will go back to this, is via construction of a new local street that loops
through this site. In addition, access to the multi-family is via two 25 foot wide drive aisle
connections to that eastern local street. ACHD has noted Aviator will need to be one foot
wider than currently shown, which the applicant has agreed to. There is no secondary
access to the site, because Aviator will be a dead-end street after-- dead-end street after
its extension with this project. As noted above, the fire department requires a secondary
access for each access that has more than 30 units taking access from it. The
development to the west, Hensley Station, already has more than that and they have two
accesses. So, that's why if they are not sprinklered that would be why. Therefore, as
currently designed and proposed, if it was all to be built at the same time every unit would
need to be sprinklered. Single-family and multi-family in this. Thus, the construction
phasing of the project plays a key role in how staff must address this issue, as all the
structures would need to be sprinklered again. Multi-family is already going to be
sprinklered because of the International Building Code that they will have to fall under for
that. The applicant has stated that their plan is to extend Aviator into the site to the point
of no more than 150 feet past the eastern local street. So, instead of all the way to the
east boundary, stop it about here so that there is no need for a temporary turnaround.
This does comply with the technical requirements of the UDC and fire code, but it is not
consistent with our general practice of requiring public streets to be extended to and
through sites with the first phase of development or prior to and in timing with the first
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. March 3,2022 F32
Page 28 of 40
buildings being constructed. However, the applicant is continuing to work with ACHD on
a plan to construct Aviator as noted, again, with a short -- not all the way to the east, but
with the temporary --with 150 feet of pavement here. This plan to do this has been noted
and they would road trust for the remaining portion of Aviator, so it can be extended with
any future road project that occurs on the parcel to the east. Staff is supportive of this
option, as the road would be a dead-end street and constructing a temporary turnaround
would be both wasteful of space and would need to be located on top of the Purdam
Drain, which could significantly -- I can't read. Sorry. Which could further hinder the
applicant's ability to develop the site due to complications with the irrigation district. In
conversations with ACHD they have noted an openness to this option, because they have
done it previously. However, they did not include it in their staff report as a specific
condition. So, staff has included a condition of approval to include -- or to encompass
both potential outcomes for Aviator Street. I will go to my last thing here. So, as noted
with the future extension of Aviator, this is the -- the plan for the master street map, which
is the colored line here. This is the North San Marco Way and Entrada Farms. Obviously,
Aviator stops right about here with the expansion of Compass Charter School. They are
proposing to come here. The plan that I have seen as a preliminary plan for the site to
the east shows Aviator continuing on and extending along their south boundary and
connecting here and that would allow another access to Franklin for both entry and exit
for the school, as well as any future residences out here. So, really, this extension of
Aviator is very integral to getting it. It's a timing issue as discussed. There was some
written testimony on the project, but all of it was concerning piping the Purdam Drain.
There was a desire by -- I assume neighbors to keep the drain open and use it as a water
amenity. Staff does recommend approval of the project if all the conditions of approval
are met and after that I will stand for any questions.
Seal: Thank you very much. At this time would the applicant like to come forward? Good
evening. Go ahead and state your name and address for the record and the floor is yours.
Schneider: Jadon Schneider. 412 South 3rd Street, Boise, Idaho. Mr. Chair, Members
of the Commission, I just want to thank you for your time tonight and, first off, I just want
to thank Joseph so much for all his work on this. We have -- we have gone to four pre-
application meetings and Joseph's been diligent to sit through all of them and answer all
our questions and help us with all that. So, I -- just as Joseph said, it might be a little
longer about my chatting about this project, but I think it's important that you hear a little
bit more of the backstory and a little bit of where we have come from and -- and where
we are at now with it. Just to start off here, I would like to show you the -- sorry. So, the
preliminary platform, basically, just as Joseph was saying, 9.8 acres. One comment that
I had from Joseph's report -- or his comments earlier was he had said 73 units. The --
the total units that we have proposed are 75 units on there, which matches the report and
the numbers that you said. I added it up really quick. It's 75 units on 9.8 acres, which is
-- 75 by 9.8 is about 7.6 units per acre. So, just a point of clarification and Joseph can
chat with that later. I just wanted to bring that one up just from that conversation right
away. Just to look at the site as it is right now, I wanted to point out the Purdam Gulch
Drain and you can see what's going on here. So, the Purdam Gulch Drain runs east-
west through the site and it's a -- it's a pretty sizable drain through there. So, two of the
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. March 3,2022 F33
Page 29 of 40
key components that I wanted to bring up for this site specifically -- sorry about this -- is
the westerly boundary has an existing stormwater facility that was put in place by
Compass Charter School. So, the stormwater facility services the Compass Charter
School's current needs and because of this existing stormwater facility the site is further
constrained. So, I just have some pictures of the site as it looks at the moment. This
would be the area that is currently used by the stormwater facility. Just a shallow swale.
They didn't do anything underground for what's going on through here. And, then, you
can see that this is the northern end of it, it kind of bulbs out here at the side. I just wanted
to point out, again, the Purdam Gulch Drain easement that runs through here. It's a
hundred foot wide easement and it's owned and maintained by the Nampa-Meridian
Irrigation District, as well as here in the southeast corner of the site there is the Nampa-
Meridian Irrigation District pump house lot. So, the pump house lot was created as a part
of the Compass Charter School portion. The portion of our subdivision requires that we
include it in our subdivision in order to bring it up to code and Nampa-Meridian Irrigation
District has -- has been forthcoming with us and has signed an affidavit of legal interest
and -- and they are -- they are happy to -- to be a part of this subdivision and work with
us on this. So, the irrigation district drain that runs through the site right now -- you can
see it's a pretty sizable drain. Again, it's a hundred feet wide. There is a pretty sizable
berm on the north side and the south side of it and it's -- it's fairly deep right now. So, it's
-- it's not just a -- a lateral that's a user lateral, it's -- it's a full drain and it's a full main vein
for Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District and it is important for them to have. So, one of the
components of it that Joseph touched on here is the rerouting of the irrigation district
drain. So, we have got the approval from the irrigation district and the developer is
fronting all the costs that are involved with this and, like I said, it's a sizable drain and it's
a 48 inch diameter RCP pipe, which is a reinforced concrete pipe, so it's -- it's not -- it's
not just somebody getting out there with their backhoe and doing it, this is a sizeable
project that is underway with the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District and there is a -- there
is a large financial investment that's being made by the developer at this time just to get
the site up to a point where it can work for this project and the main point that this has
come up with is the fact that Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District has been very clear with
us that they will not allow us to cross their drain more than one time on this site. Like I
had mentioned earlier, Joseph and I had gone through a number of pre-application
meetings. We had come to agreement on one specific site that we both quite liked. We
sent it to Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. We were ready to make our pre-application
district and the response back was we won't approve or we will not allow you to cross
over our easement twice and -- and that is what we had been previously approving. So,
it was disappointing and meant that now we had to reroute this drain, go through a
vacation of an easement and everything involved with it, but that is how we came to this
site, which is now reduced basically to a rectangle with the easterly and northerly
boundary as Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District easements. So, just wanted to look at the
site and talk about the specifics of a couple of the lots. There are front loaded attached
product involved at this site and an eight foot wide landscape buffer that is in front of a
detached sidewalk. So, the local road right here has that eight foot wide landscape buffer
and detached sidewalk. Some of the elevations that we had sent to Joseph, but further
require some modifications just to come up with the Ten Mile specific plan would look
something like this. This is an idea where it's a -- it's involving pitched roofs, it's involving
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. March 3,2022 F34
Page 30 of 40
setbacks, and -- and at different sizes and we will continue to work with staff to try to find
some elevations that are really appropriate for this site. The standard for this would be a
livable space on the ground floor or the first level, with bedroom and bathroom -- or, sorry,
a bathroom -- half bath on the first floor, with two bedroom and two -- and a bath on the
second story of these units. And, then, just to kind of talk again. So, the street section
for the local right -- or the local road has the back of curb and eight foot landscape buffer
and, then, the detached sidewalk and, basically, just to give some examples of what we
are thinking it would be -- it would -- it can be tastefully done and this is what we would
like to be doing. We would like to have lots of greenery and a landscape plan that looks
really well for this. And just some ideas of having that detached sidewalk and something
that we really like in this type of area. And, then, further to that we have the -- we will call
it the alley loaded garage. However, this isn't alley load -- an alley between here. It's a
-- it's an ACHD street section. It's just a reduced width -- width section. So, it's not 20
feet wide, I believe it's 28 feet from right-of-way to right-of-way. So, it's not a small tight
alleyway back there, it is a full street section. Now, there is no parking specifically on the
street section through here, but it is still foreseen to be rear loaded and have front doors
opening to this usable open space. So, there is some in Block 2, Lot 8, which is that
corridor that connects the loop road and, then, usable open space in that 20 foot
landscape buffer along the north side of Aviator there. Just some elevations of things
that we -- we have seen, other products and the developer has -- has proven to us that
-- that they really like. This is some of that attached product with the front doors opening
onto usable open space. Again, the layouts for this would involve a livable first floor and
two stories with bedrooms upstairs. So, this one was a three bedroom unit upstairs with
two baths upstairs and a half bath downstairs. So, three and a half bath. So, this is a
project in Garden City, which we have drawn a lot of ideas from. I have fallen on the
word. Sorry there. But, basically, you can see how this attached product here in the
middle would look with that common space in the middle. So, what I would refer to here
would be the Lot 8 of Block 2, where you have two -- the homes fronting onto an open
space and you have a usable area out in the middle that can also be utilized for things
like storm water management. This is what it can look like when it's in -- even a tight spot,
so it can take -- it can be done very tastefully and not look, you know, like a -- like as if it's
a small corridor or walled in on either side, it can -- it can look like a nice thoroughfare for
the --for the pedestrian pathways. The last part of the site here that we want a dimension
on was the CUP portion of the site, which is the multi-family here. There is a number of
conditions that Joseph mentioned in his staff report that generally we are -- we are all in
favor of and -- and the small updates to the -- to the site plan here in order to receive
approval for the cup should not be any problem for the developer moving forward. These
are proposed right now as four-plexes. As Joseph mentioned we had proposed them all
as two bedroom, two bathroom four-plexes. They would follow the two story idea where,
basically, you would have your first story entryway with a livable space and, again, a
second story bedrooms in order to allow access for each individual unit and instead of
having a four-plex stacked with two units on the bottom, two units on the top, and -- and
this is just a general idea of what we would be proposing for this site. Lastly, there was
a condition -- and I -- Joseph and I chatted about it and I just wanted to bring it up
anyways. Basically a condition involved with Aviator that had mentioned that there was
going to be the requirement of a detached sidewalk on the south side of Aviator and due
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. March 3,2022 F35]
Page 31 of 40
to the site constraints involved with that, the condition was going to -- or I fear will push
the unit density even lower. I -- I don't want to talk at nauseam about it. Joseph's made
it clear to me that it was a condition that was put in place, because it's written in code, it
cannot be variance requested out of it. I would just like to still bring that up that this is
something that we struggle with. Everything else in the staff report we can approve and
everything else in the staff report we are very happy with. There was just that condition
of adding in the detached sidewalk. Compass Charter School, as it stands right now, has
a seven foot wide detached sidewalk with a bike lane. So, it is in here as a seven foot
wide attached sidewalk and that's what we had proposed. ACHD is okay with it. Again,
Joseph's made it clear to us that it was a code issue and it wasn't something along there.
The only reason, like I said, that I bring this up specifically is as you can see we are
constrained by the fact that they are -- we are currently trying to work with the neighbors
here to take some of this portion of their property and the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation
District pump house lot. So, our fear is that by extending this seven foot attached sidewalk
into a five foot detached sidewalk with a landscape buffer attached to it, would mean that
we would have to push the right-of-way -- the northern portion of Aviator to the north,
which, would, then, further constrains any of these lots here in Block 3, or the lots here in
Block 1 and since we already are very close to being below the -- the minimum density
allowed, that was our main concern with it. So, that -- that's all I will say about it here.
And, then, with that, just to touch on, again, with what Joseph said about the neighboring
parcel, the reason that we went ahead and are including this portion of the neighboring
parcel was originally the developer to the south had a proposal in place and he had
connection issues and so we had worked out an agreement with them that we would work
with them to try to connect Aviator through their parcel, to allow them a future connection,
due to the fact that if we came north on our portion of the property it would allow a non --
or it would create a non-conforming connection intersection by ACHD standards. So, the
idea was, hey, we will come in with you, we will work together, we will take some portion
of your lot. That project has since been removed, the portion to the south. Our project
was put into motion when they were put onto the agenda, at which point they had been
taken off. Anyways, to the point now there is a new developer that is currently in their
due diligence period and is purchasing the land and we have been working with them to
get that and Joseph's condition about anything to do with getting -- getting an approval
from the developer to the south or the landowner to the south, we feel that is totally
justified and -- and we are on our way to -- to getting that and that is our plan. And with
that I will stand for any questions.
Seal: Thank you. Anybody have any questions for the applicant or staff? No? Okay.
Thank you very much. Madam Clerk, has anybody signed up to testify?
Weatherly: Mr. Chair, we have two people signed up, but neither one indicating a wish
to testify. So, Chad Palmer, did you want to speak? Okay. And, Larry, do you want to
speak or no? Thank you. That's all I have, Mr. Chair. No worries. Thank you.
Seal: Nobody online?
Weatherly: Not raising their hand, sir.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. March 3,2022 F36
Page 32 of 40
Seal: Okay. Is there anybody else in chambers that would like to testify, now is your
chance or forever hold your peace. No? Was going to say, you get an opportunity to
come back up and speak again, but if you have nothing to -- nothing to add, we will go
ahead and move on. Do we have any questions to --
Grove: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Go ahead.
Grove: I do have a question. Question for you if you could -- with -- in regards to the Ten
Mile area specific plan -- I think I got those letters in the right order. Will the revisions to
the --to the west side of--will that change the layout? Will those --will the design aspects
of the Ten Mile area specific plan in any way alter just the layout, the concept or anything
else with regards to how you have it now?
Schneider: Are you speaking specifically to the lot layout or to individual unit --
Grove: Either way. Just in terms of-- I mean I know that there is certain design aspects.
Will -- will that -- will those design aspects change what -- what the product looks like I
guess?
Schneider: Sure. I -- I believe that if we are specifically talking about the lot layout
themselves, I -- I believe that we have worked with staff and we have found a plan that
fits the Ten Mile specific plan as best we can at this time. Again, the plan is strong
guidelines. It's not written in code. It's something that we are trying to follow as best we
can and so I believe -- maybe it's a question Joseph can follow up with, but I believe a lot
layout wise in -- in regards to where individual parcels are located, I do not believe that
we will need to make any revisions specifically to meet -- or further meet the Ten Mile
specific plan. However, Joseph's made it clear to us about the elevations of individual
units and trying to find something that can fit well and that's something that we are fine to
work with.
Seal: Any other questions? No?
Dodson: Mr. Chair, I just had a couple comments. To -- to that -- to Mr. Grove's point,
agree with the applicant. I don't anticipate it changing any of the lot lines and I just
recounted again and, apparently, I don't know, two months ago I couldn't count at all,
because I swear I counted like six or seven times, but they have the 75. So, we are good
on the density.
Seal: Eighth time is a charm.
Dodson: Yeah. I -- yeah. I -- yeah. The other comment I wanted to make was regarding
the -- the sidewalk issue along Aviator. I completely understand the applicant's
perspective. I get it. There is a couple things going on. One, what is currently constructed
on the south side of Aviator does not currently meet our code and should not have been
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. March 3,2022 F37
Page 33 of 40
approved. So, doing it again does not make it better and because of that there is -- there
is no alternative compliance and it doesn't meet our variance applicability standards to
use either of those avenues in order to change what code is saying that it has to be five
foot detached. ACHD in their policies allows for seven foot attached, but our code for
collector streets does not. Further, I think once we dive into the site plan a little bit more
with the applicant, I -- I noted in my staff report the buffer on the north side of Aviator is
actually 30 feet wide to the lot lines, not 20, so they have ten feet of room that they could
move the road up and that will be the four feet of landscaping from the edge of the back
of curb and the five foot detached sidewalk on the south side and that's -- they got their
space for that right there. At least doing preliminary math. Granted my track record's not
good right now with that, but that I believe will work just fine and that way it avoids them
having to go into the -- the pump house lot, because we do not want to deal with that. So,
I -- I think we can make that work. I don't see any issues with that. Those are my main
comments as of now.
Seal: Okay. Thank you very much.
Dodson: Yep.
Seal: I was going to say, does the applicant -- do they want to come back up? Is there
anymore questions or are we ready to close the public hearing?
Lorcher: I have a question for staff.
Seal: Oh. Commissioner Lorcher, go ahead.
Lorcher: So, in regards to the sidewalk, Joe, where there is seven foot along Compass
on Aviator and, then, you are requesting -- or requiring the applicant to change it to five
foot detached, so if I'm a kid going to -- from school to home or even aesthetically is that
going to be weird, where it's kind of connected and all of a sudden the juggernauts to a
different whole thing or --
Dodson: I -- I -- I -- Commissioner Lorcher, I understand your point there. This does
happen, unfortunately, when certain things get approved or, frankly, it happens most often
when ACHD comes back and widens the road and tears things out and, then, all of a
sudden you have a segment of attached sidewalk, when it is detached everywhere else
along the corridor. They have -- they have to meet certain ADA standards for the
curvature of it. They can't just 90 it and go.
Lorcher: Right.
Dodson: So, it will look better than just that. But it is a requirement of code, so I -- there
is -- I can't do anything. There is no avenue in order to say, oh, you do that. The only
caveat would be, as bossman just reiterated to me, if it's less than 300 feet I believe -- I
don't know what the length is there, but if it's less than 300 feet the director can waive the
requirement of the detached portion. However, it's not something staff necessarily wants,
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. March 3,2022 F38
Page 34 of 40
because the whole segment is going to be -- all the rest of it is going to be five foot
detached. That's what we are going to require with the project to the east. That's what it
is on the Entrada Farms, all that. So, to do it here doesn't make a lot of sense if they
have the space, because it shouldn't have been done to begin with. So, it's just kind of
like where do you draw the line of the -- the non-conformity.
Lorcher: Thank you.
Dodson: You're welcome.
Seal: Anybody else? Okay. Can I get a --
Grove: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Go ahead, Commissioner Grove.
Grove: Just thinking ahead on this. My personal preference on what -- where this might
end up going would be to continue this to allow some of those changes to be made to
make sure that it lines up. If we were going to do that could we check with the applicant
first --
Seal: Sure.
Grove: -- before closing the public hearing, so that we don't have to yo-yo?
Seal: Got you. Yeah. Is there anybody else want to weigh in on that, continuance versus
pass tonight? Okay. Sir, come back up. And I -- yeah, I think there is -- there is enough
in here -- and I understand that, too, as -- as I read through it to me it was kind of -- there
was a lot of things in here that kind of spoke to not quite ready to go through and I mean
we have -- we have got to do our due diligence in order to make sure whatever gets
passed on to City Council is something that they don't have to throw back our way and --
cause you more time and effort to be spent, so -- and outside of Joe's math, everything
is still --just lines up with that, so --
Schneider: Just to -- just to comment on that, we -- Joseph's comment about the -- the
extra space to the north, if-- we can make that five foot detached work and -- and we will
be more than willing to work with Joseph before then to continue this application along,
as opposed to deferring it to a later date. But that -- that's just our comment at this time.
Seal: Okay. So, I -- I mean I -- I just think there is some things that can be done, especially
with the roadway. The property to the -- to the south, that's one of my bigger concerns.
I have a child that goes to Compass Charter, so traffic there is a nightmare, so -- it really
is. It has significant issues and there is -- even though it's marked no parking, people
park along there and everything. So, anytime they have a cakewalk it's pandemonium.
So, definitely want to make sure that we get that portion of the road right, you know, for
now and into the future. So, just think there is some things that could probably be worked
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. March 3,2022 F39
Page 35 of 40
on and determined to -- you know, at a later date that will kind of firm this whole thing up
and, you know, make the application a little bit more firm.
Schneider: As Joseph's staff report mentions, we are required to have that approval of
the agreement with the neighboring parcel to the south prior to the City Council meeting
and if that is a concern it -- I would -- I would argue that it's been met with the fact that we
can't actually take it to Council until we have in writing an agreement that is -- that is
agreed upon by both parties. Is there -- is there any other condition or any other worries
that I could speak to at this time?
Seal: Commissioner Grove?
Grove: I think for me the road aspect, making sure that that agreement is in place and
ready to go, the sidewalk is able to be integrated the way that it's required to be integrated
and that, you know, the -- the piece coming in was the numbers piece and making sure
that worked out and my concern was that there might be some -- if there was any change
to meet the ten area -- Ten Mile area specific plan, if it had any changes, I wanted to
make sure that that was in place prior to approval or denial -- or recommended approval
or denial, so that it was a complete -- completed project that was fully recommended or
fully denied to move forward and so that's -- that's why I was wanting to know if you were
-- if we get to a point where we can't make that decision tonight, if -- if we cannot do that,
if-- if you would be open to continuing or if you are asking us to -- if it gets to that point to
deny, rather than continue, or where -- where you are at with that. So, it's more about
where you are at in terms of that process.
Schneider: Obviously we -- we would much rather continue, as opposed to getting a
denial -- or a recommendation of denial. So, we would be open to continuing in that
regard and, like I said, I think that Joseph's made it clear that it seems like we can make
something work, especially about the landscape buffer, but I completely understand, if
you need more time we can work with that. Thank you.
Seal: Okay. So -- yeah. And I just -- I mean before we move to -- I mean it sounds like
a continuance is kind of like where -- where we are moving, but I think --
Grove: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Yeah. Go ahead.
Grove: I think we could close the public hearing and have that discussion and, then, if a
continuance is needed, then, open it back up for that sole purpose.
Seal: Okay. That's fine with me. So, can I get a motion to --
Grove: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Go ahead.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. March 3,2022 F40]
Page 36 of 40
Grove: I move to close the public hearing for file number H-2021-0096.
Seal: So, a second?
Yearsley: Second.
Seal: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for H-2021-0096. All
those in favor? Any opposed? Okay. Motion carries. The public hearing is closed.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Seal: Joe, if you don't mind, I kind of want to go through -- I have kind of got mixed
feelings on this. I mean as I initially read through it it just seemed like there was a lot of
loose ends, a lot of things that were going on. It seems like we have tied up some of
those loose ends tonight, so I just kind of want to go back through some of the conditions
that were written in there, just to see what's --we, obviously, have the -- the road. I mean
-- and that's a big one. It would be nice to see that one done up, but if it's -- if there is a
condition of approval in there already, it has to be buttoned up before it gets to Council,
in my mind --
Dodson: Mr. Chair, yes, there is -- there is actually two different conditions. There is one
regarding the dedication of the right-of-way and all that before final plat, but, then, there
is also the agreement with the property owner that I did state that should be presented to
me or planning staff in general before the Council meeting, yes.
Seal: Okay.
Dodson: And that's to your point exactly, that it -- that's such a big piece of it, that if that's
not done, then, we got to kind of -- we got to go backwards anyways, so I understand
your point there, if that's worth a continuance, but I do have that buttoned up and I would
agree with you prior to the meeting I think it felt like death by a thousand cuts kind of thing,
at least towards a continuance, but now we have cleared some of that up, which is great.
I love that. It seems less imperative to me than it did.
Seal: Okay. So, I mean we have got the -- essentially the density requirements are good.
Does that also reconcile the parking requirements that were in there?
Dodson: The parking was only for the multi-family, so it does not reconcile those, no.
Seal: Okay.
Dodson: Because I assume they are not going to add multi-family units, they just -- the
space isn't there. But the single family was where I was looking, but they are good.
Seal: Okay. So, essentially, we have got the -- yep. We got hung up on that. So, I forgot
to ask the questions about the property management and off -- off-street parking. And,
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. March 3,2022 F41
Page 37 of 40
then, the condition that needs to have sprinklers in it throughout. So, generally speaking,
with -- I mean, essentially, unless they want to stick to 30 units, they are going to have to
have sprinklers in everything. That-- I mean is what it comes down to and that's generally
what the fire department does, so --
Dodson: Right. Not necessarily. So, again, that -- it depends on the phasing.
Seal: Okay.
Dodson: And this is where they are working with the property owner to the south, as well
as the property owner to the east, to try and set this up appropriately, so they don't have
to do that. Obviously, development takes time. This isn't a final plat, et cetera. If they
build the road 150 feet east of this local street it does not require a cul-de-sac; right? Or
a temporary turnaround or anything. This remaining area would be road trusted. ACHD
will take care of that. This application would have to get submitted and approved and,
then, once that gets extended they--they-- by that time they could have started the multi-
family, which has to be sprinklered anyways. They are good to go on all that. They can
construct the local road. They can do all of the site work. If that is all done and, then,
this road gets extended or is dedicated and under construction, then, fire would not
require these to be sprinklered. So, again, they are not phasing the project, there is no
need, but the construction phasing will probably end up being that way and that's what
the applicant and I have discussed and that's to avoid that. Now, if it comes down to the
wire and they need to get these units done, I'm sure that that's just going to be what they
do and they sprinkle them and move on.
Seal: Okay.
Dodson: But there -- I do have a condition about that already. So, that -- and that is
something that's, frankly, not entirely pertinent to the public hearing and whether it's done
now or later, it -- we got it taken care of. It's going to be a later issue.
Seal: Okay. And you do have a -- one of the conditions of approval is the property
management office that in order to meet that that they need to have that and the amenities
they are going to have to meet in order to move on as well.
Dodson: Correct. Yeah. All those things. The property management office and the
maintenance area I would like to see before Council, but the amenities stuff and all that,
I assume they can fix that really quickly.
Seal: Okay.
Lorcher: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Commissioner Lorcher, go ahead.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. March 3,2022 F42
Page 38 of 40
Lorcher: So, in regard to the Aviation Street and ACHD making those improvements,
what kind of attention can we get from ACHD? Is it something that's going to be pushed
back, like Black Cat, until 2031 or is that something that they would do sooner than later?
Dodson: Commissioner Lorcher, if the applicant road trusts, which is basically just put up
the money for it, as soon as it gets constructed or begins construction on the property to
the east, ACHD will do it. They will do the work. It's not a CIP project, so there is no
waiting around for public funds or anything, it will already be trusted in and ready to go.
Lorcher: Okay. Thank you.
Seal: Okay. I feel a lot better about the project. I think there is, you know, a few things
that could be done, but I don't think there is anything -- I'm not seeing anything that's
making me pause, you know, think that this is going to get to City Council and, then, they
are going to, you know, try and remand it back to us to take a look at. So, I -- I sympathize
for you on this piece of property. This was going to be the greatest soccer field ever,
which is why the drainage goes out -- you know, all the different things about it. So, you
know, the way this is having to be built, you know, I -- part of me looks at this as in-fill,
just because of where it's at and how it has to be constructed, the way that the --the ditch
has to be rerouted and everything. I agree it would be nice to keep that open, but I just
don't see that that's a possibility. If you have to reroute it I don't know that there is a way
to do that efficiently without piping it, that would make the users of that irrigation water
happy long term anyway. So, you know, I do like a lot of-- that you have a lot of different
products in here. There is a lot going on. I like the road -- the way that the road comes
in and goes around provides, you know, ample circulation for--for this. So, I don't know.
I -- I mean at this point I don't see anything that -- I'm not seeing anything that Joe hasn't
already taken care of as far as the staff report that I wouldn't be able to support.
Commissioner Grove, go ahead.
Grove: Mr. Chair. I would agree. I had some concerns. They have been largely
addressed or at least addressed within the conditional -- conditions of approval. I think
the site constraints are going to make this rather difficult to do a whole lot else with it. I
think that it fits and, you know, having the Ten Mile area specific plan to help guide some
of the design gives it another piece to, you know, integrate with what's there. So, I'm on
board. I think there is some work to be done before City Council, but it all seems doable
and it's -- it's not something that should really stop or slow down the process at this point.
Seal: Okay. Anybody else?
Yearsley: I have no concerns.
Seal: Okay. At this point I'm looking for a motion.
Dodson: Mr. Chair, just real quick. Since I can count tonight, I would say with any motion
that I recommend striking condition 12-A, because that's the unit one.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. March 3,2022 F43]
Page 39 of 40
Grove: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Commissioner Grove, go ahead.
Grove: Okay. All right. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move
to recommend approval to the City Council of file number H-2021-0096 as presented in
a staff report for the hearing date of March 3rd, 2022, with the following modification: That
Condition 12-A be stricken.
Seal: Okay. Do I have a second?
Lorcher: Second.
Seal: It's been moved and seconded to recommend approval of Item No. H-2021-0096
with aforementioned modifications. All in favor? Any opposed? Motion -- motion carries.
Gosh, I almost said that wrong. I'm reading -- reading ahead.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Grove: I have a question for staff real quick. Is that okay?
Seal: I don't know.
Grove: Do we need to do another motion, because there was a CUP also, on that or
does that get --
Dodson: No. That's all part of the same deal when it -- when it's all together like that you
are good.
Grove: Cool.
Seal: All right. Thank you very much. At this point I'm looking for one final motion.
Yearsley: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: I move we adjourn.
Seal: Do I have a second?
Stoddard: I second.
Seal: It's been moved and seconded that we adjourn. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
Motion carries. Thank you all very much.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item. March 3,2022 F44
Page 40 of 40
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:11 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
ANDREW SEAL - CHAIRMAN
Approved 3-17-2022
ATTEST:
CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK
Item 1. 3
E IDIAN
'aAHO
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Approve Minutes of the February 17, 2022 Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 17,2022 F27
Page 24 of 24
Cassinelli: --just wanted to check. Thank you.
Tiefenbach: Yes, sir.
Seal: Okay. If anybody would like to float a motion.
Grove: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Commissioner Grove, go ahead.
Grove: Before I do my motion, just want to reiterate. I'm not opposed to the design or
the density, but the -- the -- the traffic is -- is the issue. So, with that being said, after
considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the
City Council of file number H-2021-0074 as presented during the hearing date of February
17th, 2022, for the reason of traffic impact on the arterial roads abutting this project.
Cassinelli: Second.
Seal: It's been moved and seconded to recommend denial of Item No. -- I had it in front
of me. H-2021-0074. All those in favor of the recommended denial, please, say aye.
Any opposed? Okay. Motion carries.
MOTION CARIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Seal: Thank you.
Wheeler: Is it your honors tonight, Bill?
Seal: Yeah. Can I get one more motion, please.
Cassinelli: Final -- final motion. Mr. Chair, I move that we adjourn.
Lorcher: Second.
Seal: It's been moved and seconded that we adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Any
opposed? Motion carries. Thank you.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7.19 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED 3 I 3 12022
ANDREW SEAL - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED
ATTEST:
CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK
E K IDIAN:---
iuAn
Planning and Zoning Presentations and outline
Changes to Agenda: Item #5: Pinedale Subdivision (H-2022-0001) – Applicant requests continuance to a later hearing to work with
staff on revisions to the plat.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Item #2: Meridian U-Haul Moving and Storage (H-2021-0085)
Application(s):
Conditional Use Permit
Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 6.86 acres of land, zoned C-G, located at the
northwest corner of E. Overland Rd and S. Locust Grove Rd.
Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Commercial
Summary of Request:
Request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow self-storage, vehicle and equipment rentals with outdoor display, and ancillary retail
on 6.86 acres in the C-G zoning district.
The property consists of three lots totaling 6.86 acres.
Annexed into the City in 1999 as the Overland Storage Annexation.
Development agreement allowed the construction, development and use of only a ministorage facility consisting of eight buildings
of various sizes and one caretaker unit pursuant a conditional use permit.
A Conditional Use Permit was approved for this use in October of 1999 and a final plat was recorded in 2002, but the approved
self-storage facility was never developed.
This proposal is for a conditional use to allow self-storage, rental and outdoor display of vehicles and equipment, and ancillary
retail to allow a U-Haul business.
As the existing development agreement is very specific to allowed uses, the applicant has recently received City Council approval
on a development agreement modification to allow the outdoor display and ancillary retail.
