2024-03-12 Regular Meeting
City Council Regular Meeting
City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho
Tuesday, March 12, 2024 at 6:00 PM
Minutes
ROLL CALL ATTENDANCE
PRESENT
Councilman Doug Taylor
Councilwoman Anne Little Roberts
Councilman Luke Cavener (6:10 PM)
Councilwoman Liz Strader
Councilman Joe Borton
Mayor Robert E. Simison
ABSENT
Councilman John Overton
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
COMMUNITY INVOCATION
ADOPTION OF AGENDA Adopted
PUBLIC FORUM – Future Meeting Topics
ACTION ITEMS
1. Public Hearing Continued from February 13, 2024. for Linder Condos (H-2023-
0074) by The Architects Office, PLLC., located at 300 N. Linder Rd. Approved
Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2023-0074
A. Request: Development Agreement Modification to modify the existing
development agreement (H-2022-0091) to allow warehouse and flex space
uses along with the previously approved self-storage facility and update to the
conceptual development plan and building elevations.
Motion to approve made by Councilman Taylor, Seconded by Councilman Borton.
Voting Yea: Councilman Taylor, Councilwoman Little Roberts, Councilman Cavener,
Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Borton
2. Public Hearing for Ultra Clean Franklin (H-2023-0064) by KM Engineering, LLP.,
located at 3070 E. Franklin Rd. Approved
Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2023-0064
A. Request: Development Agreement Modification to modify the terms of the
agreement required with the Annexation Ordinance (No. 737 Haskin Green).
Motion to approve made by Councilman Taylor, Seconded by Councilwoman Little Roberts.
Voting Yea: Councilman Taylor, Councilwoman Little Roberts, Councilman Cavener,
Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Borton
3. Public Hearing for Stonehill Church (H-2023-0041) by Stonehill Church, located
at 799 W. Amity Rd. Approved
Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2023-0041
A. Request: Development Agreement Modification to the exiting Development
Agreement (H-2015-0019, Inst. #2016-007090) to allow for the development
of a church on a portion of the property and removal of that property from the
original agreement for inclusion in a new agreement.
B. Request: Rezone of 13.36 acres of land from R-4 to R-8 zoning district.
C. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a church on 13.09 acres of land in an R-
8 zoning district.
D. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 4 building lots on 65.43 acres of land
in the R-4 and R-8 zoning district.
Motion to approve made by Councilman Borton, Seconded by Councilwoman Strader.
Voting Yea: Councilman Taylor, Councilwoman Little Roberts, Councilman Cavener,
Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Borton
4. Public Hearing for Avani Neighborhood (H-2023-0049) by Conger Group, located
at Southeast of Franklin Rd. and Black Cat, North of I-84. Continued to April 2,
2024 for the purpose of reviewing proposed Findings for Approval
Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2023-0049
A. Request: Annexation of 35.086 acres of land from RUT to the R-15 (Medium
High Density Residential) zoning district.
B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 256 buildable lots and 25 common
lots on 33.71 acres of land in the proposed R-15 zoning district.
Motion to continue to April 2, 2024 for the purpose of reviewing the Findings made by
Councilman Taylor, Seconded by Councilwoman Little Roberts.
Voting Yea: Councilman Taylor, Councilwoman Little Roberts, Councilman Cavener
Voting Nay: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Borton
ORDINANCES \[Action Item\]
5. Ordinance No. 24-2048: An ordinance (Crowley Park Subdivision – H-2023-0053)
annexing a parcel of land lying in a portion of the northwest quarter of Section 10,
Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County,
Idaho, more particularly described in Exhibit “A”; rezoning 1.13 acres of such real
property from R1 (Estate Residential) to R-8 (Medium-Density Residential) zoning
district; directing city staff to alter all applicable use and area maps as well as the
official zoning maps and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning
districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance; providing that
copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada
County Treasurer, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission,
as required by law; repealing conflicting ordinances; and providing an effective
date. Approved
Motion to approve made by Councilman Taylor, Seconded by Councilwoman Little Roberts.
Voting Yea: Councilman Taylor, Councilwoman Little Roberts, Councilman Cavener,
Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Borton
FUTURE MEETING TOPICS
ADJOURNMENT 9:27 PM
Meridian City Council March 12, 2024.
A Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:00 p.m. Tuesday, March
12, 2024, by Mayor Robert Simison.
Members Present: Robert Simison, Joe Borton, Luke Cavener, Liz Strader, Anne Little
Roberts and Doug Taylor.
Members Absent: John Overton.
ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE
X Liz Strader X Joe Borton
Anne Little Roberts John Overton
_X_ Doug Taylor _X_Luke Cavener (6:17 p.m.)
X Mayor Robert E. Simison
Simison: Council, we will call the meeting to order. For the record is March 12th, 2024,
at 6:00 p.m. We will begin tonight's regular City Council meeting with roll call
attendance.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Simison: Next item is the Pledge of Allegiance. If you would all, please, rise and join us
in the pledge.
(Pledge of Allegiance recited.)
COMMUNITY INVOCATION
Simison: Next up is our community invocation, which will be delivered tonight by Mick
Armstrong. If you would all, please, join us in the community invocation or take this as a
moment of silence and reflection. Mick, nice to see you.
Armstrong: Father, we thank you for this great community that you have developed
over the years. We thank you for the leadership that we have had. We just pray for the
Council meeting tonight, for -- for our Mayor and Council, the decisions that need to be
made, many of them affecting property and often there is a variety of feelings and can I
just pray that you would give them wisdom in those decisions and also thank you for the
many employees in this city that care for our needs, whether it be on our safety or -- or
just services and just thank you for that and I just pray that we can continue to be the
kind of community that honors you, that calls people to family and to respect family and
it's a safe place for us to live and a great place for businesses to thrive and we just
thank you for your blessing in our community and we honor you, in Jesus' name, amen.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Meridian City Council
March 12,2024
Page 2 of 66
Simison: Thank you, Mick. Next up is the adoption of the agenda.
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Borton.
Borton: There were no changes, so I move that we adopt the agenda as published.
Strader: Second.
Simison: Have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as published. Is there any
discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye? Opposed nay. The ayes have it
and the agenda is adopted.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT.
PUBLIC FORUM — Future Meeting Topics
Simison: Mr. Clerk, anyone signed up under public forum?
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, no sign-ups.
ACTION ITEMS
1. Public Hearing Continued from February 13, 2024. for Linder Condos
(H-2023-0074) by The Architects Office, PLLC., located at 300 N.
Linder Rd.
A. Request: Development Agreement Modification to modify the
existing development agreement (H-2022-0091) to allow
warehouse and flex space uses along with the previously approved
self-storage facility and update to the conceptual development plan
and building elevations.
Simison: Okay. Then with that we will move right into our Action Items this evening.
First item up is a public hearing continued from February 13, 2024, for Linder Condos,
H-2023-0074. We will continue this public hearing with staff comments.
Allen: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. The next hear -- or the first
hearing item before you tonight is for Linder Condos. This is a continued public hearing
from February 13th. Council continued this project in order to allow the applicant time to
provide clarifying information as to the specific tenant use and that the proposed use is
not a more intensive use, but similar to what was contemplated in the original
application, that the parking is appropriate for the proposed use and to address the
impact on residential neighbors. The applicant has submitted a letter addressing these
concerns, which should be on your desk in front of you tonight, which includes a letter
Meridian City Council
March 12,2024
Page 3 of 66
from Ronald Hatch, the owner of the residential property to the north, in support of the
proposed development agreement modification request. The applicant is here tonight to
present. Thank you.
Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions for staff? Okay. Would the applicant like
to come forward and make any comments? Good evening.
Putman: Jeremy Putman. 499 West Main Street, Boise, Idaho. And thank you for the
opportunity, Mayor Simison and Council. And I was wondering if it would be possible to
put up the PowerPoint. As that's going up I do want to just acknowledge that I was not
as prepared as I should have been for the last meeting. I took a few -- too many things
for granted and I appreciate the opportunity provided by this continuance to present the
information that we have submitted and I'm confident that this will supply the Council
with the necessary information needed to support this modification request.
Allen: Just a moment here, Jeremy. We are good? Okay. Good. The first thing
would like to address is some -- a concern about kind of the unusual circumstance for
this and I explained in -- in the letter that, no, this is not the -- necessarily the best case
scenario for my client in the original development agreement and now what we are
doing in this modification. Just the circumstances behind that. This project was
originally contracted with EVstudio, which was formerly NuDesign Architecture where I
was an employee. The client came in, we had an initial consultation and one of my
project managers at the time, you know, worked with me on -- to develop a proposal,
entered into contract and, then, shortly after that I exited EVstudio. The project
continued under Julie Miller, the project manager, at -- at EVstudio and got through the
development agreement process. Unfortunately, the client did not feel that the project
was represented in the best light with the outcome of only storage use being approved
and so at that time my client terminated the project with that -- with that architecture firm
and, then, shortly after the approval Mrs. Miller exited EVstudio. So, it does appear that
the approved development agreement document was sent to Julie Miller when she was
no longer an employee of EVstudio, which never found -- which was never forwarded to
my client and so part of this mix up was just him not having the information and so Mr.
Herman did approach me at my new place of business, the architect's office, and as I
was added to the -- the -- the project was able to look at the -- the approved
development agreement and sent it on to him, where it was discovered that storage use
was the only -- the only -- the only approved use and, unfortunately, at the development
agreement hearing my client was absent, because he was -- he was out of town. So, all
that to say, like oftentimes, our best laid plans don't always go the way we determine,
which seems to be the case for my client. So, that -- that is kind of the reasoning why
the -- the development agreement had not been signed and then -- let's see. Yeah.
Next I just want to also address something that came up in the meeting and just give a
little bit of personal background about sensitivity to growth. The -- because I agree with
you, I have -- I share those same concerns. My -- my family used to own land a little
over a half a mile away from this parcel on West Franklin Road and it was handed down
to my grandfather and his -- his brother in -- in the early 1950s. My grandfather
designed and built his own home and raised the family, operated a business out there,
Meridian City Council
March 12,2024
Page 4 of 66
Calnon Floral and so all this to say -- I don't say this to -- to add an air of superiority. I
just say this to understand that, yes, I am sensitive to this growth as well, because it
was impactful on my family. The city grew up around them and now that land is -- those
houses are gone and that land is being, you know, developed into storage units and
apartments and things like that. So, I do recognize this and just -- just want to make
sure that it's understood that I, too, want the best for the city, because my family's
vested here, and looking at the -- the parcels on North Linder, most of these parcels
have changed ownership in the last -- at least in the last ten years and many of them
have -- with -- from the information I could find on the assessor's website have changed
hands, change of ownership recently in the last couple of years and the City of Meridian
has also kind of determined that the highest and best use of land and of properties in
this area are to be industrial and Meridian has a high value on industry and business,
which I very much appreciate and has done a good job of guarding particular areas of
our city for that purpose and what we are proposing here in -- in this development
agreement modification request, the uses fit -- they are principally permitted in the I-L
zone and the fact that we are asking for the addition of two more uses from the one
storage, the additional to be warehouse and flex space, still is -- is three out of the 25
principally permitted uses in this zone and looking at -- looking at these uses, what
actually I will -- pardon me. I was getting ahead of myself. We will -- we will get -- get
there in just a little bit. So, all that to say this kind of development fits within the fabric of
the area that -- that the city of Meridian has -- has set forward and, then, to the -- to
address some of the concerns about residents living to the north on -- on 330, that the
doors would be kind of facing -- Mr. Hatch has purchased that property back in 2023
and his plan is to develop the property for industrial use and actually on the previous
slide and in the -- in the document that was provided. Robert Hatch is also an owner --
or partial owner in many of the properties along Linder, who has seen this as an
opportunity, similar to my client, as an opportunity to -- to follow the city's kind of
direction and use these parcels for how the city has laid out and so he does intend to
develop this -- this parcel and currently he said that there is no -- no residential activity
at that -- at that property and as the letter in Exhibit A states, he is in favor of -- of this --
of this project. A concern that was brought up was -- was kind of parking for this
particular -- for this development and as the -- the staff report agrees that we do have
adequate parking for any of the uses that could move into these condos. Meridian code
requires a minimum of seven parking stalls and we have provided 13, which is almost a
hundred percent more parking than is required by code, which kind of leads to the
volume -- the volume of vehicles is there. The use of these -- this project is designed for
small businesses or it's set up for entrepreneurs. The -- the intent is for them to -- these
business -- business owners to carve out 2,000 square feet for their business, whether
it's an online merchant making and shipping their goods across the country. We have
seen a huge rise of bad activity just in general, but also in the Treasure Valley, or it
could be a home sound system installer who keeps their equipment and supplies there
ready to go and install the -- a sound system in somebody's home. Or it could be one of
the surrounding businesses -- one of the surrounding warehouse businesses that's
simply run out of space and they need a little extra storage. Their main function would
still remain at those larger facilities and, then, that -- they could use this as a place to
store their -- their goods and come over and get them every now and then and take
Meridian City Council
March 12,2024
Page 5 of 66
them out for -- for -- for their use. These buildings would also be owner occupied. It's
not a tenant situation. So, there is -- we all, you know, know the pride of ownership, that
we do want to take care of what -- what we own and what we are a part of. It's -- this is
-- we are not -- you know, we are not proposing a large warehouse. These are condos
that are appealing to the micro and small business owner here. So, yes, there would be
a little bit more traffic than a self storage use, but not something that is inconsistent with
the traffic that is currently on Linder or the surrounding areas. And as part of that there
-- there will be -- you know, it's -- it's -- there will also be continued city oversight. When
this project is approved we will have a condo plat overlay to the property. The city, you
know, we will have an opportunity to review the CC&Rs and any owner wishing to move
in to one of these units will also be examined at -- at least a very minimum level of like a
certificate of occupancy. So, the city is going to have an opportunity to review what
goes in here and make sure that it's consistent, one, with the regulations and the
development agreement and the CC&Rs. So, we feel that -- that this request to add
warehouse and flex space will be a benefit and fits in with the overall vision of -- of this
area for the city of Meridian and is consistent with what seems to be happening along
Linder Road with the development and property transitions. With that I can stand for
any questions.
Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions for the applicant?
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: Mr. Putman; right?
Putman: Yes.
Strader: Thank you for coming. Would you mind moving back to the slide where you
showed all the neighboring properties?
Putman: Certainly.
Strader: Yeah. Thank you. I appreciate you coming back and putting some more
legwork into the surrounding uses here. It does look like this corridor is definitely
moving more toward the industrial use. I appreciated the property owner to the north
resubmitting a letter. That's helpful. Do you have a feeling for -- you kind of went
through the types of tenants -- I guess small businesses. I saw somewhere in your
letter -- I think somewhere I saw reference to like contractors. Can you get into more
specifics about the potential types of tenants and what kind of tenant would use that
size of a facility?
Putman: Certainly. It -- sorry, Mr. Mayor and -- and Council Member Strader. It -- you
know, it's hard to kind of prognosticate into the future and see that one. One example
could be actually the property owner, he himself is a business owner and could occupy
one of those -- one of those units. But for like a contractor, someone the size of that
Meridian City Council
March 12,2024
Page 6 of 66
could be a small -- maybe small millwork, small HVAC contractor, like probably more on
the residential scale that would have some HVAC furnace units type of things, maybe
some small sheet metal to bend for minor ductwork, but mainly, you know, flex tube,
something like that. Small plumbing contractor that would have, you know, maybe
some small stock of fixtures and pipe. Could be a tile or flooring contractor that wouldn't
need a lot of material on hand, because, you know, they may get a shipment in, need to
store it for a few -- like a few days before it goes out to the site. Some of those, if that
helps.
Strader: Thank you.
Taylor: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Taylor.
Taylor: Mr. Putman, thank you for the -- this was much appreciated context. I think it
would have been really helpful to have had it last time, so probably lessons learned to
be prepared. Certainly was helpful in me understanding what you have. One question
have -- we talked about this being allowed for condo use and these individual units
being sold. It seems to me if that -- each little unit is sold, then, you -- that person can
then either use it or maybe even then lease it to another user. So, it's really hard to
forecast who is going to be in here. At what point -- does the owner intend to
immediately start selling off portions of this or managing it? Just kind of curious what
that process of using sort of that condo overlay and to sell those pieces of property.
Putman: Certainly. Mayor Simison and Council Member Taylor. Good question. I
guess the -- the intent would be to start offering -- you know, once this approval goes
through using the preliminary plans that we have got is an opportunity to market and
attract -- attract potential buyers. So, I think that would begin immediately. As far as
kind of oversight of the project, you know, the -- the property owner would -- would be
the one to maintain the CC&Rs initially, but, then, once enough tenants occupy, then, it
would kind of be turned over to a board for more general oversight of that and -- and
those owners would be, you know, part of -- part of that -- that membership.
Simison: Thank you. For the record Councilman Cavener joined us at 6:17 p.m.
Council, any additional questions for the applicant?
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: Appreciate you putting that on the record. I just think for Council and the
applicant and the public's benefit, I have -- I have been here since the beginning of the
applicant's presentation, although just promoted to a panelist very recently.
Simison: Thank you for that clarification. Okay. Thank you very much.
Meridian City Council
March 12,2024
Page 7 of 66
Putman: Thank you.
Simison: Mr. Clerk, do we have anybody signed up to provide testimony on this item?
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, just one. Kim Kelly.
Simison: Good evening. State your name and address for the record, please.
Kelly: Kim Kelly. 6035 North Shandee Drive, Meridian, Idaho. I'm the owner and
broker -- oh. Mr. Mayor and Council Members. Sorry. I'm the owner and broker of Kim
Kelly Real Estate and second generation Treasure Valley native. I grew up in Nampa
and moved to Meridian with my family in 2014. 1 was initially licensed as a real estate
agent in '94, but was employed as an appraiser for Canyon County Assessor's Office
during the large growth phase in the early 2000s. I was licensed as the designated
broker in 2011 and have been responsible for the purchase, remodel and sale of over
300 properties in Ada and Canyon county. So, suffice it to say I feel like I'm pretty
intimately aware of the growth and the change in the real estate market in this area. I
represented the applicant his initial purchase of the subject property in August of 2019.
He purchased the property for a home business use and it was zoned R-1, but during
the process of attaining a mortgage for the property the appraiser refused to do a
residential mortgage on the property, because he said it's highest and best use was
commercial, according to USPAP standards. So, after contacting multiple appraisers,
getting the same answer, the applicant switched to a commercial loan and completed
the purchase. He has since purchased a property more suited to his business needs as
it's grown in another location of Meridian and in researching what possibilities were for
the subject property the city indicated their desire was for the area to be industrial
zoning. During this time the applicant traveled to Denver, Colorado, and saw an
industrial condo development that he liked. The units were similar to his current plan
and the tenants and owners ranged from like a coffee broker to an owner who built
custom motorcycles -- very customized things of that nature. At that point he started the
process with EVstudios to help annex the city -- or annex into the City of Meridian and
build a facility similar to the one in Colorado. I was present for both of the applicant's
initial meetings with EVstudios and felt the architects understood that the applicant's
vision was for the property and its intended use, but it became clear when we finally
received the approved development agreement that something had been lost in the
transitions, unfortunately. I was also present at the initial City Council hearing for the
approval of the development agreement, during which time he was asked questions
about what types of businesses would be allowed to go -- oh, she was. Julie was. Ms.
Miller. I believe Councilman Cavener asked if there would be a detail shop allowed and
Ms. Miller answered no. So, based on the questions and the conversations I believed it
was clear that these units were meant for locations for small businesses allowed within
the scope of the zoning code. However, when the applicant finally received the -- the
DA, the development agreement, in November of '23, last year, the language was very
limited to storage with time frames of use and other limitations that would not allow
small businesses to fully utilize the spaces.
Meridian City Council
March 12,2024
Page 8 of 66
Simison: If you can wrap up, please.
Kelly: Okay. So, I guess just to say these are going to be great for small business in
the area and I appreciate you giving us the chance to have a continuance and give you
more color and information and in support of that I would hope that you would approve
it.
Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? All right. Thank you. Very much. Is
there anybody else who would like to provide testimony on this item, either in the
audience or online? If you are online use the raise your hand feature. Seeing no one
coming forward and no one raising their hand online, would the applicant like to make
any final comments. Okay. Applicant waives any final comments.
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: Could I have legal just give us that snapshot technology. This one is a little
unusual, because the -- the -- without the DA being signed and annexation kind of sat
on hold awaiting for this, just a little -- every now and then this happens.
Nary: Sure. Mr. Mayor, Members of Council, Council Member Borton, yeah, it is -- and
you're correct, it's slightly unusual. I mean normal process after a project is completed
we would send the development agreement back to Planning, Planning would transmit it
to the developer. They have six months in which to sign it. They can request
extensions. The annexation doesn't happen until the development agreement gets
signed. I think what the applicant has -- has testified to tonight is there was, obviously,
some miscommunication on their part. I don't know how that was transmitted and went
to a person who wasn't there anymore, so that happens. So, I think in Planning and
trying to resurrect this, right, the original development agreement now is being modified
to allow these uses and that would, then, become the development agreement and,
then, the acquisition would occur. So, yeah, I think planning and trying to keep this
project on track and allow it to move forward without starting the process completely all
over made the decision to allow it to go this way with just the development agreement
modification, which is allowed in our code to allow to amend it prior to signature, so
think that was their reasoning. I wasn't involved in that decision, but I understand the
reason and I don't think it has any -- it doesn't violate our code for us to do it this way.
So, I think we are fine to move forward if the Council is comfortable with that, so --
Borton- Thank you.
Taylor: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Taylor.
Meridian City Council
March 12,2024
Page 9 of 66
Taylor: Yeah. I think this is a good project. I remember a lot of discussion last time
around parking. I certainly think that's a valid concern. However, they are required to
have seven -- or 13 -- or seven and 13 are provided. So, you check the box. Maybe a
slightly unusual process by which we get here, but we are -- it sounds like we are in
conformance with what is required. Looking at the other uses in the area this seems
aligned with that and I -- I really am interested in the idea of creating spaces for small
businesses to grow and thrive here in Meridian. I think that's something that is good to
promote. I think it makes some sense and so I'm a big fan of that. So, I understand
some of the concerns and, you know, maybe in a few year when parking is an issue,
because the types of tenants have a heavy usage, maybe -- maybe we will look back
and regret that just a little bit, but I -- it's hard to predict. I don't think it's our role to really
-- as long as they have followed the rules and followed the process that we have laid out
and they are in conformance I think it's a good project that should go forward. So, at the
appropriate time I would be willing to make a motion to approve this project.
Simison: Thank you. Council, any additional comments, questions?
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: Yeah. Just a little bit of maybe feedback. I think this is an example of
someone making excellent use of a continuance. So, I appreciate you, Mr. Putman and
Ms. Kelly, coming back with some clarification. I think for me what has helped to
mitigate my concern is the more detailed analysis of the surrounding uses and that I
think you have demonstrated pretty conclusively that this is not going to have too much
of a negative impact on surrounding residential uses. It looks like that is not as much of
a concern. So, I think that's helped me get comfortable, as well as more context around
the potential users. It is a smaller amount of space for a business. So, it's kind of a
business incubator and I have faith that, you know, businesses as they grow up will
hopefully be successful and find larger amounts of spaces. The previous owner did.
So, actually changed my mind on this one and I appreciate you doing the work and
coming back. Thank you.
Simison: Additional questions or comments or a motion to close the public hearing?
Taylor: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Taylor.
Taylor: Make a motion to close the public hearing.
Borton: Second.
Simison: Have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor signify by
saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have and the public hearing is closed.
Meridian City Council
March 12,2024
Page 10 of 66
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Taylor: Mr. Mayor, I would like to make a motion.
Simison: Councilman Taylor.
Taylor: I would like to make a motion to approve File No. H-2023-0074 as presented in
the staff report for the hearing date of March 12th, 2024.
Borton: Second.
Simison: Have a motion and a second to approve Item H-2023-0074. Is there
discussion? If not, Clerk will call the roll.
Roll Call: Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Strader, yea; Overton, absent; Little Roberts, yea;
Taylor, yea.
Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is agreed to. Thank you very much.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
2. Public Hearing for Ultra Clean Franklin (H-2023-0064) by KM
Engineering, LLP., located at 3070 E. Franklin Rd.
A. Request: Development Agreement Modification to modify the terms
of the agreement required with the Annexation Ordinance (No. 737
Haskin Green).
Simison: Next item up is Item 2, which is a public hearing for Ultra Clean Franklin, H-
2023-0064. We will open this public hearing with comments from staff.
Allen: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. The next application before you
tonight is a request for a development agreement modification. This site consists of two
acres of land. It's zoned C-G. It's located at 3070 East Franklin Road on the north side
of Franklin just west of Eagle Road. This property was annexed back in 1996. The
annexation ordinance number 737, Haskin/Green, approved for the property, requires
the property owner to enter into a development agreement with the city prior to issuance
of a building permit or plat approval, whichever occurs first. The ordinance includes
requirements for inclusion in the future development agreement in compliance with the
findings associated with the annexation. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map
designation is commercial. The applicant requests a new development agreement with
a modification to the terms of the agreement required with the annexation ordinance.
No development has occurred on the property and the property has changed ownership
since it was annexed. The original plan was to subdivide the property for individual
building sites, but that plan never came to fruition. The new -- the new property owner
would like to develop the property with a vehicle washing facility. Because there are
Meridian City Council
March 12,2024
Page 11 of 66
many outdated requirements in the development agreement and references to city code
that are no longer in effect, staff recommends new provisions with this application that
are applicable to the proposed development, which will replace the original ones. A
conceptual development plan was submitted as shown that demonstrates how the site
is proposed to develop with a vehicle washing facility. The proposed use is a principal
permitted use in the C-G zoning district and is subject to the specific use standards
listed in the UDC for such use. Staff has reviewed the site plan and finds it
demonstrates safe pedestrian and vehicular access and circulation on the site.
Stacking lanes have sufficient capacity to prevent obstruction of the public right of way.
Although no residential uses or districts abut the site, an extended stay hotel exists
directly to the north, which may be impacted by noise from the carwash and vacuums.
As mitigation staff recommends the hours of operation are limited from 6:00 a.m. to
10:00 p.m. Dense landscaping is provided along the northern boundary of the site and
mufflers are provided on the vacuums, which should assist in reducing the noise and
visual impacts of the proposed use. Access is proposed via North Olson Avenue, a
local street, along the west boundary of the site. No access is proposed or approved
via Franklin Road. Although a cross-access easement exists to this site from the
abutting property to the north, there is approximately a nine foot fall in grade from the
proposed driveway to the existing driveway and a significant cross-slope, which would
make a shared access difficult. For this reason staff and ACHD supports the proposed
access from Olson and does not recommend the cross-access easement to the north is
utilized. The Snyder Lateral bisects the western portion of this site within a 40 foot wide
easement and is proposed to be piped with development. A 35 foot wide street buffer is
required along Franklin Road, an entryway corridor, landscaped in accord with the
enhanced landscape standards for such. A detached sidewalk is proposed to be
constructed along Franklin Road that staff recommends is ten feet in width, extending
off site along Franklin to the east across the ACHD property to connect to the ten foot
pathway along Eagle Road if consent can be obtained from ACHD. Conceptual building
elevations were submitted for the proposed structure as shown. Building materials
consist of a mix of natural limestone and burnished CMU in neutral colors and wood
grain printed metal cladding. Final design is required to comply with the design
standards in the city's architectural standards manual. Written testimony has been
received from Stephanie Hopkins, KM Engineering, the applicant's representative and
they are in agreement with the staff report. Staff is recommending approval with the
conditions in the report. The applicant is here tonight to present.
Simison: Thank you, Sonya. Council, any questions for staff? Okay. Would the
applicant like to come forward and make any comments?
Hopkins: Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Members of Council. My name is Stephanie
Hopkins. I work for KM Engineering. Our address is 5725 North Discovery Way in
Boise. Sonya did a fantastic job covering that, so I don't have a whole lot to add, but
do have a presentation. So, I will show you our site plan and landscape plan and kind
of talk through some of the conditions that they are recommending -- or she is
recommending.
Meridian City Council
March 12,2024
Page 12 of 66
Allen: Just a moment here. Sorry. Just a second.
Hopkins: So, Sonya covered the location well. It's the northwest corner of Franklin and
Eagle. It's a pretty challenging site. There is a fair amount of grade as I'm sure most of
you are aware. The -- as the site slopes to the northeast it drops off a fair amount. So,
we had to be pretty creative with our site design. Did place the building towards the
roadway, which is one of the city's requests. A lot of times the design review
applications -- and placed three stacking lanes, four vehicles, as they enter the site to
make sure there is enough room for folks as they are waiting for a carwash. Access will
be via Olson Avenue, which we have coordinated with staff and ACHD and we are
including 24 -- or 26 parking spaces overall, 23 of which will be for vacuums, two for
employees and, then, there is one accessible stall as well. The building is about 7,200
square feet and we have placed some landscaping along the northern boundary that
staff has conditioned will probably have to beef that landscaping up a little bit. Right
now we have a couple of different deciduous trees along the northern boundary, one
kind of mix of evergreen and deciduous and, then, there are some shrubs in there as
well to make sure that they reach a maturity for -- in five years. And, then, throughout
the site we have designed it in compliance with code -- will increase. We initially had
shown a five foot sidewalk along Franklin. It's an entryway corridor, so we will increase
that to ten feet, make sure we are complying with the city's requirements there and,
then, the -- our client will work with ACHD to see if we can get consent from them to -- to
further the multi-use pathway to the east over to Eagle Road. Let's see. We are -- the
vacuums that this company uses actually include the mufflers, so that will be a perfect
way to comply with staff's recommendation and otherwise they have been working with
-- they are -- I believe that they are under contract to purchase the property from the
Water Rock development. So, they have been working with that Hotel Group pretty
closely to determine what they would need and they are -- they are good with the
recommendations that city staff is recommending. So, these are the building elevations
which Sonya showed you. We actually initially submitted a certificate the zoning
compliance and design review application, because this is a principally permitted use,
not realizing there was an ordinance that was applicable. So, we spoke with staff, they
recommended we come in and modify the development agreement just to make sure
that all the provisions are current and reflect current code and our current proposal. So,
we are in agreement with the staff report and the conditions and I will stand for
questions if you have them.
Simison: Thank you, Stephanie. And I don't know if this question is for you or for Sonya
or if I just missed it, but what's proposed to the east of this property? This doesn't go all
the way over to Eagle Road based upon the Oraview. That can remain vacant?
Hopkins: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I can answer that question.
Simison: Okay.
Hopkins: It's -- yeah, it's actually ACHD property directly to the east. So, we utilize the
two acres that are outlined in yellow as fully as we could and to the east of where you
Meridian City Council
March 12,2024
Page 13 of 66
see the drive out kind of curving up to the north is just vacant, because it's ACHD
property. If they want to expand the -- the -- or the roadway there.
Simison: Okay. That's -- is it planned in the five -- in the long term to be expanded?
Kind of wondering what we are going to end up with long term in this location if we are
not going to have any access anyways, it just kind of -- no disrespect to ACHD, it's a
wonderful dirt lot for a lot of campaign signs that people put up, but it would be nice if it
wasn't just a vacant dirt parcel for the next 30 years, but I don't see what else you could
do with it, since there won't be any access to it.
Hopkins: Mr. Mayor, I agree. I think it's just one of those -- it's a piece of ground that
they have held to make sure that if they need to expand Eagle Road there or possibly
add more stacking for right turns that -- it would available. I --
Simison: It's a lot of land. Is there a chance so you guys could purchase some land
and shift your buildings -- I'm sure you would love more corner frontage then -- I don't
know that we can solve this tonight, but it's going to be a long term eyesore if -- under
this scenario. That's my comment. Not a solution, so -- Council, any additional
comments, not solutions, for the applicant?