Proposed layout
The project includes 8 buildings ranging in size between 117,000 sq. ft. to 1,400 sq. ft. with an outdoor rental display area directly
along E. Overland at the south perimeter of the property.
There are several buildings that do not appear to meet the minimum spacing requirement of 25 ft. This includes between the
northeast corner of Building C and southwest corner of Building G, between Buildings G and H, and possibly between the
northwest corner of Building A and the southern side of Building C. The site plan will need to be revised accordingly.
Due to the high visibility of the site and the residential uses directly across E. Overland Rd to the south, staff has concerns
regarding trailers and other associated moving equipment being littered throughout the site.
Although staff believes display of operable moving vehicles is acceptable along the southern property line, as a condition of
approval, staff recommends all trailers and other moving equipment be stored behind a closed vision fence, wall, or screen or
within an enclosed structure and not be visible from any street.
Also, to screen headlights and to reflect higher quality design, as a condition of approval, staff recommends a combination of a
landscaped 4 ft. high undulating berm, decorative walls and evergreen shrubs along the entire front perimeter of the property.
Staff also recommends all pole lighting along the front of the property be limited to 12 ft. in height and directed to the north, away
from adjacent residences.
Elevations
The applicant has submitted building elevations for several buildings. The elevations include materials such as cement board,
stucco, brick and metal paneling for accents.
Overall, staff does believe the elevations are of good quality. There are some elements, such as fenestration and modulation,
that may not meet all the requirements of the ASM, but staff will review in detail at time of design review.
As mentioned above, this project is highly visible from E. Overland Rd. and the existing residences at the south.
Staff believes there should be additional design considerations.
o Staff has concerns with the exposed stairs on the south side of Building A both for visual impacts and potential
maintenance issues with these stairs being exposed.
o Staff recommends either the stairs be removed from southern and eastern locations visible from E. Overland Rd., or
screened in a stairwell or similar architectural element comprised of materials consistent with the exterior field
materials of the building.
o Also, staff recommends the roll up doors on the south and east sides of Building A and south side of Building be
better integrated into the building design through use of color, architectural detailing, overhangs, door frame
treatments, etc.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval with conditions.
Notes:
Possible Motions:
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2021-0085, as presented in the staff
report for the hearing date of March 3, 2022, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions)
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2021-
0085, as presented during the hearing on March 3, 2022, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial)
Continuance
I move to continue File Number H-2021-0085 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following
reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance)
Item #3: Eagle Road Daycare Facility (H-2022-0007)
Application(s):
Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 1.15 acres of land, zoned C-C, located at 3060 S. Eagle Rd. on
the east side of S. Eagle Rd. just north of E. Victory Rd.
History: A modification to the existing Development Agreement (DA) was recently approved by City Council to update the conceptual
development plan approved for the site to allow for development of the proposed use and the site layout (H-2021-0095) but has not yet
been recorded.
Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MU-C
Summary of Request: A CUP is proposed for a 13,660 square foot daycare center in the C-C zoning district to accommodate a
maximum of 216 children & 24 staff members. Childcare and early education is proposed to be provided for children age 6 weeks to 6
years with after-school programs for children up to age 12.
The proposed site plan is consistent with the updated conceptual development plan & uses approved with the recent DA modification.
The amended DA and final plat for Inglewood Subdivision No. 2, within which this site is located, must be recorded prior to submittal of
a Certificate of Zoning Compliance application for the proposed use.
Daycares are required to comply with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-9 for Daycare Facilities.
Access is proposed via a right-in/right-out driveway from S. Eagle Rd. & via an access easement through the adjacent properties to the
south & east via Titanium Way from Victory Rd.
A minimum of 27 parking spaces are required for the size of building proposed; a total of 29 spaces are proposed. Although the
proposed parking exceeds the minimum standards by two (2) and the number of staff members on-site at any one time will likely
fluctuate, Staff is concerned that if the facility is at full capacity and up to 24 staff members are on-site at any one time there may not be
adequate parking or pick-up/drop-off area for the proposed use. Therefore, Staff recommends a shared use agreement for parking is
required with the property to the south.
Conceptual building elevations were submitted for a single-story building as shown that incorporate a mix of materials consisting of
hardie panel board and batten siding with stone veneer accents and metal roofing. Final design is required to incorporate some of the
same or similar design elements and materials as those in the residential portion of the development per the DA and shall comply with
the design standards listed in the ASM.
Written Testimony: Samantha Kozlowski – can’t comply with the following conditions due to site constraints associated with the
proposed building size:
#4d: requirement for a minimum 5’ pedestrian walkway to be provided from the perimeter sidewalk along Eagle Rd. to the
main building entrance due to site constraints. This standard is eligible for alternative compliance.
#4e & f: requirement for a 25’ buffer adjacent to residential uses to the north & east. This standard may be reduced by City
Council at a public hearing with notice to surrounding property owners.
#9: Outdoor play equipment over 6’ in height can’t be located in a front yard or within any required yard – they have some play
equipment that is over 6’ in height proposed in the play area between the structure and the street buffer along Eagle. Rd.
Staff Recommendation: Approval w/the conditions in the staff report
Possible Motions:
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H-
2022-0007, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 3, 2022, with the following modifications: (Add any
proposed modifications to conditions)
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2022-
0007, as presented during the hearing on March 3, 2022, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial)
Continuance
I move to continue File Number H-2022-0007 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: Verona Live/Work (H-2021-0080) continued from 2/03/2022.
Application(s):
Conditional Use Permit
Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 1.75 acres of land, zoned L-O, located at 3020 & 3042 W.
Milano Drive, near the northeast corner of Ten Mile and McMillan.
History: Verona Subdivision (AZ-03-005); Verona Subdivision No. 3 Rezone (RZ-05-006); Verona Subdivision No. 3 FP (FP-05-046);
DA Mod (MI-08-006, DA Inst. #108101152).
Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Office
Summary of Request: Conditional Use Permit for 14 vertically integrated residential units within three (3) buildings on 1.75 acres in
the subject L-O zoning district. Office future land use designation is meant to provide opportunities for low-impact business areas.
These uses would include professional offices, technology and resource centers; ancillary commercial uses may be considered.
Vertically Integrated residential project is listed as a conditional use in the L-O zoning district.
West of the subject sites sits one vacant L-O parcel and one medical office building; further to the west and abutting Ten Mile Road are
two additional office buildings. Because of common ownership of the land, the Applicant is showing an office building directly to the
west on the vacant office lot along the north boundary but this building is not part of the proposal and is shown only for reference. To
the east and north of the subject sites are detached single-family residential that are part of the Verona Subdivision. To the south is
approximately 10 acres of C-G zoned property that includes a number of commercial properties under development. The existing use is
on the hard corner of McMillan and Ten Mile and is a fuel service station and convenience store. Directly to the south and across W.
Milano, the largest commercial parcel has approvals for a 164 unit 55 and older multi-family development. Staff anticipates future
residents of that site could utilize some of the future services provided within the commercial spaces of the proposed vertically
integrated buildings. Because the proposed use is adjacent to a mixture of existing and planned uses (residential, office, commercial,
etc.), Staff finds it could be an appropriate use in this Office FLUM designation.
Vertically integrated residential projects incorporate commercial spaces and residential uses within one structure and most often
include commercial space on the first floor and residential on the floor or floors above. It is defined as :“The use of a multi-story
structure for residential and nonresidential uses where the different uses are planned as a unified, complementary whole and
functionally integrated to share vehicular and pedestrian access and parking.” In this project, the Applicant is proposing a small
commercial space at the front of the building on the first floor with the proposed residential portion of the units being both behind and
above the commercial space. Therefore, the Applicant is proposing a two-story concept for these vertically integrated buildings with the
vehicular access for each unit proposed to be from the rear via a two-car garage for each unit.
Proposal meets almost all defined development regulations in the UDC (a couple of the drive aisles need to be widened to meet code;
condition is already included). But, Vertically Integrated is a conditional use in the L-O district so Commission should determine if the
proposed project, despite meeting the minimum code requirements, meets the intent of the proposed use, if the design is desired in the
City and specifically in this location.
Following original publication of the staff report and Staff’s noted concerns, the Applicant requested a continuance of the project
hearing in order to meet and work with Staff. Following this meeting, the Applicant submitted revised plans as outlined in the Staff
th
Memo to the Commission dated January 28, 2022. The revised plans show the following notable changes:
Loss of two unit building in the interior of the site and an addition of green space and more guest parking.
Revised floor plan of the 4-unit building on the north property to include an additional commercial space at the front of the
building (other 10 units were not revised).
Additional sidewalk connections from existing sidewalks along public streets to the proposed buildings.
Revised elevations showing changes to the first floor façade as recommended:
o First floor façade now includes a dedicated commercial entry door in addition to the internal shared access.
o Façade incorporates nonresidential style awnings and shows area that would allow for signage space for future
tenants/businesses.
o Applicant added taller windows on the first floor façade adjacent to the new commercial entry door to create more of
a storefront consistent with nonresidential buildings; Staff finds this is an improvement from the original elevations
that largely looked 100% residential.
Following the Commission hearing on February 3, 2022, the Applicant submitted a memo and made the following revisions to
the floor plans in response to the discussion at the Commission hearing:
Removed any interior access between the commercial and the residential;
Removed the dividing wall within the commercial space of the larger units (noted as the B-units, located at the
northeast corner of the site).
Written Testimony: Karen Hibbs – Project does not mesh with existing office nor existing residential in the area; concerns over traffic
increases, parking, and available green space for tenants.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval with the noted conditions in the staff report and recommended revisions to the
conditions as noted in the Memo to the Commission.
Notes:
Possible Motions:
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2021-0080, as presented in the staff
report and Staff Memo for the hearing date of February 3, 2022, 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-2021-0080, as presented during the
hearing on February 3, 2022, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial)
Continuance
I move to continue File Number H-2021-0080 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: Pinedale Subdivision (H-2022-0001)
Application(s):
Annexation and Zoning, and Preliminary Plat
Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 1.22 acres of land, zoned RUT, located at along the railroad
corridor west of Ten Mile and at the terminus of Newland Street at the southeast corner of Chesterfield Subdivision.
History: N/A
Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Mixed-Use Community
Summary of Request: Annexation and Zoning of 1.22 acres of land with a request for the R-15 zoning district and a Preliminary Plat
for 12 building lots and 2 common lots. Applicant has revised plat to request 10 lots instead of 12 – Staff report was analyzed against
10 lots. Applicant is proposing to construct detached single-family dwellings at a gross density of 8.19 du/ac, an average lot size of
3,363 square feet and a minimum lot size of 3,099 square feet. Proposed use is a permitted use within the requested R-15 zoning
district and all lots appear to meet UDC dimensional standards.
Access is proposed via extension of W. Newland Street (an existing residential local street) into the site and is proposed to terminate
within the site as a full cul-de-sac. The existing access is from a private access across the Tenmile Creek to a previously private
segment of Pine Avenue to the northeast of the site. This access will be terminated upon development.
Tenmile Creek runs along the entire east property line and requires a 100’ total easement width (50’ on each side from centerline of
creek). Original plat does not contemplate this easement area which gave Staff concern with proposed development. Staff’s other
concerns are as follows:
Analyzing project against MU-C designation versus adjacent MDR designation
Amount of buildable area once required cul-de-sac is placed within the site and how that affects the livability of the project
Difference between proposed lot sizes of this project and those within Chesterfield to the west
Number of driveways taking access from cul-de-sac
Can proposed elevations fit on submitted building lot sizes/configuration
Written Testimony: \[name(s)\] - \[issue(s)\]
Staff Recommendation: \[Approval/Denial\]
Notes:
Possible Motions:
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H-
2022-0001, 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 H-2022-
0001, 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 H-2022-0001 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: Aviation Subdivision (H-2021-0096)
Application(s):
Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit
Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 9.8 acres acres of land, zoned R-15, located near the northeast
corner of N. Black Cat Rd. and W. Franklin Rd., to the north and northeast of Compass Public Charter School.
History: H-2018-0048 (Compass Charter School AZ, CPAM; DA Inst. #2018-079763); H-2020-0111 (Aviator Sub. CPAM, MDA, RZ;
DA Inst. #2021-067235).
Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Medium-High Density Residential (8-12 du/ac)
Summary of Request: Preliminary Plat for 48 building lots (6 single family attached lots, 31 townhome lots, 2 detached single-family,
and 9 multi-family lots), 8 common lots, and 1 other lot and a Conditional Use Permit for 36 multi-family units on 9 lots on 9.8 acres in
the R-15 zoning district. Total proposed residential unit count is 73 units.
The subject 9.8 acres were annexed into the City of Meridian in 2018 with the Compass Charter School application and also received
CPAM approval at that time to change the underlying land use from medium-high density residential to mixed employment. Later, this
9.8 acre parcel was no longer a part of the long-term plan for the school and was subsequently sold. In 2020, a new application for a
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, Development Agreement Modification, and Rezone were requested and approved to allow for
residential zoning and uses instead of Mixed Employment or other industrial uses desired in the previous mixed employment
designation. With these approvals, the property was returned to its original future land use of Medium-High Density Residential (MHDR)
and included a new concept plan with a residential development and the proposed and preferred location of the Aviator Street
extension. Subject site is also within the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan (TMISAP) which also recommends a mix of housing
types in the MHDR designation (row houses, townhouses, condominiums, alley-loaded homes, and apartments).
In the MHDR designation and noted within the existing DA, residential gross densities should range from 8 to 12 dwelling units per
acre. The Applicant is proposing 73 total residential units on the subject 9.8 acres in the R-15 zoning district which constitutes a gross
density of 7.44 du/ac. This density does not comply with the minimum density required within the DA nor the future land use
designation which requires a minimum of 8 du/ac. The Applicant should revise the plat to include at least one more dwelling unit to
meet the minimum density requirement. This site is part of a large area of MHDR that is slowly redeveloping from both the west and the
east and development of the subject site is a logical direction for development to occur in this area in terms of density and road
improvements. However, the transportation element of this area of the Ten Mile Plan is important and there are known traffic issues in
this area caused by the adjacent Compass Charter School, most notably at typical pick-up and drop-off times in the morning and
afternoon. The congestion associated with the school creates traffic along the entire Black Cat corridor between Franklin and Cherry
and significantly impedes the intersections of Aviator and Black Cat and Black Cat and Franklin during the peak times noted above.
Staff notes that applications for the site to the east are likely forthcoming which would connect Aviator from Black Cat to N. San Marco
Way within the Entrata Farms Subdivision to the southeast. This east-west connection would create the needed secondary access for
Fire as well as provide a different connection to Franklin Road for this area. To help mitigate this issue as well as the overall phasing
element of the site, Staff is recommending conditions of approval around the phasing of the project in relation to the construction of W.
Aviator Street.
In addition to the general Comprehensive Plan, the Applicant is expected to meet certain design criteria found within the Ten Mile Plan
as well. The Applicant is in compliance with these criteria except for the street oriented design outlined on page 3-33. This criteria
discuss that front loaded garages must be located no less than 20’ behind the primary façade of the residential structure. As noted in
my staff report, the existing site constraints of extending a collector street and the 100’ easement of the Purdam Drain make full
compliance with this standard unlikely. Therefore, Staff recommends the Applicant explore alternate design options to be more
consistent with this requirement while maintaining a gross density of at least 8 units per acre; an alternate floor plan and revised
elevations in compliance with the recorded DA should be submitted in accord with this provision prior to the City Council hearing.
Proposed plat complies with all UDC dimensional standards, road widths, and the proposed single-family uses are principally permitted
in the R-15 zoning district. Applicant is proposing detached sidewalks and parkways throughout the single-family portion of the project
to help activate the street and provide more compliance with the Ten Mile Plan. Proposed plat meets all landscape requirements
except for the required 20’ buffer along the south side of the Aviator extension. However, Staff recommends the Applicant coordinate
with the irrigation district to see if some trees could be placed strategically in order to provide some areas of shade in the Purdam Drain
easement area closest to the buildings.
Due to proposal of two types of residential uses in the same project, the open space requirements vary for the single-family and the
multi-family portions of the site. The single-family area is approximately 5 acres in size and the multi-family area is approximately 4.8
acres in size (total property size is 9.8 acres). Therefore, the minimum amount of qualified open space required to meet UDC 11-3G-3
for the single-family portion of the site is 0.75 acres, or approximately 32,700 square feet. The minimum amount of qualified open
space that is needed to satisfy the multi-family specific use standards (UDC 11-4-3-27) is an amount per unit based on the size of the
units—the provision in this section of code to require a minimum 10% in addition to the per unit amount is not applicable as the multi-
family area of the site is not greater than five (5) acres. With 36 units proposed, the minimum amount of qualified common open space
for the multi-family development is 12,600 square feet. So, in total, the amount of open space provided should be at least 45,300
square feet, or 1.04 acres. According to the submitted plans, the Applicant is proposing approximately 155,200 square feet (3.56 acres)
of common open space within common lots (of which, approximately 2.5 acres is qualified open space). However, this area is still not
fully accurate as some of the Purdam Drain easement area is located on buildable lots and the open space calculation does not include
the parkways that are qualifying open space. This shows the actual open space area is even greater. Therefore, the proposed open
space vastly exceeds the minimum amount required by code for both the single-family and the multi-family portions of the project.
Applicant is required to provide a qualifying amenity worth at least one (1) amenity point for the single-family portion of the site—the
submitted plans do not show compliance with this requirement.
Specific to the multi-family portion of the site, the Applicant complies with all requirements except as follows:
No property management office or maintenance storage area is shown on the submitted plans;
3 amenities are required, 1 is shown on the plans;
Number of off-street parking spaces – Staff recommends two things to address this:
o Reduce the bedroom count of some of the units.
o Revise plans to add required spaces in areas noted in staff report.
The Applicant is proposing to extend W. Aviator, the collector street, from its current location to the east property boundary. According
to the submitted plat, the Applicant is showing a small portion of this road extension on a property to the south that is not part of this
application and is not annexed into the City of Meridian. It is not typical of road extensions to utilize area not on the subject property but
it allows the Applicant to have more usable land area that is significantly reduced due to the existence of the Purdam Gulch Drain and
its 100-foot wide easement. The placement of the Aviator extension requires a formal agreement with the adjacent property owner. If
the Applicant cannot reach an agreement with the adjacent property owner, the submitted plat will have to be revised to show Aviator
wholly on the subject site. To ensure this occurs prior to development, Staff has included a condition of approval that a final plat for this
project will not be accepted until an agreement has been formalized and the right-of way is dedicated to allow the construction of the
off-site portion of Aviator Street. Vehicular access for the single-family portion of the project is via construction of a new local street that
loops through the site. In addition, access to the multi-family portion of the project is via two 25-foot wide drive aisle connections to the
eastern local street. ACHD has noted Aviator will need to be 1-foot wider than currently shown which the Applicant has agreed to.
There is no secondary access to the site because Aviator will still be a dead-end street after its extension with this project. As noted
above, the Fire Department requires a secondary access for each access that has more than 30 units taking access from it (Hensley
Station to the west takes up the 30+ units already). Thus, the construction phasing of the project plays a role in how Staff must address
this issue as all of the structures will need to be sprinklered if the single-family is constructed first (the multi-family is required to be
sprinklered). The Applicant has stated their plan is to extend Aviator into the site to the point of no more than 150 feet past the eastern
local street connection to avoid the need of a temporary turnaround (the local street within the project would be constructed at the
same time). This complies with the technical requirements of the UDC and Fire code but is not consistent with general practice of
requiring public streets to be extended to-and-through sites with the first phase of development (prior to or in timing with the first
buildings being constructed). However, the Applicant is continuing to work with ACHD on a plan to construct Aviator as noted and road
trust for the remaining portion so it can be extended with any future road project that occurs on the parcel to the east. Staff is
supportive of this option as the road would be a dead-end street and constructing a temporary turnaround would be both wasteful of
space and would need to be located on top of the Purdam Drain which could further hinder the Applicant’s ability to develop the site
due to complications with the irrigation district. In conversations, ACHD has noted an openness to this option but did not include it in
their staff report specifically. So, Staff has included a condition of approval to encompass both potential outcomes of the Aviator Street
extension.
Written Testimony: Concerns with piping the Purdam Gulch Drain and a desire to keep it open as a water amenity for the project.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval if the conditions noted in the Staff Report are completed and adhered to.
Notes:
Possible Motions:
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H-
2021-0096, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 3, 2022, with the following modifications: (Add any
proposed modifications to conditions)
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2021-
0096, as presented during the hearing on March 3, 2022, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial)
Continuance
I move to continue File Number H-2021-0096 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following
reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance)
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting March 3, 2022
Item #2:PLANNED DEVELOPMENTZONINGFLUM Haul Moving and Storage-
•agreement modification to allow the outdoor display and ancillary retail.applicant has recently received City Council approval on a development As the existing development agreement
is very specific to allowed uses, the •business.Haul -display of vehicles and equipment, and ancillary retail to allow a Ustorage, rental and outdoor -This proposal is for a conditional
use to allow self•never developed.storage facility was -final plat was recorded in 2002, but the approved selfConditional Use Permit was approved for this use in October of 1999 and
a •one caretaker unit pursuant a conditional use permit. of only a ministorage facility consisting of eight buildings of various sizes and Development agreement allowed the construction,
development and use •Annexed into the City in 1999 as the Overland Storage Annexation.•Property consists of three lots totaling 6.86 acres. •G zoning district.-the Cequipment rentals
with outdoor display, and ancillary retail on 6.86 acres in storage, vehicle and -Request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow self
Item #3: Eagle Road Daycare PLANNED DEVELOPMENTZONINGFLUM
Site/Landscape Plan
Elevations
Item #4: Verona Live/Work CUP AERIALZONING Maps–
Revised Floor Plans (Feb. 2022)
Revised Site Plan
Revised Color-
Revised Conceptual Elevations
Item #6: Aviation Subdivision PLANNED DEVELOPMENTZONING Maps–
Preliminary Plat
LandscapePlan
Conceptual Elevations
W. Aviator Extension
Item 2. 28
(:>
E IDIAN*-----,
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing Continued from February 17, 2022 for Meridian U-Haul
Moving and Storage (H-2021-0085) by Gurnoor Kaur of Amerco Real Estate Company, Located
on Parcel R8257510015 and at 1230 and 1270 E. Overland Rd., Near the Northwest Corner of E.
Overland Rd. and S. Locust Grove Rd.
A. Request: Conditional Use Permit to allow self-storage, ancillary retail, and warehousing and
vehicle and equipment with outdoor display.
Item 2. F29
(:�N-WE IDIAN:--
IDAHO
PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION
Staff Contact:Alan Tiefenbach Meeting Date: February 17, 2022
Topic: Public Hearing Continued from February 17, 2022 for Meridian U-Haul Moving and
Storage (H-2021-0085) by Gurnoor Kaur of Amerco Real Estate Company, Located
on Parcel R8257510015 and at 1230 and 1270 E. Overland Rd., Near the Northwest
Corner of E. Overland Rd. and S. Locust Grove Rd.
A. Request: Conditional Use Permit to allow self-storage, ancillary retail, and
warehousing and vehicle and equipment with outdoor display.
Information Resources:
Click Here for Application Materials
Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing
Item 2. ■
STAFF REPORTC�WE IDIANn-=-
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A H O
HEARING 2/17/2022 Legend w
DATE: F• ;eo Lxo:on
TO: Planning&Zoning Commission
FROM: Alan Tiefenbach,Associate Planner
SUBJECT: H-2021-0085
Meridian U-Haul Moving and Storage °
LOCATION: 1230 and 1270 E. Overland Rd. and RB
Parcel#R8257510015, at the northwest
corner of E. Overland Rd and S. Locust
Grove Rd.
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow self-storage,vehicle and equipment rentals with outdoor
display,and ancillary retail on 6.86 acres in the C-G zoning district,by Gurnoor Kaur,Amerco Real
Estate Company. A Development Agreement Modification regarding this development was approved by
the City Council on February 3, 2022.
II. SUMMARY OF REPORT
A. Project Summary
Description Details Page
Acreage 6.86
Future Land Use Designation Commercial
Existing Land Use(s) Vacant F
Proposed Land Use(s) Self-Storage,Equipment and Vehicle Rental with Outdoor
Display,Ancillary Retail
Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 3 existing lots
Physical Features(waterways, Nine Mile Creek is just off the property to the east.
hazards,flood plain,hillside)
Neighborhood meeting date;#of October 13,2021;No attendees
attendees:
History(previous approvals) Annexation AZ-99-018,DA Instr.# 100029704,
Preliminary Plat PP-99-015,FP-00-005,CUP 99-033,
MDA H-2021-0101
Page 1
Item 2. F31
B. Community Metrics
Description Details Page
Ada County Highway District
• Staff report(yes/no) No
Access(Arterial/Collectors/State There is existing access from E.Overland Dr; site plan
Hwy/Local)(Existing and shows an additional access from S. Labrador Wy
Proposed)
Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross A cross access easement exists with the property at 1322 E.
Access Overland Rd
Existing Road Network E. Overland Rd and S.Labrador Wy
Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ There are existing 5 ft. sidewalks along E. Overland Rd.
Buffers and S.Labrador Wy.
Proposed Road Improvements None
Fire Service
• No comments
Police Service
• No comments
Wastewater Comments
• No comments
Water
• Distance to Water Services 0
• Pressure Zone 4 '
• Water Quality No concerns
• Project Consistent with Yes
Water Master Plan
• Impacts/Concerns • There are no utilities shown in this record.Public
Works will need to review and approve the utility plan.
• There are no changes to the water infrastructure in this
record.
• There are existing water stubs along the southern
property line that either needs to be used or abandoned.
• A utility plan needs to be reviewed and approved by
Public Works.
Page 2
� m
1 1 1
84
IN
m r NONE ■..N■
■ �_ �� ■I■ NNONE 1 ' *1 1 � fl ; 'p �' - -.I-- tmr, ii 'j
MEMO
■ 4 i'11 - {•5
mill
■
1111111 I!7!mHE—c
bit
MOORE Ad.
4
■ �� ■�■ �NHim
�a�'x� R ■ �'� �� ■�■ I sin m■■m■
�� �■ ■■■■ on �� ■mill �� ■ ■
��■■ ■■o mono R ■■■�� rim�lNi■ mono
■i■ �..
son
of
i
Item 2. 33
IV. NOTICING
Planning& Zoning City Council
Posting Date Posting Date
Notification published in
newspaper
1/18/2022
Notification mailed to property
owners within 300' 1/14/2022
Applicant posted public hearing
notice sign on site 1/28/2022
Nextdoor posting 1/14/2022
V. STAFF ANALYSIS
This is a proposal for a conditional use to allow self-storage,rental and outdoor display of vehicles
and equipment, and ancillary retail to allow a U-Haul business. The project includes 8 buildings
ranging in size between 117,000 sq. ft. to 1,400 sq. ft. with an outdoor rental display area directly
along E. Overland at the south perimeter of the property. A development agreement modification was
approved by City Council on February 8,2022.
The property consists of three lots totaling 6.86 acres. It was annexed into the City in 1999 as the
Overland Storage Annexation(AZ-99-018,DA Instr. # 100029704,Preliminary Plat PP-99-015). The
development agreement allows the construction, development and use of only a ministorage facility
consisting of eight buildings of various sizes and one caretaker unit pursuant a conditional use permit.
A Conditional Use Permit(CUP-99-033)was approved for this use in October of 1999 and a final
plat was recorded in 2002(Pack it Up Subdivision,FP-00-005). The approved self-storage facility
was never developed.
Staff and the applicant have had numerous discussions regarding the location of a new facility,and
due to the location, surrounding uses,and C-G zoning this particular location was selected. However,
in addition to self-storage,as is typical for a U-Haul facility,the applicant intends to display U-Haul
trucks and equipment for rental. A conditional use permit is required for these uses in the C-G zone
district.As the existing development agreement is very specific to allowed uses,the applicant has
recently received City Council approval on a development agreement modification to allow the
outdoor display and ancillary retail,however the amended DA has not been approved and recorded.
A. Future Land Use Map Designation(https:llwww.meridianciu.or /g compplan)
Commercial—This designation will provide a full range of commercial uses to serve area
residents and visitors. Desired uses may include retail,restaurants,personal and professional
services, and office uses, as well as appropriate public and quasi-public uses.
The subject site is zoned General Retail and Service Commercial District(C-G). This allows a
broad range of commercial uses. The property is bordered by a daycare to the east, roofing
business and contractor's yard to the west, climbing gym, church and industrial business to the
north. There is existing single family residential across E. Overland Rd to the south (Sportsman
Pointe Subdivision).
The description of commercial in the comprehensive plan does not specifically mention storage
or equipment rental. However, the property is already zoned C-G which allows self-storage, and
vehicle and equipment rental by conditional use subject to specific use standards. The retail
component is a principally permitted use and is not subject to any specific use standards.
Page 4
Item 2. ■
B. Zoning
The property is already zoned C-G,which allows self-storage, and equipment and vehicle rental
by conditional use subject to the specific use standards as listed below.
C. Comprehensive Plan Policies(https:llwww.meridianciU.or /�compplan):
• "Permit new development only where urban services can be reasonably provided at the time
of final approval and development is contiguous to the City."(3.01.01F)
City services are available and will be extended by the developer to the proposed lots upon
development of the site in accord with UDC 11-3A-21.
• "Require all commercial and industrial businesses to install and maintain landscaping."
(2.01.03B)
Landscape buffers and parking lot landscaping is required to be provided with development
of this property in accord with UDC 11-3B.As mentioned in the specific use standards
section below, staff is also recommending additional perimeter treatment along E. Overland
Rd.
• Maintain integrity of neighborhoods to preserve values and ambiance of areas(3.05.02).
If the applicant complies with the design guidelines outlined in the ASM, conditions of
approval listed in this staff report, UDC design standards and specific use standards, staff is
of the opinion the proposed use should maintain the integrity of the neighborhood.
• Require appropriate landscape and buffers along transportation corridors(setback,vegetation,
low walls,berms, etc.) (3.06.02F).
The subject property abuts E. Overland Rd. (arterial) and S. Labrador Wy(local). The UDC
requires a minimum 25 ft. landscape buffer along arterial roads and]Oft wide landscape
buffer along local roads. The landscape plan reflects a 30 ft. wide buffer along E. Overland
Rd. and 40 ft. wide buffer along S. Labrador Wy. The landscape plan also indicates a 40 ft.
buffer adjacent to the C-C-zoned properties at the north and]Oft. wide buffer to the L-O
zoned properties to the west.
• Plan for a variety of commercial and retail opportunities within the Impact Area(3.05.01 J).
This is an area of Meridian characterized by industrial and commercial uses and residential
across E. Overland Rd. Self-storage and equipment rental, sales, and service is allowed by
conditional use in this location.
• Ensure development provides safe routes and access to schools, parks and other community
gathering places(3.07.02N).
Seven foot wide attached sidewalks currently exist along E. Overland Rd. and S. Labrador
Wy. in accord with UDC 11-3A-17.
D. Existing Structures/Site Improvements:
The property is presently vacant.
E. Proposed Use Analysis:
The proposed uses are defined as"storage facility, self-service", "equipment rental, sales, and
service", and"vehicle rental"in the Unified Development Code (UDC). These uses are allowed
by conditional use in the C-G zoning district per UDC Table 11-2C-2. These uses are also
governed by the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-15, 11-4-3-38 and 11-4-34. The
retail use is principally permitted use and is not subject to any specific use standards.
Page 5
Item 2. 35
F. Specific Use Standards(UDC 11-4-3):
UDC 11-4-3 lists the specific use standards for self-service storage facilities,vehicle sales and
rental,and equipment rental, sales and service. Standards for self-service facilities include storage
units not being used as dwelling units, distance between structures being 25 ft., facility being
completed fenced,walled or enclosed and screened from public view, and secondary emergency
access. Specific use standards for equipment rental, sales and service require repair activities to
occur within an enclosed structure, and outdoor display areas are prohibited in the required
landscape buffer. In addition,the standards for vehicle rental states inoperable or dismantled
motor vehicles shall be stored behind a closed vision fence,wall,or screen or within an enclosed
structure and shall not be visible from any street.