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: Yeah. If this wasn't already annexed it's a different conversation perhaps, but
that ship has sailed. The parcel itself is already in the city. Stephanie, are there any -- I
missed it if it's in the -- in the application, but are there any left-ins or left-outs on
Franklin from this?
Hopkins: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Borton, no. The only access will be via Olson Avenue.
The driveway that we are proposing is going --
Borton: I guess that's what I mean. Left-in to Olson or left-out of Olson.
Hopkins: Correct. I'm not remembering offhand. I believe that we are proposing a left-
in, which is one of the -- or left-out, which is one of the reasons that ACHD had to
modify their policy. Our access is a little bit closer to Franklin than they would normally
permit. So, that was something we worked with ACHD staff on to kind of coordinate.
Maybe Sonya remembers or has the staff report handy.
Borton: I thought it would be a right-in, right-out, but their condition allows a left-out or a
left-in of this?
Meridian City Council
March 12,2024
Page 14 of 66
Allen: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Borton, I believe ACHD approved a full access. I don't
believe there was any restrictions associated with it. They did approve, as Stephanie
said, a modification to policy to allow the proposed access.
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: Just curious, how -- how close is -- like how close is it from the too close? It
just seems interesting that --
Allen: I can look it up, if you would like to know what's in the ACHD report.
Borton: I'm just curious if it's, you know, five feet or --
Hopkins: Thank you, Sonya. I don't remember. I think -- Mr. Mayor, Councilman
Borton, I believe it's 20 feet or something like that, but don't quote me, I can't remember
for sure.
Borton: But they have approved it. Okay. That's good, Sonya. I'm just --just curious if
it's a matter of feet. A nominal amount. It seems oftentimes that type of request is
denied.
Hopkins: Yes.
Borton: Thank you.
Simison: Council, any additional questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you.
Hopkins: Thank you.
Simison: Mr. Clerk, any signed up on this item?
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, no.
Simison: Okay. Is there anybody present who would like to provide testimony on this
item, either in the audience or online -- if you are online you can use the raise your hand
feature. Come on forward. If you can state your name and address be recognized for
three minutes.
Billaud: Hi. My name is Laurie Billaud. 192 West Lockhart Lane, Meridian, Idaho. Just
heard about this. I think it's a wonderful idea. I do have concerns with the left-hand turn
lane right before Eagle. That seems like it's a -- an accident waiting to happen and I
also agree with you that maybe instead of an impact fee type of situation that they can
put in that they need to do low growing shrubs and some type of -- something there
that's low -- like little to no maintenance, so at least it keeps the city looking nice.
Meridian City Council
March 12,2024
Page 15 of 66
Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Would the applicant like to make any
final comments? Applicant waives.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: Happy to kick off the discussion. It's already a permitted use. It feels like a
new DA agreement makes good sense. I thought staff's proposed mitigations for the
extended stay hotel made good sense. I share the concern about the left-out so close
to Eagle Road, but, you know, we are not -- we are not the authority that determines
that. I am very surprised it was granted approval though, just based on what we have
seen. It doesn't feel like, you know, the city has a role in discussing that further, unless -
- I know ACHD is here, if they just wanted to throw it out if they had comments about
that particular aspect.
Inselman: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, for the record Kristy Inselman, planning
supervisor with ACHD. So, this particular application -- that access on Olson is existing.
When we looked at this application it was specifically for the new driveway access that
they were asking for, so we didn't address the existing full movement on Franklin, but
did a quick measurement on my computer and it's about 760 feet from the intersection
from Eagle to Olson and our -- for a full access it's 660. So, they are over a hundred
feet away from a full access that would be allowed on an arterial.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: Thank you. We appreciate that. It was very enlightening. Thank you.
Simison: Kristy, any chance that we can get anything done with that corner long term?
Is that a conversation you can take back to -- because I mean even if he made a
retention pond, at least you put landscaping kind of around those.
Inselman: Mr. Mayor, I'm happy to take that back to my leadership if there is a request
for that. I did also check quickly on our 20 year plan and this intersection is not in there.
That doesn't mean that there is not potential for that to be widened in the future, but I'm
happy to take something back to my leadership. I don't get paid the big bucks to make
that decision this evening.
Simison: Thank you.
Taylor: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Taylor.
Meridian City Council
March 12,2024
Page 16 of 66
Taylor: I was always wondering what could possibly be put at this location. So, I'm glad
to see there is a good use and I love a good carwash and I would think that if you are
going to invest the kind of resources to put a carwash in, you know how many cars are
going through there and how many trips you can get in there. So, I think it's a good -- a
good project. I would make a motion to close the public hearing.
Little Roberts: Second.
Simison: Have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Is there any
discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it
and the public hearing is closed.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Parsons: Mr. Mayor, if I -- this is Bill. May have a moment? Had a chance to talk with
the applicant a little bit more. I have asked her to also go back to her client and see if
they would entertain entering into a license agreement with ACHD to incorporate that
corner into their design or at least agree to maintain it as they operate their business.
So, that is an opportunity where that discussion could maybe happen and we could get
some type of improvement on there, at least have it maintained, so it does enhance the
overall corner in that area.
Simison: Thank you. I think it will be a benefit to the business as much as anything
else.
Taylor: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Mr. Taylor. Councilman Taylor.
Taylor: For a motion for approval, I would move to approve File No. H-2023-0064 as
presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 12th, 2024.
Little Roberts: Second.
Simison: Have a motion and a second to approve Item H-2023-0064. Is there
discussion on the motion? If not --
Allen: Mr. Mayor, may I clarify? Did -- was that motion intended to include Mr. Parsons'
comments about a license agreement? Just clarifying your motion, please. Thank you.
Taylor: A revised motion. Mayor Simison.
Simison: Councilman Taylor.
Taylor: I move to approve File No. H-2023-0064 with a modification for the potential for
a license agreement for that parcel. Does that work?
Meridian City Council
March 12,2024
Page 17 of 66
Simison: Second agree for discussion? And I guess I'm going to turn to legal counsel.
I mean is -- are we asking -- just for clarification. If they don't do a license agreement
that's okay in that motion.
Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, that's the way I took it. This was just simply
a direction for them to do that, not a requirement for them to move forward. Just to
have an agreement.
Simison: Just so everyone's on the same page moving forward, so -- okay. All right.
And we have second agrees as part of the discussion. If not, Clerk call the roll.
Roll Call: Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Strader, yea; Overton, absent; Little Roberts, yea;
Taylor, yea.
Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is agreed to. Thank you and good luck.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
3. Public Hearing for Stonehill Church (H-2023-0041) by Stonehill
Church, located at 799 W. Amity Rd.
A. Request: Development Agreement Modification to the exiting
Development Agreement (H-2015-0019, Inst. #2016-007090) to
allow for the development of a church on a portion of the property
and removal of that property from the original agreement for
inclusion in a new agreement.
B. Request: Rezone of 13.36 acres of land from R-4 to R-8 zoning
district.
C. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a church on 13.09 acres of
land in an R-8 zoning district.
D. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 4 building lots on 65.43
acres of land in the R-4 and R-8 zoning district.
Simison: Okay. Next up is Item 3, a public hearing for Stonehill Church, H-2023-0041.
We will open this public hearing with staff comments.
Allen: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. The next application before you
is a request for a development agreement modification, a rezone, a preliminary plat and
a conditional use permit. This site consists of 65.43 acres of land. It's zoned R-4 and is
located at 799 West Amity Road on the south side of Amity midway between Meridian
and Linder Roads. This property was part of the area included in the south Meridian
annexation area in 2015. A development agreement exists for this property that
requires an amendment to the agreement prior to any future development on the site.
Meridian City Council
March 12,2024
Page 18 of 66
The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is low density residential.
The applicant is requesting a modification to the existing agreement to allow for the
development of a church on the northeast portion of the property and removal of that
property from the original agreement for inclusion in a new agreement just for the
church property. The remainder of the property will continue to be governed by the
existing development agreement. A rezone of 13.36 acres of land is proposed from the
R-4 to the R-8 zoning district for the development of a church, which requires a
conditional use permit in the R-8 district. A preliminary plat is proposed consisting of
four building lots on 65.43 acres of land in the R-4 and R-8 zoning districts for Stonehill
Crossing Subdivision. The preliminary plat is proposed to develop in one phase. The
reason the property is proposed to be subdivided at this time is to create a lot for the
church to develop on the remainder of the site. Except for the lot where the existing
home is located to the south of the proposed church is proposed to be resubdivided in
the future prior to development. Transportation improvements proposed for the
subdivision consists of construction of a collector street from Amity Road to the southern
boundary of the site and a roundabout at the Amity collector street intersection in accord
with the master street map and the widening of Amity Road. The church is proposed to
develop on Lot 1, Block 1, and that is this lot right here, if you can see my cursor. The
existing home on the east side of the proposed collector street is proposed to remain on
Lot 2, Block 1, and that is this slide right here. Lot 3, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2, are
proposed as mega lots to be further resubdivided in the future prior to development and
that is this whole area here and this area here. Another existing home on the west side
of the collector street is proposed to remain for the time being on Lot 1, Block 2, and
that is in this general area right here. Access is proposed for Lot 1, Block 1, the church,
via two driveway accesses from the collector street and an emergency only access
driveway from Amity Road. The existing home on the east side of the collector is
proposed to be accessed temporarily through the church property. Subsequent access
is proposed from a local street at the east boundary via a flag. The UDC limits access
points to collector and arterial streets to improve safety and ensure that motorists can
safely enter all streets, unless otherwise waived by City Council. Further, the UDC
requires all subdivisions to provide local street access to any use that currently takes
direct access from an arterial or collector street. For this reason staff recommends a
local street is provided between the church and the existing home to provide access to
both uses and the accesses via the collector are removed. So, again, this is the
existing home. The church. This is where the local street is proposed right through
here. The applicant is requesting approval of a waiver from Council for the two
proposed accesses via the collector street. A temporary access is proposed via the
collector street for the existing home on the west side of the collector street, since no
development is proposed on that lot at this time. If that home was retained in the future
resubdivision -- excuse me -- retained with the future resubdivision, local street access
should be provided. The applicant does have a concept drawing that they are going to
present tonight that shows only one access to the collector and a local street as
recommended by staff between these two lots. The Caulkins Lateral lies on the western
portion of this site within a 56 foot wide easement and the Bell sub lateral lies along the
east boundary of the southern portion of this site within a 50 foot wide easement, 25
feet on each side. A 25 foot wide street buffer is required along Amity Road and a 20
Meridian City Council
March 12,2024
Page 19 of 66
foot buffer is required along the collector street landscaped per UDC standards. A ten
foot wide detached sidewalk is required long Amity and a five foot wide detached
sidewalk is required along the collector street. A ten foot wide multi-use pathway is
required along the Caulkins Lateral in accord with the pathways master plan. The
applicant is requesting deferral of several improvements typically required with a re --
excuse me -- with a subdivision until such time as Lot 3, Block 1, and Lot 1, Block 2, is
resubdivided in the future as follows. And, again, that's this whole area west of the
collector street and this lot right here around the existing home south of the church. So,
these are the items requested for deferral. Street buffer landscaping and a ten foot
wide sidewalk along Amity Road west of the collector street. The multi-use pathway
along the Caulkins Lateral. Open space and site amenities for the residential
development. Piping or improving the laterals that cross this site as a water amenity or
linear open space. And closing of the existing farm access and irrigation district access
by Amity Road west of the collector street. A conditional use permit is proposed for a
52,000 square foot church on 13.09 acres of land in an R-8 zoning district. Compliance
with the specific use standards in the UDC for church uses is required. The church is
proposed to develop in two phases as shown on the phasing plan. The first phase will
consist of approximately 40,000 square feet and the second phase will consist of
approximately 12,000 square feet. Access to the site will be determined by the --
excuse me -- with the associated preliminary plat by the city and ACHD. Off-street
parking is required in accord with UDC standards. A minimum of 104 spaces are
required, approximately 710 spaces are proposed at build out. Conceptual building
elevations were submitted for the proposed two story structure as shown. Building
materials consist of a mix of stucco, vertical rough sawn architectural wall panels and
corrugated painted metal panels in horizontal orientation. These elevations have not
been reviewed for compliance with the design standards in the architectural standards
manual and are not approved with this application. Review will take place with submittal
of the design review application with the certificate of zoning compliance application
prior to submittal of a building permit application. The Commission recommended
approval of these applications. I will now go through a summary of the Commission
hearing. John Rennison, Rennison Design, the applicant's representative, testified in
favor. No one testified in opposition or commented on the application. Written
testimony was received from the applicant John Rennison. Key issues. There were
really -- really no items of discussion. There was no public testimony. Key issues of
discussion by the Commission were as follows: The applicant's request for deferral of
improvements typically required with the subdivision. The applicant's request for
removal of the Condition No. 2.1 G requiring a local street to be provided between Lots 1
and 2, Block 1, for access to the church and existing residents. The Commission did
not make any changes to the staff recommendation. There are a few outstanding
issues for Council tonight as follows: The applicant's request for deferral of certain
improvements typically required with the subdivision as I noted. The applicant's request
for removal of Condition 2.1 G requiring a local street to be provided between Lots 1 and
2, Block 1, for access to the church and existing residents. As I mentioned, the
applicant does have a concept drawing that he is going to present to you tonight that
does show that local street and from what I understand they are willing to put that in
tonight. And, then, finally, the applicant's request for a waiver to UDC 11-3A-3A1 to
Meridian City Council
March 12,2024
Page 20 of 66
allow one access via South Oak Briar Way, the collector street. No written testimony
has been received since the Commission hearing and the applicant is here to present
tonight. Thank you.
Simison: Thank you, Sonya. Council, any questions for staff? Okay. Thank you very
much. Would the applicant like to come forward? Good evening. Can you state your
name and address for the record, please?
Rennison: John Rennison at 2025 East Riverside Drive in Eagle. Thanks very much
for the opportunity to visit with you guys. A little too -- if you can't hear me here I will
step up. Okay. Well, Sonya, thank you very much. She pretty much covered it. There
are just a couple things that we sort of have outstanding. I want to take a few minutes
go over them with you and orient orientate you a little bit and -- and we can delve in just
a little bit and, then, we will -- I also want to let you know that Doug Connelly is here
tonight also. He wanted to say a few things after we cover the technical stuff. He is the
pastor of the church. Okay? We would like that opportunity as soon as we are done
talking about the technical stuff. So, let's see. If we could hit access first it would be
great. Sonya, if you could pull up the -- that little exhibit we worked on today. Yep.
Perfect. Okay. So, to clarify the access, one, so the original design here that we did
that we produced is -- is to -- well, let me step -- step back a couple things. A couple
steps here for you guys. So, this piece of property has been graciously donated to the
church and we have been working for a couple of years here to get to where we are in
front of you guys tonight. One of the catalysts for the -- for the -- to get the church going
here is, obviously, the rezone, we need that and CUP for the church, but also the
preliminary plat and with the preliminary plat comes the rest of the typical subdivision
improvements. One of them is the build -- the request was to build collect a road that
runs kind of north-south through the development. It starts at Amity and then -- and
goes to -- clear to the southern end of the property. So, one of -- kind of your typical
requirements. So, we are okay with that. And, then, in designing the access to the site
we wouldn't, of course, take direct assets off of Amity, but rather off of the collector. So,
with the church parcel being so large, you know, it encompasses, you know, the -- the
northeast quadrant of his overall development moreover and so we border really Amity
Road and the collector road. So, there is really not another option for us really, but to
take access to the collector road and so on number one here where it says full access
driveway -- so, our request still stands. Can we -- could you guys give us a waiver to
allow us to -- allow the church to have direct access to the collector road at that
location? Okay? So, that's one. Our original request was to take a secondary access
to the church and for the church only at location number two on the map here. Okay?
So, that one, in working with Sonya, she said, hey, we really -- you know, we really need
or prefer to have local street access to collectors and so at this location it would
probably be better if we considered a local roadway and make some kind of local
roadway improvements, have the church take access to the local roadway and, then, to
the collector. Okay? So, when we were at P&Z at that time we said, hey, we are not
quite sure that we wanted to have a roadway right there between the existing house and
the church and so at that time we made a -- we made an -- a suggestion for another
way to deal with this, which was -- Sonya, do you happen to have that exhibit that we
Meridian City Council
March 12,2024
Page 21 of 66
did at the P&Z? That one had the flag lot access? While she is looking for that there is
the -- in your staff report, Item 5 -- that's 5-B -- there is two 5-13s. The bottom one. It
talks about a flag lot access to the existing residence on Lot 2, Block 1 , coming off of
that cul-de-sac. So, that's what we suggested as an alternative for -- and if we don't
have that exhibit that's okay, but we threw out an idea to P&Z and P&Z said, you know, I
think we are going to punt on this issue. We might like to see a road. So, we have
talked internally with the church and -- and together with -- with the property owner to
the south and have just concluded where they could put this roadway in and do what we
just kind of covered, which is extend the roadway to the east side of the -- of the -- of
the existing residential lot that would remain -- take access through the -- to the local
road from the church. So, that's kind of where we stand. I wanted to bring that other
option up in case you guys thought that other option would be a better idea. We are
good with either at this point. Okay? So, be clear with that. So, any questions on the
access?
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: I will try to track. I would love to see it. See, the condition, I see the narrative
in 5-B.
Rennison: Yeah. That's the last item.
Taylor: Yeah. It looks -- there we go.
Rennison: So, this is -- so, the concept -- I will explain this one. It's worthy of a few
minutes. So, the idea here was that we would -- the primary access to the church would
be to the collector and only for the church use; right? And -- and, then, the existing
home would -- would temporarily take access through the church parcel and, then, on to
the collector. Okay? And when the rest of the property develops -- understand we are
not building the rest of the subdivision and we are not really here to talk about that, to
be clear, but this map shows, you know, a -- an idea of how it could develop into a
residential subdivision and at that time, then, the -- the -- the existing home could take
access through the cul-de-sac there on Street K. That was the idea and that was the --
it's an idea still on the table, frankly, if you guys thought that might be a better way to go.
We are open to either one. We can either punch a local road through or we could
pursue something that looks more like this. We are good either way.
Simison: And the yellow on the east side of the church property is that to allow access
to that road at that point in time as well?
Rennison: Correct.
Simison: Okay. Council, any questions or comments on that at this time?
Meridian City Council
March 12,2024
Page 22 of 66
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: Sonya, can you comment on the slide that's on the screen. Trying to track the
staff report comments, concerns.
Allen: Yeah. Staff -- staff isn't necessarily against this plan, but it will require a waiver
from Council for two accesses to a collector street and our code requires that access be
taken from a local street, unless otherwise waived by Council.
Borton: Okay.
Allen: So, it would -- it would require that existing home lot to be modified to include a
flag on it.
Rennison: And, of course, we understand, you know, those issues and, like I said, I
think we are good either way, whatever the Council's desire would be on this topic we
can -- we will go that direction. So, very -- at a minimum we do need the waiver for the
north access point that is crucial for the development. So, we would appreciate
consideration of that. Very good. Then I want to just touch on the deferral items.
Okay? So, we have -- again, the subdivision here is precipitated by the need to, you
know, get a lot for the church parcel and so the discussion -- with early planning
discussion with staff was that, well, maybe we will go ahead and plat the entire property.
You know, as the church -- church lot, the lot for the home and, then, sort of the couple
jumbo lots, right, to really -- before we come back to you folks to -- for reconsideration
on how they -- how they get developed. And, then, at that time, of course, you would
have the opportunity to continue to work on all the rest of the normal requirements for
standard subdivision improvements; right? So, some of the waivers we are asking for,
the typical residential subdivision amenities, some of those things. The -- the other
waiver we are requesting for a deferral, if you will. Not really a waiver; right? Just like --
I mean thank you for pointing that out. Not a waiver. A deferral. The frontage
improvements on Amity; right? So, this project intends to fully complete its frontage for
the church parcel on Amity. So, meet all the standard requirements for landscaping,
sidewalks, et cetera. We will build all those once we get to the -- the -- I never
remember the -- never remember the name of that lateral. The Caulkins Lateral. Once
we get to that and further west we would like to defer those improvements. So, they --
basically, they could be done at the time the subdivision -- or further subdivision on that
side of the lateral. So, all this subdivision deferral items -- there is -- there is not that
many, but there is a few. We would like those deferred at this time, if you could, please,
consider that. Noted on 5-13 for outstanding issues for the Council to consider -- at the
very last sentence of that Sonya did note that, you know, sort of another alternative
would be to phase the plat. So, again, we thought it would be okay to sort of plat the
whole property as a jumbo lot, allow them to come back for resubdivision with you folks
to look at it and that's why we are doing the deferral. To avoid the deferrals we could
Meridian City Council
March 12,2024
Page 23 of 66
phase this subdivision. So, it's kind of a choice point there. Right now our application in
front of you is for deferral and plat the whole property.
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: On that point which is easier to track, a deferral or phase to ensure the
improvements are put in at the right time? If there is an easy -- if one is easier than the
other.
Allen: A deferral is fine to include provisions for such in a development agreement. It
doesn't matter really. Either way. Same result. Thank you.
Rennison: Are you good? So, that's the main discussion on the deferral items. I just
wanted to point those out and be super clear with you guys how that all came about so
you know and, then, you know, the last item -- or I guess got a couple more items. One
I want to just clarify that we are aware of the -- the roundabout that would -- that would
occur at Amity and the intersection of our collector road Oak Briar Way and we are -- we
are dedicating -- they are intended to dedicate the right of way for that and so -- so
that's -- that -- the right of way portion is taken care of and, of course, the -- the
improvements -- you know, we are accommodating those already in our site design for
this project. Okay? Let's see. Then the next item -- I just wanted to address the sewer
for you guys. The sewer -- sanitary sewer. So, we have been -- we have a plan and it's
actionable and we have been working with Hawkins Companies, who owns the property
at this southwest corner and northwest corner of Amity and Meridian. Okay. There is --
I believe there is applications that are live -- for Syringa Crossing. If I have the name
right. And so I have been -- I have been working with Paul Stevens at Hawkins for, oh,
probably a couple of years on this working on that -- to plan -- to master plan the sewer
and, you know, really working with city engineering staff to plan the sewer. This
property happens to be right on a sewer shed, so west of the Caulkins wants to go drain
to the -- to the west and, then, this property, the church probably, really wants to drain to
the east and so it really drains back to the -- the Hawkins property. So, it's well planned,
it's coming together, worked with Paul, we have a program in hand on how we will get
access to the sewer. It needs to be constructed through them to Amity and, then, up
Amity -- Amity to our project. So, we are prepared to undertake that work and there is
an e-mail on record from Paul Stevens that sort of identifies that, so that issue is
handled and, then, I believe that's all I want to cover technically. Next I want to
introduce Doug Connelly to come up and say a few things. Before I do that, though,
want to ask if I can address any other technical questions.
Simison: Council, any additional questions at this time? Thank you.
Rennison: Thank you. Have Doug come up.
Simison: Good evening, Doug.
Meridian City Council
March 12,2024
Page 24 of 66
Connelly: Good evening, Mr. Mayor and Council Members. City staff. Thank you,
Sonya, for all the hard work you guys have done and we do appreciate that. Again, my
name is Doug Connelly, I'm the lead pastor at Stonehill Church, and we are meeting at
Mountain View High School and we are about eight years old and it's just -- it's a
blessing to be in Meridian. We love this community. I live here. And we are excited for
this building for -- for many reasons. One, obviously, for our congregants and the
people that attend Stonehill and just very blessed to have a place where we can kind of
put a stake in the ground and say this is where we are, we are staying, even though we
are eight years old, but just to let the community know we are here. But also we just
want to continue to be a light to our community and to serve and to share one of our --
one of our core values as Stonehill church is that we love our community and we are
about our local community and so we do our best to serve and do things and resource
as much as we possibly can to help the city and the Treasure Valley and we believe that
with this building we are going to be able to do more of that and to be able have a home
base to be able to do that. So, we can't wait for that. We also -- I live in south Meridian
and I also know there is not a lot of meeting places in south Meridian, a lot of places it's
new, it's growing, a lot of houses are coming in as you know. So, we also seized an
opportunity to be able to be a place for the community, to -- not just for our church, but
for the surrounding community and so I know there is houses going up all around and
as he said before, we have been waiting on sewer and you guys know this, I have
talked to many of you about this. We have been waiting for sewer it feels like forever,
but we are so thankful for the opportunity and our path forward in this and so, again,
thank you for the opportunity tonight. We are excited. We can't wait to see what's going
to happen and -- and we really appreciate you and this committee. Thank you.
Simison: Thank you, Pastor. Council, any questions? Just right on cue is Mr. Stewart
walks in. I'm sure he is just here to talk about the wonderful sewer plans for this
property. That wasn't one you -- you really don't need to talk, unless you want to. All
right. Mr. Clerk, did we have anyone signed up on this item?
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we did not.
Simison: Okay. Is there anybody present that would like to provide testimony on this
item, either in the room or online? And seeing nobody that would like to provide
testimony, Council, would you like to have any further conversations or comments
before we ask the applicant if they want to make any final comments?
Little Roberts: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Member Little Roberts.
Little Roberts: Mr. Mayor, I just feel like I should put it on record that I do attend
Stonehill. Doug and I had some early early conversations prior to my being on Council,
just mostly giving direction regarding who he could talk to at the city and -- but I feel
where I'm not involved in the operations, haven't been involved in anything that I can be
fair and -- and make a clear decision.
Meridian City Council
March 12,2024
Page 25 of 66
Simison: Thank you. I have attended Stonehill and I watch online quite frequently from
that standpoint and I have had several conversations about sewer particularly so it was
great to see that that issue has a path forward. But have no relationship otherwise.
Okay. Would the applicant like to make any final comments at this time?
Rennison: I need to grab my pen that I left up here, but I do want to just open myself up
for any other questions if you need to have any clarity. If you need clarity on anything.
But, otherwise, I will take a seat.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: Would you mind going through the plan to build the local street? I think we
went through the flag idea briefly in detail, but I don't know, Sonya, if you are able to pull
up that slide. I think it's -- the flag idea is fresh in our minds. We can sort of compare it.
Rennison: Yeah. Happy to. I will wait for the slide to arrive if that's okay. No pressure.
So, with the -- maybe I will open it up, but while she is pulling that back up. The local
street -- you know, there was a couple -- there are a few little complications with it. Not
to say we can't work through them, but there is a fairly significant gray differential
between the residential, the home, and the -- where the church property is there is --
there is an embankment there and -- and, then, there would just be a road right between
the house and -- and the church. So, that's really the core reasons why we are offering
an alternative to not building a road there, was to be able to just -- I like the design
better personally and we felt that we could address, you know, substantively, the -- does
it meet the design intent by taking access south -- to the collector road south of the
existing home and so those are really the core reasons why we are asking for an
alternative here. Now, you know, staff had commented, hey, we are asking for waivers
for two roads -- or two access points to a collector and thus, then, we said, okay, you
know, we can -- we certainly need one, because we really don't have another alternative
to -- to that one -- to the northerly one, but the southerly one, you know, a road could be
built there and so it would -- it would basically just, you know, create an intersection
there, would stub out -- the road out to a point where it would be on the eastern side of
the proposed Lot 2, Block 1, which is the existing house and, then, we would put in a
temporary -- or a sort of -- a Fire Department turnaround of some sort. We still need to
perfect that. But there would be a design that would, you know, pass everybody's
approval and there would be some sort of turnaround and, then, we would probably
likely enter the -- the church property -- church parcel from that -- that turnaround and
so we would need to redesign the church a little bit here. Of course, the full design of
the church -- and we will be -- we will be back to discuss that and design for CZC and
so forth. But right now it's just -- the conditional use permit is for -- just the use, right,
and so I wouldn't get hung up on, you know, can we accommodate the design with the
road. We can, you know, if we -- if we needed to, it's just that, you know, the other --
there is two alternatives and in the future, again, for this alternative, the -- the road
would stub probably further south and that's what the dashed lines are with -- a road
Meridian City Council
March 12,2024
Page 26 of 66
would stub south and tie into this future local street that would be planned and so that
would be the -- you, know how the traffic would flow. To answer that.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: Yeah. I think I understand what you are saying. So, you build the local street
here toward where the fire turnaround is and, then, the extension would come later in a
different phase it sounds like.
Rennison: Yes.
Strader: Yeah, just run -- Mr. Mayor, if you will permit me to make a comment. Yeah.
What I like about this design is it feels a little more connected to me, compared to kind
of just adding a flag and, then, not -- you kind of have two different disconnected pieces
of the ultimate subdivision if you look at the property as a whole. So, I -- you know,
that's just one piece of feedback. I -- I personally am leaning toward a local street. I
just -- I think it will result in a more connected neighborhood. So, I appreciate -- you
know, that's important to me. I don't know how other Council Members feel, but I
appreciate the -- the flexibility around trying to accomplish that.
Rennison: Very good. Yeah. And, again, you know, we are -- we wanted to develop
this idea, so we had choices and so, really, again, we are -- we are good either way.
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: To that point I think Council Woman Strader is spot on. I -- I tend to agree and,
John, you do a great job. The ability to provide this flexibility. The local street. The
policy that we have. You can meet it. It's there for a purpose. I don't think it
necessitates waiving it. Having two accesses understandably seems appropriate, too.
But I tend to agree that the local street of the two options is probably the better long-
term solution, understanding that you will make some adjustments to make that work.
So, just my thoughts on -- for and hearing the testimony today and the deferral -- if it
doesn't make a difference I understand the reason for the deferral and I don't have any
concern over that request as well. It seems appropriate in this circumstance, so --
Rennison: That sounds great.
Borton: Good work.
Rennison: Thank you very much.
Taylor: Mr. Mayor?
Meridian City Council
March 12,2024
Page 27 of 66
Simison: Councilman Taylor.
Taylor: Yeah. As I -- it's kind of interesting that they presented two options that you
could live with and let us choose. I'm not sure I want to be in that position, but I'm going
to agree with Council Woman Strader. I -- in looking at the two back and forth it seems
like it's a better -- better approach and I like that very much, so -- also just -- I think it's
great to have a church in this area. I appreciate it. Pastor, your comments about it kind
of being a community center free for the city, but it's a great place for congregating and
gathering, so I think that's -- grateful to see that going up there. But, yeah, I think it's a
good -- good project.
Simison: Council, any additional questions or comments with the applicant? Okay.
Thank you.
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: If there is no further discussion or questions -- well, maybe there is going to be
discussion, but we will do step one and close the public hearing on H-2023-0041.
Strader: Second.
Simison: Have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Is there any
discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it
and the public hearing is closed.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: This application as presented -- again, John's done a great job. It's the right
use in the right spot. I think it fits, it makes sense and is going to be a -- certainly an
asset to the -- this area of our community. The DA modification and the CUP all seems
to fit and the conditions are appropriate. So, staff's done a great job in outlining it. My
thought on the -- the items at issue, I think the waiver of the two accesses on Oak Briar
is -- is appropriate as noted. The deferral of the improvements in 5-B in the staff report,
that staff's indicated they can manage and address also seems appropriate under these
circumstances and the local street option being the second access to Oak Briar that's
presented -- it's actually on the screen now -- would be the appropriate second access
as presented, rather than the flag lot option. So, I think those were the outstanding
issues before us and would be inclined to approve it with those responses to the -- to
the conditions.
Meridian City Council
March 12,2024
Page 28 of 66
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: If that was a motion I would second the motion.
Borton: It was just -- I didn't want to rush discussion. Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: I move we approve H-2023-0041, inclusive of the deferral and conditions as
addressed in my comments just moments ago.