Storage units will not be used as dwellings, and secondary access will occur on S.Labrador Wy.
All repair of equipment will occur at a different location, or within the office. All storage is
enclosed within one of the storage buildings.
There are several buildings that do not appear to meet the minimum spacing requirement
of 25 ft. This includes between the northeast corner of Building C and southwest corner of
Building G,between Buildings G and H,and possibly between the northwest corner of
Building A and the southern side of Building C.The site plan will need to be revised
accordingly.
In addition, due to the high visibility of the site and the residential uses directly across E.
Overland Rd to the south, staff has concerns regarding trailers and other associated moving
equipment being littered throughout the site.Although staff believes display of operable moving
vehicles is acceptable along the southern property line, as a condition of approval, staff
recommends all trailers and other moving equipment be stored behind a closed vision fence,wall,
or screen or within an enclosed structure and not be visible from any street. Screening fences or
walls should be designed to be consistent with building architecture in accord with UDC 11-4-3-
33 and details of these walls, fence or screen shall be submitted at time of CZC.
G. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2):
The C-G zoning district requires a 25 ft. landscape buffer from arterial roads, 10 ft. buffer from
local roads, and allows building heights of up to 65 ft. The landscape plan reflects a 30 ft. wide
buffer along E. Overland Rd. and 40 ft. wide buffer along S. Labrador Wy. The landscape plan
also indicates a 40 ft. buffer adjacent to the C-C-zoned properties at the north and 10 ft.wide
buffer to the L-O zoned properties to the west. The building elevations indicate the highest
building is approximately 39 ft. in height. More detailed review will occur at the time of the
Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC).
The property is comprised of three different lots,and it appears the proposed buildings straddle
internal lot lines. As a condition of approval,the applicant will be required to complete a parcel
boundary adjustment to merge all lots into one property.
H. Access(UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4):
The Pack It Up Subdivision Plat allows access via a shared drive from E. Overland Rd and there
is a second access proposed at the end of a"knuckle"on S. Labrador Wy. The site plan reflects
these two accesses. Meridian Fire supports this configuration,and staff has not received
comments from ACHD.
I. Parking(UDC 11-3C):
UDC 11-3C-6 states in all commercial districts self-service storage facilities shall only require
parking based on the gross floor area of the office space. With the office and retail area being
Page 6
Item 2. 36
shown at 3,000 sq. ft., 6 parking spaces are required,whereas the site plan shows at least 26
parking spaces along the south perimeter and 10 more directly adjacent to the office.
J. Pathways ( UDC 11-3A-8):
No pathways are shown on the master pathways plan for this site or provided with this
development.
K. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17):
There are already 7 ft. wide attached sidewalks along E. Overland Rd. and S. Labrador Wy.
L. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B):
As mentioned above,the landscape plan reflects a 30 ft. wide buffer along E. Overland Rd. and
40 ft.wide buffer along S. Labrador Wy. The landscape plan also indicates a 40 ft.buffer
adjacent to the C-C-zoned properties at the north and 10 ft.wide buffer to the L-O zoned
properties to the west. This exceeds the landscape buffer requirements of UDC-11-313. It does
appear that the parking spaces shown along the southern perimeter exceed 12 spaces without a
landscape planter of at least 50 sq. ft. and planting area of no less than 5 ft. in dimension per UDC
11-313-8-C-2.
The subject property is located directly on E. Overland Rd. in a very visible location with
established residential directly across E. Overland Rd to the south(Sportsman Pointe
Subdivision).Accordingly, staff believes this development should reflect high quality design.
Staff also has concerns regarding the impacts to adjacent residences associated with the
headlights from moving trucks during early morning picks-ups as well as security lighting for
moving equipment. As a condition of approval,staff recommends a combination of a
landscaped 4 ft. high undulating berm,decorative walls and evergreen shrubs along the
entire front perimeter of the property. Staff also recommends all pole lighting along the
front of the property be limited to 12 ft.in height and directed to the north, away from
adjacent residences.
The site plan indicates a concrete irrigation structure along the southern property line.Per
UDC 11-3B-5-J,if any utility easement precludes required trees,the width of the required
buffer shall be increased five feet to accommodate the required trees.
M. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7):
As mentioned in the specific use standards above,UDC 11-4-3-34 requires outdoor storage of
equipment(other than operable vehicles)to be incorporated into the overall design of buildings
and site landscaping so that the visual impacts of these functions are fully contained and screened
from view of adjacent nonindustrial properties and/or public streets by a solid fence and/or wall
with a minimum height of six(6) feet. Such fence and/or wall shall be constructed of
complementary or of similar design and materials of the primary structure.
N. Utilities (UDC 11-3A-21):
The Pack It Up Subdivision Plat and provided site plan shows a 40 ft.wide sewer easement along
the north and east property lines which presently contains a sewer main, as well as irrigation
easements. The applicant should coordinate with public works to ensure a service road is
maintained within this area. The plat also reflects a 20 ft.wide sewer easement bisecting the
property through the middle as well as east—west at the southern portion of the property. The site
plan reflects buildings encroaching into these easements. As a condition of approval,the
applicant shall vacate or relocate these easements as approved by Public Works. If these
easements are not recorded under separate instrument numbers,vacation through a public hearing
at City Council is required.
Page 7
Item 2. 37
As mentioned in the landscaping section,if the irrigation easement along the southern property
line precludes required trees,the width of the required landscape buffer shall be increased 5 feet
to accommodate the required trees in accord with UDC 11-3B-7.
O. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual):
The applicant has submitted building elevations for all 7 buildings. The elevations include
materials such as cement board, stucco,brick and metal paneling for accents.
Overall, staff does believe the combination of materials,colors,canopies, columns and
fenestration results in a storage facility that is of higher quality. However, staff believes there
could be some elements that do not meet the requirements of the Architectural Standards Manual
(ASM). ASM 3.lB requires buildings to have horizontal modulation every 30 feet or 50 feet,
depending on whether the building is greater than or less than 150 feet in length. Based on the site
plan, staff is unsure all sides of the buildings visible from a public street meet modulations
requirements. Also,ASM 3.2A requires for at least 30%of applicable facades use any
combination of concrete,masonry, stone, or unique variation of color,texture, or material, at least
10-inches in height,around the base of the building. Staff is also unable to ascertain if this is
satisfied. Complete design review will occur at time of Certificate of Zoning Compliance.
Due to the high visibility of this project from E. Overland Rd. and the existing residences at the
south, staff believes there should be additional design considerations. Staff has concerns with the
exposed stairs on the south side of Building A both for visual impacts and potential maintenance
issues with these stairs being exposed. Staff recommends either the stairs be removed from
southern and eastern locations visible from E. Overland Rd., or screened in a stairwell or similar
architectural element comprised of materials consistent with the exterior field materials of the
building. Also, staff recommends the roll up doors on the south and east sides of Building A and
south side of Building be better integrated into the building design through use of color,
architectural detailing, overhangs, door frame treatments, etc. Also,the applicant has only
submitted elevations for Buildings A&B. Full elevations of all four sides of all eight buildings
will be required at time of certificate of zoning compliance and design review.
VI. DECISION
A. Staff:
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit with the conditions noted in Section
VIII. per the Findings in Section IX.
Page 8
Item 2. F38
VII. EXHIBITS
A. Site Plan(date: 8/12/2021)
✓' IT I R LI LL
E - EL E
0 ETE
I E rEDE• - ICE
V.
D E L= l D I
E ..
;�,AL a I
' IL.I..
7
rr
Ek I
0 I �I - E R E
r Qi 5,iI l'S I
.. .... .. ELL I -
_ ["'EL
0 ETE
I I-TM
Page 9
Item 2. F39
B. Landscape Plan(date: 8/12/2021)
'i4iliitiii •k_ +1 TAT" R'EL WYWzzzzzzzzz
-4 r
- f
� I�5
_i q
EL III
w
q I F I r-
tI, r I
ram'P I y
O�
TF
IT 1=. 'EL I
E L- -.. ,:,,,,
n. it E.. I E . _. 1j
"IP
! .sue-cry�re,�
•J -
Page 10
Item 2. 40
C. Building Elevations(date: 6/1/2021)
w
r�
ILaal•FL]�AY`Ca�NO RIf MIXWlW,lY new{
T •
EAST ELEVATION:HU ILHI NG A
p'111�E-W u
6fO1V1U[
�•9:177"IN,:' 11
SOUTH ELEVATION:BUILDING A NORTH ELEVATION:BUILDING A
SeeM:V-25' Scapa:�'-25'
® LS—LLI_LJ
UTT-M
W E%[ELEVATIO N__8 UI L D I N G A _
!A E
Page 11
Item 2. 41
DRNE-UP
STORAGE
BOUTH ELEVATION:BUILDING B EAST ELEVATION:BUILDING B
stele:i•=zo' stele:i'=so'
DRIVE-Up
STORAGE
NORTH ELEVATION:BUILDINGS WEST ELEVATION:BUILDING B
score:r=zo sce�:r=zo•
Page 12
Item 2. 42
VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS
A. PLANNING CONDITIONS
1. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and administrative design review application is required to
be submitted to the Planning Division and approved prior to submittal of building permit
applications. The applicant will either meet all architectural requirements of the Architectural
Standards Manual(ASM)or apply for a design exception as part of the CZC submittal. A CZC
and DES application shall not be submitted until the amended DA is executed as approved with
H-2021-0101.
2. The Applicant shall have a maximum of two (2)years to commence the use as permitted in
accord with the conditions of approval listed above. If the use has not begun within two (2)years
of approval, a new conditional use permit must be obtained prior to operation or a time extension.
3. The site plan prepared by AMERCO Real Estate, dated August 12 2021, is approved as
submitted,with the revision that all buildings shall maintain at least 25 ft. of separation per UDC
11-4-3-34.
4. The landscape plan prepared by Kimley Horn, dated November 12,2021, is approved as
submitted,with the revisions that in addition to the required landscape buffer per UDC 11-2B-3, a
combination of a landscaped 4 ft. high undulating berm, decorative walls and evergreen shrubs
shall be installed along the entire front perimeter of the property. Details of all walls and/or
screen fencing shall be submitted at time of Certificate of Zoning Compliance/Design Review.
5. Outdoor storage of materials, equipment, inventory, and/or supplies shall be incorporated into the
overall design of buildings and site landscaping so that the visual impacts of these functions are
fully contained and screened from view of adjacent properties,the railway corridor, and public
streets by a solid fence or wall with a minimum height of six(6) feet. Such fence and/or wall shall
be constructed of complementary or of similar design and materials of the primary structure as
required by UDC 11-3A-14.
6. Per UDC 11-3B-7,where the required street landscape buffer is encumbered by easements or
other restrictions,the buffer area shall include a minimum five-foot wide area for planting shrubs
and trees.
7. The elevations prepared by A&M Associates on December 3, 2021 shall be modified as follows:
a. All stairs that are visible from E. Overland Rd. shall be within the building or screened in a
stairwell or similar architectural element comprised of materials consistent with the exterior
field materials of the building.
b. Roll up doors that are visible from E. Overland Rd. shall be integrated into the building
design through use of color, architectural detailing, overhangs, door frame treatments,etc.
8. Elevations for all four sides of all buildings shall be required at time of CZC and DES. Elevations
should be architecturally consistent with the approved elevations for Buildings A&B.
9. Operable moving vehicles may be displayed along the south perimeter of the site,outside of the
required landscape buffer.All trailers and other moving equipment shall be stored behind a
closed vision fence,wall, or screen or within an enclosed structure and not be visible from any
street. Screening fences or walls must be designed to be consistent with building architecture.
Page 13
Item 2. 43
10. All pole lighting along the E. Overland frontage of the property shall be limited to 12 ft. in height
and directed to the north, away from adjacent residences.
11. If any structures encroach into platted easements,the applicant shall submit a vacation application
for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit.
12. The development shall comply with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-15 for
equipment rental sales and service,UDC 11-4-3-34 for storage facility, self-service and UDC 1I-
4-3-38 vehicle sales or rental and service.
13. The project is subject to all current City of Meridian ordinances and previous conditions of
approval associated with this site (AZ-99-018,Preliminary Plat PP-99-015,FP-00-005, CUP 99-
033,MDA H-2021-0101)
B. PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS
Site Specific Conditions of Approval
1. A public utility plan must be submitted for review and approval prior to any construction of
utilities.
2. There are existing water service stubs along the southern property boundary that must be utilized
or abandoned.
3. A site geotechnical should be provided for review with the first building permit application.
4. No permanent structures can impede on a new or existing utility easement including but not
limited to trees, shrubs, fences,buildings, carports,trash enclosures,infiltration trenches,etc.
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. 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.
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,
Page 14
Item 2. 44
the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to
prior to receiving development plan approval.
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.
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.
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. All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy
of the structures.
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.
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.
12. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting
that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers.
13. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office.
14. Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building
pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material.
15. The 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.
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.
Page 15
Item 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.
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.
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. NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT
https:llweblink.meridiancily.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=250047&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
ity
D. ACHD
https:llweblink.meridiancily.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=250801&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
ky
E. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
https:llweblink.meridiancily.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=249448&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
fty
IX. FINDINGS
A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT(UDC 11-5B-6)
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 dimensional and development regulations of the C-G zoning district. The site
already contains landscape buffers,parking is adequate, and the parking area will be landscaped
as required by UDC 11-3B-8. 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.
As analyzed in the Comprehensive Plan section above, Staff finds this proposed will be
harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan per the analysis in Section V of this staff report.
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.
Page 16
Item 2. 46
The subject site is within an industrial and commercially zoned area. Single family residential
exists to the south across E. Overland Rd. If staffs recommendations are followed, stafffinds the
proposed use should not change the character nature 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 staffs recommendation regarding additional landscape treatment, screening of rental
equipment and additional architectural requirements are followed, 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.
The proposed use will be served adequately by all public facilities and services.
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.
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.
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)
Staff is unaware of any natural, scenic, or historic features on this site; thus, Staff finds the
proposed use should not result in damage of any such features.
Page 17
Item 3. 47
(:>
E IDIAN*-----,
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Eagle Road Daycare Facility (H-2022-0007) by 814
Development, LLC, Located at 3060 S. Eagle Rd.
A. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a daycare center providing childcare for up to 216
children in the C-C zoning district.
Item 3. F48
(:�N-WE IDIAN:-�-
IDAHO
PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION
Staff Contact:Sonya Allen Meeting Date: March 3, 2022
Topic: Public Hearing for Eagle Road Daycare Facility (H-2022-0007) by 814
Development, LLC, Located at 3060 S. Eagle Rd.
A. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a daycare center providing childcare
for up to 216 children in the C-C zoning district.
Information Resources:
Click Here for Application Materials
Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing
Item 3. ■
C�, EI
IDIAN�--
STAFF REPORT .►a H o
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HEARING 3/3/2022 IaLlegend rrR �J�
DATE: f
0
PrajEat
TO: Planning&Zoning Commission
FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner _ -
208-884-5533
SUBJECT: H-2022-0007
Eagle Road Daycare Facility—CUP E-Y I C-Tr -R __ E-1V1 cr -RD
LOCATION: 3060 S. Eagle Rd.,in the SW 1/4 of -
Section 21,Township 3N.,Range IE.
t
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Conditional use permit(CUP)for a daycare center providing childcare for up to 216 children in the
C-C zoning district.
II. SUMMARY OF REPORT
A. Project Summary
Description Details Page
Acreage 1.15-acres(future Lot 3)
Future Land Use Designation Mixed Use—Community(MU-C)
Existing Land Use Vacant/undeveloped land
Proposed Land Use(s) Daycare center
Current Zoning Community Business District(C-C)
Physical Features(waterways, None
hazards,flood plain,hillside)
Neighborhood meeting date;#of 12/9/21
attendees:
History(previous approvals) H-2019-0090(Inglewood Place Sub.AZ,PP—
Development Agreement Inst.#2019-124424);FP-2021-
0037(Inglewood Sub.2);H-2021-0095(DA modification
—in process)
Page 1
Item 3. F50
A. Project Area Maps
Future Land Use Map Aerial Map
Legend Legend
AM
IPrnje t Laca�a„ Project Lflco-v :9MR N
�48 WL7f 1�'' v
u u,
U-hl
E=11 GTOIY=RD E= I CT' 1 CTQRY RDA .,, E I{TORY
E' u LE N 3T
�d . ..
A0.,-W�
Zoning Map Planned Development Map
I R
Legend I (fLegend
Fro ea= L..-�.n —R ' IetProjeot Laeafkm.
R- +-i City Lima#
iii —R T 1
fe W
R-8 EnODN 'W W '
DIPPER-
RUT '
RUT R1 '
E-YrI GTORY=RD EVI CTORI--RD E_Vl GrO -RD -- EVI Cr =RD
C-d
r�
RUT
t
T.
III. APPLICANT INFORMATION
A. Applicant:
Samantha Kozlowski, 814 Development,LLC— 1695 Twelve Mile Road, Ste. 100,Berkley,MI
48072
B. Owner:
James Petersen, SEC 098,LLC— 197 W.4869 S., Salt Lake City,UT 84107
Page 2
Item 3. 51
C. Representative:
Same as Applicant
IV. NOTICING
Planning& Zoning
Posting Date
Newspaper Notification 2/15/2022
Radius notification mailed to 2/14/2022
properties within 300 feet
Site Posting Date 2/21/2022
Next Door posting 2/14/2022
V. STAFF ANALYSIS
A 13,660 square foot daycare center is proposed in the C-C zoning district which is designed to
accommodate a maximum of 216 children and 24 staff members.A daycare center requires
Conditional Use Permit(CUP) in the C-C zoning district as set forth in UDC Table 11-2B-2 and is
subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-9.
Childcare and early education is proposed to be provided for children age 6 weeks to 6 years with
after-school programs for children up to age 12; see application for more information on the proposed
curriculum.
A modification to the existing Development Agreement(DA)was recently approved by City Council
to update the conceptual development plan approved for the site to allow for development of the
proposed use and the site layout(H-2021-0095)but has not yet been recorded. The proposed site plan
is consistent with the updated conceptual development plan and uses approved with that application.
The amended DA and final plat for Inglewood Subdivision No.2,within which this site is
located,must be recorded prior to submittal of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance application
for the proposed use.
Specific Use Standards: The proposed use is subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC II-
4-3-9—Daycare Facility, as follows:
A. General standards for all child daycare and adult care uses, including the classifications of
daycare center; daycare,family; and daycare,group.
1. In determining the type of daycare facility,the total number of children at the facility at
one time, including the operator's children, is the determining factor. The applicant
proposes to provide childcare for up to 216 children; because the daycare plans to
provide care for more than 12 children, it's classified as a daycare center.
2. On site vehicle pick up,parking and turnaround areas shall be provided to ensure safe
discharge and pick up of clients. On-site vehicle pick-up,parking and turnaround areas
are provided; however, there is a driveway going through the parking area that will
serve as a backage road to Eagle Rd. and will provide access to properties to the north
and south. For safety,Staff recommends the row of parking on the east side of the
Page 3
Item 3. F52
driveway is restricted to Staff members only and signed accordingly.
3. The decision-making body shall specify the maximum number of allowable clients and
hours of operation as conditions of approval. The maximum number of allowable clients
should be limited to those specified in this application (i.e. 216).
4. The applicant or owner shall provide proof of criminal background checks and fire
inspection certificates as required by title 39,chapter 11, Idaho Code. Said proof shall be
provided prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy. The applicant or owner shall
comply with all State of Idaho and Department of Health and Welfare requirements for
daycare facilities. The Applicant shall provide this information to the Planning Division
as required.
5. In residential districts or uses adjoining an adjacent residence,the hours of operation shall
be between 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. This standard may be modified through approval of
a conditional use permit.A residential use exists on the abutting property to the north,
zoned RUT in Ada County, and residential uses are planned on the abutting property to
the east, zoned R-15. However, the proposed hours of operation are Monday through
Friday from 6:00 am to 6:30 pm, which will not exceed those hours.
6. Prior to submittal of an application for an accessory daycare facility in a residential
district,the applicant or owner shall hold a neighborhood meeting in accord with
subsection 11-5A-4.B of this title.Notice of the neighborhood meeting shall be provided
to all property owners of record within one hundred(100) feet of the exterior boundary of
the subject property.Not applicable
The applicant shall not exceed the maximum number of clients as stated in the approved
permit or as stated in this title,whichever is more restrictive.
B. Additional standards for daycare facilities that serve children.
1. All outdoor play areas shall be completely enclosed by minimum six-foot non-scalable
fences to secure against exit/entry by small children and to screen abutting properties.A
4- to 6-foot tall steel fence is proposed, which does not meet this standard; the fence
should be non-scalable, a minimum of 6-feet tall and provide screening of the play area.
2. Outdoor play equipment over six(6)feet high shall not be located in a front yard or
within any required yard.
3. Outdoor play areas in residential districts adjacent to an existing residence shall not be
used after dusk.
Compliance with these standards is required.
C. Additional standards for family daycare facilities conducted as home occupation accessory
uses.
1. In no way shall the family daycare emit lighting,noise, fumes, smoke,dust, odors,
vibrations,or electrical interference that can be observed outside the dwelling. A sign
may be displayed for advertising the family daycare facility in accord with the standards
set forth in subsection 11-3D-8.B of this title.
2. Off-street parking shall be provided as set forth in section 11-3C-6 of this title, in
addition to the required off-street parking for the dwelling.
These standards are not applicable.
Page 4
Item 3. 53
Based on the above analysis, Staff deems the proposed use to be in compliance with the
specific use standards as required if the Applicant complies with the conditions of approval in
Section VIII.A.
Dimensional Standards: Future development should be consistent with the dimensional standards
listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the C-C zoning district.
Access: A right-in/right-out driveway access is proposed via S. Eagle Rd. at the southwest corner of
this site as shown on the site/landscape plans consistent with that approved with the subdivision.
Access is also available via an access easement depicted on the plat through the adjacent properties to
the south and east via S. Titanium Ave., a local street off E.Victory Rd.
An access easement is required to be provided to the property to the north (Parcel No.
S1121336276)in alignment with the north/south driveway on this site; a copy of the recorded
easement shall be submitted to the Planning Division with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance
application for the subject property.Alternatively,the easement could be depicted on the
Inglewood Subdivision No.2 plat and recorded.
Parking: Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-
3C-6 for non-residential uses which requires one(1)space per 500 square feet of gross floor area.
Based on 13,600 s.f., a minimum of 27 spaces are required; a total of 29 spaces are proposed,
including two(2)ADA compliant spaces.
Although the proposed parking exceeds the minimum standards by two(2) and the number of
staff members on-site at any one time will likely fluctuate, Staff is concerned that if the facility
is at full capacity and up to 24 staff members are on-site at any one time there may not be
adequate parking or pick-up/drop-off area for the proposed use. Therefore, Staff recommends
a shared use agreement for parking is required with the property to the south in accord with
the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-7.A recorded copy of the agreement should be submitted
prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the site.Note:If the Commission finds the
parking is inadequate or if the Applicant is not in favor of a shared parking agreement, the number
of children cared for during the day could be reduced, which would also reduce the number of staff
members that would need to be on-site.
A minimum one(1)bicycle parking space is required to be provided for every 25 vehicle spaces or
portion thereof per UDC 11-3C-6G;bicycle parking facilities are required to comply with the location
and design standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. A bicycle rack capable of holding a minimum of
one(1)bicycle should be provided in accord with this requirement and depicted on the site
plan.A detail of the bicycle rack should be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning
Compliance application that demonstrates compliance with the standards in UDC 11-3C-5C.
Pedestrian Walkways: A continuous internal pedestrian walkway that is a minimum of 5-feet wide
is required to be provided from the perimeter sidewalk to the main building entrance and should be
distinguished from vehicular driving surfaces through the use of pavers, colored or scored concrete,
or bricks as set forth in UDC 11-3A-19B.4. The site plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning
Compliance application should reflect compliance with this standard. An internal walkway
should also be provided to the residential care facility to the east for interconnectivity with
adjacent uses as desired in Mixed Use—Community designated areas.Note: The narrative
submitted with the DA modification application (H-2021-0095)states walkways would be provided
from the daycare to the senior living facility as part of the plan is for the children to visit
(performances, arts, crafts, etc) the seniors.
Landscaping: Parking lot landscaping is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed
in UDC 11-3B-8C as shown.
Page 5
Item 3. 54
A 25-foot wide landscape buffer is required to be provided to adjacent residential uses in the C-C
zoning district per UDC Table 11-2B-3; landscaping is required to be installed within the buffer in
accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-9C. A residential use exists to the north and a
residential care facility has been approved to the east.Per this requirement, a 12.5' wide buffer to
total 25 feet should be provided along the eastern boundary of the site measured from the back of the
adjacent garages; and a 25-foot wide buffer should be provided along the northern property boundary
adjacent to the residential use to the north. For the northern buffer,provide trees and shrubs within the
southern 10 feet of the buffer as no plantings other than grass are allowed within the northern 15-feet
due to an ingress-egress easement(Inst. #7907119)that runs along the northern boundary of the site
that benefits the adjacent property to the north. The site/landscape plan submitted with the
Certificate of Zoning Compliance application should reflect compliance with this standard.
A reduction to the buffer width required on C-C zoned property adjacent to residential uses may be
approved by City Council at a public hearing with notice to surrounding property owners as set forth
in UDC 11-3B-9C.2.A reduction to the buffer width shall not affect building setbacks; all structures
shall be set back from the property line a minimum of the buffer width required in the district.
Street buffer landscaping along S. Eagle Rd. is required to be installed with the Phase 2 subdivision
improvements.
Mechanical Equipment: All mechanical equipment on the back of the building and outdoor service
and equipment should be incorporated into the overall design of buildings and landscaping so that the
visual and acoustic impacts of these functions are fully contained and out of view from adjacent
properties and public streets as set forth in UDC 11-3A-12.
Building Elevations: Conceptual building elevations were submitted for a single-story building as
shown in Section VII.0 that incorporate a mix of materials consisting of hardie panel board and
batten siding with stone veneer accents and metal roofing.
Final design is required to incorporate some of the same or similar design elements and materials as
those in the residential portion of the development per the development agreement and shall comply
with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual.
Certificate of Zoning Compliance&Design Review: A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and
Design Review application is required to be submitted for the proposed use prior to submittal of a
building permit application to ensure consistency with the conditions in Section VIII,UDC standards,
design standards and the development agreement.
VI. DECISION
A. Staff:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed conditional use permit with the conditions included
in Section VIII per the Findings in Section IX.
Page 6
Item 3. F55
VII. EXHIBITS
A. Proposed Site Plan
a $ fl
Zf: _ R All >s
S 86e36m-,rv& .M-36'02'E 244.6 EIGHT
xlnil�xoE
II YCI III T � zm.m' — I � srueRaau�
II II I i � I �• I
u u II
11 jjj III - PRIMROSE BLDG. IFT
13,660 5F
II ± 1 _ — I •
J.x`' �iERlDleur(s}ID
-
I } CHILD CARE
CENTER
N
SITE PLAN
CONCEPT
Page 7
Item 3. F56
B. Proposed Landscape Plan
L I'`
4
gal
1
d --- EIGHT
aerms•iEea1 [ 74
wplr`xup—.,.,,ax�.�._ -
I...._- � _.. _...
I !�cI r•� I I� �
�`I`,a I` — PRIMROSE BLDG.
} .. 13,660 SF
�:_ ,I•' '' CHILG CARE
CEMTM
j f
W
�v
�( $ •H99'99'35'E 245 DO'
., F:i.. . I 47—` r mule ;• _�_ �,fi- I II�. 'I i
U.
I
a1yE�.
CODE REB111REYEKTf .�
RJVlLSCH®L1LE
N#19p[ ln�aula..ix�oer.v.r.I�uwns YlIXMiNINipF NYHIu ew — o*. av u��m.w.wrt ao1
1au�o1ooelceim�ouueae resAw.:..s rxem�erfl.ivxmxa�w a xim.mu®.X mm.-c..uelwnowm�wo..a�wa n 1 v — zu4
1 •m�{v,gxw¢anumue.m.oxw.�ry PAN.Ni*��O/I�fAx A ! tlWIMlA011mE tpl
oan a!°Cis1°"sin i}V•MSFyJanw[i hLla.I iwamenr
1Y.41l0.Vmlfst�! u gammtauo lln111.mYArA¢Ixv.talla A PIN11[0.WA11H P9Y
� �.xowwcuwwv�lra nw4n>nmuttrcn.ma-pm�•• WYAIYf\l'RYLLNMWMEFuGW�EwwTWM!
wOSa10.4��UN RIX.l8n1R410�IWSIQM�CIIFIf➢1l IiROWJR[uE ��. dM1hhM.wlYBMfYd tlIR{! OT iLf111b.INrIl11YIE E@
it .Wfvs•[�u'v�nct xVc 6Sµ vu rtfoe. mI/c1
11.1E Iw�i ]G4
� 01YlM%JHY Vflww(wtl%-.uMPWii4v.�x!£h..fiVElN6at1WkP116V1Yn'AB ]Y'L
{t itJ.ii�Br�xKO[.3H'iV1/ROA']SN4V"8F&M SfTE PLAN
I .�[v¢'1YVIuuYslfY lsixc¢�oC1YA1 suAY.aunN4awawux OtllllD.SB VT. fNMlfaiW.411 VFf COMEPT
I1. a�xnw*wxeo-�nn.!*mc u1,a r.s�.wuu woi
acrmrAawrm,awn®n a m a
lV CC YkL 1�¢P RLL,
bt74U FI imp
b 2iY 61{p
Ypg'Tr➢,
§ FH+.EPPET.
i 1f.f
nq R4,
11111111 Hill Hill Hill 111111111
.LJ.- y CUTA7t�
a,oTm up
IBIS H]lE
SINE N9EALLiieTAN Y(.'J}f�R Y1P311[S1E:1—K ffEIlIAiFA:RfEI-g1EATPE Rt uTPI4 p—TPi NQ—N..
O'.WIRI:i4H TO Px 8CP O<aN1T MOE FpINSAg1H lRMMFAWAIpy
ME HNLYIY M W N1Q1SB]H1ElEpB0 m W/
9'OR G STEEL FENCE L
rna
Page 8
Item 3. F57
C. Building Elevations
lay -�Wv,
/ REAR ELEVATION
FRONT ELEVATION
go-
�]
I
E1CT'ERIOR
RIGHT 516E ELEVATION ¢3' _ LEFT SIDE ELEVATION g,l Imo' eLtvRnarrs
. A4.0
Page 9
Item 3. 58
VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS
A. PLANNING
1. Future development of this site shall comply with the previous conditions of approval and
terms of the existing Development Agreement(DA)(Inglewood Place Sub. AZ,PP H-2019-
0090 —DA Inst. #2019-124424);FP-2021-0037(Inglewood Sub. 2);H-2021-0095(amended
DA—in process) and the conditions contained herein.
2. The amended development agreement shall be recorded prior to submittal of an application
for Certificate of Zoning Compliance for the proposed use(H-2021-0095).
3. The final plat that includes the subject property shall be recorded prior to submittal of a
Certificate of Zoning Compliance application for this site(FP-2021-0037 Inglewood
Subdivision No. 2).