Strader: Second.
Simison: Have a motion and a second. That works for staff the way Mr. Borton did
that? Okay.
Borton: We good?
Simison: All right. Is there discussion on the motion? If not, Clerk will call the roll.
Roll Call: Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Strader, yea; Overton, absent; Little Roberts, yea;
Taylor, yea.
Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is agreed to. Thank you very much and
good luck on the next phase.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
4. Public Hearing for Avani Neighborhood (H-2023-0049) by Conger
Group, located at Southeast of Franklin Rd. and Black Cat, North of I-
84.
A. Request: Annexation of 35.086 acres of land from RUT to the R-15
(Medium High Density Residential) zoning district.
B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 256 buildable lots and 25
common lots on 33.71 acres of land in the proposed R-15 zoning
district.
Simison: Council, need to take a break or are we ready to go? All right. We will keep
going. All right. With that we will move on to Item 4, which is a public hearing for Avani
Neighborhood, H-2023-0049. We will open this public hearing with staff comments.
Meridian City Council
March 12,2024
Page 29 of 66
Hersh: Good evening, Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council. The applicant is here to
present their project for Avani Neighborhood. The applications that are before you are
for annexation and zoning and preliminary plat. The site consists of 33.71 acres of land,
zoned RUT in Ada county, located at the southeast corner of Franklin Road and Black
Cat, north of 1-84. History on the property is none. The Comprehensive FLUM
designation is medium high density residential. The applicant proposes to annex
35.214 acres of land with an R-15 zoning district, which is listed in the zoning district
compatibility matrix in the Ten Mile Area Plan as one of the best choices for the zoning
in the medium high density residential designation. The property is designated medium
high density residential in the future land use map and is located within the area known
as the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan. Medium high density residential areas
are recommended to develop primarily with relatively dense multi-family housing, such
as row houses, townhouses, condominiums and apartments. Not all single family
attached and detached homes as proposed by the applicant. These areas should have
a mix of housing types that achieve an overall average density target -- target rate of 12
dwelling units per acre, with densities ranging from eight to 15 units per acre. The
proposed development incorporates a mix of single family attached and single family
detached homes resulting in an overall gross density of 7.59 units per acre and
consistent with the target density desired and, then, medium high density residential
FLUM designation for the Ten Mile Area Plan. Townhomes should be included in this
development to be more consistent with the plan. However, the property to the east has
approval to construct a 515 unit multi-family development to offset the need for
additional multi-family in the area. Mixed employment areas are also entitled or in the
development process to the west, south and southeast. So, it is conceivable that this
development may provide additional housing options for these employment areas. The
Ten Mile Interchange Area is intended to look, feel and function differently than a typical
residential subdivision. It operates as a form based specific area plan. We will design
the built environment as the primary review element and is intended to work in
conjunction with the land use and zoning designations. These design elements should
not be treated as a checklist, but used to implement an overall vision and support a
traditional neighborhood design desired by the plan. Out of the 256 single family units
only ten are alley loaded. The others are all front loaded with the living area either at
the same plane or behind the garages away from the street. A few of the units have
usable porches that might meet the guidelines. No porches are proposed on the side
for kids. All units have single two car garages -- garage doors, not separate doors. The
proposed elevations do not meet the design criteria, but encouraged building entrances
to be situated close to the street primarily due to the garage dominated nature.
Elevations for the alley loaded units were not submitted with the application, making it
difficult for staff to determine if they comply with these guidelines. Staff believes that the
plat should incorporate more alley loaded lots. However, the applicant believes there
isn't a market for this type of housing and has elected to limit the number of alley loaded
homes to ten, which is inconsistent with the plan. Shorter block length and narrower
streets help build a greater sense of community. As proposed these lots are narrow and
garage dominated, creating more driveways and less treelined streets along the primary
streets, which contradicts the traditional neighborhood design principles. More alley
loaded homes would enhance the streetscape for this development and ground the front
Meridian City Council
March 12,2024
Page 30 of 66
porch to the primary street per the plan. Some of these design elements are not
required by the UDC as envisioned by the plan, therefore, the applicant requests that
the Council allows some deviation to these design elements. A preliminary plat is
proposed consisting of 256 lots -- building lots and 25 landscape lots, six common
driveways and two alleys and one nonbuildable lot on the 33.71 acres of land in the R-
15 zoning district and proposed lots -- lots range in size from 2,436 to 5,357 square feet,
with an average lot size of 3,584 square feet. The subdivision has proposed to develop
in three phases as shown in the preliminary plat. The applicant is currently
collaborating with the property owners directly to the south and east to complete the
collector street connection to Black Cat. The city desires to have the street dedicated
and constructed before residents occupy the homes in this development. A minimum of
seven points of site amenities are required based on the area of single family residential
development. Qualified amenities should include features listed in the UDC. A large
park that includes a children's playground with a play structure, swings, climbing rocks
and a climbing dome, seating benches within a safe fenced area, two pickle ball courts
and fenced dog park is proposed, which meets the minimum standard. A ten foot wide
regional pathway along that Black Cat Road and Vanguard Way consist of
approximately 2,500 linear feet. Additionally, the five foot micro pathway running north
and south on the east side of the property spans a thousand linear feet. Overall the
proposed amenities exceed the minimum standards. Staff recommended denial to
Commission of the proposed annexation and preliminary plat as proposed -- as the
proposed project does not align with the purpose and the intent of the Ten Mile Area
Plan as outlined in the analysis in staff's report in accordance with the findings. The
applicant has been -- has been made aware of staff's concerns and has elected to
forego some of staff's recommendations to gain a favorable recommendation. Staff's
repeated suggestions for the applicant to apply for a Comprehensive Plan amendment
to better align with the design criteria in the Ten Mile Area Plan -- the applicant showed
no interest in pursuing the recommendation. However, Council should rely on all
relevant information when determining if this project is consistent with the plan and open
to allowing deviations from design elements as desired by the applicant. City Council
recommended denial of the project. Summary from the city -- of the commission -- or
I'm sorry. Commission recommended denial of the project. Summary of the
Commission public hearing. In favor was Hethe Clark. In opposition there was none.
Commenting was Hethe Clark. Written testimony on this project was none. Key issues
were none. Key issue of discussion by Commission. Meeting the target density for the
project. Does the annexation request before the city fit the vision of the community and
what the city is trying to accomplish in this area. The spirit of the Ten Mile Area Plan is
to provide something different, not the same characteristics as you find everywhere else
in the city. The project lacks the design elements required within the Ten Mile Area
Plan. Condition changes to staff's recommendation were none. Outstanding issues
are none. Written testimony since Commission hearing are none. And that concludes
staff's presentation and I stand for any questions.
Simison: Thank you, Stacy. Council, any questions for staff?
Taylor: Mr. Mayor?
Meridian City Council
March 12,2024
Page 31 of 66
Simison: Councilman Taylor.
Taylor: Thank you. And, Stacy, I had one question. In the staff report it said there is --
there is no flexibility in the -- the design elements for the plan. Can you help me
understand -- it's -- if it's a comprehensive plan I understand it helps give us guidance
on how we want to see the city develop, but why is there no flexibility and what -- really
what does that mean? We say there is no flexibility in the design elements. Because it
seems like that sort of the crux of maybe the staff recommendations is how these -- how
it's, you know, being designed, being laid out. So, I just want to understand why we
would use those terms there is no flexibility and really what does that actually mean?
Hersh: Mayor, Councilman Taylor, so those words were actually written into the Ten
Mile Area plan exactly like that. So, staff included them in the report.
Parsons: So, Mayor, Council, I'm happy to elaborate a little bit more on that topic. If
you had a chance to -- if you read the plan where Stacy and I are in that plan quite a bit
with applicants, there is always -- I think as Stacy mentioned in her presentation to you
the Ten Mile Plan is supposed to be something different, something unique. A set of
guidelines and principles that all the landowners that develop in that area would adhere
to and follow and those would be the guiding principles that you, staff, the city would
use to guide development in that area. Now, we realize sometimes, as you heard in the
previous presentations tonight, sometimes things don't always align with everyone's
vision and the Comprehensive Plan is a visionary document. So, you have -- you have
to balance that policy versus code and that's what we try to do in our presentation and
our staff report, Commissioner -- or Councilman Taylor, is that we are trying to walk that
fine line. We realize we may not be able to hit all of those targets and meet that mark,
but we have to get closer than what's before you this evening and so that's why we
bring that to your attention. The idea was this area would be a form based design
concept out here, something different than our typical zoning ordinance that we have
and usually that's why you see such stringent requirements in our Ten Mile Area Plan
above the other comp plan policies, because we want these to be walkable. We want
these to be tree lined streets. We want narrower streets. This is -- this area is meant to
act as its own little mini city, not to leave the area and go home to your suburban home
in Meridian, it's for you to live, work, and play in this area. In order to do that you have
to have many of those design concepts that we have asked for in the staff report.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: I think what might be really helpful, if it's possible for planning staff, just
because we have newer members of Council and to refresh everybody's memory,
when was the Ten Mile Specific Area Plan approved? What was the process that we
went through? Certainly we have made some small exceptions to the Ten Mile Area
Plan since I have been on Council, but we have been very strict about adhering to the
Meridian City Council
March 12,2024
Page 32 of 66
plan, at least since I have been on. But maybe just sort of an overview of the process
that we went through.
Parsons: Mayor and Members of the Council, Council Woman Strader, happy to do
that. So, this plan was adopted in 2007. So, it was -- again, it was pretty ambitious.
That's -- when I started with the city, so it was just newly fresh to the city at that time
and through -- went through a rigorous process, a lot of stakeholders, a lot of
developers, a series of meetings over the years to get it right. Two year process to
adopt this plan. So, all of that context is found in the Comprehensive Plan and these
were the set of principles that everyone agreed to adhere to. Now, I would mention that
the plan did have other steps to follow after the adoption of the plan and that was to
amend the ordinance appropriately, come up with design concepts that could be
codified and I can tell you those changes have had -- have happened incrementally over
the years, so they weren't -- the comp plan wasn't necessarily adopted in 2007 and we
changed the code to align with all of those concepts. No. Over -- I think in 2009 we
actually approved two new zoning designations that came from that effort. That was the
ME zone and, then, the HE zone that is currently in the Comprehensive Plan now and,
then, over the years we have also updated our traditional -- or traditional neighborhood
districts to align with some of those design elements as well. Anyways, hopefully, that
gave you enough context as to -- I guess a little bit more for the Council. A lot of this
development hasn't occurred. It started in 2012. So, we actually adopted the plan in
2007 and now, with the help of Brighton and some of the ERD work that we did, we
were actually able to spur development in this area and now you can see that -- that
work coming to fruition based on all of those efforts that we put into that.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: Maybe just one follow up. Do you think, given that the plan was created
starting in 2007, now it's 2024, it's been a while, does it seem appropriate at some point
for us to circle back to the plan and update it more holistically? Like would you expect
that we would do a process like that?
Parsons: Mayor, Council Woman Strader? Absolutely. I think we have talked about it
internally as staff, because we certainly don't want to be up here debating what -- what
rules to apply and what policies apply and what doesn't apply. That's -- we are not in
the business of doing that. We want to present you facts, give you the right information
so you can make an informed decision. But we are in -- as some of you may or may not
be aware, there is a lot happening just in this section of Meridian currently with what's
happening to the south, to the east, even to the west and so whatever we are doing
here we want to be mindful of that and we want to make sure that those uses do align
with those policies and that vision and that's why we are taking such a hard stand on
this particular project this evening, because we have held everyone else to a higher
standard in this section and we just feel like this is the residential component that we
need to help that employment, in addition the housing in the area. So, we are pretty
Meridian City Council
March 12,2024
Page 33 of 66
passionate about it this evening, to be honest with you. We want this one to work and
we want it to be in alignment with those policies as much as possible.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: Thank you for your candid comments.
Taylor: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Taylor.
Taylor: Just to clarify. So, we haven't revised the design elements since it was adopted
in 2007; is that correct?
Parsons: That is correct.
Taylor: And, then, Mr. Mayor, if I may, a quick follow up.
Simison: Councilman Taylor.
Taylor: How many -- in this area how many other projects have come before Council for
approval that have kind of been subject to the same design elements?
Simison: Maybe the way -- how many acres of the plan, roughly, have been annexed
and put under these guidelines? Any idea? Are we 50 percent of the plan? Twenty-five
percent of the plan?
Parsons: Mayor, Members of the Council, I can probably sketch something out for you
real quick on GIS, but I don't have a number off the top of my head. But by the time this
project -- if this project to annex in and the adjacent properties, that -- everything south
of Franklin will be primarily in the city at that point, except for that southwest corner at
Franklin and Black Cat. So, it's a significant amount of acres and, then, when you look
at the north side of Franklin, that one's pretty much filled in at this point. I would say at
least 80 percent, if not 90 percent filled in on that -- that north side. So, it's -- it's
happening. It's -- and, then, we have industrial farther to the east and -- or to the west
and the only reason why that is not developing at this time is because of the sewer
challenges that we have in that area. It has to come down from McDermott. So, we
have -- we are talking -- I think the plan was of over two -- 2,800 acres and I think we
are probably close -- you know, at least a thousand or more acres that have been
developed under this plan. Back to your point, every project has been conditioned to
comply with the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan, but each development has a
different context and so it's not -- it's not easy for staff to say everything has to do this.
As you know, there is always specific challenges to each project that we review and
what we try to do -- whatever project we look at we look at the development context
Meridian City Council
March 12,2024
Page 34 of 66
around that development that's coming in and we try to match that as best we can and
try to be consistent in that process. So, when you look at the north side of Franklin you
will see a lot of the design theme and the same elements happening on that side and
where this may be a little bit different. I would also let Council know that the Baraya
development -- that is the Corey Barton Sub that is on the south side of Franklin and
currently built out, that was adopted and approved prior to the adoption of the Ten Mile
Plan. So, while you might not see some of those same elements in that development,
they did have alley loaded product, townhomes, multi-family and even single family in
that development in keeping with the spirit. At the time that that project was annexed it
was mentioned to the Council at the time that the city was in the effort of adopting the
Ten Mile Plan and they were held to some pretty specific design criteria in their
development agreement to align with that vision.
Simison: One other quick thing. I don't know if it's a question or a comment,
observation, but one of the things that has always struck me with the Ten Mile Area
Specific Plan, there always seems to be an interesting road interface with the
development. This one really doesn't have that. This is -- this is almost like a
standalone parcel. You don't have any of the collector roads that are going through it
which are creating in a lot of ways a connection to the rest of the development -- the
rest of the Ten Mile Area Specific Plan and I don't know if that was designed, lack of just
the placement of the parcel, but, you know, the way this one is presented it is almost a
standalone subdivision in a lot of ways and doesn't feel like it would be connected to the
other roads in the -- the traditional projects that we have seen. Any feedback,
comments, thoughts and maybe that's for the applicant as well in that context. But,
yeah, this one -- you could -- I can take this, put this in a place, because you don't have
that major intersection -- that major component like a lot of the other properties do in
this area.
Parsons: Yeah. Mayor, Members of the Council, it -- it's hard to see on this map here,
but what you don't see in some of the graphics is we do have plans -- plan to connect
into this and Stacy and I just actually preapp'd on that odd shape piece just along the
north boundary here where they are thinking about coming in and doing a medium high
density residential development and they are required to provide a collector road along
the south boundary of this project. So, you don't see that interface yet. But this -- this
property is bound by, essentially, two collector roads on each end to help tie in with that
integration with the plan and I know the adjacent property just to the east that is
approved for multi-family, just changed ownership and they intend on coming in and
presenting you a different plan in the future and so we are hoping -- if you had a chance
to look at the staff report we also encourage the applicant to stub a road to this
particular site. At least that was one of the comments we made in our staff report that
they think about stubbing a street to the eastern property, so that the two neighborhoods
could connect as well. So, we are trying to build that in as -- as this plan comes to
fruition, but we -- both the Commission and staff felt that it needed some more
refinement before we could recommend approval of it.
Meridian City Council
March 12,2024
Page 35 of 66
Simison: So. Maybe to ask a question is -- if the road was going through this property,
as compared to on two adjacent sides of the property, because that's -- that's what this
is. Basically the road network isolates this property in a lot of ways in my opinion,
compared to a lot of the other planned elements where you have to integrate the road
elements into it -- I'm not going to say you can't do that on the edges of these -- of this
project, but does it seem -- that's just what it seems like to me, is like here we are just
standing alone, we don't have to integrate. So, we didn't, because it's really not being
pushed on us, it's on the peripherals of our project. Just that when I'm looking at it that's
what I see, because it's just very much not like the other elements that we have seen
with larger parcels. I don't have an answer. Just a comment. It's -- Stacy, if you want to
comment.
Hersh: Mr. Mayor, Member -- Members of the Council, so it would be the parcel directly
to the south that we have been working for with. Those -- that developer is going to be
coming in a few weeks and that also has the same road, but it also goes through that
parcel and the parcel east of it and, then, mixed employment and we have went through
four requests for continuance to meet the plan and we finally got there, but just to give
you some context of what's going on on the south, too, and it doesn't have a collector
road through the center of the property.
Simison: Council, any additional questions?
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Stacy. I'm looking at the zoning map. If maybe you
could go through those residential -- the single family residential complexes that are
north of Franklin and maybe identify those design elements that exist in those projects
that you were suggesting for the application that's before us tonight.
Parsons: Yeah. Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, it would be difficult to do that
without having all the conditions of approval in front of me. But, Stacy, if you want to
leave that up I can tell you there is -- so, we have the townhomes just north of the -- the
school and they actually have access off a private street, not a primary street, but the
elements that do front on the public collector street, the -- the units were actually
required to orient the front porches towards that collector street and tie in with that
primary street per the design standards and, then, all the access and, then, they had
internal streets or alleys and they also had a MEW, which we required. So, again, more
alley loads, all townhomes in that particular case. As you transition to the R-15 piece,
we are currently going through the design review process with that Aviation Subdivision
that was approved. Originally it came in as part of the charter school. It was going to
be their ball fields and they sold that off and you guys approved a Comprehensive Plan
map amendment and a rezone to an R-15 zone to allow a mix of townhomes, duplexes,
and multi-family or four-plexes on that site. They were conditioned to -- in their
development agreement to meet the design concepts. They are currently working with
Meridian City Council
March 12,2024
Page 36 of 66
staff on their design review application to comply with that requirement. The first
renderings they submitted did not. They had no front porches. Garages were in front of
the units. We had them deviate. The next project was the Newkirk project that came in.
We worked with the applicant. We made some concessions on that particular project.
They are up against the railroad tracks. They had limited street frontage, local street
access to the homes. There were only 64 -- 62 units in those. Thirty percent of those
were alley load townhomes and the other portion was 260 multi-family units that
complied with the plan and it may or may not stay multi-family. They may come back
and do something different on that site and they will be required to comply with the plan.
Again, the difference here on that compared to this site was they asked for TN-R zoning
and so they had -- they were scrutinized -- scrutinized a little bit more with that TN-R
zoning in the code. Again, that's code versus the policy. The code requires a mix of
residential types and also in the T-NR standard it says it's anticipated that a majority of
the homes would be alley loaded. It didn't say thou shall be alley loaded. So, that was
left up to this Council's determination as to whether or not 30 percent met that threshold.
Based on the product type that they presented to you you guys were comfortable and --
excuse me -- the TN-R zone also said that the perimeter lots could be alley -- or garage
dominated or garage oriented towards the street. So, that was the -- the argument and
the justification of why we allowed a deviation to that plan in that one. The other
apartments -- that project was denied once and came back with less density. I wouldn't
say I'm the biggest fan of them. They are a townhome style, but they were approved of
as multi-family and they did have a mix of units and, then, you also had the other Silver
Oaks apartments that were again approved prior to the adoption of the plan. So, they
already had an entitlement that we had to not get them to be complete adherence to
that. So, again, I think we have done a pretty good job -- and so when we took all of
that into context of looking at Newkirk or all these other developments, we were trying to
make sure that it was integrated with the collector network and also having the same
design elements, which I think it turned out pretty well in my opinion, at least on the
north side.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: So, Bill, I guess -- I appreciate that, but answer my question a little bit more.
How many single family home applications have we processed that are in the Ten Mile
Plan? Not multi-family, single family.
Parsons: The only ones that I can -- Council -- Councilman Cavener, it would be
Baraya at this point, which is the Corey Barton --
Cavener- The what?
Parsons: The Baraya Subdivision, which is Corey Barton on the --
Meridian City Council
March 12,2024
Page 37 of 66
Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Bill, didn't you just state, though, that that came in before the Ten
Mile Plan was approved?
Parsons: Yes, sir.
Cavener: So, Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: Bill, I don't want to put words in your mouth and this would be the first single
family residential application that we would receive that will be subject to the Ten Mile
Plan, is that what you are telling me? To make sure I'm hearing you right.
Parsons: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, this would be the first one with -- well, it
depends on your definition of townhomes and single family attached and duplexes,
they are all the same, they are all single family in our code, so --
Cavener: Yes. Okay.
Parsons: So, not necessarily, no.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: So, I want to make sure that I'm reading this right. This application does
include townhouses and alley load as well; correct? Which are designed elements that
you previously indicated were asked for in other applications of the Ten Mile Plan?
Parsons: Mayor, Members of the Council, this does not have townhomes. It has
attached and detached homes with alley load. So, the alley loads are even single family
detached, not townhomes.
Cavener: I appreciate that clarification. Thank you, Bill. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Simison: Thank you. Council, any additional questions for staff? Then would the
applicant like to come forward? Good evening, Mr. Clark.
Clark: Hi, everyone. Hethe Clark. 251 East Front Street in Boise, representing the
applicant. And, Stacy. do you have my presentation handy? I guess I should say hi to
everybody and good evening, Your Honor, to one particular council member.
Simison: While this is pulling up, I have had the pleasure of having some conversations
over the last year and what some people that have come forward say, you know, you
are always tough when I come before you and it's like, well, sometimes some people
only show up with tough applications, so nice to see you again.
Meridian City Council
March 12,2024
Page 38 of 66
Clark: No, I -- shall I take that as a compliment?
Simison: Yeah. Absolutely.
Clark: I -- I often say that if -- if -- it wasn't hard I wouldn't have anything to do, so -- so,
it's good to be here with everybody once again. So -- thank you. Got it. Okay. So, this
is a project that's within the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan and rather than
trying to say that 400 times tonight I'm just going to call it the Ten Mile Plan, if that's
okay with everybody. As you know, the Ten Mile Plan is -- as the Council Member
mentioned, is a comprehensive planning document. It applies to an area that is seeing
significant development and infrastructure improvements, including the widening of
Black Cat, current construction of the mid mile collector, which I will point out and it -- as
I think it was alluded to here, it is one of the last remaining medium high density
residential parcels to be developed. There is ongoing development on the east, south
west and east. This map shows you some of the area around us. You can see that we
are just north of the freeway adjacent to Black Cat and we have -- there are several
projects that are in processes as we speak tonight. You can see here the property in
yellow fits there on the left and it's shown against the land use designations that are
called for in the Ten Mile Plan. So, this is the medium high density residential
designation. You will -- you will hear me call it MHDR a bunch of times tonight, but the
medium high density residential designation. That calls for a density band between
eight to 15 units. Staff mentioned the target of 12. A target of 12 is described in the
plan as being for the -- the medium high density residential area, not on a project-per-
project basis. Under the comp plan -- this is the regular comp plan, not the Ten Mile
Plan, Section 311, we round to the nearest whole number when it comes to density. So,
we are right at the bottom, but within the density band of eight to 15 for the medium high
density residential. This is a priority growth area for the city as we understand it. City
services are available. It will complete the transportation network in exactly where the
Ten Mile Plan calls for it. The site is 33.71 acres, with 256 single family homes
proposed. One important detail that I think goes to Council Member Cavener's point is
that this is for sale single family product, which brings a unique element for this area in
general. The -- what is around us is primarily going to be apartments or in large part
rentals. The dimensions and the density are both consistent with the R-15 and we meet
the Ten Mile Plan goals by providing multiple housing types across the MHDR
designation. Again, this is a holistic look. The Ten Mile Plan speaks to providing a
variety of housing types across the MHDR. It doesn't say that you have to have that
within each individual project. To the Mayor's point, there is a bit of an element of this
being standalone. It's -- it -- there is a collector on the south and -- but, you know, for
now one thing I would point out is that we have done the narrower street sections
internally. That is a Ten Mile Plan goal. As we look at the transportation element, this is
the West Vanguard Way, which is the mid mile collector that will be provided with this
and I know the Mayor likes to see developers get together and get the infrastructure in
and this is an example of that with BVA, CBH and DevCo putting that in and it will be
completed later this year. As we look further at the site, we have proposed 19.8 percent
qualified open space, 3,500 feet of paths and regional paths, that includes the, ten foot
multi-use pathways along with Black Cat and Vanguard. We have numerous amenities,
Meridian City Council
March 12,2024
Page 39 of 66
attractive landscaping and when we talk about the amenities, I do want to be clear that
we don't just excuse the amenities, we triple the amenity numbers. We have 24.5
amenity points, when only seven are required. That includes a 1 .3 million dollar
community pool and, then, as well the pickle ball courts and the dog park and, then, the
benches that the Ten Mile Plan speaks to. I mentioned our pathways, which you can
see here and, then, in terms of housing -- so, these are the elevations that we are
proposing. These are the single story detached units with a porch that is incorporated
as you can see in one of the elevations. These are the detached two story units and
these are attached and, then, we -- as staff has mentioned that they would like to see
an elevation for the alley loaded project -- products, so this is the elevation that we are
proposing for those. That doesn't also include a porch. And I -- I will return to this in a
moment, but I think it's important that it -- because I'm going to come back to it a few
times -- is that we placed all of our ally loaded product at the entry of the project. So,
ally load -- you know, the benefit that it has is that it creates a street scene that people
like to see. We took that and we put it in a place of prominence right at the -- at the
entry of the project and I will describe that here in a little bit more. So, staff discussions
-- you know, I want to be fair to the applicant in terms of what those conversations have
looked like. This project has been through 18 months of discussions. There has been
three revisions of the application. There has been -- well, four as I understand it, pre-
application meetings with staff. There were modifications that were made. We removed
the entry onto Black cat it staff's request. We added the alley loading -- loaded product
at the entry of the project. So, again, not tucked somewhere in behind and we added
porches to two of our elevations. So, I think as we talk about this it's important to not
talk in platitudes. It's hard to do that when we are talking about a policy and we are
trying to apply that at the level of code. You know, the Ten Mile Plan, as everyone here
knows -- and I think it was -- it was hinted to, but the Ten Mile Plan has not been
incorporated in the code in the way that you would typically see a comprehensive plan
Incorporated. That was one of the action steps for the Ten Mile Plan. That's not
happened. And so that creates some complications and I'm going to talk about those a
little bit here. But if I were to summarize the staff report in just a couple of bullet points,
I would -- I would describe it this way: There is no issue with the code. Under the R-15
standards we satisfy everything. There is not an issue with city services. We have
utilities available -- you know, services are available. But if we -- there are three things
that staff claims are inconsistent. One is the alleys and porches. There is the target
density and, again, we need to keep in mind target versus the allowed eight to 15 and,
then, there is the block lengths. So, let's talk about the Ten Mile policies. So, beginning
with the density, the Ten Mile Plan says that the recommended density in the MHDR is
between eight and 15. As I mentioned, we round according to the comp plan. So, we
are at eight. We satisfy the recommended -- recommended density. The Ten Mile Plan
also says that there is to be provided across the MHDR a variety of housing types. We
have single family detached and attached, as well as alley loaded, which complements
the multi-family that's around us. As staff mentioned, the existing entitlement, the
existing approval to our east, as per 500 apartments. Now, they may change that in the
future. We can only operate on what's currently entitled and that's for 500 apartment
units. So, multi-family is right next to us. We are coming in with a product -- a project
that will provide single family for sale product. Now, this I think gets to Council Member
Meridian City Council
March 12,2024
Page 40 of 66
Taylor's question. There are inconsistencies in the way the Ten Mile Plan describes its
-- its -- its requirements. So, yes, it has the language that Stacy mentioned, but those
design elements -- you can see on the screen how they are described. They are
described as recommendations in the Ten Mile Plan and as we talk about this some
more, you will see that it actually makes sense that those would be recommendations,
because you can't fit everything into the same box that we are being asked to fit in the
medium high density residential area and I will try to explain that a little bit more as we
go on here. So -- well, let me -- let me actually say one more thing about that point.
The -- there was a question that came up about some of the projects that occurred north
of Franklin where a lot of the MHDR projects have occurred. Several projects have
been approved up there. In fact, we were involved in one of them, which was Newkirk.
As -- as far as I'm aware -- and I know for certain within Newkirk, there has never been
a strict insistence on meeting each of the Ten Mile design plans -- or design
requirements in every instance. There was all -- there has always been consideration of
outside factors, which is appropriate whenever you are trying to apply a comprehensive
plan to a fact specific situation. So, let's focus in on ally loaded and lots and porches.
So, 20 years -- maybe that's a little bit of an exaggeration -- for almost 20 years --
maybe I should have said that instead of 20 years. But we are getting close. And the
difficulty that I think we all have to confront is that there are some elements of the Ten
Mile Plan that work at lower densities and others that do not work at higher densities.
So, with regard to alley loaded lots, they were in vogue at the time. That's not the case
any longer. Today's buyer wants a home with a backyard, even if it's a small backyard.
They want to enter their home through the front, along a -- a manicured lawn. They
don't want to enter through the back on an alley that's got everybody's garbage cans
and their air conditioning units. With alley loads there is no backyard. If you are going
to have outdoor living space you got to have it on the side. That if you are going to
have meaningful outdoor living space that means pushing the lots further apart from
each other, which means you are reducing the density that direction, when you have
already reduced the density by inserting an alley between the homes on the backside.
If you don't significantly reduce the density -- and, again, I'm going to come back to this
significant -- we are -- remember we are at eight on the -- on the band of eight to 15 with
the number of alley loads that we have provided. If you don't significantly reduce the
density, we expect that you have the -- you know, the barbecues on the front porch or
out on the back. No place, you know, for the dog to go to the bathroom. In other words,
they become, you know, in our view more like a really expensive apartment. You know,
we have concerns with ally loads and we believe our proposal provides the density that
the Ten Mile Plan is looking for, while still providing a marketable product. With regard
to porches. Porches work well when you are talking about a nice country home with,
you know, porch chairs and the swing and you have room at lower densities to do that
sort of thing. The Ten Mile Plan speaks to porches and calls out 30 percent of the front
and recommends two sides of the -- of the home have porches on each one. But the
Ten Mile Plan also wants eight to 15 units per the acre. So, that creates a square peg in
the round hole. You can't have the required density and have the number of porches
that the Ten Mile Plan calls for. So, we have these -- these inconsistencies that are
hard -- that we have to confront. Now, just like was true in some of these other projects,
I want to focus on -- on the things that we have done and we think we have satisfied the
Meridian City Council
March 12,2024
Page 41 of 66
Ten Mile Plan by doing and taking the actions that we have. So, we have concerns with
it, but we think we have satisfied it. The only question really is -- is to degree or -- as to
quantity. So, we have included the alley loaded product. It's at the entry of our project,
which means the field that's advocated for in the Ten Mile Plan is provided at the entry,
in our most prominent lots, in the most prominent area of the project, as you lead into
our swimming pool area. We have included porches in two of our four designs. Staff
also mentioned block lengths and I will show you a map here, but our block lengths are
shorter. The code requirement -- there is no specific requirement in the Ten Mile Plan
as to what is a standard block length, but the code requirement is 750 feet. We have no
block lengths longer than 521 feet and many are less than 250 feet. We designed those
with the Ten Mile Plan in mind. We also have the 27 foot street section with parking
only on one side to make sure that the roads remain narrow, which also is a Ten Mile
Plan requirement. Again, we have provided the housing variety of -- we add to the
variety of housing types and while doing all of that we still hit the bottom of the eight to
15 dwelling units per acre requirement. And we do so while providing more than three
times the number of required amenities under the code. So, we have provided each of
those elements that are required in the Ten Mile Plan. Again, the only question is asked
to degree. So, let me build on that just a little bit. So, here are the two elevations that
include the porches and, then, on the right this is the -- the entry to our project and,
then, the -- the alley loaded homes are the ones that front that as you come into the
project and, then, just to emphasize the block length, the Ten Mile Plan, as I said,
doesn't identify what's meant by reduced block length, but we are well below what code
requires on the block length, so we do have reduced block lengths. So, I will finish up
with this. As we read the staff report there is the three items that need to be discussed.