4. The site plan and landscape plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance
application shall be revised as follows:
a. All outdoor play areas shall be completely enclosed by minimum six-foot non-scalable
fences to secure against exit/entry by small children and to screen abutting properties in
accord with UDC 11-4-3-913.1; depict fencing accordingly.Note: The proposed wrought
iron fence does not meet this standard.
b. All mechanical equipment on the back of the building and outdoor service and equipment
areas should be incorporated into the overall design of buildings and landscaping so that
the visual and acoustic impacts of these functions are fully contained and out of view
from adjacent properties and public streets as set forth in UDC 11-3A-12.
c. Depict the location of the bicycle rack and a detail of the bicycle rack that demonstrates
compliance with the design standards in UDC 11-3C-5C.
d. Depict a continuous internal pedestrian walkway that is a minimum 5-feet in width from
the perimeter sidewalk along Eagle Rd.to the main building entrance in accord with
UDC 11-3A-19B.4; and to the residential care facility to the east and to the future
commercial uses to the south for interconnectivity with adjacent uses as desired in Mixed
Use—Community designated areas. Where the pathway crosses vehicular driving
surfaces,it shall be distinguished through the use of pavers, colored or scored concrete,
or bricks as set forth in UDC 11-3A-19B.4.
e. Depict a minimum 12.5-foot wide buffer along the eastern property line to total 25-feet,
measured from the back of the garages on the adjacent residential property, in accord
with UDC Table 11-2B-3,which requires a 25-foot wide buffer on C-C zoned property
adjacent to a residential use and/or district. Depict landscaping in accord with the
standards listed in UDC 11-3B-9C.
f. Depict a minimum 25-foot wide buffer along the northern property line adjacent to the
residential property as set forth in UDC Table 11-213-3 for the C-C district,unless a
reduced width is approved by City Council at a public hearing with notice to surrounding
property owners. Depict landscaping within the southern 10 feet of the buffer in accord
with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-9C; no trees/shrubs or plantings other than grass
shall be planted within the northern 15-feet as there's an access easement that runs along
the northern boundary of the site that benefits the adjacent property to the north.
5. Compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-9—Daycare Facility is required.
6. The applicant or owner shall provide proof of criminal background checks and fire inspection
Page 10
Item 3. F5-9
certificates as required by title 39,chapter 11,Idaho Code. Said proof shall be provided prior
to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. The applicant or owner shall comply with all State
of Idaho and Department of Health and Welfare requirements for daycare facilities.
7. The maximum number of allowable clients shall be 216 as proposed with this application.
8. The business hours of operation shall be limited to the hours between 6:00 am 11:00 pm in
accord with UDC 11-213-313.
9. Outdoor play equipment over six(6)feet high shall not be located in a front yard or within any
required yard in accord with UDC 11-4-3-9B.2.
10. The driveway access via S. Eagle Rd. is restricted to a right-in/right-out access per the
Development Agreement.
11. An access easement shall be provided to the property to the north(Parcel No. S1121336276)
in alignment with the north/south driveway on this site; a copy of the recorded easement shall
be submitted to the Planning Division with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application
for the subject property. Alternatively,the easement could be depicted on the subdivision plat
and recorded.
12. The row of parking on the east side of the north/south driveway shall be restricted to staff
member parking only and signs shall be erected accordingly.
13. A shared use agreement for parking shall be required with the property to the south in accord
with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-7. A recorded copy of the agreement shall be
submitted prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the site.
14. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application shall be submitted and
approved for the proposed use prior to submittal of a building permit application. The design
of the site and structure shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19; the design
standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual and with the Development Agreement.
The Development Agreement requires some of the same design elements to be incorporated in
the commercial portion of the development as in the residential portion.
15. The conditional use permit is valid for a maximum period of two (2) years unless otherwise
approved by the City. 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 as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6.A time extension may be requested
as set forth in UDC 11-513-6F.
B. PUBLIC WORKS
1. Streetlights for Inglewood Subdivision No 2 must be installed and operational,with approved
record drawings submitted,prior to any form of occupancy of this building.
2. No Public Works water or sewer main infrastructure is proposed, if any changes to City
utilities is needed,Public Works Engineering must review and approve that work prior to
construction.
3. Fire flow was modeled at 1500 gpm, contact Public Works Engineering if more than 1500
gpm is required.
Page 11
Item 3. ■
C. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD)
https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=252119&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
Lty
https://weblink.m eridia n c i ty.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=253133&dbid=0&rep o=Meridia n C
ky
IX. FINDINGS
Conditional Use(UDC 11-5B-6)
Findings: 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.
Stafffinds the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed development and meet all
dimensional and development regulations of the C-C zoning district.
2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord
with the requirements of this title.
Stafffinds the proposed daycare center is harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan and is
consistent with applicable UDC standards with the conditions noted in Section VIII of this report.
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.
Staff finds the design, construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed use will be
compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood, with the existing and intended character
of the vicinity and will not adversely change the essential character of the area.
4. That the proposed use,if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not
adversely affect other property in the vicinity.
Stafffinds the proposed use will not adversely affect other properties in the vicinity if it complies
with the conditions in Section VIII of this report.
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.
Stafffinds the proposed use will be served by essential public facilities and services as required.
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 will not create 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.
Stafffinds the proposed use will not be detrimental to any persons,property or the general
welfare by the reasons noted above.
Page 12
Item 3. 61
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)
Staff ,finds the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any such features.
9. Additional findings for the alteration or extension of a nonconforming use:
a. That the proposed nonconforming use does not encourage or set a precedent for additional
nonconforming uses within the area; and,
This finding is not applicable.
b. That the proposed nonconforming use is developed to a similar or greater level of conformity
with the development standards as set forth in this title as compared to the level of
development of the surrounding properties.
This finding is not applicable.
Page 13
Item 4. 62
(:>
E IDIAN*-----,
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing Continued from February 3, 2022 for Verona Live/Work (H-
2021-0080) by J-U-B Engineers, Inc., Located at 3020 & 3042 W. Milano Dr., Near the Northeast
Corner of Ten Mile Rd. and McMillan Rd.
A. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for 16 vertically integrated residential units within four (4)
buildings on 1.75 acres in the L-0 zoning district.
Item 4. F63
(:�N-WE IDIAN:--
IDAHO
PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION
Staff Contact:Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: March 3, 2022
Topic: Public Hearing Continued from February 3, 2022 for Verona Live/Work (H-2021-
0080) by J-U-B Engineers, Inc., Located at 3020 & 3042 W. Milano Dr., Near the
Northeast Corner of Ten Mile Rd. and McMillan Rd.
A. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for 16 vertically integrated residential
units within four (4) buildings on 1.75 acres in the L-0 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 4. Mayor Robert E. Simison 64
E IDIANCity Council Members:
Treg Bernt Brad Hoagiun
Joe Borton Jessica Perreault
Luke Caverier Liz Strader
February 18, 2022
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
CC: Wendy Shrief, JUB Engineers; Dave Yorgason, Primeland Investment Group
FROM: Joseph Dodson, Current Associate Planner
RE: Verona Live/Work—CUP (H-2021-0080)
Dear Commissioners,
Verona Live/Work CUP (H-2021-0080)was continued per the request of the Applicant from the
December 16, 2021 hearing to the January 20, 2022 hearing in order to meet with Staff and work
through some of the concerns brought up within the staff report. Prior to the January 20th
hearing, the Applicant requested a continuance in order to provide Staff enough time to receive
and analyze any revised plans. At the February 3rd meeting, the Commission continued the
application to the March 3, 2022 Commission hearing to give the Applicant a chance to respond
to concerns brought up at the meeting.
Since the hearing, Staff has received revised floor plans and has analyzed them against code and
previous versions of the plans. The revisions made to floor plans include removing any interior
access between the commercial and the residential and for the larger units (noted as the B-units),
the commercial space has become one larger suite by the removal of a dividing wall.
Staff finds the revised floor plans to be in compliance with code, more in line with the
intent of Vertically Integrated Residential Projects specific use standards and definition,
and consistent with changes discussed by the Commission. The revised floor plans do not
constitute any changes to the conditions of approval. Staff has attached the revised floor plans to
this memo-for-your convenience and has kept the previously recommended changes to the
conditions of approval for transparency.
Previously recommended revisions to the conditions of approval:
• Modify_A.1 -The Applicant shall substantially comply with the revised and approved
site plan, landscape plan, and conceptual building elevations
min this report as depicted in Section IX and revised per Section X.A.
or unity Development Department . 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Suite 102, Meridian, ID 83642
/ Phone 208-884-5533 . Fax 208-888-6854 . www.meridiancity.org
Item 4. • Modify A.5 —The site plan(s) shall be revised as follows prior to submitting for El
Certificate of Zoning Compliance approval the Planning and Zoning Commissien
hear-in :
• Modify A.5b—For the facades facing W. Milano Drive and N. Cortona Way, depict
additional 5-foot wide sidewalks connecting from these building entrances to the existing
sidewalks along the public streets, similar to what is shown in the submitted color site
plan image.
• Strike A.5c—Remove the ovva units fr-a ing the eemer of W. Milano Drive and N.
Geftana a-ad add a shared plaza spaee with outdoor-seating and shade stfueWres.
• Strike A.5d—Remove the two units not along the adjacent stFeets in lieu of additional
par-king and some usable eommon open spaee for-the development.
• Strike A.6d—Depi t the shared plat as noted above with to lands
s.
• Strike A.7 altogether.
• Strike A.8 altogether.
• Add Condition to A.5 —Move the northern four(4) units approximately three (3) feet to
the north to accommodate an extension of 5-foot wide sidewalk and 5 feet of landscaping
aloniz the south side of this buildiniz from Cortona Way_ to the plaza area in the interior of
the site.
Exhibits:
A. Revised Floor Plans (February 2022)
2
irem a. A. Revised Floor Plans (February 2022) 66
4.
rR
PRELIMINARY
h
eseacasace LOT
BLOCK
k
v
I
1
U — — 0
i
H
1 e
1 F 2 � .4. ce a. a,was
�. FLOOR PLAN—MAIN LEVEL FA2.0x
3
Item 4. z „ 3 4 a 67
p PRELIMINARY
LOT
BLOCK
Bsu .B �za+
i'
r(_y�e Y..
I
LA
Q LL— W
� w
p.
AIN LEVEL z 3 a
„<•,0 0 0 0
A2.0
4
Item 4. Mayor Robert E. Simison 68
E IDIANCity Council Members:
Treg Bernt Brad Hoagiun
Joe Borton Jessica Perreault
Luke Caverier Liz Strader
January 28, 2022
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
CC: Wendy Shrief, JUB Engineers; Dave Yorgason, Primeland Investment Group
FROM: Joseph Dodson, Current Associate Planner
RE: Verona Live/Work—CUP (H-2021-0080)
Dear Commissioners,
Verona Live/Work CUP (H-2021-0080)was continued per the request of the Applicant from the
December 16, 2021 hearing to the January 20, 2022 hearing in order to meet with Staff and work
through some of the concerns brought up within the staff report. Prior to the January 20th
hearing, the Applicant requested one more continuance in order to provide Staff enough time to
receive and analyze any revised plans. Staff received a revised site plan, landscape plan, and
revised floor plans and elevations in response to the staff report and following the meeting held
with the Applicant team.
The revised plans have resulted in a number of recommended changes to the conditions of
approval as some of the conditions have been met, some should be modified, and new conditions
are now applicable based on the revisions proposed. The revisions made by the Applicant are
noticeable and provide for an improved project overall, in Staff s opinion. The revised plans
show the following changes made by the applicant:
• Reduction in unit count— Staff had voiced concerns within the staff report regarding the
livability of the original site plan where no green space was proposed. In response, the
Applicant removed two units that were internal to the site and is now proposing
- - additional parking and green space with a shared plaza in place of the two (2) internal
units. Staff believes this addition alone changes the landscape of this project and would
provide more livability within the site.
o Staff is recommending a revision to the site plan to further add to the pedestrian
-access-of the plaza by adding additionil sidewalk from Cortona Way to the plaza.
/ • Revision to the north four(4)-units.--Staff voiced concerns about the amount of
- commercial area.shown within the proposed live/work floor plans. In conjunction with
-the toss-of the.two internal units-and in response to Staff s comments, the Applicant has
Oom`munity Development Department . 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Suite 102, Meridian, ID 83642
/ Phone 208-884-5533 . Fax 208-888-6854 . www.meridiancity.org
item 4. revised the floor plan of the northern 4 units to be extended further west to accommodate El
an additional office space on the east side of the units facing Cortona Way. This has
doubled the nonresidential area for these 4 units; the nonresidential area on the remaining
10 units has not changed.
• Revision to the conceptual elevations for the first floor faVade for the nonresidential
portion of the project—Applicant revised the first floor fagade of all of the buildings to
include some of Staff s recommended revisions noted in the conditions of approval in the
staff report. Staff finds these revisions should add to the visibility and viability of the
commercial spaces of the proposed units. Staff fully supports these revisions:
o First floor fagade now includes a dedicated commercial entry door in addition to
the internal shared access.
o Fagade incorporates nonresidential style awnings and shows area that would allow
for signage space for future tenants/businesses.
o Applicant added taller windows on the first floor fagade adjacent to the new
commercial entry door to create more of a storefront consistent with
nonresidential buildings; Staff finds this is an improvement from the original
elevations that largely looked 100%residential.
• Additional sidewalk connections—Although the revised site plan and landscape plan do
not show additional sidewalk connections, the Applicant provided a color image of the
site plan and confirmed via email that additional sidewalks from the proposed buildings
to the existing sidewalk facilities along the public roads are also proposed. Staff has
included this image in this memo for reference.
After review of the revised plans Staff recommends the following changes be made to the staff
report by the Planning and Zoning Commission, noted with strikeout and underline changes
below:
• Modify A.1 —The Applicant shall substantially comply with the revised and approved
site plan, landscape plan, and general! :*h he conceptual building elevations
min this report as depicted in Section IX and revised per Section X.A.
• Modify A.5 —The site plan(s) shall be revised as follows prior to submitting for
Certificate of Zoning Compliance approval the Planning and Zoning r,,m miss: ,r
hear-in :
• Modify A.5b—For the facades facing W. Milano Drive and N. Cortona Way, depict
additional 5-foot wide sidewalks connecting from these building entrances to the existing
sidewalks along the public streets, similar to what is shown in the submitted color site
plan image.
• Strike A.5c—Remove the twe units 4aming the cemer of W. MilanoDrive and N.
Ceftena and add a shared plaza spaee with outdoer-seating and shade stFdetwes.
• Strike A.5d—Remove the two tmits not along the adjaeent streets in lieu of additional
par-king and some tisable eemmen open spaee for-the development.
• Strike A.6d—Depi t the shafed plaz., ., noted above with appropriate !ands
elements.
• Strike A.7 altogether.
• Strike A.8 altogether.
• Add Condition to A.5 —Move the northern four(4)units approximately three (3) feet to
the north to accommodate an extension of 5-foot wide sidewalk and 5 feet of landscaping
along the south side of this building from Cortona Way to the plaza area in the interior of
the site.
Exhibits:
2
item 4. A. Revised Site Plan
B. Revised Landscape Plan El
C. Revised Conceptual Elevations and Floor Plans
A. Revised Site Plan
-T
Ng-r4s'07-F so
54.36' 19f,.0 035'17"E
---
-- - ----- 00
--FNT —- -----I
190.01' —j
17.7"
---------------
1482*03' --------------.21 73-68,
---- ---- ---
3
ttem 4. B. Revised Landscape Plan F71
FIN,7(
o - --- _ - J
F BAERo
Ph 208859.19M
r i
oo
I C
d �
LANDSCAPE LEGEND
...........
nre v9ou mnrvcLe if�}.J� C
KEYNOTES'-0 u�Eirtnu 1 III C
QaR
----- Bmle l'=ZO'-0' mnl l•0
4
C. Revised Conceptual Elevations and Floor Plans El
11� in lei
� J
FRONT ELEVAT10H
r
Item 4. 73
c
PRELIMINARY
wnx.0
LOT
BLOCK
Fj
Ue.
z
�s
a o ■
A.
1.. 2 0 '3_. ;_4 ce a. rowe
FLOOR PLAN-MAIN LEVEL A2N0 x
6
Item 4. 3 a 74
III aPRELIMINARY
I i I =n
ills
ii i Ill
ill i
� n x
LCT
BLOCK
ill i
it i
I 'Ili ii �
i r yY
a
I
� I
vn
Li
I
e �
2 3 4
1, FLOOR PLAN-UPPER LEVEL
A2.1
7
Item 4. 75
z 3 wo .a
I -
- � PRELIMINARY
LOT
- BLOCK
,,.{, ... Ll. 7 .
w
nnl � IL
�u
4
IN LEVEL 2 3 4
F. 0
A2.0
8
'
76
�4�'
6\
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR-STRU-IN
LOT
IT
. � | »
. . . . , ,
-- -
V
Item 4. F
7
STAFF REPORTC�,WEIIDIAN --
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .►A H O
HEARING December 16,2021
Legend
DATE: IrnI
U Project Location
TO: Planning&Zoning Commission - ' --
FROM: Joe Dodson,Associate Planner - ®EH
208-884-5533
SUBJECT: H-2021-0080
Verona Live/Work—CUP
LOCATION: 3020&3042 W. Milano Drive,near the
northeast corner of Ten Mile Road and
McMillan Road in the SW 1/4 of the SW U r
1/4 of Section 26,Township 4N,Range
1 W. � �� �
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Conditional Use Permit for 16 vertically integrated residential units within four(4)buildings on 1.75
acres in the L-O zoning district.
II. SUMMARY OF REPORT
A. Project Summary
Description Details Page
Acreage 1.75 acres
Future Land Use Designation Office
Existing Land Use(s) Vacant
Proposed Land Use(s) Vertically Integrated Residential Project
Neighborhood meeting date;#of September 9,2021;at least four(4)attendees
attendees:
History(previous approvals) Verona Subdivision(AZ-03-005);Verona Subdivision No.
3 Rezone(RZ-05-006);Verona Subdivision No. 3 FP(FP-
05-046);DA Mod(MI-08-006,DA Inst.#108101152).
B. Community Metrics
Description Details Page
Ada County Highway District
• Staff report(yes/no) Not at time of report publication
• Requires ACHD Commission No
Action es/no
Page 1
m
.. • . in
■■■■III ■r -m
• • - • • n on III - s
son on■IIIII■ � � • - • • • `
�■IIIII■: �. -_
a.■Irrr Illr � W z ' _
- MCM-I�L-L-AN MCM3L-L-AN �-r
111111 � ��Ir1■11■r■q 1 t
Nil
■■� IIIN 1 11� .•• ` a �-.
NINE ON
MEN
i 1 it
ii mm■iI
- . - ■ ■■1 - . - ■■oil
Iu■III I■■■III
• . — . . . ■!!■■III / • . — . . . �■!!■■!II
IIIIIII IIINO■IIIII r111111 IIIP■IIIII■
II� ■IIIII a 11� 111■■IIIIII. .
■_�IIi ■■■■ IN■IIIIII■■1
■■1■■.r IIIIIIII ■pl■.���� IlIIIIII �
IIIII/�i ��IIIIIIII■ �'': III■►�~a��IIIIIII11 ri1�
YJ =■■■I► a IIIIIIIII III /■a���
J ■ ��■i Irrr IIIr � W�j11U!� ■��IIII IIIII
!I■.■ IIIIIII■ Mill
in J ■ �, r■■�■■IIIIIIIII �lIII
IIIII in 111LU
1 1 .�+�, ■IIIII► IIIIIIIII pp ■�
Z ' ■►1p�Illll Pi• •_ �- �_ eat %IIIIIIIIIII� �1'iii: _■
F I NJ' � Illy 11� I
+ cm :::L-L-AN
ndl
111111 °�IrIII1I 111111 �m_rl 11 � c_.. �I IIIII�r ■C■■ � � 111 „�n aiIII!I!III
C. MINI
■IIN
IIIII�r
�� 111111111lV '� IIII 1 �� INIIIIIIIII ■hi mill I"
.0 i .E
Ir1111 r - a MC
II1� Irj1I1I � p� I11111 ■�� a II1� Ir1II1I
1 ■■11 he eaae� �.ul ■— ■■1
Item 4. 79
III. APPLICANT INFORMATION
A. Applicant:
Wendy Shrief,JUB Engineers, Inc.—250 S. Beechwood Avenue, Suite 201,Boise,ID 83709
B. Owner:
Primeland Investment Group LLC 1140 S. Allante Avenue, Boise, ID 83709
C. Representative:
Same as Applicant
IV. NOTICING
Planning&Zoning
Posting Date
Newspaper Notification 11/30/2021
Radius notification mailed to
properties within 300 feet 12/2/2021
Site Posting Date 12/2/2021
NextDoor posting 12/6/2021
V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (Comb. Plan)
This property is designated Office on the Future Land Use Map(FLUM) in the Comprehensive Plan.
This designation is meant to provide opportunities for low-impact business areas. These uses
would include professional offices,technology and resource centers; ancillary commercial uses
may be considered(particularly within research and development centers or technological parks).
Sample zoning include L-O.
The property was annexed and zoned in 2003 to the R-8 zoning district. In 2005, a rezone
application was approved to change the zoning to the current L-O zoning district. Consistent with
this rezone, a final plat was approved for six(6)office lots as part of Verona Subdivision No. 3. In
2008 applications were submitted to allow for the potential of including a church on these lots and
was tied to a modified DA(MI-08-006). The DA from 2008 is the relevant agreement for this site
but did not have a concept plan for these lots. In lieu of a concept plan,the DA references specific
limitations to the allowed commercial area and included a provision that a minimum of three(3)
office buildings in this office development. This provision has been satisfied with the existing
development of three(3)office buildings. In addition, specific elevations were included as part of
the DA that the current proposal generally complies with. Staff notes, despite no Development
Agreement Modification being required,the relevant DA contemplates all commercial uses within
the subject office lots.
Instead of solely commercial uses,the Applicant proposes to develop the site with 16 vertically
integrated residential (UDC 11-4-3-41)units across four(4)buildings on two vacant parcels in the
L-O zoning district. Two buildings are proposed on each parcel with each parcel also having off-
street parking lots in addition to the two-car garages proposed for each unit. Vertically integrated
residential projects incorporate commercial spaces and residential uses within one structure and
most often include commercial space on the first floor and residential on the floor or floors above.
In this project,the Applicant is proposing a small commercial space at the front of the building on
the first floor with the proposed residential portion of the units being both behind and above the
commercial space. Therefore,the Applicant is proposing a two-story concept for these vertically
Page 3
Item 4. 80
integrated buildings with the vehicular access for each unit proposed to be from the rear via a two-
car garage for each unit.
Vertically integrated residential projects are defined as follows in UDC 11-1A-1: "The use of a
multi-story structure for residential and nonresidential uses where the different uses are
planned as a unified,complementary whole and functionally integrated to share vehicular
and pedestrian access and parking."This use is a conditional use within the L-O zoning district
because they incorporate a residential component within a zoning district primarily intended for
office uses. However,code allows for this type of use,as noted,through a conditional process with
the assumption that appropriate commercial and residential uses can be located within this district
and type of development area when appropriately designed. As part of that analysis, adjacent uses
should also be taken into account. To the west of the subject sites sit two vacant L-O parcels;
further to the west and abutting Ten Mile Road are two office buildings. Because of common
ownership of the land,the Applicant is showing an office building directly to the west on the
vacant office lot along the north boundary but this building is not part of the proposal and is shown
only for reference.
To the east and north of the subject sites are detached single-family residential that are part of the
Verona Subdivision. To the south is approximately 10 acres of C-G zoned property that includes a
number of commercial properties under development. The existing use is on the hard corner of
McMillan and Ten Mile and is a fuel service station and convenience store. Directly to the south
and across W. Milano,the largest commercial parcel has approvals for a 164 unit 55 and older
multi-family development. Staff anticipates future residents of that site could utilize some of the
future services provided within the commercial spaces of the proposed vertically integrated
buildings.
Because the proposed use is adjacent to a mixture of existing and planned uses(residential,office,
commercial,etc.), Staff finds it should be an appropriate use in this Office FLUM designation for
the reasons noted above. However, Staff does have concerns over the overall viability of the
proposed commercial component of these units based on the proposed floor plans and the
relatively small area of commercial proposed in each unit.While reviewing this project,Staff
recommends Commission determine whether the proposal meets the intent of Vertically
Integrated and if the proposed design is desired in the City and in this specific geographic
area.Further analysis for the proposed use is below in the Comprehensive Plan policy
analysis as well as in Section VII.
The following goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan are applicable to 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 by providing the opportunity for
residents to live and work in close proximity to the same physical space.
• "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 site is not part of or directly adjacent to a mixed-use area but is adjacent to a
number of commercial and residential uses. Therefore, this area can largely function as a
mixed-use area and the inclusion of vertically integrated structures, when properly
designed, only furthers that element of this area. The proposed use would allow
neighborhood serving commercial uses in close proximity to residential neighbors to the
Page 4
Item 4. 81
east and north thereby reducing vehicle trips and enhancing livability of the area.
• "Require appropriate building design, and landscaping elements to buffer, screen,beautify,
and integrate commercial,multifamily, and parking lots into existing neighborhoods."
(5.01.02D)
The proposed vertically integrated residential project is shown with a residential design in
order to better blend with the existing neighborhood to the north and east. The Applicant
intentionally proposed this building design but Staff finds this design may impede the
commercial viability of the commercial spaces for anyone besides the residential tenant.
This can work but it is not a guarantee every residential tenant will also want a
commercial space. Therefore, with the current design and in these instances, the
commercial space may sit empty and never activate the commercial areas as intended with
a vertically integrated use. Some of the expected and allowed uses allowed in these
structures are as follows: arts, entertainment or recreation facility; artist studio; daycare
facility; drinking establishment; education institution;financial institution; healthcare or
social assistance; industry, craftsman; laundromat;personal or professional service;
restaurant; and retail. With the proposed size of the commercial suites, Staff anticipates a
number of these uses would not be viable. Further analysis and recommendations are in
subsequent sections below.
• "Locate smaller-scale,neighborhood-serving commercial and office use clusters so they
complement and provide convenient access from nearby residential areas, limiting access
to arterial roadways and multimodal corridors."(3.07.02B)
As discussed above, the proposed use and design of these buildings should provide for
smaller-scale, neighborhood serving commercial and office uses. Staff finds, if properly
designed, the proposed use would provide convenient access from adjacent residential
areas and capture some vehicle trips that would otherwise utilize the arterial roadways.
• "Avoid the concentration of any one housing type or lot size in any geographical area;
provide for diverse housing types throughout the City."(2.01.01 G)
The proposed vertically integrated residential project would be a new housing type within
this area of the City. In fact, Staff is not aware of this type of use within at least a mile of
this property in all directions. The addition of a new housing type in this area helps
provide for a diversity in housing for different income levels and housing preferences.
VI. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE UD
The proposed use,vertically integrated residential project, is listed as a conditional use in the L-O
(Limited Office)zoning district per UDC Table 11-2B-2. Compliance with the dimensional standards
listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the L-O district is required and are met per the submitted plans
except for the drive aisles proposed to access the garages for each unit.
The submitted site plan shows the drive aisles adjacent to the garages as 20 feet wide which does not
comply with UDC 11-3C-5 standards for two-way drive aisles.A two-way drive aisle, applicable
throughout the site, requires a minimum width of 25 feet. The Applicant should revise the plans to
show compliance with this standard at the time of Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZQ submittal.
Page 5
Item 4. 82
VII. STAFF ANALYSIS
As discussed above in Section V,the proposed vertically integrated residential project is considered
an appropriate use and meets the development guidelines listed for the Office designation if properly
designed.
Staff has noted concerns with the proposed floor plan and elevations of the building in regards to the
use and long-term viability of the commercial component to this project.According to the Applicant,
the commercial spaces of the units will be leased with the residential units therefore, removing the
potential of a non-resident utilizing the commercial suite and somewhat minimizing some of the
concerns of the long-term viability of the space. In consideration of this information, it is logical the
Applicant would propose a relatively small commercial space for each unit(approximately 165
square feet). The submitted conceptual floor plans would indicate the commercial suite in each unit
being equal to a home office instead of a standalone commercial space—this design is not specifically
prohibited or discussed in the specific use standards for this use or its definition.
However, the proposed unit design is what creates concern and Staff finds it does not fully meet the
noted definition of Vertically Integrated as currently proposed. The submitted floor plan shows a
relatively small commercial suite that has minimal storage space for inventory, no separate room for
meetings, and no outdoor patio space to help activate the commercial frontage. Staff is concerned
this small space could be rented out as a separate residential unit without the City being the wiser OR
would become an office for the residence and not serve the nearby neighborhood as intended with the
commercial component of vertically integrated residential projects. The proposed size of the
commercial spaces in each unit will likely not support many of the allowed uses noted in the specific
use standards for this use. This furthers Staffs concern that these units may become standalone
residential, which is not an allowed use in the L-O zoning district.
In addition to the units facing the adjacent public streets, the Applicant is proposing two units to the
interior of the site that has even less visibility and presents more challenges to having a viable
commercial component. Because of the location of this building, Staff is recommending these units
are removed in lieu of additional parking and some open space for future residents and commercial
patrons. An inclusion of open space for this development presents a more livable project and allows
further opportunity for a shared space between the commercial and residential components of the
project.
Staff is aware the subject project is not proposed in an urban environment and a vertically integrated
project more consistent with downtown Meridian would not fit with the existing neighborhood
character. Commission should determine if the proposed vertically integrated project, despite
meeting minimum code requirements, meets the intent of the proposed use.
In order to help with some of the concerns noted,Staff is recommending the following revisions to
the plans: 1) expand the commercial area of the units to potentially encompass the entire first
level,2)remove the first exterior door to help delineate the commercial and residential areas of the
units by creating two exterior facing doors;one for the residential, and one for the commercial
suite,and 3) remove the two (2) units that frame the hard corner of W.Milano Drive and N.
Cortona Way to incorporate a shared plaza space similar to what exists in the commercial area on
the south side of McMillan in Bridgetower Crossing. With the addition of outdoor patio
space/shared patio space the commercial component of this development would help activate some
of the commercial spaces.Additional and more specific recommendations can be found under the
elevation analysis below and in the conditions of approval in Section XA.
The proposed use is subject to the following Specific Use Standards(UDC 11-4-3-41)—Vertically
Integrated Residential Project: (Staff analysis in italics)
Page 6
Item 4. 83
A. A vertically integrated residential project shall be a structure that contains at least two(2)
stories. Submitted plans show compliance by proposing two-story units.
B. A minimum of twenty-five(25)percent of the gross floor area of a vertically integrated
project shall be residential dwelling units,including outdoor patio space on the same floor as
a residential unit. Submitted plans show compliance with this standard by proposing vastly
more residential floor area than commercial. In addition, the conceptual floor plans depict
private patios on the first floor of each unit complying with the second portion of this
standard.
C. The minimum building footprint for a detached vertically integrated residential project shall
be two thousand four hundred(2,400) square feet. The smallest of the four(4) buildings is
proposed as approximately 3,600 square feet. Therefore, all of the proposed buildings comply
with this standard.
D. The allowed nonresidential uses in a vertically integrated project include: arts, entertainment
or recreation facility; artist studio; civic, social or fraternal organizations; daycare facility;
drinking establishment; education institution; financial institution;healthcare or social
assistance; industry, craftsman; laundromat;nursing or residential care facility; personal or
professional service;public or quasi-public use;restaurant;retail; or other uses that may be
considered through the conditional use permit process.Noted and the Applicant shall comply
with this specific use standard. As noted above, the proposed floor plans depict
approximately 165 sq.ft. of commercial space, Staff has concerns that the proposed
commercial space may not be large enough to accommodate many of the allowed uses noted
above.
E. None of the required parking shall be located in the front of the structure.According to the
submitted plans, the required parking for each residential unit and the commercial spaces is
located behind or adjacent to the structures. Staff finds the proposed design complies with
this standard.
Access(UDC 11-3A-3):
One(1)driveway access is depicted on the overall site plan and connects to N. Cortona Way along
the east boundary of the site—the only direct access to a public street for the project. The submitted
plans also show the main drive aisle that bisects the project and lies across the shared property line to
continue west to connect to an existing drive aisle utilized for the two office buildings along Ten Mile
—this drive aisle connects to W. Milano Drive approximately 190 feet west of the subject sites. The
additional office building shown on the submitted site plan is not part of this project and would likely
only require administrative applications in order to be constructed.
The site plan shows multiple drive aisles off of the main east-west drive aisle for access to the
proposed vertically integrated units and the two-car garages. Staff anticipates the two access points
shown on the site plans would be needed for safest and most efficient flow of traffic for this proposed
project despite the future office building to the west not being a part of this project. Because of this,
Staff is recommending a condition of approval to construct the northern portion of this drive aisle
with this project to ensure adequate traffic flow for the site regardless of the timing of development of
the office site shown west of the subject sites.
Staff does not have concern with the proposed access for the project with Staff s recommended
timing of the east-west drive aisle construction and previous mentioned recommended condition to
widen the drive aisles to meet code requirements.
Parking(UDC 11-3C):
UDC Table 11-3C-6 requires the following off-street parking spaces for the proposed use of vertically
integrated residential project: one(1) space per residential unit and the standard parking ratio for
Page 7
Item 4. 84
nonresidential uses(1 space per 500 square feet of gross floor area). Based on 16 residential units, a
minimum of 16 spaces should be provided. As noted,each unit is proposed with a two-car garage that
exceeds our dimensional standards and therefore exceeds code requirements. Each commercial space
is less than 500 square feet requiring one additional space per unit—according to the submitted plans,
20 additional parking spaces are proposed on the subject site. Based on the submitted plans,the
proposed parking exceeds UDC requirements and Staff has no concern with the parking proposed for
the site.
Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-1
There are existing 5-foot wide attached sidewalks along the adjacent public streets,W. Milano Drive
and N. Cortona Way and meets UDC standards for these areas. Any damaged curb, gutter or sidewalk
is required to be replaced if damaged during construction.
The submitted plans do not show any additional sidewalk connections from the front of the
buildings to the existing sidewalks, as required in UDC 11-3A-19. Stafffinds this to be a missed
opportunity to activate the building frontage with the adjacent streets for the commercial suites.
Therefore, consistent with Staffs additional recommendations to add a separate commercial door
on the front facade of each unit,Staff is recommending additional 5-foot wide sidewalks are
constructed from the front of the units facing public streets(14 of the 16 units). Because of the
overall design of the units abutting each other in a mirrored format,Staff is acceptable to shared
connections to the attached sidewalks so long as each unit entrance has a sidewalk connection to
the shared connection. Please see exhibit below for an example:
Or - P �
r
- r
I +
I
i
I �
I �
I Block 1
2 C
I
I
I
I I
y- --
Vt,4M0 ---- -�_---
Landscaping(UDC 11-3B):
A 10-foot wide street buffer is required to be provided along N. Cortona Way to the east, a local
street, and a 20-foot wide street buffer is required along W. Milano Drive, a collector street,
landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C.Parking lot landscaping is required per the
Page 8
Item 4. 85
standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C. A 20-foot landscape use buffer to the existing single-family
residential to the north is also required.
All required street buffers are existing and comply with code requirements. The submitted landscape
plan depicts the required 20 foot wide use buffer along the north property boundary but does not
show the required number of trees. According to the aerial imagery, there appears to be existing and
mature trees in this buffer but this is not depicted on the plans. The existing landscape conditions
should be added to the plans with the future CZC submittal.
The required parking lot landscaping appears to be compliance with UDC requirements except for
the area adjacent to the parking lot along the west boundary on the south parcel. D. This should also
be revised with the future CZC submittal.
Fencing(UDC 11-3A- :
According to the submitted landscape plan,it is unclear if any fencing is proposed with this project.
Code does not require perimeter fencing but there is existing fencing along the north property
boundary that belongs to those homes within the Verona Subdivision. If any additional fencing is
proposed in the future, a detail of the proposed fencing should be included on the landscape plans
with the CZC application that demonstrates compliance with the standards in UDC 11-3A-7.
Building Elevations:
The conceptual building elevations submitted with the application depict two-story units with two-car
garages that are attached via internal breezeways. Overall,the elevations depict farmhouse style
architecture with the addition of lighter stone accents and larger windows along the first floor
commercial fagade. Administrative Design Review was not submitted concurrently with this
application so one will be required with the future CZC submittal. Furthermore, Staff will analyze the
proposed elevations for compliance with the Architectural Standards Manual(ASM) at the time of
Design Review submittal.
Upon initial review of the conceptual elevations, they appear to meet the required standards of the
ASM. However, as stated throughout this report, Staff has concerns with how the commercial suite is
delineated from the residential portion of the building. Staff finds the proposed building fagade where
the main entrance is located makes it difficult to determine where the residential and commercial lay.
In the last pre-application meeting, Staff discussed this issue with the Applicant and requested they
look into providing different treatment to the first floor fagade in question in order to more clearly
delineate the commercial and residential uses of the building in order to help activate the commercial
component.
In the spirit of this request and consistent with Staffs other recommended revisions to the building
design,Staff is also proposing the future Design Review elevations to include a more traditional
commercial storefront for each commercial space by providing more window area, if possible, a
different field material on the first floor fafades overall,and to include the dedicated commercial
entry door noted on the front facing facade, as recommended in previous sections of this report.
With these revisions,Staff believes not only the elevations are improved but the overall project is
also improved by providing a better avenue to activate the commercial aspect of the proposed
project.
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.
Page 9
Item 4. ■
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.
IX. EXHIBITS
A. Site Plan(date: 10/6/2021)(NOT APPROVED)
S89'36'11°E ]
LL—
I I
I �E
I 1 + !!
I .emu. I I 1 r
I 1 I !r
II 1 !
Y — 1
It Y a +
1
E I I
Y
ri'+t^iH Ea9�Pl
roar
r
F �
1 �
I
I
I j
I iwr r 1
I I
I j
I
� 1
� I
1 Y
1 Y '
1
1 I
`
— — ——----------------------
Page 10
Item 4. F87
- r
f
I _ J
I I 11
I I I
I
I I I
I /
I e I + + r
• � I I F I
r
F I I I
1 I _
I
I I
' I
- I I
I I
�-I I
` T,
Page 11
Gm+ F88
B. Landscape/a(date: 9/30/20 q
w �
]
�\\w,
. ---,
—w� e
� ■
. ' - K ��. • xQa6.. wz
\ r
�\
n � ,
Page 12
Item 4. 89
C. Conceptual Floor Plan
Ll-
2 3 4
�4PRELIMINARY
s
LOT
BLOCK
IL
.R A
�s
W
� I
_. 1�
3 77 4 03. x�eae
FLOOR PLAN-MAIN LEVEL A2.O X
Page 13
Item 4. 90
LIVE—
1 2 3 4
II III
I I I
I I I o�m°oux 3oe�cv3`u�
PRELIMINARY
I I
I I I
I I I
I I
I i II I � rUr�o3E° °
I I I
LOT
BLOCK
. I I
II I I VV II
�zeE
I I I I Fr er
I I I I
I OWr
E
W
• J.r
S Y
�LsnT..... znnn yr wnxnM e
PC
ti accen su r xa c:i�iwczrrt �"Z ��'� -
A A
1 2' 3 4
FLOOR PLAN-UPPER LEVEL
° A2.1
Page 14
Item 4. Fq-1
D. Conceptual Elevations(NOT APPROVED)
N N
Page 15
Item 4. 92
X. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS
A. Planning
1. The Applicant shall comply with the approved site plan, landscape plan, and generally
comply with the conceptual building elevations approved in this report as depicted in Section
IX and revised per Section X.A.
2. The Applicant shall comply with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-41 for the
proposed Vertically Integrated Residential Project.
3. Hours of operation for any future commercial in the commercial suites shall be limited to
6:00 AM to 10:00PM,per UDC 11-213-313 for the L-O zoning district when it abuts a
residential use or district.
4. Prior to building permit submittal,the Applicant shall obtain Certificate of Zoning
Compliance(CZC) and Administrative Design Review(DES) approval from the Planning
Department.
5. The site plan(s) shall be revised as follows prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission
hearing:
a. All drive aisles shall be a minimum of 25 feet wide,per UDC 11-3C-5 standards.
b. For the facades facing W.Milano Drive and N. Cortona Way,depict additional 5-foot
wide sidewalks connecting from these building entrances to the existing sidewalks along
the public streets.
c. Remove the two units framing the corner of W. Milano Drive and N. Cortona and add a
shared plaza space with outdoor seating and shade structures.
d. Remove the two units not along the adjacent streets in lieu of additional parking and
some usable common open space for the development.
6. The landscape plan(s) submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application shall
depict the following revisions:
a. Depict all existing landscaping on the subject sites to ensure compliance with UDC
standards.
b. Depict at least 5 feet of landscaping and the required number of trees along the west
project boundary and adjacent to the proposed parking lot on the south parcel(3042 W.
Milano Drive).
c. Depict the additional 5-foot wide sidewalks as noted above.
d. Depict the shared plaza as noted above with appropriate landscaping elements.
7. The conceptual building elevations and renderings shall be revised as follows prior to the
Planning and Zoning Commission hearing:
a. The first floor fagade facing and visible from the adjacent public streets(W.Milano
Drive and N. Cortona Way) shall depict a different field material and color than the
second floor fagade.
b. The first floor fagade facing adjacent public streets shall depict a dedicated commercial
entry door made of glass to help delineate the commercial suite of the project—this does
not mean the overall size of the window front shown on the conceptual elevations should
be reduced.
Page 16
Item 4. 93
8. Prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing,the conceptual floor plans shall be
revised as follows:
a. Expand the commercial areas of at least some of the units to help the viability of the
commercial component of this project.
b. Remove the first exterior door to help delineate the commercial and residential areas of
the units by creating two exterior facing doors; one for the residential,and one for the
commercial suite.
9. The east-west drive aisle depicted on the site plan(s)that connects from N. Cortona Way,to
the existing north-south drive aisle on parcels R9010670065 &R9010670015 shall be
constructed with the first phase of this project to ensure adequate traffic flow for the site.
10. Protect the existing landscaping on the site during construction,per UDC 11-3B-10.
11. 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)
No staff report has been submitted at this time.
A Traffic Impact Study(TIS) was not required for this project.
C. West Ada School District(WASD)
https://weblink.meridiancity.orgJ ebLink/DocView.aspx?id=244897&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
iv
D. Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ)
https:llweblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=244941&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
hty
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.
With Staffs recommended revisions, the site meets all the dimensional and development
regulations of the L-O zoning district and the proposed use of Vertically Integrated Residential
Project. 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 per the analysis
and applicable policies noted in Section V of this report.
Page 17
Item 4. ■
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.
Staff 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, Stafffinds
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.
Stafffinds the proposed use should not involve 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 18
Item 5. 95
E IDIAN*-----,
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Pinedale Subdivision (H-2022-0001) by Pine Project, LLC,
Located at 3275 W. Pine Avenue (Parcel #51210417400)
A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 1.22 acres of land with a request for the R-15 zoning
district.
B. Request: A Preliminary Plat for 12 building lots and 2 common lots on 1.22 acres in the
requested R-15 zoning district.
Item 5. F96
(:�N-WE IDIAN
IDAHO
PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION
Staff Contact:Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: March 3, 2022
Topic: Public Hearing for Pinedale Subdivision (H-2022-0001) by Pine Project, LLC,
Located at 3275 W. Pine Avenue (Parcel #S1210417400)
A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 1.22 acres of land with a request for the
R-15 zoning district.
B. Request: A Preliminary Plat for 12 building lots and 2 common lots on 1.22
acres in the requested R-15 zoning district.
Information Resources:
Click Here for Application Materials
Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing
Item 5. ■
STAFF REPORTC�,WEIIDIAN --
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT r A M O
HEARING 3/3/2022 Legend
DATE: -
0
Project Location LLLLLLLEU
TO: Planning&Zoning Commission
FROM: Joe Dodson,Associate Planner � �
208-884-5533 � �
�r] MW
SUBJECT: H-2022-0001 -__ -
Pinedale Subdivision _--------
1
LOCATION: The site is located at 3275 W. Pine - f
Avenue (Parcel#S 1210417400), at the .
east terminus of W.Newland Street in -
the Chesterfield Subdivision, in the NW --
1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 10, ELL- > ��
Township 3N,Range 1 W.
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Annexation and Zoning of 1.22 acres of land with a request for the R-15 zoning district and a Preliminary
Plat for 12 building lots and 2 common lots on 1.22 acres in the requested R-15 zoning district,by Pine
Project,LLC.
II. SUMMARY OF REPORT
A. Project Summary
Description Details Page
Acreage 1.22 acres
Future Land Use Designation Mixed-Use Community 6-15 du/ac
Existing Land Uses County Residential
Proposed Land Uses Detached Single-family Residential
Lots(#and type; 12 total lots— 10 residential building lots; 2 common
bldg./common)) lots
Phasing Plan(#ofphases) 1 phase
Number of Residential Units 10 single-family units
Density Gross—9.83;Net— 12.1
Open Space (acres,total Approximately 8,000 square feet of open space
/buffer/ ualified (approximately 15%
Amenity Seating area; micro-path connection to future multi-
use pathway at north end of property
Neighborhood meeting date; # November 5,2021 — 1 attendee
of attendees:
Page 1
Item 5. F98
Description Details Page
History(previous approvals) No application history with the City
B. Community Metrics
Description Details Page_
Ada County Highway
District
• Staff report(yes/no) Yes
• Requires ACHD No
Commission Action
es/no
Access Access is proposed via extension of the existing stub street,Newland Street;
(Arterial/Collectors/State it is proposed to be extended into the site as a cul-de-sac.
Hwy/Local)(Existing and
Proposed)
Stub No opportunity for further public street extension;Newland Street will
Street/Interconnectivity/Cross terminate within the site.
Access
Existing Road Network No
Proposed Road The Applicant is only required to extend Newland Street into the site.No
Improvements other road improvements are proposed or required.
Fire Service
• Distance to Fire 2.8 miles from Fire Station#2.
Station
• Fire Response Time The project currently lies outsie of the Meridian Fire response time goal of 5
minutes. Once Pine Avenue is constructed over the Tenmile Creek,the
project will lie within the response time goal window.
• Resource Reliability Fire Station#2 reliability is 85%(above the goal of 80%)
• Risk Identification Risk Factor 2—Residential with hazards(Tenmile Creek along east
boundary)
• Accessibility Proposed project meets all required road widths, and turnaround dimensions.
Cul-de-sac is required to be signed"No Parking,"per Fire Department
regulations.
Police Service
No report—see online record for any comments from MPD.
Wastewater
• Distance to Sewer 0'
Services
• Project Consistent Yes
with WW Master
Plan/Facility Plan
• WRRF Declining 14.26
Balance
• Impacts/Concerns • Flow is committed
• See Public Works Site Specific Conditions
Page 2
Item 5. Fq—q
Description Details Page
• Additional 510 gpd flow was committed to model
Water
• Distance to Services 0'
• Pressure Zone 2
• Project Consistent Yes
with Water Master
Plan
• Water Quality None
Concerns MMOM
• Impacts/Concerns See site specific conditions in Section VIILB
Page 3
® 11
1 1 1
' • - • • • _ II1r Win • - • • • "�IU ,�, .
__■o J i !
■
■� ��■� � �—ter a1, qq ., -:.x
1loss ■n■1■►i r111 11n1 "ty \ `tea r ` ti
■■ions ■■1 H
+ ■ - - c �. i�
IIIIII ■11 - • _ ` ° a. ._5-�_ n .. I �}
■■■■■nnl e - ;1 `P-INE" = � - `PINE
IIIIII=_ � • - • ` � �`` � J
I:9
111111 S-����i1p1111111 I —
IICmIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIs11n11111�_ Z
�,.� �' F
Inll�lfl 6 -
:w
e
Iuumlm '� !■'�'�'!'F_RANKLIN _� � =FRANKL-I'N
1111111 1 ]Illlllllgl -:;*� _�!1111111I111 �pAlllsll
own-111 ■
EWER
IN
1I NO Mill, �1 I 1 nn■ w�11� I ss I+
Iloilo .11111..n Il IIIIIIII _
IIIIII III 11��' '® ol�� ' • -• •• - �e_ �� 11L1'� ��,a
;oo■■IIn In11111 � n ■:
■1ll■1■s1ll Ijlnlnis '-� r--- l'N 1:
IIIIIII�' 111 �IIIIII - r 1111
IIAICIII n1lnlllnllllp111 ill I11111 =_��=��nnlll �,-!�i��l � �IIIIIIIIII
p�:0111AA111111 I r y s
Il�nlll 111111111111A1111111111'I��\1•s'.I■1► Z
� W
F
;W h■ �
If In■
�1�1....__ ■■ ■-- ° ZI mi, n uun
• W �- ■■ i ii
1° FRANKL-INN ~ -p •■ ..1.■...
1- - '1131lIIIR1 1. 1.1.1.1■ICRAN KLIN
A n m nnulil�Inmrlrim
1 1 1 11 •• ' 1" / 1 1"
i � ' ' 1 i i1 1" i. � 1 . 1 i •� •
11
Item 5. 1o1 1
IV. NOTICING
Planning&Zoning City Council
Posting Date Posting Date
Newspaper Notification 2/15/2022
Radius notification mailed to
properties within 500 feet 2/14/2022
Site Posting 2/21/2022
Nextdoor posting 2/15/2022
V. STAFF ANALYSIS
A. Future Land Use Map Designation(ht(ps://www.meridiancity.org/compplan)
Mixed-Use Community(MU-C)—The purpose of this designation is to allocate areas where
community-serving uses and dwellings are seamlessly integrated into the urban fabric (residential
dwellings are allowed at a gross density of 6-15 du/ac). The intent is to integrate a variety of uses,
including residential, and to avoid mainly single-use and strip commercial type buildings.Non-
residential buildings in these areas have a tendency to be larger than in Mixed Use Neighborhood
(MU-N) areas,but not as large as in Mixed Use Regional(MU-R)areas. Goods and services in
these areas tend to be of the variety that people will mainly travel by car to,but also walk or bike
to (up to three or four miles). Employment opportunities for those living in and around the
neighborhood are encouraged.
The subject 1.2 acres is designated as mixed-use community but is part of a larger, 30-acre
mixed-use designated area to the east that is west of Ten Mile and south of the future Pine Avenue
extension (more MU-C acreage exists on the east side of Ten Mile as well). However, this site is
physically separated from this MU-C area by the Tenmile Creek that abuts the east boundary of
the subject site with only a future pedestrian connection available for any connectivity between
this site and the MU-C parcels to the east. Because of the physical separation and the lack of
connectivity to the east, Staff believes this project and site is more consistent with the existing
subdivision to the west, Chesterfield Subdivision, than it is with any mixed-use project to the east
(Foxcroft or Mile High Pines). Chesterfield and all of the residential to the west and northwest of
this site is in the Medium Density Residential(MDR)future land use designation and
contemplates residential development in the density range of 3-8 du/ac such as the proposed
Pinedale Subdivision. Because of these facts, Staff finds it appropriate to analyze the subject
project against the MDR designation instead of the MU-C designation by floating that
designation to this site, as allowed per the Comprehensive Plan.
Since the original project description was published, the Applicant and Staff have worked
together to revise the plat and remove two (2) lots so the total building lots proposed with this
plat is now ten (10). Ten lots on 1.22 acres of land has a gross density of 8.19 du/ac, at the
maximum allowed within the MDR designation. Therefore, the Applicant is proposing a project
consistent with both the MU-C and the adjacent MDR future land use designations. Due to the
site being at the end of an existing stub street, the only vehicular connection is via extension of
the stub street(Newland Street) into the property which is required to terminate within the site as
a full cul-de-sac, requiring a large portion of the site to be reserved for right-of-way and reduces
the buildable area of the project. Because the buildable area is greatly reduced by the required
cul-de-sac, the Applicant is proposing lot sizes smaller than those within Chesterfield to the west
which requires the R-I5 zoning district; the adjacent Chesterfield homes are within the R-8
zoning district.
Page 5
Item 5. ■
Original discussions with the Applicant contemplated 15 building lots on the subject site but the
Applicant submitted the preliminary plat with 12 lots after Staff voiced concerns over the
proposed density, lot sizes, and overall livability of the project. Other discussions occurred
following submittal of the subject applications and the Applicant reduced the number of building
lots to 10. This allows the project to comply with the MDR designation by rounding 8.19 du/ac
down to the allowed 8 du/ac. However, due to the requested zoning and proposed density not
matching Chesterfield to the west, Commission and Council should determine if a further
reduction in density is necessary. If the Commission or Council desires less density, Staff would
recommend Lot 1 be removed in lieu of additional usable open space along the west boundary
and to allow the lots to shift west around the cul-de-sac and remove a driveway connection to the
cul-de-sac, reducing the amount of concrete and asphalt at the end of this street.
An additional recommendation made by Staff that the Applicant has shown on the latest
preliminary plat is to include some shared driveways in the project. Staff did not recommend
multiple common drives as one is already proposed. Instead, Staff is recommending as many lots
as possible utilize shared driveways on their shared property line to further eliminate driveway
connections to the cul-de-sac. This recommendation would likely require at least some of the
homes to have a side-loaded garage instead of a front loaded garage;Staff notes for the benefit
of the Applicant that if a parking pad is required to meet minimum off-street parking standards, a
minimum 20 foot by 20 foot parking pad may be required and would need to be measured in
front of the garage even if it is side-loaded. The Applicant should ensure their desired home
design is viable with this recommendation. Specific setback analysis would be analyzed with
future building permit applications.
Furthermore, the subject site is surrounded by existing City zoning in all directions with
existing development to the south, west, and northwest and entitlements on the land to the east
and northeast. Therefore,Staff believes annexing this land into the City to remove this small
county enclave is in the best interest of the City so long as the Applicant adheres to Staffs
recommended DA provisions and conditions of approval.
Staff finds the proposed project to be generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as
discussed above. Specific Comprehensive Plan policies are discussed and analyzed below.
The City may require a development agreement(DA)in conjunction with an annexation and
rezone pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A.In order to ensure the site develops as
proposed with this application, Staff recommends a new DA that encompasses the land proposed
to be rezoned and annexed with the provisions included in Section VIII.A1. The DA is required to
be signed by the property owners)/developer and returned to the City within 6 months of the
Council granting the rezone and annexation approval.A final plat will not be accepted until the
new DA is executed and the AZ ordinance is approved by City Council.
NOTE: Upon application submittal and initial review, there was miscommunication between Staff
and the Applicant and the Applicant was required to revise the Annexation boundary to include
area that is already annexed into the City(within the railroad right-of-way). There is no need to
rezone this area in conjunction with this annexation so Staff is recommending the Applicant
submit a revised Annexation and Zoning legal description and exhibit map that encompasses only
the area not currently annexed and matches the plat boundary.
B. Comprehensive Plan Policies (https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan):
The applicable Comprehensive Plan policies are cited below with Staff analysis in italics. Staff is
not analyzing the project against any mixed-use policies but is instead analyzing the project
against general policies as the project is being reviewed with the MDR designation.
Page 6
Item 5. F103
"Avoid the concentration of any one housing type or lot size in any geographical area;provide for
diverse housing types throughout the City"(2.01.01 G). The proposed project offers a density
most consistent with the projects to the east, however the submitted plat does not match the lot
size and density of the Chesterfield Subdivision adjacent to the west. The subject site is
encumbered by the requirement to construct a cul-de-sac entirely on this relatively small site so
matching the lot sizes and the same look of Chesterfield would be difficult to attain. The
impediments on this site allow the Applicant to propose a smaller building lot which subsequently
allows a smaller home to be constructed than what exists in the surrounding area; this should
add to the housing diversity in this area.
"Establish and maintain levels of service for public facilities and services,including water, sewer,
police,transportation, schools, fire, and parks"(3.02.01G).All public utilities are available for
this project site due to the existing stub street on its west boundary. Road improvements currently
under construction (i.e. Pine bridge over the Tenmile Creek)will place this project within the
Fire Department response time goal and Fire has approved the accesses for the proposed plat.
West Ada School District has not sent a letter regarding this application but with a relative low
number of homes a large number of school aged children is not anticipated to be generated by
this development. Furthermore, Chaparral Elementary is within walking distance of this
development should any elementary aged children live within this site.
Stafffinds that the existing and planned development of the immediate area create appropriate
conditions for levels of service to and for this proposed project.
"Preserve,protect,and provide open space for recreation, conservation,and aesthetics"
(4.05.01F).Because the property is less than 5 acres, the Applicant is not required to provide any
qualified common open space. However, the Applicant is showing a connection to a future multi-
use pathway at the north boundary and has chosen to include an open space plaza area near this
connection point for future residents to enjoy. This area is tucked away behind the building lots
so all adjacent fencing will need to be open vision or semi private fencing. Staff anticipates this
area being utilized as a quiet oasis due to its location. Staff is not aware if this site and future
building lots will be part of the Chesterfield HOA for residents to access the amenities and open
space within that project. However, Fuller Park is approximately % mile to the north of the
subject property which offers acres of open space and amenities within walking distance.
"Require pedestrian access in all new development to link subdivisions together and promote
neighborhood connectivity."(2.02.01D).Proposed project is extending the attached sidewalks
along Newland Street and is proposing a micro path connection to the north boundary to connect
to a multi-use pathway segment from the Foxcroft Subdivision on the east side of the Tenmile
Creek. Furthermore, the Applicant is preserving a potential connection point to the railroad
corridor should the City ever decide to construct a regional pathway south of the site.All of these
pedestrian facilities allow this small site as well as the existing development to the west to have
multiple links together and promotes neighborhood connectivity.
"Ensure that new development within existing residential neighborhoods is cohesive and
complementary in design and construction."(2.02.02F).As discussed, the Applicant is proposing
lot sizes smaller than the adjacent Chesterfield Subdivision to the west largely because of the
requirement to terminate Newland Street within the site as cul-de-sac. The proposed lots directly
abutting the existing homes do not match in lot size but they are abutting 1:1 in terms of lot to lot
so the existing residents should not feel as though there is slightly higher density directly to their
east. Furthermore, because the property is at the end of an existing street and it will terminate on
the subject site, Staff anticipates the project will feel cohesive in its livability despite not matching
lot sizes and density of Chesterfield. Should Commission determine a further reduction in lot
count is necessary, Staff recommends one of the lots taking access from the cul-de-sac be
Page 7
Item 5. ■
removed in lieu of additional usable open space and help remove the number of driveway
connections to the cul-de-sac.
"Require new development to establish street connections to existing local roads and collectors as
well as to underdeveloped adjacent properties."(6.01.02C). The Applicant is required to and is
proposing to extend Newland Street into the site by constructing a cul-de-sac wholly on this
property, terminating Newland Street. This is the only access point into the site and connects this
project directly to the abutting Chesterfield Subdivision that has access up to Pine Avenue, a
residential collector street that will be extended from west to east over the Tenmile Creek to Ten
Mile Road.
Staff finds this development to be generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
C. Existing Structures/Site Improvements:
According to GIS imagery,there appears to be an existing residential structure and an out-
building on the subject site.Any and all structures and debris are proposed to be removed upon
development of this project. Furthermore,the existing access for this site is via vehicular bridge
over the Tenmile Creek at the very north property boundary that connects to a private drive that is
essentially Pine Avenue. This access will be closed upon development and the vehicular bridge
should provide access for a regional pathway Foxcroft subdivision is constructing to the east.
D. Proposed Use Analysis:
The proposed use is detached single-family residential with an average lot size of 3,363 square
feet and a minimum lot size of 3,099 square feet,based on the latest submitted plat(Exhibit
VII.B). This use is a permitted use in the requested R-15 zoning district per UDC Table 11-2A-2
and all lots meet the minimum lot size requirement of 2,000 square feet. The Applicant has not
noted if this is a phased project,however Staff anticipates it to develop as one phase due to the
size of the proposed project.
As discussed in the Comprehensive Plan analysis, the proposed use is the same as the existing
detached single-family to the west in Chesterfield Subdivision but is proposed with smaller lots
and subsequently smaller homes.According to the Applicant, the goal is to construct smaller
homes at a lower price point to add more affordable options to the area and market.
E. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2):
The residential lots appear to meet all UDC dimensional standards per the submitted plat. In
addition,all subdivision developments are also required to comply with Subdivision Design and
Improvement Standards(UDC 11-6C-3). The proposed preliminary plat and submitted plans
appear to meet all UDC requirements except for the number of lots taking access from a common
drive. Per UDC 11-6C-3D, no more than three(3) lots can take access from the same side of a
common drive and the proposed plat depicts four(4) lots taking access (Lots 4-7)from the
common drive because of Staffs recommendation to have shared driveways where possible. The
Applicant will be required to show Lot 4 taking access from the cul-de-sac instead of showing it
shared with Lot 5 and on the common drive.
The common drive is shown as 20 feet wide and is less than 1 SD feet in length meeting Fire
turnaround and UDC requirements. Furthermore, the Applicant is showing a 6-foot wide
sidewalk attached to the common drive from the proposed attached sidewalk around the cul-de-
sac to the southern boundary to assist the Parks Department in reserving a pedestrian facility
through the site in the event the City constructs a regional pathway system within the railroad
corridor to the south of the property. This 6-foot area appears to be shown as a sidewalk on the
latest plat but is shown as landscaping on the landscape plan (this landscape plan does not match
Page 8
Item 5. ■
the latest plat). The Applicant should clarify what the intended purpose of this area is in order to
comply with UDC 11-6C-3D.5 as well as the Parks Department condition of approval. The
landscape plans should be revised to comport to the revised preliminary plat prior to the City
Council hearing.
F. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual):
The Applicant submitted conceptual building elevations for the proposed detached single-family
homes.Note that detached single-family homes do not require Design Review approval therefore
Staff does not review these for compliance with any architectural standards.
However, the submitted elevations depict a number of different architectural and design styles
with all of the elevations depicting two-story homes with two-car garages. The elevations depict
varying field materials of lap siding, brick,fiber cement board and stucco with differing accent
materials, roof profiles, and overall varying home styles. Staff finds the conceptual elevations
should be adhered to closely in order to offer an array ofpotential home designs for this small
subdivision.
G. Access(UDC 11-3A-3, I1-3H-4):
Access is proposed via extension of W.Newland Street(an existing residential local street) into
the site and is proposed to terminate within the site as a full cul-de-sac. ACHD has approved the
proposed access with the additional condition that the radius be widened to 50 feet instead of 49
feet as currently shown. Further, according to the latest plat, four(4) lots are shown to take access
from a 20-foot wide common drive in the southeast corner of the site. As discussed above,the
Applicant will be required to revise the plat to show Lot 4 taking access from the cul-de-sac
instead of the common drive to comply with code unless Alternative Compliance is requested and
approved.
The existing access across Tenmile Creek and up to the private segment of Pine Avenue will be
closed upon development of the site.
H. Parking(UDC 11-3C):
Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table H-
3C-6 for single-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. Staff will confirm
compliance with these standards at the time of building permit submittal for each residence. In
addition, it is important to note that no parking is allowed along the perimeter of the proposed
cul-de-sac nor on the proposed common drive. So,there is no opportunity for any on-street
parking within this subdivision because it includes a cul-de-sac as its public access.
One of the reasons behind Staff's recommendation to reduce the number of lots proposed in this
development is based in the lack of available on-street parking within the site due to the only
public street access being a cul-de-sac.In response, the Applicant removed two lots, as
previously noted. An additional solution to this potential issue would be to require the Applicant
to provide an area of off-street parking in lieu of one of the building lots for guest parking. Staff
is not specifically recommending this but is calling this out as an option should Commission or
Council find it necessary. However, should this be a requirement, additional lot shifting will
likely be needed to accommodate for 19 foot deep parking stalls and a 25 foot wide two-way
drive aisle for access.
Staff also recommends the inclusion of shared driveways in order to promote side-loaded garages
and further help with the potential off-street parking issue. This type of design can force longer
driveways that go deeper into each site which allows for more off-street parking. This design also
creates an opportunity for the living area of each home to be moved closer to the street as the
Page 9
Item 5. F106
living setback is 10 feet while the garage setback is 20 feet; this allows for more buildable area
than is shown on the submitted plat(i.e. specifically for Lots 3, 4, and 9). Staff is recommending a
specific DA provision to require a number of shared driveways and to help mitigate this potential
issue. However, Staff notes the building lots may not be wide enough to accommodate the
required parking pad for side-loaded garages. The Applicant should work to mitigate these issues
and revise the plat accordingly.