The alleys, the end porches, the block length and the target density. Again, density
requirement is eight dwelling units per acre minimum. We have hit that. We are well
below the city code requirements for block length and we have incorporated porches in
two of our designs and placed the alley loaded at the entry of our project. So, we think
we have incorporated those. We think that -- we would ask the City Council to
incorporate these marketability questions and the fact that this is a plan -- a
comprehensive plan and show appropriate flexibility, just like the -- the Council has
done in the past. So, with that I'm happy to stand down and answer any questions.
Simison: Thank you. Council, questions for the applicant?
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Taylor: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Your Honor.
Borton: Just one question. I will -- I will ask you, Hethe, and, then, staff can respond.
Your slide showed amenities at 24 and a half points and the staff report says 13 points.
So, a clear disconnect in what qualifies, who doesn't qualify. At least page 15 of the
staff report shows nine plus four. I was just curious. That's a big difference.
Meridian City Council
March 12,2024
Page 42 of 66
Hersh: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Borton, so I didn't come out with the same calculations
as they did.
Borton: Clearly.
Hersh: Exactly. When I was adding it up.
Borton: I'm curious what does the applicant say.
Hersh: I'm not sure how they came up with their number. If they added extra points
for --
Borton: You can look and come back with me at that. It just seemed like that was a big
discrepancy, so --
Clark: Council, I appreciate the question. Yeah. Just -- Laren just mentioned to me
that one glaring omission was that the pool wasn't counted, which is a million and a half
dollar amenity.
Parsons: We will look into it for you.
Simison: Councilman Taylor.
Taylor: Thank you, Mayor. Hethe, one question about the alley loaded homes. You
said you haven't voluntarily built one. You make comments that it's not really what
people are looking for. It was kind of in vogue when we envisioned this in 2007. Why is
it -- they are attractive visually. You know, I can -- I appreciate that you have put it
where people are coming in. I -- I like that. Why do people not want them now? I mean
what -- what -- is it there is not a backyard? Is that the way they are laid out? Like what
would you subscribe that to?
Clark: Yeah. Let me -- I have got an exhibit here that kind of helps with that. So -- and
this exhibit shows a couple of things. One it shows the alley loads. If you have the
same two lots, the alley loaded lots can reduce your density by -- by expanding those
out. So, it does require more real estate, but I think more specifically to your question is
the backyard is huge to -- to a current buyer. The current buyer wants to have at least a
-- you know, a patch for the dog to go out and do their business. You know, something
big enough for -- for the barbecue and that sort of thing. And, then, I also think -- you
know, one thing that we have heard is that the -- the way you come home from work --
and I mentioned this before, so forgive me, but the way you come home from work is a
lot more pleasant in this type of project where you are coming in through the
landscaping by the trees into the front of your house, whereas what often happens --
and you can see that in some of the alley loaded projects -- product that's north of us in
Franklin -- is when you come in the alley load you are coming in through the concrete
jungle to get to your garage and you are driving past the garbage cans and you are
driving past the air conditioning units, rather than coming in the front next to the
Meridian City Council
March 12,2024
Page 43 of 66
landscaping. So, you know, I -- they are just, you know, eminently more livable to not
be alley loaded and if you look around on the -- in particular in this area and through a
lot of the city, a lot of the alley loaded is actually investor owned, not owned by single
family -- by -- by individual homeowners, so --
Simison: So, maybe -- maybe these are questions for you and maybe they are not and
you are glad I'm not in the -- in the department, because I have always envisioned when
I close my eyes the Ten Mile Area Specific Plan basically brownstones on Capitol Hill,
you know, walking around was when we talked about that. I don't envision a porch
traditionally. Vision more of a stoop, you know, a gathering space, but that also means
cars parked in front of areas. So, you don't maybe enter from the back. You may have
a parking spot in the back through the alley, but it's not really your entry point and you
still have that backyard, but you have that walkable feel as you are -- as you are
walking. I know that's not what we are talking about and that's stuff that was built a long
time ago, but what constitutes a porch under definition? You know, does it have to be
so many square feet. Does it have to come out from the house? Because no
disrespect, it doesn't seem like -- none of these really seem like porches in the
traditional sense. I don't think we are trying to get a traditional porch, even in this
context, so I'm just kind of curious. Code defined how large a your porch needs to be?
Where it needs to --
Clark: Mr. Mayor, if I -- if I could and, then, obviously, Bill is ready to jump in. The
answer is we don't know, because the Ten Mile Plan only is a policy document and only
kind of speaks in platitudes; right? And this hasn't gone to that next step of saying,
okay, thou shalt have X number of feet of setback. What we do know, based on the Ten
Mile Plan, is it speaks to porches should be a dominant element and they should be
located along at least 30 percent of the front facade. A higher percentage is
recommended, as is the location of porches on one or more side facades as well. Like
the Ten Mile Plan is not talking about -- in this -- these three sentences are not talking
about a medium high density residential product. Like you can't accomplish any of that
at a medium density residential density. The other element that I would point out is I
think in contrary -- in contrast what staff said, the -- even the garages, you know, it's -- it
speaks to where -- when possible; right? So, in other words, again, these are -- as
pointed out before, these are recommendations at the beginning of the design elements
standard and, then, when you even look at these specifics it uses language like when
possible and so to suggest that there is no possibility of deviation and no room for
deviation in the Ten Mile Plan just is -- just flies in the face of what the Ten Mile Plan
actually says.
Simison: Staff, do we have any definition of a porch in -- is it you know it when you see
it?
Parsons: Mayor and Council, we don't, but we do have square footages for porches in
some of our code, so, you know, our multi-family requires 80 square feet. Our PUD
standards require 80 square feet. So, typically when we look at a porch we are going to
go to our architectural standards manual or we are going to go to Webster's dictionary
Meridian City Council
March 12,2024
Page 44 of 66
and say what is it. Could be covered, it could not be covered, but when you are looking
at the elements or the illustrations in the plan it's very clear on how it should look -- or at
least here is some things to consider when you are designing your home. So, yes, our
policy is left -- left up to interpretation. Absolutely. Because not every -- again, not
every project needs to be the same. It needs to be unique. And so that's where we --
when we say 30 percent, right, we don't have square footage. It's -- it has to be 30
percent of that facade. So, whenever they come in with a design review application
they need to prove that up and show us. We don't say how much you need to provide,
but we have had instances out there where applicants have come in and all they have
provided is a stoop to your point, Mayor, and it's like that -- it's not 30 percent and that's
just letting you in the front door. That's not a porch. It is a stoop and it --
Simison: But it could be -- you know, again, if I go back to DC row houses, 25 feet wide,
entryway is about eight to nine feet with probably at the top, you know, you are probably
sitting -- you have got 30 percent in your entryway into your door with that top, because
it's simply more than just the top step, but typically does have a landing platform at the
top. I'm just trying to get some context. You know, again, what -- truly what's
envisioned versus what is practical in that context and, you know, I could -- I could redo
this, but it would look like Washington DC and, then, people may buy it, they may not
and you -- so, that's why I'm not in the development world in that context. And the only
other question I had -- just kind of going back to my first comment -- and I didn't -- you
know, the thing where staff told you -- because I was like take access off of Black Cat,
cut off your access points and be a standalone subdivision that's not part of the Ten Mile
Area Specific Plan, because even for myself I still feel like this is -- you know, while it's
connected with pathways, does it -- does it feel integrated? Does it feel like it's part of
the plan? I guess -- you know, and that's a subjective term even to you or to the rest of
the Council. Does this feel like it's part of the Ten Mile Area Specific Plan the way it's
designed and networked?
Parsons: Mayor, Members of the Council, you hit it spot on. That's why we are here
tonight saying this is annexation and we don't feel it's the right time until we get
something that does align and integrates with the rest of the area.
Clark: And, you know, obviously, I have different feelings about that, but I think you also
have to ask yourself which parts of the Ten Mile Plan are we satisfying; right? Because
if we do what staff is indicating that they can't recommend approval on it -- unless we do
what they say we will be significantly below the density target for the Ten Mile Plan and
the Ten Mile Plan is in -- is -- is an area where you planned for density you put utilities in
planning for that density. Right? So, there has got to be a give and take and I would
also just say that, you know, what is the feel -- you know, we -- we put -- we don't like
ally loaded lots; right? We don't think that they are marketable. But we put those on the
altar of the Ten Mile Plan by putting them right at the -- at the entry to our project, so
that it's -- you know, we are paying tribute to what the Ten Mile Plan was looking for;
right? But we don't think that we can do that to any -- really to any degree beyond this
and still have, A, a unmarketable project and still have a project that meets the Ten Mile
Plan's density band. I mean we have been criticized by staff in their report for not hitting
Meridian City Council
March 12,2024
Page 45 of 66
12; right? How -- there is no way for us to hit 12 if we are going to do alley loads and
porches.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: Question for planning staff. Don't we have examples -- like renderings in the
Ten Mile Specific Area Plan of, you know, potential designs that do meet the standards?
Do you have those available or could you speak to them?
Hersh: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Strader, I have some that I have included in this
report of what it could look like that I can show you on my presentation if you would like
to see them.
Strader: That would be super. Thanks.
Hersh: Okay. Yep.
Parsons: So, Mayor and Council, I do want to bring it back to a couple points that -- that
Hethe had brought up -- or the applicant's representative. On the block face -- so, if you
had a chance to look at ACHD's staff report, they have even said the block lengths are
too long and they are requiring traffic calming to mitigate that. So, their block face do
not meet -- they are measuring it wrong or interpreting code wrong. So, in our code it
says block face and it's each side of the road and just not one side. So, some of those
block lengths are 900 to a thousand feet long. So, I just want to go on the record and
clarify that, especially on that one block where they have the alley coming in and their
open space, that whole north side of that roadway is -- is a thousand feet, so that's still
considered a block face in our code and ACHD I believe has required some traffic
calming in there based on some of those things, too. So, I just wanted to go on record
of that. The other thing that they could do -- the other thing that we had talked about -- I
know density. We can't just -- we can't say whether or not this won't meet the density
requirements or not. We haven't seen a plan to truth that or verify that. We are leading
that housing effort and I know this applicant is part of that and certainly there is different
ways to get density. You can do that through townhomes. Skinnier lots. You can have
-- the perimeter lots could be a detached garage in the back with an ADU above it for
two units on one lot. There is different ways to make this work and still have density
here in the plan and still integrate. It's just whether or not the applicant wants to do that
and those are the conversations that we keep having and we realize they have a certain
niche and they want a certain product for the community, but there are ways to achieve
those things and still get density and that's the other point I was going to make is that's
why -- when you look at the land use explanation in the plan, it speaks to higher
residential style type homes, not necessarily single family homes and that's why we --
we felt it better aligned with an MDR designation and had recommended potentially
going through a comp plan map amendment to change it, so we could support them in
the effort of doing a different residential type, because we agree with the applicant,
Meridian City Council
March 12,2024
Page 46 of 66
there -- there may be a point where this area may be oversaturated with higher density
residential and we -- I have to go on record and say I do support some more single
family in this area, because we don't have it and so we were -- we were actually
appreciative of the fact that the applicant removed the multi-family that they -- that they
originally showed on the plan to get that density. So, I don't want you to think that they
hadn't tried to make attempts to try to add density and make it work, but at the end of
the day it came back to the same comments. It's the product type. It's the integration.
It's do we need more multi-family. It's -- it's just a lot going on in this area and I think
Brian and even their interns were here in front of this body last year talking about the
housing, work balance in this area and giving you a progress report on the Ten Mile
Area Plan, too, and sharing that with you how well we were doing and grading ourselves
against that plan, if I am not mistaken, but, again, don't want our discussion too much,
but, again, it's annexation. We don't know if this is the right product type for this
particular project and to the Mayor's point it is -- it does seem like it's standalone and we
are trying to get them to integrate a little bit more.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: I appreciate the flavor that you just gave us and it looked like you had some
renderings here available. I will be honest, Hethe, where I'm coming from and I think
the struggle for me -- so, you know, we have expected everyone to try to adhere to the
Ten Mile Specific Area Plan and what I'm hearing from you is -- I don't totally buy that it's
impossible for you to meet the plan. I feel like you don't want to meet the plan. You
have tried, but it doesn't really fit your vision of what you think is marketable at this time.
I am not amenable to making an exception for this one development when we have
been so strict about this plan and how it's been implemented. I don't think you are
meeting the purpose and the intent of the plan. What I will throw you a bone on,
though, is that the plan was written in 2007 and it's aged. I mean it's old. So, I do think
it would make sense as part of a broader effort for us to revisit the Ten Mile Specific
Area Plan holistically and, then, at that time maybe you could fit in better with what is
updated. But this is the kind of thing where you start giving an exception to one
developer, pretty soon there is no plan. Like that -- that's my -- my concern with it. So,
felt like staff's analysis was -- was largely correct. Now, we could quibble about
porches, but I thought they had a point and I also felt like Planning and Zoning was
correct in their deliberations. So, I just want to be upfront kind of where I'm coming
from. I do think updating the plan makes sense and, then, at that time it would make
more sense for you to come through depending on the outcome of that. Or, you know,
working with staff again, but I understand you have been -- you have kind of been
through the wringer on it, so --
Clark: We have. And, Council Member Strader, I think it's a little bit -- I think staff
maybe overstated it when we said that the Council has required strict compliance with
the Ten Mile Plan. In every application there have been modifications to the -- to the
Ten Mile Plan, every one that I'm aware of.
Meridian City Council
March 12,2024
Page 47 of 66
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: I have been here for -- for a lot of -- a lot of the application of the Ten Mile Plan
to specific properties, so I feel like I have a pretty good flavor for what the dimension of
the exceptions were and this to me -- like I look at this holistically and this does feel like
a subdivision that would be anywhere in Meridian and it doesn't feel to me like it's
integrated into the area at all. I'm with the Mayor in the sense that, you know what, if we
had some beautiful stoops, you had some townhomes, yeah, I might be convinced that
that's close to a porch; right? But this to me looks just like a subdivision that could go
anywhere in Meridian. It doesn't integrate into the area. It doesn't provide that walkable
kind of almost non-vehicular, more pedestrian type of environment. That's where you
are kind of leaving me on it and the block lengths thing I think is an issue. So, anyway, I
don't want to argue and debate, you know, I'm just one person up here, but I just want to
be upfront about kind of where I'm coming from here.
Clark: And I -- and I do want to respond on the block length thing, because what Bill's
describing is in -- is -- I think a technical read of code, not a response to the Ten Mile
Plan itself, which says reduced block lengths and we do think we have reduced block
lengths. So, I don't want to let that go. And, you know, obviously, you know, when we
are -- when we are talking about a comprehensive plan, a lot of it's in the eye of the
beholder and so I understand if -- you know, Council Member Strader, if you think that
that doesn't do it, we think that we have -- you know, we have done something at the
entry of the project that we wouldn't have done if we weren't in the Ten Mile Plan. Like
there would be zero alley loads in this if we were anywhere else in the -- in the city and
so, you know, I think that's important and I think the applicant should be given some
credit for that.