I. Sidewalks/Pathways (UDC 11-3A-17; UDC 11-3A-8):
A 5-foot wide attached sidewalk is proposed along the Newland Street cul-de-sac, consistent with
UDC and ACHD requirements. In addition,the Applicant is proposing a 5-foot wide micro-path
on the north side of the cul-de-sac for the purpose of providing a connection to the future multi-
use pathway approved with Foxcroft Subdivision on the east side of the adjacent Tenmile Creek.
The proposed sidewalks meet UDC 11-3A-17 and ACHD standards. The micro-path lot does not
meet UDC 11-3A-8 standards—this lot is shown as ten(10)feet wide but code requires a
minimum of a 15-foot wide common lot for increased visibility and to allow 5-feet of landscaping
on both sides of the micro-path. The Applicant should revise the plat to show compliance with
this standard and show the required number of trees adjacent to the path in accord with UDC 1I-
3B-12.
J. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B):
The required landscaping regulated by code within the proposed development is the common
open space and micro-path areas around the north and eastern perimeters. The submitted
landscape plans shows landscaping in these areas as proposed but does not match the latest plat.
The Applicant should update the landscape plan prior to the City Council hearing.
The Applicant is proposing the micro path lot as 10 feet wide instead of the required 1 S foot
minimum but is currently shown with two trees abutting the path, exceeding code due to its length
being approximately 100 feet(trees are required at the ratio of 1/100 linear feet,per UDC I I-
3B-12). Furthermore, this micro path lot opens up to a common open space area shown with a
seating area,grass, and a few trees for shade. This landscaping shows compliance with code
requirements for the number of trees and other vegetative ground cover for common open space.
The Applicant may be required to modify the plat and landscape plan to accommodate the
required Tenmile Creek easement and satisfy UDC 11-3A-6 to include the irrigation easement
within a minimum 20 foot wide common lot. This common lot would be required to be vegetated
per UDC standards as well as meet the irrigation districts standards but the creek itself may be
left natural because it is listed as a natural waterway within the UDC.
K. Qualified Open Space and Amenities(UDC 11-3G):
The proposed preliminary plat area is approximately 1.22 acres in size in size which does not
require a minimum amount of open space nor an amenity,per UDC 11-3G-3. The Applicant is
proposing a common open space area that is approximately 2,500 square feet in size to include a
seating area and a micro-path connection to the north boundary for future connectivity to a
regional pathway segment.
L. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7):
All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7 and 11-3A-6.
Fencing is proposed as shown on the landscape plan and does not meet UDC standards.
6-foot tall wood fencing is proposed through the site despite being adjacent to common open
space areas that are tucked away and adjacent to an open waterway, the Tenmile Creek. With the
final plat submittal, the Applicant should revise the landscape plan to show open-vision fencing
Page 10
Item 5. F107
or semi private open vision fencing along the rear property lines of Lots 1-7 and the side
property lines abutting the micro path lot for Lots I &2. In addition, the Applicant should clarify
if any fencing is proposed along the Tenmile Creek and coordinate with Nampa Meridian
Irrigation District on where they would like any fencing located within their easement.
Furthermore, the landscape plan appears to show solid fencing along the east property line of
Lot 8, abutting the proposed common drive.According to UDC 11-6C-3D.5, if solid fencing is
proposed abutting a common drive, at least 5-feet of landscaping is required between the
common drive and the buildable lot. The latest preliminary plat does not appear to comply with
this but the landscape plan does show landscaping. So, the Applicant should clarify which plan is
accurate AND revise the landscape plan to show the proposed fencing type.According to the
document provided by the Parks Department, the required pedestrian easement for a future
connection from the south boundary to the north boundary of the subject site can overlap the
common drive and essentially utilize the common drive as the pathway. This would allow for the
required S feet of landscaping on the west side of the common drive adjacent to Lot 8 to allow for
solid fencing.
M. Waterways(UDC 11-3A-6)
The subject site directly abuts the Tenmile Creek along its entire eastern boundary.
According to Nampa Meridian Irrigation District(NMID),the easement width for this
facility is 50 feet on either side of the centerline of the"drain."The submitted plat doesn't
appear to depict the required 50-foot easement. Staff is concerned that this may severely
limit the viability of the buildable lots along the creek(Lots 2-7,Block 1).Furthermore,
UDC 11-3A-6 requires a minimum 20-foot wide common lot if more than 10 feet of an
irrigation easement encumbers the buildable lots.Under this code section the applicant can
ask that the easement be placed on the buildable lot rather than in a common lot.However,
the width of the easement may impact buildable area of the lots if the irrigation district will
not allow any structures to encroach in the easement.Prior to the Commission hearing,the
applicant should graphically depict the easement on the plat and contact NMID to
determine if any encroachment would be allowed in the easement.If encroachments are
allowed, staff recommends the applicant provide an exhibit that demonstrates how homes
on these lots would comply with NMID requirements.
VI. DECISION
A. Staff:
Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation and preliminary plat applications with the
requirement of a Development Agreement if the recommended revisions in Section VII of this
report are adhered to per the Findings in Section IX of this staff report.
B. Commission:
Enter Summary of Commission Decision.
C. City Council:
To be heard at future date.
Page 11
Item 5. ■
VII. EXHIBITS
A. Annexation and Zoning Legal Description and Exhibit Map(NOT APPROVED)
= ACKERMAN
E S T V 0 L D WWW.ACKERMAN-ESTVOLD.COM
January 10,2022
Pinedale Subdivision Annexation and Rezone Legal Description
3679 West Newland Street
Meridian,ID 83642
A parcel of land being a portion of the SE%of Section 10,T.3N,RAW,Boise-Meridian,Ada Couty,Idaho,
more particularly described as follows:
BEGINNING at a 5/8"iron pin marking the southeast corner of Chesterfield Subdivision Number 4;thence
along a line perpendicular to the Union Pacific Railroad centerline South 01'34'46"West a distance of 100.00
feet to a point on said centerline;thence along said centerline South 88°25'14"East a distance of 311.32 feet;
thence leaving said centerline along a line perpendicular to said centerline North 01'34'46"East a distance of
100.00 feet to a point on the westerly edge of Tenmile Creek;thence along said westerly edge of Tenmile
Creek North 32"49'09"West a distance of 120.21 feet;thence North 48"06'05"West a distance of 101.97 feet;
thence North 43"31'33"West a distance of 144.27 feet;thence leaving said westerly edge of Tenmile Creek
North 88`25'56"West a distance of 66.78 feet to a point on the easterly boundary of Chesterfield Subdivision
Number 4;thence along said easterly boundary of Chesterfield Subdivision Number 4 South 00'52'04"West a
distance of 267.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
The above described parcel contains 1.93 acres,more or less.
ate"
6s9 i
. 1/10/2
vat 2"OF
10 M
HEADQUARTERS 4161 311TH AVE S 3210 27TH ST W 7161 W RIVERSIDE DR
190717TH ST SE SUITE 100 SUITE 200 SUITE 102
MINOT,ND 59701 FARGO,ND 58104 WILLISTON,ND 58801 GARDEN CITY,ID 83714
701.937.8737 701.551.1250 701.577.4127 208,853.6470
Page 12
Item 5. Fl-og
N
ANNEXATION
EXHIBIT B
=01R I ION 0 11 IL SL 1/4 Cl `=LC L N 10,
3C`�_ Ivl_�ICIAN, C I C, 8�/&f-$
P�1- ICI �N, ADly COLN—, DA 0. o sco• �
=_ARNC�,0.kr]I:,'-Ah:=.S NAY YAF,"=zSVI
-TVIUl15 ri ITS DU-M,:=-r7FK-h!f-io,5
CF uEASIR-14-vTs.
W PINEAL _ — - — - — — — — —
II
'•� WIVE AD DINE ST
\._W FARLAM DRIVE_ `
tJ—W NLWLAN❑S7_
P.O.B. A -- -- —
ONION PACIFIC RAILROAD s e �• �
------------ ----�
j;
STOR-IT SELF STORAGE
FOUNDMONUMENT
B.O.B.BASIS OF BEARING
P.O.B.POINT OF BEGINNING
P.O.C.POINT OF COMMENCEMENT
CCITY OF MERIDIAN
L.
AREA TO BE ANNEXED
ACKERMAN
�ESTVOLD
7661We9Rarsitleurw,Ste,102 Garden City,1083714
208.853&770..—ackermaa- told.I.
MInN Na I Far o,Na WIIl"t,ND
8ol5e,le
Page 13
Item 5. 1 10
wwW.ACKERMgiV-ESTVOLD,COM
1\7,,ACKERMAN
ESTVOLD
January 10,2022
Pinedale Subdivision Legal Description
3679 West Newland Street
Meridian,ID 83642
A parcel of land being a portion of the SE%of Section 10,T.3N,RAW,Boise-Meridian,Ada Couty,Idaho,
more particularly described as follows:
BEGINNING at a 5/8"iron pin marking the southeast corner of Chesterfield Subdivision Number 4;thence
along the northerly right-of-way line of Union Pacific Railroad South 88°25'14"East a distance of 311.32 feet
to a point on the westerly edge of Tenmile Creek;thence leaving said northerly right-of-way line of Union
Pacific Railroad on the westerly edge of said Tenmile Creek North 32`49'09"West a distance of 120.21 feet;
thence North 48"06'05"West a distance of 101.97 feet;thence North 43°31'33"West a distance of 144.27
feet;thence leaving said westerly edge of Tenmile Creek North 88"25'56"West a distance of 66.78 feet to a
point on the easterly boundary of Chesterfield Subdivision Number 4;thence along said easterly boundary of
Chesterfield Subdivision Number 4 South 00°52'04"West a distance of 267.00 feet to the POINT OF
BEGINNING.
The above described parcel contains 1.22 acres,more or less.
5C ISTEIyf��
5 6�fi9
r
.�1/10/2
OF
ONTO M c'
HEADQUARTERS 4165 30TH AVE 5 3210 27TH 5T W 7661 W RIVERSIDE DR
1907 17TH ST SE SUITE 100 SUITE 200 SUITE 102
MINOT,ND 58701 FARGO,ND 58104 WILLISTON,ND 58801 GARDEN CITY,ID 83714
701.837.8737 701.551.1250 701.577.4127 208.853.6470
Page 14
Item 5. ■
B. Preliminary Plat(dated: 2/21/2022)
\
\
_ � � � PP.FJJMINARY FIAT FOK Q� a
PINEDALE SUBDIVISION
�� � nPornoN OTm�eoumensr ua or-srrnoN lo,r_sN.,z,w-.aolse �w_�=
l\ f M!}JDL4N.ADA CONNiY.fDA110. 4 �-.'
-
��. 0 a
s
I J.n.sc i
air EF ^G \
^��" \: PREIJMINARY
union raem.a.ar...e plp11
1.0
Page 15
Item 5. 112
C. Landscape Plans(date: 8/3/2021)
CL w
7H
M
®R
AN H�
H
NONE
eg
Page 16
Item 5. 113
Planting Ledgen
BTRalogancBu[NIaB ■ 1LLRF ovEanwRO LEo iocsot�vRatnoE SEEd ai
q�'6 c'", sw ES ANo sao Ai ALL oaTHER
Re{� ■ NnTIVE901L
Yp'4� ■ oNCRE0.iE cuR9 euTTERPNo
a� a
3
3
Lot 3
oti ot2
t Newlantl C1.
Pervious Concrete
U
Lot
H.
of 16
Lak 6
Lot 1 Lat 7
a-Lo['11 of 13
Lola
of 1n
of 6
Lana Scapa plan
1"-2P-0"
Y!t4"Top and Bottom
RTllfp sewn t
I'll P
"F Pmp 1'k4'PT Post
7 _ — IuSends¢, :-2o1-
6lalnbyaT.etTalePalpta.
' NAii<a.tia a oinaoi sec
rveutxc sue;sprnTe.
5.,Fence Detail
Page 17
n 0
r
*+fir_ ��►• ,
a
.•3 ',fie F _ r�a�
I'
4r
iA
1 M
f
i
.•�F it iM�t I
Item 5. ■
r'� l �� •r
L
fr• -
ct
i ■■ ■a■ IBM : ■■■
5
Page 20
Item 5. ■
VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS
A. PLANNING DIVISION
1. A Development Agreement(DA) is required as a provision of annexation of this property.
Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance,a DA shall be entered into between the City of
Meridian and the property owner(s)/developer 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;
Applicant shall provide a revised Annexation and Zoning legal description and Exhibit
Map to exclude the railroad right-of-way area.The DA shall, at minimum, incorporate the
following provisions:
a. Future development of this site shall be substantially consistent with the
approved plat, landscape plan, and conceptual building elevations included in
Section VII and the provisions contained herein and shall be obligated to install
and maintain the open space and amenity as proposed on the approved plans.
b. The Applicant shall include shared driveways to help remove the number of driveways
proposed, especially for those lots taking direct access from the cul-de-sac,W.Newland
Court.
2. Prior to the City Council hearing,the Applicant shall provide revised Annexation and Zoning
legal description and Exhibit Map to exclude the railroad right-of-way area.
3. The preliminary plat included in Section VII.B, dated February 21, 2022, shall be revised as
follows prior to the City Council hearing, except as noted:
a. Show the entrance to the open space lot(Lot 12)containing the micro-path lot to be
at least 15 feet wide,per UDC 11-3A-8 standards.
b. Lot 4 shall take access from the cul-de-sac and not from the common drive in accord
with UDC 11-6C-3.
c. Prior to the Commission hearing,the applicant should graphically depict the Tenmile
Creek easement on the plat and contact NMID to determine if any encroachment
would be allowed in the easement. IF encroachments are allowed, staff recommends
the applicant provide an exhibit that demonstrates how homes on these lots would
comply with NMID requirements.
4. The landscape plan included in Section VII.C, dated August 3, 2021, shall be revised as
follows prior to submitting for Final Plat approval:
a. Revise the plan to match the latest preliminary plat.
b. Lot 12,Block 1 shall be a minimum of 15-feet wide and landscaped in accord with
UDC 11-3B-12.
c. If solid fencing is proposed on the east property line of Lot 8, show the required 5
feet of landscaping between the property line and the common drive (Lot 11)in
accord with UDC 11-6C-3D.
Page 21
Item 5. F-1181
5. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in
UDC Table 11-2A-7 for the R-15 zoning district.
6. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table
11-3C-6 for single-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit.
7. The Applicant shall comply with all ACHD conditions of approval.
8. Provide a pressurized irrigation system consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-
3A-15,UDC 11-3B-6 and MCC 9-1-28.
9. Upon completion of the landscape installation, a written Certificate of Completion shall be
submitted to the Planning Division verifying all landscape improvements are in substantial
compliance with the approved landscape plan as set forth in UDC 11-313-14.
10. The preliminary plat approval shall become null and void if the applicant fails to either: 1)
obtain the City Engineer signature on a final plat within two years of the date of the approved
findings; or 2)obtain approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC 11-6B-7.
B. PUBLIC WORKS
Site Specific Conditions of Approval
1. Water main alignment may need to be adjusted to enable perpendicular service lines to
appropriate locations-specifically at the edge of right-of-way at the entrance to the private
drive.
2. No sewer utilities provided in Record. Public sewer infrastructure must be reviewed and
approved by public works.
3. Sewer main shall not run-down private driveways that serve 4 or fewer lots. For lots
6, 7, and 8, run sewer service in the driveway only.
4. Ensure no sewer services pass through infiltration trenches.
5. A portion of this development is in the Floodplain Overlay District and floodplain
development permit is required for land development. This property is in a FEMA "A" Zone
without Base Flood Elevations. A hydraulic analysis has been completed for Foxcroft
Subdivision.Applicant will need to compare base flood elevations for existing conditions in
this analysis to the existing conditions survey on 3725 W Pine. This should form the basis for
a Letter of Map Amendment(LOMA) application to remove the entire property from the
floodplain. The quicker LOMA process is started the better, otherwise we will need
floodplain permits and elevation certificates for any development in the current flood zone. If
fill this property is not eligible for a LOMA, fill may be added for a FEMA LOMR-F
application. In this case, floodplain permits and elevation certificates will be required for each
structure in this zone.
6. As noted in the Geotechnical Engineering Report prepared by Atlas Materials Testing
& Inspection, there are shallow cemented soils across the site. Particular attention
needs to be focused on ensuring that all residences constructed with crawl spaces
should be designed in a manner that will inhibit water in crawl spaces. This may
include the installation of foundation drains, and the installation of rain gutters and
roof drains that will carry storm water at least 10-feet away from all residences.
Foundation drains are not allowed to drain into the sanitary sewer system, nor the
trench backfill for the sewer and/or water service lines.
Page 22
Item 5. 119 1
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
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.
Page 23
Item 5. ■
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 6-7 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting.A
copy of the standards can be found at
http://www.meridianciiy.orgZpublic 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
Page 24
Item 5. 121
Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service
for more information at 887-2211.
C. FIRE DEPARTMENT
https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=251084&dbid=0&repo=Meridian C
ky
D. PARKS DEPARTMENT
https://weblink.meridiancity.orzlWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=251081&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
E. ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
https://weblink.meridianciU.oLvlWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=251841&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
ky
F. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ)
https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=251854&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
iv
G. NAMPA/MERMIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID)
https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=252550&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
iv
H. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD)
https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=252743&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
hty
IX. FINDINGS
A. Annexation and Zoning(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 the proposed zoning map amendment to annex the property into the City of
Meridian with the R-8 zoning district and Rezone a portion of the project from R-4 to the R-8
zoning district with the proposed preliminary plat and site design is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, if all conditions of approval are met.
2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed districts,
specifically the purpose statement;
Staff finds the proposed zoning map amendment and the request for the development complies
with the regulations outlined in the requested R-8 zoning district and is consistent with the
purpose statement of the requested zone.
3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health,safety,
and welfare;
Staff finds the proposed zoning map amendment should not be detrimental to the public
health, safety and welfare.
Page 25
Item 5. F122]
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
Stafffinds the proposed zoning map amendment will not result in an adverse impact on the
delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City.
5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city.
Stafffinds the annexation is in the best interest of the City.
B. Preliminary Plat Findings:
In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat,or short plat,
the decision-making body shall make the following findings:
1. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan;
Stafffinds that the proposed plat is in substantial compliance with the adopted Comprehensive
Plan in regard to land use, density, transportation, and pedestrian connectivity. (Please see
Comprehensive Plan Policies in, Section V of this report for more information)
2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate
the proposed development;
Stafffinds that public services will be provided to the subject property with development. (See
Section VIII of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers)
3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's
capital improvement program;
Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the development at
their own cost, Stafffinds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital
improvement funds.
4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development;
Staff finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed
development based upon comments from the public service providers(i.e.,Police,Fire,ACHD,
etc). (See Section VII for more information.)
5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health,safety or general welfare;
and,
Staff is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting
of this property. ACED considers road safety issues in their analysis and has offered their
support of the proposed development with the proposed road layout in mind.
6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features.
Staff is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that exist on this site that
require preserving.
Page 26
Item 6. L123
(:>
E IDIAN*-----,
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Aviation Subdivision (H-2021-0096) by Jadon Schneider of
Bronze Bow Land, Located at Parcel #51210325951, near the northeast corner of N. Black Cat Rd.
and W. Franklin Rd., north of Compass Charter School
A. Request: Preliminary Plat or 48 building lots (37 single family attached lots, 2 detached single-
family, and 9 multi-family lots), 8 common lots, and 1 other lot.
B. Request: Conditional Use Permit for 36 multi-family units on 9 lots on 9.8 acres in the R-15
zoning district.
Item 6. 124
(:�N-WE IDIAN:--
IDAHO
PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION
Staff Contact:Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: March 3, 2022
Topic: Public Hearing for Aviation Subdivision (H-2021-0096) by Jadon Schneider of
Bronze Bow Land, Located at Parcel #S1210325951, near the northeast corner of N.
Black Cat Rd. and W. Franklin Rd., north of Compass Charter School
A. Request: Preliminary Plat or 48 building lots (37 single family attached lots, 2
detached single-family, and 9 multi-family lots), 8 common lots, and 1 other
lot.
B. Request: Conditional Use Permit for 36 multi-family units on 9 lots on 9.8
acres in the R-15 zoning district.
Information Resources:
Click Here for Application Materials
Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing
Item 6. ■
STAFF REPORTC�,WEIIDIAN --
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .►A H O
HEARING March 3,2022 Legend 1
DATE:
laProject Location m
TO: Planning&Zoning Commission
FROM: Joseph Dodson,Associate Planner _
208-884-5533 - all
SUBJECT: H-2021-0096
Aviation Subdivision h
LOCATION: The site is located near the northeast �®
corner of N. Black Cat Rd. and W.
Franklin Rd.,to the north and northeast ----of Compass Public Charter School,in the
SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 10,
Township 3N.,Range 1 W.
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Preliminary Plat for 48 building lots (6 single family attached lots, 31 townhome lots,2 detached single-
family,and 9 multi-family lots), 8 common lots, and 1 other lot and a Conditional Use Permit for 36 multi-
family units on 9 lots on 9.8 acres in the R-15 zoning district.
II. SUMMARY OF REPORT
A. Project Summary
Description Details Page
Acreage 9.8 acres
Future Land Use Designation Medium-High Density Residential(8-12 du/ac)
Existing Land Use(s) Vacant
Proposed Land Use(s) Attached Single-Family Residential(SFR),Detached SFR,
Townhomes,and Multi-family Residential
Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 48 building lots(37 single-family attached,2 detached
single-family,9 multi-family); 8 common lots; 1 other lot
(irrigation pump house)
Physical Features(waterways, Purdam Gulch Drain runs diagonal through site from the
hazards,flood plain,hillside) southeast corner to the northwest corner.Applicant
proposes to tile this drain and realign it along the east and
north boundaries to make better utilization of the property.
Neighborhood meeting date;#of September 16,2021,no attendees
attendees:
History(previous approvals) H-2018-0048(Compass Charter School AZ,CPAM;DA
Inst.#2018-079763);H-2020-0111 (Aviator Sub. CPAM,
MDA,RZ;DA Inst.#2021-067235).
Page 1
Item 6. F126]
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 Access is proposed via extension of W.Aviator Street,
Hwy/Local)(Existing and designated as a towncenter collector street on the Master
Proposed) Street Map(MSM)and within the TMISAP(two travel
lanes and on-street bike lanes).
Access to the lots within the subdivision are proposed via
a new local street that loops through the site and connects
to Aviator in two places;multi-family drive aisles are
proposed to connect to this local street for access to those
units.
Traffic Level of Service Black Cat Road(0' of frontage)—Better than"E"
(474/575 VPH)
W.Aviator Street—no known traffic counts were given by
ACHD.
Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross Applicant is proposing to extend W.Aviator Street and
Access bring it through the subject site and stub it to the eastern
property boundary north of the irrigation district pump
station in the southeast corner of the site.
Existing Road Network W.Aviator ends in a temporary turnaround approximately
200 feet along the property's southern boundary.Next
closest street is N.Black Cat Road,an arterial,and is in
the ACHD CIP for widening in 2031-2035.
Proposed Road Improvements W.Aviator extension through the site to the east property
boundary.
ACHD—CIP
Black Cat is listed in the CIP to be widen to 5-lanes from
Franklin to Cherry between 2031-2035.
Black Cat is listed in the CIP to be widen to 5-lanes from
Overland to Franklin between 2036-2040.
Franklin Road is listed in the CIP to be widen to 5-lanes
from McDermott Road to Black Cat between 2026-2030.
Distance to nearest City Park(+ Fuller Park(21.96 acres)— 1.3 miles by foot;
size) approximately 1.7 miles by vehicle.
Fire Service
• Distance to Fire Station 2.5 miles from Station 42
• Fire Response Time Falls outside of the 5-minute response time goal
• Resource Reliability 85%(above the goal of 80%)
• Accessibility As submitted,plat does not meet all requirements—Site
needs secondary emergency access.
• Additional • Because project is at a dead-end road with no
Comments/Concerns secondary access,ALL single family units
constructed will be required to be built with fire
sprinklers.
• Aviator Street is currently shown without a
turnaround at its terminus;Applicant will be
required to terminate Aviator with a Fire and
ACHD approved turnaround.
Page 2
Item 6. 127
Description Details Page
Police Service
• Distance to Station Approximately 4.2 miles from Meridian Police
Department
• Response Time Approximately 4 minute response time to an emergency.
• Call Data Between 12/l/2019- 11/30/2021,the Meridian Police
Department responded to 2,591 calls for service within a
mile of the proposed development.The crime count on the
calls for service was 234.
Between 12/l/2019- 11/30/2021,the Meridian Police
Department responded to 52 crashes within a mile of the
proposed development.
• Additional Concerns Traffic congestion at the intersection of Black Cat and W.
Aviator during peak times at the nearby charter school.
Wastewater
• Distance to Sewer Directly adjacent
Services
• WRRF Declining 14.26
Balance
• Project Consistent Yes
with WW Master
Plan/Facility Plan
• Impacts/concerns • Flow is committed
• Additional 7,500 GPD of flow committed to model
• See Public Works Site Specific Conditions
Water
• Distance to Water Directly adjacent
Services
• Pressure Zone 1
• Estimated Project See application
Water ERU's
• Water Quality None
• Project Consistent Yes
with Water Master
Plan
• Impacts/Concerns See Public Works Site Specific Conditions
Page 3
1 1 1
Iool■■r1n: :� I�• 5 '1
Innunn: �G'f� fry - • - • ° °`, _uumsssa
um■ is
in.Man n.�Nq —Y� •L
• - • • • Ali nu■ii:::::� ��. 1 ,I ��� • - • • • � '� �.
�di ■.. . �;'.' : .1111 i Ildl■n:�-�11111[[ [[[Ill�:■111 IAe
■ ■■.�11.111[■ [[[[1111x-Ri y
v,
r�lr: PiI11111 111111[III�NY_�_ �- -- ... •r.i�,-. _, -,.�
- 1 ■� ,I11 1■I■l■IEy 111 111111111. '-�" _ .�. ,,I1
■ iiiii 1= --s � �. � I �-In [I � --
• 'IIEIF
_ dxlllllll■ � i y- 3
III., --
_a. u
01
'--.
- nnnnmglleml FRANKL�IN—' _
1[LL Illlllll-= 11 --_ n■W WI
• • - i111111111 = as
xru+ ■nnr Man: rn
- . - ono c' r S�f - . - I ■nnrrum: ■
Mason �h I�snunm■
moo ■� Ili� Man ■
moo■ [+■■■• ■�n■q■■.-n ■
• • - • • • mn:::�:�■■5 .• % • - • • • :a■Man::���.�■:
-` �::i �::i: �■■ ��� 1 11..- III
or■-:IIu1s i ii:O� I •h --------- n11n��-°1 o n■p nnnss nunni:�� �I�` ��L �1rrr:y111llllr s�I• • -• '• - l� ■lax:--I�■IIIIQIr 1111111111 AIC.♦
"�■ 11 isxu`S I L �Ix1 1aYY1u!
- x �� 11111 1111 K���'�-� ♦ 11111=_3--.. fla
Y 111111=_ �■`L IIIIIII=_ ` I:I:�
�Ir -- --xxFl�l �' [11i\\\\IlCplllr�111111111{I{II
Ma111W111-I:YII�Nxllu■xFl■
rlilim�i =I^ in
rah €=■�,
as
n 1■. €
• 11 , MaMa: L - 111�IIIll 11 I•I■I■ aLq
FRANKL--INS .� FRANKLTNr
� ~ 1 nil nnw11■n lh; � � mm�I,;, nlunlnnglnlnm
':`11111� 1111■= -milli! ,� ■11111in
■
I I si'uilin 1�i' 0 �iiiiiiiin�� ♦+iiii=I'=o
CG
E 1 , ■ ,
it • ." 1 i
i
Item 6. F129]
IV. NOTICING
Planning&Zoning City Council
Posting Date Posting Date
Newspaper Notification 2/15/2022
Radius notification mailed to
properties within 500 feet 2/14/2022
Public hearing notice sign posted
2/17/2021
on site
Nextdoor posting 2/14/2022
V. STAFF ANALYSIS
A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
The subject 9.8 acres were annexed into the City of Meridian in 2018 with the Compass Charter School
application and also received CPAM approval at that time to change the underlying land use from
medium-high density residential to mixed employment. Later,this 9.8 acre parcel was no longer a part of
the long-term plan for the school and was subsequently sold. In 2020, a new application for a
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment,Development Agreement Modification,and Rezone were
requested and approved to allow for residential zoning and uses instead of Mixed Employment or other
industrial uses desired in the previous mixed employment designation. With these approvals,the
property was returned to its original future land use of Medium-High Density Residential(MHDR)and
included a new concept plan with a residential development and the proposed and preferred location of
the Aviator Street extension.
The MHDR designation allows for a mix of dwelling types including townhouses,condominiums, and
apartments. Residential gross densities should range from 8 to 12 dwelling units per acre. These areas
are relatively compact within the context of larger neighborhoods and are typically located around or
near mixed use commercial or employment areas to provide convenient access to services and jobs for
residents. Developments need to incorporate high quality architectural design and materials and
thoughtful site design to ensure quality of place and should also incorporate connectivity with adjacent
uses and area pathways, attractive landscaping and a project identity. Per the Ten Mile Interchange
Specific Area Plan(TMISAP),MHDR designated areas should include a mix of housing types such as
row houses,townhouses, condominiums, alley-loaded homes, and apartments with higher densities near
MU-C and Employment designated areas transitioning to smaller-scale and lower density buildings as
the distance increases from higher intensity uses.
The Applicant is requesting a Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit to construct a mix of single-
family and multi-family residential units. The Applicant is proposing 73 total residential units on the
subject 9.8 acres in the R-15 zoning district which constitutes a gross density of 7.44 du/ac. This density
does not comply with the minimum density required within the DA nor the future land use designation
which requires a minimum of 8 du/ac. The Applicant should revise the plat to include at least one more
dwelling unit to meet the minimum density requirement. Furthermore,the existing DA includes
conceptual floor plans that depict front loaded single-family homes with recessed garages to create a
more porch and pedestrian dominated front fagade on the public local streets. The submitted conceptual
elevations with this application do not comply with the elevations and floor plans included in the DA.
Therefore,the Applicant should submit a DA Modification to revise the existing elevations and floor
plans in the DA OR revise their proposed building design to be more consistent with the existing DA.
Staff believes the floor plans within the DA should be maintained and would not be supportive of a DA
Modification to remove them from the DA because they are more consistent with the Ten Mile Plan.
Page 5
Item 6. F130]
In addition to the subject parcel, surrounding development should be taken into account, directly west of
this site,Hensley Station is currently under construction as a medium-high density residential
subdivision and less than a half mile to the east of the subject site additional high-density residential
projects are currently underway. In addition, south of Franklin Road is a larger area of the Ten Mile Plan
with a mix of residential, commercial, employment, and industrial zoning. This site is part of a large area
of MHDR that is slowly redeveloping from both the west and the east and development of the subject is
a logical direction of development in this area in terms of density and road improvements. However,the
transportation element of this area of the Ten Mile Plan is important and there are known traffic issues in
this area caused by the adjacent Compass Charter School,most notably at typical pick-up and drop-off
times in the morning and afternoon.
The congestion associated with the school creates traffic along the entire Black Cat corridor between
Franklin and Cherry and significantly impedes the intersections of Aviator and Black Cat and Black Cat
and Franklin during the peak times noted above. Staff notes that applications for the site to the east are
likely forthcoming which would connect Aviator from Black Cat to N. San Marco Way within the
Entrata Farms Subdivision to the southeast. This east-west connection would create the needed
secondary access for Fire as well as provide a different connection to Franklin Road for this area. To
help mitigate this issue as well as the overall phasing element of the site, Staff is recommending
conditions of approval around the phasing of the project in relation to the construction of W. Aviator
Street.
If the project is revised per Staffs recommended conditions of approval,Staff finds the project to
be generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Specific general comprehensive plan policies
are analyzed below.
Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this application and apply to
the proposed use and development of this property(staff analysis in italics):
• "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 development contains multiple types of housing units (multi family, attached single-
family, townhouse, and detached single-family) that will contribute to the variety of residential
categories in the Ten Mile area as desired.
• "Permit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities and
urban services at the time of final approval, and in accord with any adopted levels of service for
public facilities and services."(3.03.03F)
City water and sewer service is available and can be extended by the developer in accord with UDC
11-3A-21.
• "Avoid the concentration of any one housing type or lot size in any geographical area;provide for
diverse housing types throughout the City."(2.01.01 G)
Four(4) housing types are proposed in this development, as noted above, which contributes to the
variety of housing types in this area. The Applicant is proposing 16 units to front on green space and
provide for an alley loaded product while the remaining 23 units are front-loaded. In addition, the
Applicant is proposing 9 multi family buildings that contain 4-units each. The proposed development
provides a number of housing types within one concentrated area and within the Ten Mile area as a
whole.
• "Encourage compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land."
(3.07.00)
Page 6
Item 6. 131
The proposed residential dwellings and site design should be compatible with existing and planned
development on adjacent properties that are also designated for MHDR uses.
• "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 a large amount of usable common open space along the entire north and
east property boundaries due to the requirement to reserve a 100 foot wide irrigation easement for
the rerouted Purdam Gulch Drain. Because of irrigation district standards, no amenities are
proposed in this area but it should provide for a large open area for residents to utilize for
recreation and activity. The Applicant is also proposing other open space within the site that
contains children play equipment and pathways.All of the sidewalks proposed within the site are
detached from the roadways, which provides for safer pedestrian connectivity throughout the site.
There is ample connectivity from the site to the detached sidewalk along the extension of Aviator
Street.
• "Ensure development is connected to City of Meridian water and sanitary sewer systems and the
extension to and through said developments are constructed in conformance with the City of
Meridian Water and Sewer System Master Plans in effect at the time of development."(3.03.03A)
The proposed development will connect to City water and sewer systems; services are proposed to
be provided to and though this development in accord with current City plans.
• "Require urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments, including curb and gutter,
sidewalks,water and sewer utilities."(3.03.03G)
Urban sewer and water infrastructure and curb, gutter and sidewalks is required to be provided with
development as proposed.
In addition to the general Comprehensive Plan,the following sections of the Ten Mile Interchange
Specific Area Plan(TMISAP) should also be used to analyze the project(Staff analysis is in italics):
Street Network(3-17): The Transportation System Map included in the TMISAP depicts a towncenter
collector street planned on this site that continues to the east through an adjacent site. The Applicant is
proposing to extend W. Aviator, the collector street,from its current location to the east property
boundary.According to the submitted plat, the Applicant is showing a small portion of this road
extension on a property to the south that is not part of this application and is not annexed into the City of
Meridian. It is not typical of road extensions to utilize area not on the subject property but it allows the
Applicant to have more usable land area that is significantly reduced due to the existence of the Purdam
Gulch Drain and its 100 foot wide easement.
To ensure the proposed road layout is adhered to, Staff is recommending the Applicant provide a copy of
a formal agreement between land owners that allows this Applicant to utilize a portion of the adjacent
property for the Aviator extension; this agreement should be presented to staffprior to the City Council
meeting. If the Applicant cannot reach an agreement with the adjacent property owner, the submitted
plat will have to be revised in order for the Applicant to make those revisions with the requirement of
extending Aviator wholly on the subject site. Further analysis of the Aviator extension is below in the
Access section, including analysis on the ACHD staff report. A final plat for this project will not be
accepted until an agreement has been formalized and the right-of way is dedicated to allow the
construction of the off-site portion of Aviator Street.
Connectivity(3-17): Connectivity to adjacent parcels is proposed by extending W.Aviator through the
site. Because of the railroad corridor along the north boundary and the requirement to cross the Purdam
Drain at least once, there is limited opportunity for other points of vehicular connectivity. Furthermore,
there is also no stub street or pedestrian connection along the west boundary to Hensley Station.
Page 7
Item 6. F132]
Therefore,Aviator Street and the proposed detached sidewalks throughout the site provide the needed
connectivity between existing and planned sites.
Access Control(3-17): In order to move traffic efficiently through the Ten Mile area, direct access via
arterial streets is prohibited except for collector street connections. The subject site has no arterial
access except via W.Aviator Street, a collector street. The project complies with this policy.
Complete Streets(3-19): The TMISAP incorporates the concept of"complete streets,"meaning all
streets should be designed to serve all users, including bicycles and pedestrians unless prohibited by law
or where the costs are excessive or where there's clearly no need. The proposed development includes
detached sidewalks and parkways throughout the entire site for pedestrian use and on-street parking
along the new local street. W.Aviator, the collector street, is required to be constructed with two lanes
of travel and on-street bicycle lanes which helps create a network of complete streets.
Streetscape(3-25): All streets should include street trees within the right-of-way. The proposed
development incorporates tree-lined streets with detached sidewalks throughout the site.
DESIGN:
Street-Oriented Design—Residential Buildings(3-33): Usable porches should be a dominant element
of these building types. Porches should be located along at least 30%of the front fagade of the buildings
(the fagade facing the primary street) although a higher percentage is recommended as is porches on one
or more facades as well. When possible, garages should be loaded from a rear alleyway. Where garages
must be accessed from the front,the garages must be located no less than 20' behind the primary
fagade of the residential structure.
The proposed alley-loaded units (taking access from a public, minor urban-local street) have porches
along the street frontage or face green space entirely(i.e. Lots 7-13, Block 2); all of the remaining front-
loaded townhomes have a garage dominated fagade facing the internal local street. As discussed above,
the front-loaded garages are not located 20'behind the primary faVade of the structure and do not
comply with the approved conceptual elevations and floor plans in the DA. However, with the noted
site constraints and the current lot configuration,full compliance with the garage setback
requirement may not be possible—the lots would need to be widened and the number of units would
need to be reduced to comply. The Applicant is required to increase the number of units to comply
with the minimum density requirements in the DA and the MHDR designation so losing additional
lots is not viable under the terms of the approved DA unless the DA is amended. Therefore,Staff
recommends the Applicant explore alternate design options to be more consistent with this
requirement while maintaining a gross density of at least 8 units per acre,an alternate floor plan and
revised elevations in compliance with the recorded DA should be submitted in accord with this
provision prior to the City Council hearing.
NOTE: The proposed 4 plex multi family buildings are not required to comply with this provision as
they are not proposed with any garages.
Buildings to Scale(3-34): The key elements to consider are the continuity of building sizes,how the
street-level and upper-level architectural detailing is treated, elements that anchor and emphasize
pedestrian scale,roof forms,rhythm of windows and doors, and general relationship of buildings to
public spaces such as streets,plazas, other open space and public parking. Human-scale design is critical
to the success of built places for pedestrians. Staff believes the proposed 2-story homes demonstrate
continuity of building sizes within the development. However, the street level and upper level
architectural detailing does not appear to correspond with each other to unify the design and do not
provide for enough modulation in wall plan nor roof height. Further, the Applicant could add decks to
the second level that are closer to the street to help comply with the street-oriented design provision.
Page 8
Item 6. E
The use of stone along the first story facades closest to the tree-lined streets help anchor and emphasize
the pedestrian scale of the development as desired.
Neighborhood Design(3-36): In the Ten Mile area, all residential neighborhoods should be developed
in consideration of traditional neighborhood design principles and concepts,which include mixed
housing stock,architecture and design, streetscapes and streets.A mix of housing stock is proposed
consisting of single family attached, townhomes, two single-family detached dwellings, and multi family
4 plexes which contribute to the diversity of housing stock desired in this area. The public street
proposed within this development loops through the site and has a minor urban local street connecting
the two streets that will function as an alley. Therefore, the proposed block lengths are relatively short
and provide for ample pedestrian connectivity. The proposed parkways add to the project's consistency
with the neighborhood design element of the Ten Mile Plan.
As noted above,if the project is revised per Staffs recommendations,Staff finds the project to be
generally consistent with the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan.In general,Staff finds the
project to be generally consistent with the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan,per Staffs
recommended revisions.
B. PRELIMINARY PLAT(PP)
The proposed preliminary plat consists of 48 building lots(6 single family attached lots, 31 townhome
lots, 2 detached single-family, and 9 multi-family lots), 8 common lots, and 1 other lot on 9.8 acres of
land in the R-15 zoning district. The minimum lot size proposed is 2,050 square feet and the plat is
currently proposed to develop in one phase. However,the phasing of building construction will likely
occur east to west,per the Applicant, in order to allow the development of properties to the east that
would further extend Aviator Street and allow the Applicant to construct the single-family portion of the
project without fire sprinklers. Staff has included a condition of approval surrounding the timing of
development in coordination with Meridian Fire Department.
Existing Structures/Site Improvements:
There are no existing structures on this site,the site is vacant/undeveloped.
Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2):
The proposed subdivision and subsequent development are required to comply with the minimum
dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-7 for the R-15 district. Staff has reviewed the
proposed plat and it complies with these standards. Zero lot lines should be depicted on the plat where
single-family attached and townhome structures are proposed.
Access(UDC 11-3A-3):
Access for the project is from two new local street connections to W.Aviator Street, a collector street the
Applicant is required to extend into the site and stub to the east boundary;Aviator is the projects only
connection to an arterial(Black Cat). Vehicular access for the single-family portion of the project is via
construction of a new local street that loops through the site. In addition, access to the multi-family
portion of the project is via two 25-foot wide drive aisle connections to the eastern local street. ACHD
has approved all of the ingress and egress points and their offsets. ACHD has noted the proposed design
of Aviator Street does not meet district policy and should be revised the Applicant will need to revise
the street section to be 1-foot wider and include detached sidewalk on both sides of the street.
Access to the"alley-loaded"units that front on the collector street buffer and internal green space of the
site are via a 28-foot wide minor urban local street, according to the latest plat submitted. It appears that
ACHD reviewed this street section on a previous version of the plan where the street was 24 feet wide
instead; Staff and the Applicant will verify with ACHD the proposed road width still complies with
ACHD standards.
Page 9
Item 6. E
There is no secondary access to the site because Aviator will still be a dead-end street after its extension
with this project. As noted above, the Fire Department requires a secondary access for each access that
has more than 30 units taking access from it(Hensley Station to the west takes up the 30+ units
already). Thus, the construction phasing of the project plays a role in how Staff must address this
issue as all of the structures will need to be sprinklered if the single-family is constructed first(the
multi family is required to be sprinklered). There is an anticipation of a project being constructed on
the property to the east that would extend Aviator to their east boundary and connect to an existing stub
street in Entrata Farms and provide for the required means of secondary access in the future. To date,
the City has not received an official application for that property. Therefore, this project must comply
with all Fire Department requirements.
The Applicant has stated theirplan is to extend Aviator into the site to the point of no more than 150 feet
past the eastern local street connection to avoid the need of a temporary turnaround(the local street
within the project would be constructed at the same time). This complies with the technical requirements
of the UDC and Fire code but is not consistent with general practice of requiring public streets to be
extended to-and-through sites with the first phase of development(prior to or in timing with the first
buildings being constructed). However, the Applicant is continuing to work with ACHD on a plan to
construct Aviator as noted and road trust for the remaining portion so it can be extended with any future
road project that occurs on the parcel to the east. Staff is supportive of this option as the road would be
a dead-end street and constructing a temporary turnaround would be both wasteful of space and would
need to be located on top of the Purdam Drain which could further hinder the Applicant's ability to
develop the site due to complications with the irrigation district. In conversations,ACHD has noted an
openness to this option but did not include it in their staff report specifically. So, Staff has included a
condition of approval to encompass both potential outcomes of the Aviator Street extension.
Pathways(UDC 11-3A-8):
There are no pathways depicted on the Pathways Master Plan for this property. However, Staff believes
the Applicant should work with the irrigation district to install a micro-path through the large open space
lot containing the Purdam Drain. The addition of a meandering 5-foot wide pathway in this open space
lot could connect in multiple places throughout the site and allow for a pedestrian connection near the
northeast corner of the property for future pedestrian connectivity to that parcel. The exact location of
this connection should not be set in stone and should instead be coordinated with the adjacent land owner
once a more solid plan is known for that parcel.
Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-1 7):
Detached sidewalks are proposed along the internal local street that loops through the site(shown as N.
Duplicate Avenue,W. Topeka Street, and N. Stronghold Avenue)with 8-foot parkways throughout. In
addition,the Applicant is showing a 5-foot wide detached sidewalk on the north side and a 5-foot wide
attached sidewalk on the south side of the W. Aviator Street extension. This does not meet ACHD nor
UDC standards for sidewalks along collector streets. Therefore,the Applicant is required to construct 5-
foot wide detached sidewalks along both sides of the Aviator Street extension. The Applicant is
proposing 5-foot wide sidewalks within the multi-family portion of the project that connect to the local
street sidewalks. Overall, the proposed sidewalk network for this development meets and exceeds UDC
requirements except for those noted along Aviator.
Parkways (UDC 11-3A-17):
8-foot wide parkways with street trees are shown along both sides of the proposed local street that loops
through the site. All parkways within the site adjacent to detached sidewalks shall be landscaped
per the standards listed in UDC 11-313-7C.With the future final plat application,the Applicant should
add data to the plan to demonstrate compliance with these standards.
Page 10
Item 6. F135]
Landscaping(UDC 11-3B):
A 20-foot wide street buffer is required along the extension of W. Aviator Street(measured from back of
curb), landscaped per the standards in UDC Table 11-3B-7C. A 20-foot wide common lot is shown on
the north side of Aviator on the submitted plat in accord with UDC standards. The common lot along the
south side of Aviator that is on the property is wider than 20 feet but is shown with an attached sidewalk
instead of a detached sidewalk. Further,there are no trees shown on the south side of Aviator as required
by the UDC. Per the plat condition noted, the Applicant should revise the landscape plan to show the
required buffer trees on the south side of the Aviator extension.
Note,the alignment of Aviator street along the southern boundary allows for a buffer area that is wider
than code requirements as a segment of the street does not lay within the subject site. Therefore,the
submitted landscape plan shows a buffer on the north side of Aviator as approximately 30 feet wide,
measured from the back of curb to the building lot lines with the required trees at the edge of the
property.
According to the submitted landscape plan, some trees are included in the common open space areas due
to the parkway trees along the local street. Staff is recommending an additional tree be placed in the
center of the open space lot within the single-family portion of the project(Lot 6,Block 2)to add an area
of shade in the center of this open space lot.
Staff has excluded the open space area that has the Purdam Drain irrigation easement within this
calculation as the irrigation district does not generally allow trees within their easement. However,Staff
recommends the Applicant coordinate with the irrigation district to see if some trees could be
placed strategically in order to provide some areas of shade in this area closest to the buildings, so
this area could count towards qualified open space.
In addition to the proposed open space areas,the Applicant is platting a common lot along the
west boundary that contains a private drainage lot developed for the charter school across the
street,the previous land owner. This drainage area has been in place for years coinciding with the
development of the school. The plat should address who is responsible for maintaining this
drainage and open space area; Staff has included a condition of approval regarding this.
Qualified Open Space& Site Amenities(UDC 11-3G):
The area of the preliminary plat is 9.8 acres within the R-15 zoning district.According to the standards
listed in UDC 11-3G-3, a minimum of 15%qualified open space should be provided. However,the
applicability section of this code would only apply to the single-family portion of the project and not the
entire site overall because a portion of the project is proposed with multi-family residential and is subject
to specific use standards(UDC 11-4-3-27).NOTE: The Applicant has stated that all of the open space
within the development will be shared and Staff finds the amount of open space is more than sufficient
for the project. However,for the purpose of calculating the minimum amount of open space required,
Staff has split the project into two areas, one for the single-family and one for multi-family.
The single-family area is approximately 5 acres in size and the multi family area is approximately 4.8
acres in size (total property size is 9.8 acres). Therefore, the minimum amount of qualified open space
required to meet UDC 11-3G-3 for the single-family portion of the site is 0.75 acres, or approximately
3Z 700 square feet. The minimum amount of qualified open space that is needed to satisfy the multi-
family specific use standards (UDC 11-4-3-27) is an amount per unit based on the size of the units—the
provision in this section of code to require a minimum 10%in addition to the per unit amount is not
applicable as the multi family area of the site is not greater than five (5) acres. According to the
Applicant, each unit will be approximately 1,500 square feet requiring 350 square feet per unit of
qualified common open space. Therefore, with 36 units proposed, the minimum amount of qualified
common open space for the multi family development is 1 Z 600 square feet. So, in total, the amount of
open space provided should be at least 45,300 square feet, or 1.04 acres.
Page 11
Item 6. F136]
According to the submitted plans, the Applicant is proposing approximately 155,200 square feet(3.56
acres) of common open space within common lots (not all of this is qualified). However, this area is still
not fully accurate as some of the Purdam Drain easement area is located on buildable lots and the open
space calculation does not include the parkways that are qualifying open space. This shows the actual
open space area is even greater.If only the two central open space lots, the Purdam Drain common lot
(excluding the area on the buildable lots), and the common lot in the southeast corner of the site is taken
into account, the amount of qualified open space is approximately 2.5 acres. Therefore, the proposed
open space vastly exceeds the minimum amount required by code for both the single-family and the
multi family portions of the project.
Based on the size of the single-family area of the plat, one(1)point of site amenity is required to meet
UDC 11-3G-3 standards. According to the submitted plans,the Applicant has not provided an amenity to
satisfy these requirements. The Applicant should revise the landscape plans to include an amenity worth
at least one amenity point within the single-family area of the project(i.e. a picnic area). The amenity
analysis for the multi-family portion of the development is provided below.
Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7):
All fencing constructed on the site is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6 and
11-3A-7. It is unclear if any fencing is proposed for this project. Staff will verify compliance with UDC
standards with the future Final Plat application.
Parking: On-site parking for each unit is required per the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 based
on the number of bedrooms per unit. Two car garages with two (2)parking pads per unit are shown on
the proposed plans in accord with UDC standards for up to 4-bedroom homes. A number of on-street
parking spaces are also available due to the design of the project.
Parking for the multi-family residential component is required at specific ratios according to UDC Table
11-3C-6 based on the number of bedrooms per unit. According to the Applicant, each unit contains 2
bedrooms which requires which requires 72 off-street parking spaces for 36 units(at least 36 must be
covered or garage parking)per UDC Table 11-3C-6. In addition, code requires 1 guest space for every
10 units so an additional 4 spaces (rounded up from 3.6)are required bringing the total to 76 off-street
parking spaces.According to the submitted plan,the Applicant is proposing 72 parking stalls,2 per unit,
and it is not clear if any are covered spaces as required. Therefore,the Applicant is not complying
with the minimum off-street parking standards.
Based on the submitted site plan and number of units, Staff recommends some of the units contain 1-
bedroom units to help reduce the amount of parking required(1.5 spaces per unit instead of 2 spaces).
Furthermore,the site plan shows a few areas where additional off-street parking spaces may be added.
Lastly,as noted above,the local street within the site will allow on-street parking along the entire north
and east side of the street except for the areas of the multi-family drive aisle. If the Applicant cannot
find the space within the multi-family area to provide the required number of off-street parking
spaces,the Applicant could apply for Alternative Compliance to propose alternative parking
solutions(i.e. on-street parking in vast excess of minimum requirements) but Staff notes that this
is not guaranteed for approval by the Director.
Waterways: The Purdam Gulch Drain,an NMID facility,bisects the property from the southeast corner
to the northwest corner of the site and requires a 100-foot wide easement,wholly on this property. The
drain is proposed to be piped and rerouted with this development in a common lot that runs along the
entire east and north property boundaries. According to the submitted plat, at least half of the easement
area is on some of the multi-family building lots which does not comply with code. Per UDC 11-3A-6,
no more than 10 feet of the irrigation easement shall be located on a buildable lot. So,the Applicant
should revise the plat to reduce the multi-family building lots so that no more than 10 feet of the Purdam
easement is located on those lots(Lots 1-7,Block 4).Any encroachment within this easement will
require a License Agreement with NMID. An exclusive NMID access easement will be required and the
Page 12
Item 6. F137]
HOA will be responsible for maintenance of this lot. The common lot appears to show grass to help
prevent weeds; the Applicant should verify if this is allowed by NMID.If it is not allowed, the
Applicant should obtain a letter to that affect from NMID;should this area not be allowed to contain
grasses, it may not qualify towards the open space calculation.
Utilities (UDC 11-3A-21):
Connection to City water and sewer services is proposed in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. Street lighting
is required to be installed in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. See
Section VIII.B below for Public Works comments/conditions.
Pressurized Irrigation System (UDC 11-3A-I5):
An underground pressurized irrigation(PI) system is required to be provided for the development as set
forth as set forth in UDC 11-3A-15.
Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual) (TMISAP
Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed 2-story townhome structures and the
multi-family 4-plex buildings as shown in Section VII.F; conceptual elevations for the single-family
attached units and the two detached units were not submitted. See additional analysis in the
Comprehensive Plan section above(Section V.A). The conceptual building elevations for the
townhomes do not list specific materials but appear to show a combination of stone and stucco field
materials. The conceptual elevations for the 4-plex units depict varying designs of board&batten siding
with stone accents. As noted above in Section V.A, Staff is recommending changes to the front-loaded
townhome units in order to better comply with the Ten Mile Plan. In addition to those recommendations,
Staff is also recommending the Applicant provide modulation in the building placement for the
townhome buildings, especially those along the west boundary,to ensure the building wall-plane is not a
monotonous wall of garages.
Final design is required to comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual
and the design guidelines in the TMISAP as stated herein. Submittal and approval of an Administrative
Design Review application is required prior to submittal of building permit application(s).
C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT(CUP)—
11-4-3-27.-Multi-family development.
A. Purpose.
1. To implement the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan:
a. Plan for safe, attractive, and well-maintained neighborhoods that have ample open space, and
generous amenities that provide varied lifestyle choices.
b. Require the design and construction of pathways connections,easy pedestrian and bicycle access
to parks,safe routes to schools,and the incorporation of usable open space with quality amenities
as part of new multi-family residential and mixed-use developments.
2. To create multi-family housing that is safe and convenient and that enhances the quality of life of its
residents.
a. To create quality buildings and designs for multi-family development that enhance the visual
character of the community.
b. To create building and site design in multi-family development that is sensitive to and well-
integrated with the surrounding neighborhood.
c. To create open space areas that contribute to the aesthetics of the community, provide an
attractive setting for buildings, and provide safe, interesting outdoor spaces for residents.
Page 13
Item 6. ■
B. Site design.
1. Buildings shall provide a minimum setback of ten (10) feet unless a greater setback is otherwise
required by this title and/or title 10 of this Code.Building setbacks shall take into account windows,
entrances, porches and patios, and how they impact adjacent properties. Based on the submitted
CUP Site Plan, it is unclear if this requirement is met because Staff cannot tell if what is being
shown on the site plan are the exact building footprints or merely the potential buildable area.Staff
is recommending a condition of approval the Applicant provide a clearer site plan for the multi-
family residential part of the site prior to the City Council hearing to ensure compliance with this
standard.
2. All on-site service areas, outdoor storage areas, waste storage, disposal facilities, and transformer
and utility vaults shall be located in an area not visible from a public street,or shall be fully screened
from view from a public street. The Applicant shall comply with this standard.
3. A minimum of eighty(80)square feet of private,usable open space shall be provided for each unit.
This requirement can be satisfied through porches, patios, decks, and/or enclosed yards.
Landscaping, entryway and other accessways shall not count toward this requirement. In
circumstances where strict adherence to such standard would create inconsistency with the purpose
statements of this section, the Director may consider an alternative design proposal through the
alternative compliance provisions as set forth in section 11-5B-5 of this title. The submitted
elevations do not clearly depict compliance with this standard and no floor plans were submitted
as an additional means of verification. Staff will verify compliance with this requirement with the
future Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) application; the Applicant is required to comply
with this requirement or obtain Alternative Compliance as noted.
4. For the purposes of this section,vehicular circulation areas,parking areas, and private usable open
space shall not be considered common open space. None of these areas were used towards the
common open space calculation.
5. No recreational vehicles, snowmobiles,boats or other personal recreation vehicles shall be stored
on the site unless provided for in a separate, designated and screened area. The Applicant shall
adhere to this standard.
6. The parking shall meet the requirements set forth in chapter 3,"regulations applying to all districts",
of this title. See the parking section in the general analysis above.
7. Developments with twenty(20)units or more shall provide the following:
a. A property management office.
b. A maintenance storage area.
c. A central mailbox location, including provisions for parcel mail, that provide safe pedestrian
and/or vehicular access.
d. A directory and map of the development at an entrance or convenient location for those entering
the development.
The Applicant is proposing more than 20 units (36 units) so the Applicant is required to comply
with these standards. The submitted CUP Site Plan does not appear to show a property
management office or a maintenance storage area. Staff is less concerned with the mailbox and
directory map location as these items can be easily verified with the future CZC application.
However, the Applicant should revise the site plan to show the management office and
maintenance storage area prior to the City Council hearing.
C. Common open space design requirements.
Page 14
Item 6. F139]
1. The total baseline land area of all qualified common open space shall equal or exceed ten (10)
percent of the gross land area for multi-family developments of five (5) acres or more. The multi-
family area is less than 5 acres in size so this portion of the code is not applicable on this project.
In general, the Applicant is proposing open space for the entire development well in excess of code
requirements due to the open space area that is the Purdam Gulch Drain easement area. See the
open space section above for more specific analysis.
2. All common open space shall meet the following standards:
a. The development plan shall demonstrate that the open space has been integrated into the
development as a priority and not for the use of land after all other elements of the development
have been designed. Open space areas that has been given priority in the development design
have:
(1) Direct pedestrian access;
(2) High visibility;
(3) Comply with Crime Prevention through Environmental Design(CTED) standards; and
(4) Support a range of leisure and play activities and uses.
b. Open space shall be accessible and well connected throughout the development. This quality
can be shown with open spaces that are centrally located within the development,accessible by
pathway and visually accessible along collector streets or as a terminal view from a street.
c. The open space promotes the health and well-being of its residents. Open space shall support
active and passive uses for recreation, social gathering and relaxation to serve the development.
Staff finds the proposed open space complies with these standards by providing open space that
is well connected, highly visible, and promotes health and well-being by supporting a range of
leisure and play activities.
3. All multi-family projects over twenty(20)units shall provide at least one (1) common grassy area
integrated into the site design allowing for general activities by all ages. This area may be included
in the minimum required open space total.Projects that provide safe access to adjacent public parks
or parks under a common HOA,without crossing an arterial roadway,are exempt from this standard.
a. Minimum size of common grassy area shall be at least five thousand (5,000) square feet in
area. This area shall increase proportionately as the number of units increase and shall be
commensurate to the size of the multi-family development as determined by the decision-
making body. Where this area cannot be increased due to site constraints, it may be included
elsewhere in the development.
b. Alternative compliance is available for these standards, if a project has a unique targeted
demographic; utilizes other place-making design elements in Old-Town or mixed-use future
land use designations with collectively integrated and shared open space areas.
The submitted plans depict compliance with this standard in multiple places throughout the site.
4. In addition to the baseline open space requirement, a minimum area of outdoor common open space
shall be provided as follows:
a. One hundred fifty(150) square feet for each unit containing five hundred(500) or less square
feet of living area.
b. Two hundred fifty (250) square feet for each unit containing more than five hundred (500)
square feet and up to one thousand two hundred(1,200) square feet of living area.
Page 15
Item 6. F140]
C. Three hundred fifty (350) square feet for each unit containing more than one thousand two
hundred(1,200) square feet of living area.
See the common open space analysis above in V.B.
5. Common open space shall be not less than four hundred (400) square feet in area, and shall have a
minimum length and width dimension of twenty(20) feet.Applicant complies.
6. In phased developments, common open space shall be provided in each phase of the development
consistent with the requirements for the size and number of dwelling units. N/A
7. Unless otherwise approved through the conditional use process,common open space areas shall not
be adjacent to collector or arterial streets unless separated from the street by a berm or constructed
barrier at least four(4)feet in height,with breaks in the berm or barrier to allow for pedestrian access.
The Purdam Drain open space lot has access to W.Aviator Street, a collector street, because the
street must cross the drain in order to stub to the east property boundary.Due to the large area of
this lot, its excellent accessibility, and the proposed landscaping along Aviator, Staff finds it
applicable to allow this common open space area to count without constructing a berm along the
street. Commission and Council may require this if they see fit.
D. Site development amenities.
1. All multifamily developments shall provide for quality of life, open space and recreation amenities
to meet the particular needs of the residents as follows:
a. Quality of life.
(1) Clubhouse.
(2) Fitness facilities.
(3) Enclosed bike storage.
(4) Public art such as a statue.
(5) Dog park with waste station.
(6) Commercial outdoor kitchen.
(7) Fitness course.
(8) Enclosed storage
b. Open space.
(1) Community garden.
(2) Ponds or water features.
(3) Plaza.
(4) Picnic area including tables,benches, landscaping and a structure for shade.
c. Recreation.
(1) Pool.
(2) Walking trails.
(3) Children's play structures.
(4) Sports courts.
d. Multi-modal amenity standards.
Page 16
Item 6. 141
(1) Bicycle repair station.
(2) Park and ride lot.
(3) Sheltered transit stop.
(4) Charging stations for electric vehicles.
2. The number of amenities shall depend on the size of multifamily development as follows:
a. For multifamily developments with less than twenty (20) units, two (2) amenities shall be
provided from two (2) separate categories.
b. For multifamily development between twenty (20) and seventy-five (75) units, three (3)
amenities shall be provided,with one(1)from each category.
c. For multifamily development with seventy-five (75)units or more, four(4) amenities shall be
provided,with at least one(1)from each category.
d. For multifamily developments with more than one hundred(100)units, the decision-making
body shall require additional amenities commensurate to the size of the proposed development.
3. The decision-making body shall be authorized to consider other improvements in addition to those
provided under this subsection (D), provided that these improvements provide a similar level of
amenity.
For the 36 multi family units proposed, a minimum of three(3) amenities should be provided to
satisfy the specific use standards.According to the submitted plans,one(1)qualifying amenity is
proposed, children play equipment. Therefore, the Applicant does not comply with this standard.
Prior to the City Council hearing, the Applicant should revise applicable plans to show
compliance with this requirement and ensure one amenity from each of the first three categories
above is included in the development.
E. Landscaping requirements.
1. Development shall meet the minimum landscaping requirements in accord with chapter 3,
"regulations applying to all districts",of this title.
2. All street facing elevations shall have landscaping along their foundation. The foundation
landscaping shall meet the following minimum standards:
a. The landscaped area shall be at least three(3)feet wide.
b. For every three (3) linear feet of foundation, an evergreen shrub having a minimum mature
height of twenty-four(24) inches shall be planted.
c. Ground cover plants shall be planted in the remainder of the landscaped area.
Applicant shall show compliance with this standard for the buildings facing any public street
with the future CZC application.
F. Maintenance and ownership responsibilities. All multifamily developments shall record legally binding
documents that state the maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the management of the
development, including, but not limited to, structures, parking, common areas, and other development
features.Applicant shall comply.
(Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, ef£ 9-15-2005; Ord. 09-1394, 3-3-2009, ef£ retroactive to 2-4-2009; Ord. 16-1672, 2-
16-2016; Ord. 18-1773,4-24-2018; Ord. 19-1833, 7-9-2019, Ord. No. 21-1950, § 19, 10-10-2021).
Page 17
Item 6. F142]
VI. DECISION
A. Staff:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit per the
provisions included in Section VIII in accord with the Findings in Section IX.
Page 18
Item 6. F143]
VIL EXHIBITS
A. Preliminary Plat Legal Description
Description for
Aviation Subdivision
January 12,2022
A portion of the West 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 10,Township 3 North,Range 1
West of the Boise-Meridian,City of Meridian,Ada County,Idaho,more particularly described as
follows:
Commencing at the Section corner common to Sections 9, 10, 15,and 16,Township 3
North,Range 1 West,Boise-Meridian,from which the 1/4 corner common to said Sections 9
and 10 bears North 0°38'55"East,2653.02 feet;thence on the west boundary line of said
Section 10,North 0°38'55" East, 1621.66 feet to the south boundary line of the railroad right-cf-
way;thence on said south boundary line,South 88'26'12"East,495.23 feet to the REAL POINT
OF BEGINNING;
thence continuing South 88'26'12"East,824.15 feet to the east boundary line of the
West 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 10;
thence on said east boundary line,South 0°36'35"West,514.83 feet;
thence leaving said east boundary line,North 89'15'50"West,824.04 feet to the
Southeast corner of Hensley Station Subdivision No. 1 as filed Book 120 of Plats at Pages
18786 through 18789,records of Ada County,Idaho;
thence on the east boundary line of said Hensley Station Subdivision No. 1 and Hensley
Station Subdivision No.2 as filed in Book 121 of Plats at Pages 19058 through 19060,records
of Ada County,Idaho,North 0°36'35"East,526.73 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING.
Containing 9.852 acres,more or less.
End of Description.
\Q;4�pL LAND
ENsF sG�
a 11779
NCI 12�p-y1_O
�OQ TF D F\�P p2
Mccp,
Page 1 of 1
Page 19
Item 6. F144]
9 10
N SCALE: 1"=1 so'
0 75 150 300
rT
I o
I�
.I
I UNION PACIFIC
REAL POINT RAILROAD
OF BEGINNING
S88-2612"E 58826'12"E 824.15'
495.23'
I
HENSLEY ; a
STATION j In
CD z CN SUBDIVISION, w t9.852 ACRES q
w
r K' Lo N�1
1n �
m I c�I O IDi)
L� W I cp Z a
O �I
to �
m O HENSLEY STATION
Z SUBDIVISION No. 1
I
W. AVIATOR ST. N89'15'50"W 824,04'
0
� I
L)
U I I
U I
J
m I
Z I
� I
oNpL LA
ENSof
F SG
11779 7u
�I�z/zozZ�°
9 10 cTOO�TF OF
16 15 MccN
JOB NO.
IDAHO EXHIBIT DRAWING FOR 2o-347
SURVEY WISE,I IDAHO
ST AVIATION SUBDIVISION SHEET NO.
WISE,IDAHD 83T04
GROUP, LLC A PORTION OF THE WI/2 OF THE SWI/4 OF SECTION 10. DWG.DATE
T.M.,R.M.B.M.,CITY OF MERIDAIN,ABA COUNTY.IDAHO 1/12/2022
Page 20
Item 6. F145]
B. Preliminary Plat
a.� PRELIMINARY PLATY
FOR
°� " ��• AVIATION SUBDIVISION .,.
LOCATED IN THE W 12 OF THE SW%OF SECTION 10 T.3N.,RAW.,B.M.,
ADA COUNW,IDAHO s °
mii° 5p DECEMBER 2021 FFF
exams Q
a...,mmw.w,a"wve.cw
a�xore +3�
9i
u • i _ _ ,.„> i...;..:�1 ��i is - �,..
ll� Y w�..wm....•x,��rAw m...o.e,�oa.,,�..� ��
. .•xswa xo rrtw me•.wrn"c.',new �"�°;".o ,u.z���.se.co.°.w miowc^o •c ••ma}. .xnwl., �m"kN N.m-x••• bNp
Page 21
Item 6. F146]
I
I
PFrno7 9 11`r
UNION PACIFIC RAILWAY
I
I "e Is
I
1 `�L i. n �' •q t
».L6t6 ZI �I
FEH"aEw P17�AEkT1E5 WC p �, E6 H r �
-w tiY wo-rmre I
3 siw
1"'j_
5
- y I
1
I � f
prrriory olrner-
PiiMtry�rnlrl ZIONoV TURF FMIJ 1LYs,[I
210H wEHT11RE5 LLC
COYPA55 P1,UC CHWTR 5CHG,7L INC
Page 22
Item 6. F147]
C. Landscape Plan(date: 8/03/2020)
51TE NQTE5 -5CAPINQ INFQRM-QN
-Ell
O
O
IRRI-TIC-7-01-TES
------------
co
.. ...............
7T.
IMU.
zg
Page 23
Item 6. F148]
wpm
r aa� I_•
r
r
n
r
Lp
Page 24
Item 6. F149]
D. Open Space Exhibit
_ o
W
! ;: /
/
o
//�
Page 25
Item 6. F-15o]
E. Conceptual Building Elevations(NOT APPROVED)
❑® LE
❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑
JACOBSON MINOR
SUBDIVISION
FRONT ELEVATION
Hill Ill I I
- ------------------- ------ ------------------- ------------------- ----
00 0000 00 0000 00 0000 00 0000
00 0000 00 0000 00 0000 00 0000
-- o0 000 000MEE000
JACOBSON MINOR
SUBDIVISION
FRONT ELEVATION
Page 26
Item 6. Fl 5-1
eLe n N
Mr
-8
ff _
I RE-11 FE
II n�I
�• - UNTT"B"I UNIT"A"I
-
"• UNIT"A"1 UNIT"B"2
Page 27
Item 6. F152
VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS
A. PLANNING DIVISION
Preliminary Plat(PP):
1. The Applicant shall adhere to all previous conditions of approval associated with this site (H-2020-
0111,Aviator Sub. CPAM,MDA,RZ;DA Inst. #2021-067235).
2. In accord with Fire Code,the Applicant shall construct all dwellings within this site with fire
sprinklers unless a means of Fire Department approved secondary access can be obtained through
adjacent sites.
3. Prior to the acceptance of any Final Plat application by the Planning Division,the Applicant shall
provide proof that the required right-of-way for the extension of W. Aviator Street has been deeded
to ACHD as proof the shown location has been accepted by all parties (including the adjacent
property owner,Parcel# S1210336450).
4. Applicant shall continue working with ACHD on the extension of W. Aviator Street—the Applicant
shall extend W.Aviator to the east property boundary OR construct it to terminate no greater than
150 feet east of the proposed local street(shown as N. Stronghold Avenue) and provide a road trust
to ACHD for the remaining portion of Aviator.
5. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC
Table 11-2A-7 for the R-15 zoning district and those listed in the specific use standards for multi-
family development,UDC 11-4-3-27.
6. The Applicant shall comply with all ACHD conditions of approval.
7. Future development shall comply with UDC 11-3A-7 and UDC 11-3A-6 for any future fencing
constructed within the development.
8. The Applicant shall obtain Administrative Design Review approval for the single-family attached
units and townhome units prior to building permit submittal.
9. The Applicant shall obtain Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Administrative Design Review
approval for the multi-family development prior to building permit submittal.
10. The Applicant shall record a maintenance agreement for the multi-family development that states the
maintenance and the ownership responsibilities for the management of the development, including,
but not limited to, structures,parking, common areas, and other development features, in accord with
UDC 11-4-3-27.
11. The preliminary plat approval shall become null and void if the applicant fails to either: 1)obtain the
City Engineer signature on a final plat within two years of the date of the approved findings; or 2)
obtain approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC 11-6B-7.
12. The submitted preliminary plat, dated February 14,2022, shall be revised as follows at least 15 days
prior to the City Council hearing noted:
a. Revise the plat to include at least one (1) additional dwelling unit to meet the minimum density
requirements of the Development Agreement and underlying future land use designation
(MHDR).
b. Depict zero lot lines on the plat where single-family attached and townhome structures are
proposed.
c. Show 5-foot wide detached sidewalks along both sides of the W. Aviator Street extension.
Page 28
Item 6. F153
d. Revise the plat to show a reduction in the multi-family building lot sizes(Lots 1-7, Block 4) so
that no more than 10 feet of the Purdam Gulch Drain easement is located on those lots,per UDC
11-3A-6, OR request a City Council waiver to allow more of the easement to encroach on the
building lots if NMID allows it.
e. Add a plat note stating who is responsible for the maintenance of the Compass Charter School
drain field located on Lot 1,Block 6.
13. The submitted landscape plan, dated December 2021, shall be revised prior to the first final plat
submittal,unless otherwise noted:
a. Work with Nampa Meridian Irrigation District(NMID)to install a 5-foot wide pathway along
the south and west side of the relocated Purdam Gulch Drain to further comply with open space
and amenity standards;new pathway should provide a pathway stub to the east boundary and
connect to the detached sidewalk along W. Aviator and the detached sidewalk along the internal
local street near the north end of the site to create a looped walking path.
b. Add data to the landscape plans showing compliance with UDC 11-3B-7C for the proposed
parkways.
c. Show the required street buffer trees within the required 20-foot buffer on the south side of the
W.Aviator extension.
d. Add an additional tree in the center of the open space lot within the single-family portion of the
project(Lot 6, Block 2)to add an area of shade in the center of this open space lot.
e. Add a picnic area or other amenity worth at least one(1)amenity point in the single-family
portion of the project(Lot 6,Block 2)to comply with UDC 11-3G-3 amenity standards.
f. Provide verification from NMID the common lot containing the piped and rerouted Purdam
Drain can be vegetated with grasses; if it is not allowed,the Applicant should obtain a letter to
that affect from NMID (should this area not be allowed to contain grasses, it may not qualify
towards the open space calculation).
g. Depict the required minimum of 3-feet of landscaping along the base of the multi-family
building facades facing all public streets in accord with the multi-family specific use standards.
14. The submitted conceptual elevations for the townhome and single-family attached units shall be
revised as follows at least ten(10) days prior to the City Council hearing:
a. Applicant shall comply with the design guidelines within the TMISAP.
b. Explore alternate design options to be more consistent with the street oriented design standards
within the Ten Mile Plan while maintaining a gross density of at least 8 units per acre; an
alternate floor plan and revised elevations should be submitted in accord with this provision.
c. Revise the elevations to correspond the street level and upper level architectural detailing to
unify the design.
d. Provide additional modulation in wall plan and roof height variation.
e. Depict varying build-to lines for all of the front-loaded townhomes to ensure modulation in the
building massing between and along sets of the townhome buildings.
Conditional Use Permit(CUP):
15. The submitted CUP Site Plan, dated December 15,2021 shall be revised at least 15 days prior to the
City Council hearing as follows:
Page 29
Item 6. F154
a. Revise the site plan to show the management office and maintenance storage area as required by
the multi-family development specific use standards.
b. Clearly depict the building footprint of each 4-plex multi-family building and show the required
10-foot setback between buildings.
c. Add at least two(2) additional amenities for the multi-family project and clearly depict their
locations on the site plan.
d. Depict which off-street parking stalls will be covered carports—ensure compliance with any
Public Works easement standards.
16. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-
3C-6 for multi-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit.
17. A minimum of 80 square feet of private,usable open space shall be provided for each dwelling unit;
this requirement can be satisfied through porches,patios, decks and enclosed yards as set forth in
UDC 11-4-3-27.
18. Upon completion of the landscape installation, a written Certificate of Completion shall be submitted
to the Planning Division verifying all landscape improvements are in substantial compliance with the
approved landscape plan as set forth in UDC 11-3B-14.
19. The Applicant shall adhere to and maintain all standards as set forth in the Multi-family
Development specific use standards,UDC 11-4-3-27.
20. 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.
Page 30
Item 6. 155
B. PUBLIC WORKS
Site Specific Conditions of Approval
1. The water main in West Aviator Street needs to end in a fire hydrant.
2. The water main in West Santa Fe Lane needs to be located on the North side of the centerline.
3. The water main connection to the South needs to be made for a future second connection.
4. Parcel numbers S 1210336521 and S 1210336450 will need a connection and easement to the water
main in West Aviator Street. Coordinate with those parcel owners and/or the future street connection
to make these connections as part of this application.
5. Do not locate manholes in sidewalks,because they can become a tripping hazard. Manhole SSMH
A.1 does not meet this requirement.
6. Angles of pipes into and out of manholes need to be a 90 degree minimum in the direction of flow.
7. Ensure manholes are not located in gutters to avoid excess water/drainage into the wastewater system.
Manholes SSMH C1 and SSMH D1 do not meet this requirement.
8. Manhole SSMH A5 has two outlet pipes,which is not allowed. Each manhole should only have one
outlet. SSMH C1 should not connect to this manhole,reconfigure this to remove this connection.
9. Minimum slope for a 10" diameter main is 0.28%, adjust your 10" main accordingly so it meets this
minimum.
Standard 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 F 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.
Page 31
Item 6. F156
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.
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.
Page 32
Item 6. F157
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.meridiancioy.oMIpublic_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. FIRE DEPARTMENT
https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=254129&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCiU
D. POLICE DEPARTMENT
https://weblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=249991&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity
E. NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID)
https://weblink.meridiancity.orQ/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=251525&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX
F. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO(COMPASS)
https://weblink.meridiancitE.org/WebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=254120&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity
G. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD)
https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=254121&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX
H. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(WASD)
https://weblink.meridianciU.o.-glWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=254197&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX
IX. FINDINGS
A. Preliminary Plat Findings
In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat,the
decision-making body shall make the following findings:
1. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan;
Staff finds that the proposed plat, with Staff's recommendations, is in substantial compliance with the
adopted Comprehensive Plan and the specific area plan (Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan) in
regard to land use, density, transportation, and pedestrian connectivity. (Please see Comprehensive
Plan Policies in, Section V of this report for more information.)
Page 33
Item 6. Fl-581
2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the
proposed development;
Stafffinds that public services will be provided to the subject property with development. (See Section
VIII of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers.)
3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital
improvement program;
Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the development at their own
cost, Stafffinds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds.
4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development;
Stafffinds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development
based upon comments from the public service providers (i.e., Police, Fire, ACHD, etc). (See Section
V and VIII for more information)
5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health,safety or general welfare; and,
Staff is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting of this
property. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis and has approved the proposed road
layout and connections to adjacent parcels.
6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features.
Staff is unaware of any significant natural,scenic, or historic features that exist on this site that require
preserving.
B. Conditional Use Permit Findings
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.
Stafffinds that the submitted site plan shows compliance with all dimensional and development
regulations in the R-15 zoning district in which it resides except for those noted and required to be
revised.
2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in
accord with the requirements of this title.
Stafffinds theproposed use of multi family residential, in conjunction with the other residential
housing types proposed, is in accord with the comprehensive plan designation of Medium-High
Density Residential within the Ten Mile Plan and the requirements of this title.
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, and proposed operation and maintenance will be compatible
with other uses in the general neighborhood and should not adversely change the essential character
of the same area, if all conditions of approval are met.
Page 34
Item 6. 159
4. That the proposed use,if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not
adversely affect other property in the vicinity.
Staff finds the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of approval imposed, will not adversely
affect other property 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.
Stafffinds the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services if all
conditions of approval are met.
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.
All public facilities and services are readily available for the subject site so Staff finds that the
proposed use will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community or create excessive
additional costs for public facilities and services.
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 slightly increase in the vicinity with the proposed use, the proposed layout
offers the best opportunity for safe circulation andprovides opportunity to extend a needed east-west
collector street for future connectivity. Therefore, Staff finds the proposed use will not 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)
Staff is not aware of any such features; the proposed use should not result in damage of any such
features.
Page 35
E IDIAN;---
Applicant Presentation
SIGHT TRIANGLE
SIGHT TRIANGLESIGHT
T
R
I
A
N
G
L
E
SIGHT TRIANGLEPRELIMINARY
DRAWING SET
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTIONSHEETOF RONZE BOWAVIATION SUBDIVISION
LANDSCAPE PLAN COLOR VERSIONL3 5W AVIATOR STREETW
AV
IATOR
STREETW SANTA FE DRIVEW SANTA FE LANE (PRIVATE)N DUPLICATE AVE
W TOPEKA STREETW LOS ALAMOS LANE (PRIVATE)N YUMA LANE (PRIVATE)
N STRONGHOLD AVE
N STRONGHOLD AVE
56342781121181716515414321011310291981714613512410121511456781923910111213687LEGEND25402539SHEETOFRONZE BOWAVIATION SUBDIVISION
COVER1 5LOT SUMMARYTOTAL849.80PRELIMINARY PLATFORAVIATION SUBDIVISIONLOCATED IN THE W 12 OF THE SW 14 OF SECTION 10 T.3N., R.1W., B.M.,ADA COUNTY, IDAHODECEMBER 2021IDAHO SURVEY GROUP9955 EMERALD ST,BOISE, ID 83704PHONE: (208) 846-8570SANDROCK DEVELOPMENT.1468 JAMES RDGARDNERVILLE, NV 89460CONTACT:LARRY JACOBSONEMAIL: LARRY@SANDROCKDEVELOPMENT.COMVicinity MapSITEN BLACK CAT ROAD
W FRANKLIN RDW AVIATOR STW PINE AVEDRAINPURDAM GULCH KEITH SCHNEIDEREMAIL: STRONGWAY54@GMAIL.COMW AVIATOR STREETNOTESBLOCK 1BLOCK 2BLOCK 3BLOCK 4BLOCK 5BLOCK 5Sheet List TableW AVIATOR STREETBLOCK 4BLOCK 4BLOCK 6BLOCK 4SITE NOTESPRELIMINARY ENGINEERING NOTESW SANTA FE DRIVEW SANTA FE LANE (PRIVATE)N DUPLICATE AVE
W TOPEKA STREETW LOS ALAMOS LANE (PRIVATE)N YUMA LANE (PRIVATE)
N STRONGHOLD AVE
N STRONGHOLD AVEBLOCK 53BLOCK 1BLOCK 2BLOCK 3BLOCK 1
3/2/2022Map Scale:
Legend
0.05 Miles 2,705.61
Railroad
Roads (2,000 - 4,000 scale)
<all other values>
Interstate
Ramp
Principal Arterial
Collector
Minor Arterial
Local
Parks
Alley
Driveway
Parks
Water
Condos
Parcels
Ada County Assessor This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for general reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may
not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION OR LEGAL PURPOSES.
56342781121181716515414321011310291981714613512410121511456781923910111213687LEGEND25402539SHEETOFRONZE BOWAVIATION SUBDIVISION
COVER1 5LOT SUMMARYTOTAL849.80PRELIMINARY PLATFORAVIATION SUBDIVISIONLOCATED IN THE W 12 OF THE SW 14 OF SECTION 10 T.3N., R.1W., B.M.,ADA COUNTY, IDAHODECEMBER 2021IDAHO SURVEY GROUP9955 EMERALD ST,BOISE, ID 83704PHONE: (208) 846-8570SANDROCK DEVELOPMENT.1468 JAMES RDGARDNERVILLE, NV 89460CONTACT:LARRY JACOBSONEMAIL: LARRY@SANDROCKDEVELOPMENT.COMVicinity MapSITEN BLACK CAT ROAD
W FRANKLIN RDW AVIATOR STW PINE AVEDRAINPURDAM GULCH KEITH SCHNEIDEREMAIL: STRONGWAY54@GMAIL.COMW AVIATOR STREETNOTESBLOCK 1BLOCK 2BLOCK 3BLOCK 4BLOCK 5BLOCK 5Sheet List TableW AVIATOR STREETBLOCK 4BLOCK 4BLOCK 6BLOCK 4SITE NOTESPRELIMINARY ENGINEERING NOTESW SANTA FE DRIVEW SANTA FE LANE (PRIVATE)N DUPLICATE AVE
W TOPEKA STREETW LOS ALAMOS LANE (PRIVATE)N YUMA LANE (PRIVATE)
N STRONGHOLD AVE
N STRONGHOLD AVEBLOCK 53BLOCK 1BLOCK 2BLOCK 3BLOCK 1
56342781121181716515414321011310291981714613512410121511456781923910111213687LEGEND25402539SHEETOFRONZE BOWAVIATION SUBDIVISION
COVER1 5LOT SUMMARYTOTAL849.80PRELIMINARY PLATFORAVIATION SUBDIVISIONLOCATED IN THE W 12 OF THE SW 14 OF SECTION 10 T.3N., R.1W., B.M.,ADA COUNTY, IDAHODECEMBER 2021IDAHO SURVEY GROUP9955 EMERALD ST,BOISE, ID 83704PHONE: (208) 846-8570SANDROCK DEVELOPMENT.1468 JAMES RDGARDNERVILLE, NV 89460CONTACT:LARRY JACOBSONEMAIL: LARRY@SANDROCKDEVELOPMENT.COMVicinity MapSITEN BLACK CAT ROAD
W FRANKLIN RDW AVIATOR STW PINE AVEDRAINPURDAM GULCH KEITH SCHNEIDEREMAIL: STRONGWAY54@GMAIL.COMW AVIATOR STREETNOTESBLOCK 1BLOCK 2BLOCK 3BLOCK 4BLOCK 5BLOCK 5Sheet List TableW AVIATOR STREETBLOCK 4BLOCK 4BLOCK 6BLOCK 4SITE NOTESPRELIMINARY ENGINEERING NOTESW SANTA FE DRIVEW SANTA FE LANE (PRIVATE)N DUPLICATE AVE
W TOPEKA STREETW LOS ALAMOS LANE (PRIVATE)N YUMA LANE (PRIVATE)
N STRONGHOLD AVE
N STRONGHOLD AVEBLOCK 53BLOCK 1BLOCK 2BLOCK 3BLOCK 1
6723411110563412798346.3'370.7'153.3'73.0'76.3'114.5'95.0'69.2'70.0'81.8'63.7'52.7'34.6'26.7'8.6'102.0'129.0'5
8
.
7
'97.0'48
.
6
'
90.3'
114.0'
114.0'
97.6'57.1
'
39.9'69.5'30.8'167.7'168.1'30.8'69.5'39.9'99.1'25.0'66.0'41.1'25.0'48.1'C1C2
C3C4C5C
6
C
7
C8C90.25-AC10909-SF0.21-AC9197-SF0.19-AC8239-SF0.18-AC8016-SF19837 SFCOMMON11303 SFCOMMON0.20-AC8849-SF0.20-AC8861-SF0.20-AC8687-SF0.27-AC11582-SF0.19-AC8322-SF197.37'R=44'L=67.61'R=
44'
L
=6
2.19'69.54'R=30'L=14.18'69.42'
30.79'CURVE TABLECURVEC1C2C3C4C5C6C7C8C9LENGTH102.57'43.84'124.68'8.17'20.19'46.74'44.32'36.28'48.19'RADIUS66.00'70.50'530.00'17.00'42.00'56.00'31.00'56.00'31.00'DELTA89°02'47"35°37'48"13°28'42"27°32'56"27°32'56"47°49'28"81°54'25"37°07'04"89°03'30"BEARINGN43°54'49"WN17°12'20"WN76°43'07"ES68°45'14"WS68°45'14"WS58°36'58"WS41°34'30"WS20°43'35"ES43°54'28"ECHORD92.56'43.14'124.39'8.10'20.00'45.40'40.64'35.65'43.48'LEGEND25402539SHEETOFRONZE BOWAVIATION SUBDIVISION
CUP SITE PLAN1 5IDAHO SURVEY GROUP9955 EMERALD ST,BOISE, ID 83704PHONE: (208) 846-8570SANDROCK DEVELOPMENT.1468 JAMES RDGARDNERVILLE, NV 89460CONTACT:LARRY JACOBSONEMAIL: LARRY@SANDROCKDEVELOPMENT.COMKEITH SCHNEIDEREMAIL: STRONGWAY54@GMAIL.COMW AVIATOR STREETW SANTA FE DRIVE
W SANTA FE LANE (PRIVATE)W TOPEKA STREETW LOS ALAMOS LANE (PRIVATE)N YUMA LANE (PRIVATE)N STRONGHOLD AVEN STRONGHOLD AVE
NOTESSITE NOTESSITE OBSCURINGDUMPSTER ENCLOSUREBICYCLEPARKINGBLOCK 3BLOCK 5BLOCK 6BLOCK 6BLOCK 4PURDAM GULCHDRAIN EASEMENTPURDAM GULCHDRAIN EASEMENTSUBDIVISIONBOUNDARYSITE OBSCURINGDUMPSTER ENCLOSUREPARKING ANDSIDEWALK CROSSACCESS EASEMENTPARKING ANDSIDEWALK CROSSACCESS EASEMENTPARKING ANDSIDEWALK CROSSACCESS EASEMENTPARKING ANDSIDEWALK CROSSACCESS EASEMENT20' LANDSCAPEBUFFER ANDBACK OF LOT20' LANDSCAPEBUFFER ANDBACK OF LOT
AVIATION SUBDIVISION
March 2, 2022
WAIVER REQUEST LETTER
On behalf of The developer, we are reques ng the following waiver to the staff report item; City/Agency
Comments & Condi ons A. Planning Division. 12. C. “ Show 5-foot wide detached sidewalks along both
sides of the W. Aviator Street extension ”
1. Pursuant to our correspondence with staff on the W Aviator Street sidewalk, we would like to
formally request a waiver to the sidewalk condi on language in item 12 C. Our ra onale is as
follows:
The proposed Avia on Subdivision development provides a strong pedestrian network of
sidewalks and pathways and open space connec vity. This is inten onal and was a focus of our
collabora on with the planning staff to achieve a walkable community on the lands, while also
facilita ng connec vity to the adjacent communi es, both exis ng and proposed. We
acknowledge that staff is recommending compliance with its regular City standards for the
provision of a detached sidewalk along collector roads, in this case, W Aviator Street. However,
in this specific case, the developer is already providing a pathway in an adjacent open space
se ng to offset the sidewalk requirement on the north side and to provided support for the
variance request that would otherwise require an unnecessary and redundant sidewalk within
the right of way.
We also respec ully note that the por on of W Aviator Street constructed recently for Compass
Charter School, has a single 7‘ wide a ached sidewalk on the south side, which we also intend to
match and provide connec on to. If a specific separate walk were to be required on the south
side of W Aviator Street, the proposed sidewalk would not align and could also create an undue
burden for addi onal right of way that is already constrained in this loca on. We would agree to
provide either the a ached 7‘ sidewalk on the south side of W Aviator Street as is already
constructed and is ACHD compliant or if desired, provide a separate 5’ sidewalk without
expanding the right of way requirement in this loca on.
Our request would be that the condi on allows the developer la tude to work with ACHD and
the City of Meridian on the requirements for the sidewalk along the south side of W Aviator
Street.
Jadon Schneider, P.E.
Project Engineer
56342781121181716515414321011310291981714613512410121511456781923910111213687LEGEND25402539SHEETOFRONZE BOWAVIATION SUBDIVISION
COVER1 5LOT SUMMARYTOTAL849.80PRELIMINARY PLATFORAVIATION SUBDIVISIONLOCATED IN THE W 12 OF THE SW 14 OF SECTION 10 T.3N., R.1W., B.M.,ADA COUNTY, IDAHODECEMBER 2021IDAHO SURVEY GROUP9955 EMERALD ST,BOISE, ID 83704PHONE: (208) 846-8570SANDROCK DEVELOPMENT.1468 JAMES RDGARDNERVILLE, NV 89460CONTACT:LARRY JACOBSONEMAIL: LARRY@SANDROCKDEVELOPMENT.COMVicinity MapSITEN BLACK CAT ROAD
W FRANKLIN RDW AVIATOR STW PINE AVEDRAINPURDAM GULCH KEITH SCHNEIDEREMAIL: STRONGWAY54@GMAIL.COMW AVIATOR STREETNOTESBLOCK 1BLOCK 2BLOCK 3BLOCK 4BLOCK 5BLOCK 5Sheet List TableW AVIATOR STREETBLOCK 4BLOCK 4BLOCK 6BLOCK 4SITE NOTESPRELIMINARY ENGINEERING NOTESW SANTA FE DRIVEW SANTA FE LANE (PRIVATE)N DUPLICATE AVE
W TOPEKA STREETW LOS ALAMOS LANE (PRIVATE)N YUMA LANE (PRIVATE)
N STRONGHOLD AVE
N STRONGHOLD AVEBLOCK 53BLOCK 1BLOCK 2BLOCK 3BLOCK 1
SIGHT TRIANGLE
SIGHT TRIANGLESIGHT
T
R
I
A
N
G
L
E
SIGHT TRIANGLEPRELIMINARY
DRAWING SET
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTIONSHEETOF RONZE BOWAVIATION SUBDIVISION
LANDSCAPE PLAN COLOR VERSIONL3 5W AVIATOR STREETW
AV
IATOR
STREETW SANTA FE DRIVEW SANTA FE LANE (PRIVATE)N DUPLICATE AVE
W TOPEKA STREETW LOS ALAMOS LANE (PRIVATE)N YUMA LANE (PRIVATE)
N STRONGHOLD AVE
N STRONGHOLD AVE
SIGHT TRIANGLE
SIGHT TRIANGLESIGHT
T
R
I
A
N
G
L
E
SIGHT TRIANGLEPRELIMINARY
DRAWING SET
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTIONSHEETOF RONZE BOWAVIATION SUBDIVISION
LANDSCAPE PLAN COLOR VERSIONL3 5W AVIATOR STREETW
AV
IATOR
STREETW SANTA FE DRIVEW SANTA FE LANE (PRIVATE)N DUPLICATE AVE
W TOPEKA STREETW LOS ALAMOS LANE (PRIVATE)N YUMA LANE (PRIVATE)
N STRONGHOLD AVE
N STRONGHOLD AVE
S7470434445363738272829313233343547484950515354555657696867666562616059581612111091719208765212223244321141364714630186339404142262552157372777675807978828183848685888789909291959493979698SHEETOFRONZE BOWAVIATOR SUBDIVISION -
CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT
LAYOUT 11 1NOTES········W AVIATOR STREETW AVIATOR STREETALLEY A
ALLEY BALLEY C
LOOP ROAD A
LOOP ROAD BLOOP ROAD CALLEY DSTREET (TO FRANKLIN)
S61592829303132333415161718192726252442414039545352515049484746454443838281807978777675747372717069686766656463626014131211109SHEETOFRONZE BOWAVIATOR SUBDIVISION -
CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT
LAYOUT 4 (4-PLEX OPTION A)1 1NOTES··W AVIATOR STREETW AVIATOR STREETALLEY ALOOP ROAD A
LOOP ROAD BLOOP ROAD CCUL-DE-SAC1-45-820-2355-5835-38
RONZE BOW
AVIATION SUBDIVISION
March 2, 2022
WAIVER REQUEST LETTER
On behalf of The developer,we are requesting the following waiver to the staff report item; City/Agency
Comments&Conditions A. Planning Division. 12. C. "Show 5-foot wide detached sidewalks along both
sides of the W. Aviator Street extension"
1. Pursuant to our correspondence with staff on the W Aviator Street sidewalk, we would like to
formally request a waiver to the sidewalk condition language in item 12 C. Our rationale is as
follows:
The proposed Aviation Subdivision development provides a strong pedestrian network of
sidewalks and pathways and open space connectivity.This is intentional and was a focus of our
collaboration with the planning staff to achieve a walkable community on the lands,while also
facilitating connectivity to the adjacent communities, both existing and proposed. We
acknowledge that staff is recommending compliance with its regular City standards for the
provision of a detached sidewalk along collector roads, in this case, W Aviator Street. However,
in this specific case, the developer is already providing a pathway in an adjacent open space
setting to offset the sidewalk requirement on the north side and to provided support for the
variance request that would otherwise require an unnecessary and redundant sidewalk within
the right of way.
We also respectfully note that the portion of W Aviator Street constructed recently for Compass
Charter School, has a single 7'wide attached sidewalk on the south side, which we also intend to
match and provide connection to. If a specific separate walk were to be required on the south
side of W Aviator Street, the proposed sidewalk would not align and could also create an undue
burden for additional right of way that is already constrained in this location. We would agree to
provide either the attached 7'sidewalk on the south side of W Aviator Street as is already
constructed and is ACHD compliant or if desired, provide a separate 5' sidewalk without
expanding the right of way requirement in this location.
Our request would be that the condition allows the developer latitude to work with ACHD and
the City of Meridian on the requirements for the sidewalk along the south side of W Aviator
Street.
Jadon Schneider, P.E.
Project Engineer