Simison: Council, any additional questions for the applicant at this time? We will give
you a break.
Clark: Okay. Thanks.
Simison: Yeah. We will see if there is anybody else who has signed up to testify on this
item.
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, nobody's signed up.
Simison: Okay. Is there anybody in the audience or online who would like to provide
testimony on this item? If you are online you can use the raise your hand feature, but
we do have someone coming forward. State your name and address for the record,
please.
Meridian City Council
March 12,2024
Page 48 of 66
Billaud: Hi, Laurie Billaud. 192 West Lockhart Lane, Meridian, Idaho. I'm not privy to
what the intent of the plan is. If you could explain -- explain the Ten Mile Plan, the
intent.
Simison: Mr. Parsons.
Billaud: What is the vision? Not of his. Yours.
Simison: Oh, he was here when it was developed and not everyone up here was and
think it's best to hear from staff --
Billaud: Oh, I thought you were asking the gentleman --
Simison: Yeah. No. Staff.
Billaud: Okay. Sorry. My mistake.
Parsons: Yeah. It's -- it's complex, but the intent is that the Ten Mile Area was designed
with a lot of stakeholders in mind for a specific vision where we realized at some point
that Meridian would not have anymore land to grow outward and that we needed to
preserve this area for a very specific purpose of almost creating our own little city within
a city is probably the easiest way to describe it, where everything was connected
through multiple -- multimodal transportation needs. So, you would have bike lanes,
pathways, interconnected roadways, transit, everyone could live, work and play in that
same area. So, we would have enough jobs to where people wouldn't have to leave the
area to impact the adjacent roadways, they would use the internal street systems to get
back and forth to all the employment and the housing that would be provided in that
area. So, that is the vision for this. It's not meant for a suburban subdivision where you
come home from work in downtown Boise and being there 8:00 to 5:00 or sleeping
there and, then, going off to your job, it was really meant to be a self-contained area
where all services and employment would be contained in one area.
Billaud: So, you would prefer to have more townhomes, condominiums and such in that
area; is that correct?
Parsons: Mayor, Members of the Council, it's -- it's all of the above, yes.
Billaud: Just if I may comment to the builder. Is that okay?
Simison: Just make comments to the Council.
Billaud: Okay. So -- so, to the builder I do live in an alley load and I love my alley load.
There are ways to market it for first time buyers. First time buyers are someone that
could be interested -- millennials and so forth that are just putting together money where
they need to come in, it's a lower cost. It's also good for seniors. We bought it, so that
we could retire and be able to travel, because it's low maintenance. My next question is
Meridian City Council
March 12,2024
Page 49 of 66
what is the distance between the house and the -- between the two houses is my
question for the builder.
Simison: And typically we don't do a back and forth. You can ask and they will --
Billaud: Okay.
Simison: They will reply in their rebuttal comments.
Billaud: Okay. So, I would like to know what the -- what the distance is between. We
have six foot and it's not quite enough. It does seem quite crowded. However, we do
have room for the barbecue. We do have barbecue room and we do have a place for
the dogs. So, the dog does have a place to go. So, those aren't really issues. It does
give a really nice look when you are coming in, because one of the things that we were
-- I live in a Brighton community. What I liked about it is that you do have all the tree
lines, so when you are walking and you feel community. On the other side I do see the
area with porches. Mine does not have a porch and I detest it. It -- the neighbors go
out, they want to be able to have community. I can't do that. And I did notice on some
of the drawings they did not have porches. It looked like they were just walk up only.
There is a difference between a walk up and a porch. A walk up is strictly a walk up. A
porch is where you are able to put a chair I would assume, so -- and that was -- just
wanted to make sure. Like the tree line. I do understand what the precedent, because
once you do give that -- I -- oh, I know what I was going to say. The last thing. I'm
sorry. I was at caucus -- the Republican caucus and I led the voter engagement booth.
We had over a thousand people that attended. In that I did a survey for District 20 --
just for District 20 for everybody that went in and on the bottom of the survey we had a
comment area of what was important to them. They gave us their name, their address,
their info, everything else and what their comment was. The fourth leading comment
out of about 50 comments was growth and expansion. Most of the people are very
unhappy with the growth and expansion that we are being led to. So, unfortunately, I do
like my alley load, but I do see what they are saying with having the single family
available off the freeway. You -- we need to keep that, because people are very weary
of the amount of people that are coming in and the density. They are very unhappy with
that and these are four out of four voters that are coming to the caucus. So, these very
engaged voters that do not want the high density, they would prefer to have something
like this and the other thing is how much money are they putting aside to -- for schools
for every single --
Simison: Your time is -- if Council would like to follow up on questions we can do that.
Billaud: Okay. So, you can answer that how much money they are putting aside for the
schools. For every single --
Simison- Your time -- if Council would like to --
Billaud: Okay.
Meridian City Council
March 12,2024
Page 50 of 66
Simison: -- follow up on questions we can do that.
Billaud: Okay. So, you can answer about how much money they are putting aside for
the schools?
Simison: I can answer. They -- under state law they are not required to --
Billaud: They are not.
Simison: No. We don't have impact fees for schools. Police and fire, but state law
doesn't allow them to do it for schools.
Billaud: So, that was something we had in California. Okay.
Simison: Council, any questions?
Little Roberts: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Little Roberts.
Little Roberts: Mr. Mayor. Ma'am. Excuse me. Sorry. Do you mind if I ask you when
your home was built?
Billaud: I built -- I moved in in 2020.
Little Roberts: Thank you.
Simison: Thank you.
Hersh: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I just wanted to answer her question in
regards to setbacks for the R-15 zoning district. It would be the same as hers, six feet
in between houses.
Simison: Thank you. I think so. I don't see anyone else wanting to -- wanting to come
up and testify, unless Council would like to ask ACHD any questions on block length,
since someone is here in the audience, to get any resolution on that topic.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: Happy always to hear from ACHD. Every time. Thank you.
Inselman: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Council Members. I did grab the staff report and
we do -- it's one of the first conditions of approval, but there are two, three, four -- there
are five proposed roadways within the development that exceeds 750 feet in length and
Meridian City Council
March 12,2024
Page 51 of 66
so the condition of approval set by the ACHD staff report is that they need to redesign
the proposed roadways listed above to reduce the length or include passive design
elements and submit a revised preliminary plat. So, we do have something in there.
Simison: Council, any questions?
Taylor: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Taylor.
Taylor: Long night. So, to satisfy that you just need a traffic calming measure on those
roads to satisfy it or would they have to redesign the roadway?
Inselman: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Taylor, yes, I mean they -- the applicant would
have to come to ACHD with a proposal. Some of those passive could be bulb outs, it
could be something that doesn't make it a long straight roadway. So, they would have
to bring something back to us for approval.
Simison: All right. Then would the applicant like to --
Hersh: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, staff would like to clarify the amenities.
There is a pool that was not included in that.
Simison: So, we are close, but we are still not at the same number. Within a couple of
points. Yes.
Clark: Name on the record; right? Hethe Clark. 251 East front Street. I would just say
in -- I say this with the greatest of love and affection for my staff member friends -- we
always have disagreements on the amenities and we always have agreements on the
qualified open space every time. So, I'm -- I don't think anybody should be surprised by
that. Okay. So, I'm going to -- Stacy, I'm going to ask you to switch these, but before
you do I just want to point out the elevation that's in the middle, the white house that's
right there, and I want you to just hold that in your mind. And can you put up my slides?
So, I just want to point out how similar our -- our ally loads look to that one. Another
point that I want to make before I kind of do a little summary here -- to Kristy's point, you
know, when we are talking about block lengths -- you know, block length has a definition
in the -- in the code. It's when you don't have something breaking it up; right? So -- and
we have -- in this case one of the challenges is that the property to the east is the
apartment project that doesn't have a public street access into ours. So, we are
inherently going to have a long street over there. On the west we -- staff asked us to
take our access out to Black Cat; right? So, we are inherently going to have a long
street over there. But the condition and the comment from ACHD is very typical, you
know, passive traffic calming, bulb outs, those sorts of things, that's not a difficult ask.
It's a typical ask and, you know, we don't anticipate that creating any issues for us. Two
-- two more points. I think to our friend who testified, we looked that up, that -- that is a
gated community that's at five units to the acre. So, it's not -- it doesn't have the same
Meridian City Council
March 12,2024
Page 52 of 66
constraints that we have when we are trying to hit the eight to 15 unit density band.
And, then, finally, you know, before I get to my little summary here, I think it's important
to emphasize this variety of housing types and, Bill, that -- you know, we don't have this
product in the Ten Mile Plan. It's currently missing. And so -- I don't think I misstated
you there, Bill. And so I wanted you to keep that in mind. What we have tried to do
here is to accommodate the Ten Mile Plan. Again, I don't want to repeat myself ad
infinitum or ad nauseam or whatever you want to say -- that Meridian homeowners want
a backyard. But we have incorporated the Ten Mile Plan items. The only question is as
to quantity and we would ask you to -- for your approval and I think that that approval, if
we are so fortunate to get it, would be to approve the applications, but direct staff to
come back with conditions of approval that are consistent with the plat and I believe to
do a development agreement. With that I'm happy to answer any follow-up questions
that the Council might have.
Simison: Thank you. Hethe, did you have the map with the road network on the -- in
yours? Like --
Clark: Yeah. Is this the one you are looking for?
Simison: That -- yes. That was the one. Yeah. And I don't want anyone to take any of
my comments out of context. You know, obviously, we all can see there is five people,
unless someone recuses themselves I'm not voting in this -- in this issue tonight. But I
just want to be clear, at least in my comments, it's like I can understand why this could
be treated as a standalone property. It is in the Ten Mile Area Specific Plan, but I could
also see why we don't include it, you exclude it, you give them access off of Black Cat
and you don't incorporate them. The reason I ask this map is kind of going back to my
first point, this is really one of the only significant pieces of land that have a single
ownership that doesn't have a collector street that was driven through it to connect it
into the Ten Mile Area Specific Plan. Now, I'm not saying that's the only thing that
connects it -- connects the plan is you got to have a road that runs through it, but it does
make it an outlier parcel in some regards to how it integrates and that's -- that was kind
of what my -- my comments were. It was like I feel like the way it was designed without
the road network intertwined. It doesn't really feel like it's in there and part of that's
because you don't have a reason to incorporate it in the same way other parts of other
pieces of property where you have to put a road and connection into this, where this
one, like say, originally we were coming off Black Cat I don't even know if you had --
what other connections you had, but Black Cat was your main entrance and even that in
and of itself doesn't make it feel like the rest of the project in -- in some regards. I get it.
The Ten Mile Specific Plan. A lot of time, energy and effort. So, desire of Council when
it -- when it comes down to it, but it's -- it's also kind of unique. It's larger framework.
It's not the last piece, but, you know, if I'm trying to do the math in my head and looking
at projects and that many more residential properties that are going to be annexed into
this plan, so, Council Woman Strader, about going back and look at the plan, I don't
know what that's going to gain us. It may just be for this parcel, because the only other
ones that I -- that I can think of off the top of my head, besides the one big project that
will be coming through, you know, it's really that, the stuff that's up off of Overland, that
Meridian City Council
March 12,2024
Page 53 of 66
may be the -- the last significant and even -- and that's not significant in a lot of ways.
It's somewhat disconnected from the rest of the plan by what's -- because it's right up
against commercial up in that area. So, those are my comments. I was going to say it's
a unique parcel, unique challenge. Actually, we are way past this to say what if we told
you you didn't have to do any garages? You don't have to provide any garages, what --
what could you do in the space to make a more walkable, friendly space where you
don't have that dominated garage front in your parcels and you widen the street, will
park on the streets. That to me, honestly, it feels more like the Ten -- Ten Mile Area
Specific Plan intention, but I don't think we give people a pass on garages in the Ten
Mile Area Specific Plan. So, it's -- on one hand if you want that look and feel you got to
get rid of the other parts that people want. I mean, honestly, I don't know anybody that
doesn't want a garage in Idaho and if it -- maybe they exist, but if they don't want a
garage they are not buying in this location, in my opinion. So, I'm done pontificating, but
that to me is like you wanted some special and unique in this, those are the types of
things you are going to have to really, in my opinion, go back to the drawing board,
remove, come back and do something in order to -- to get amazing walkable street
lined, porch lined, brownstone or some other version. Okay. I'm done.
Taylor: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Taylor.
Taylor: Are we at a point where we are probably -- unless my fellow Council Members
disagree -- to close public testimony and move on to discussion and consideration of
the application. Move we close the public hearing on -- on File No. H-0049.
Borton: Second.
Simison: Motion and a second to close the public hearing. Is there any discussion?
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: I appreciate the effort to move things along. I'm going to go against the
motion and I guess maybe a recommendation is that we actually leave the public
hearing open maybe as council deliberates in case we need to invite the applicant back
up for some further clarification.
Simison: Okay. Discussion on the motion?
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Meridian City Council
March 12,2024
Page 54 of 66
Borton: Just for brief context, that's actually -- we have done that quite frankly, a
member objects, like Councilman Cavener has, I think it's well taken. Any of us think it
should be left open -- we are still going to have the discussion, so I would be inclined to
withdraw my second. If you want to withdraw the motion, let's just have discussion,
which gives us the opportunity to do what Councilman Cavener is saying, if necessary.
We can close it after discussion.
Taylor: Yes. Mayor, I withdraw my motion and I would like to have the discussion --
Borton: Yeah.
Taylor: -- and -- so I'm fine with withdrawing my motion.
Simison: Withdraw the motion. So, without objection it is withdrawn. Discussion?
Taylor: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Taylor.
Taylor: Kick off the discussion. There is a lot here, especially for a new guy. As I have
tried to kind of dig in -- is the biggest concern for me. I kind of keep going back to the
design elements being a big hang up with what's being posed, what the applicant wants
to do, with what the -- what staff has provided guidance for and if they are strict in their
interpretation of it, I think that's what -- exactly what we have asked him to do and I
appreciate that. The -- this -- the Ten Mile Plan being put together in 2007 -- I think it's a
very different time. It's 17 years ago. We have had a housing bubble and crash, we
have had COVID, we have had unexpected or unprecedented growth I think is the right
term. Approved a record number of multi-family units. Possibly 500 units immediately
adjacent to this property. So, I think allowing a plan that I consider very outdated now to
sort of dictate today's decisions seems a little bit wrong. I think it would be -- maybe to
your point maybe we are so far along updating it maybe doesn't do us any benefit. I
don't know. I would have to spend more time thinking about and looking at it, but that's
-- that's a little bit troublesome to me that we would have a document that old to kind of
decide what it is -- I don't like to trump kind of zoning requirements that we do require
them to abide by. But, again, appreciate the staff being firm and being advocates of it,
because that's exactly what we have asked them to do. I also want to make a
comment. When we look at -- as a City Council when we develop these plans and we
get the public input, create this vision where we ask our partners to share that and,
then, we kind of put that forward, so that the -- those who wish to build -- and build out
this great city of ours have an idea of what we want -- I'm not putting any capital on the
line. I'm not putting -- I'm not putting myself out there. We envision it, we help guide
them in that process, but our friends in the development community are the ones who
are actually making it happen. So, I do think that we have to listen and we are provided
some input as to how -- what people want who are more in tune than we are with what
people want to buy and when you consider the cost of land in 2007 and maybe what we
envision from today. My home was built in 2006 1 think it was sold for 180,000 dollars.
Meridian City Council
March 12,2024
Page 55 of 66
Pretty sure it's over 600,000 today if I were to sell it, but if you look at today's
environment it's really challenging and I think anyone moving ahead with a project does
so with a certain amount of reservation for that. You look at the interest rates we have,
just the cost of acquiring the land and, then, the inflationary costs that I have talked
about from this -- this seat multiple times in terms of what that would be. So, in order to
pencil out a project with all of those major obstacles is a daunting task and I think
challenging. So, I think we should give some grace and consideration into modifications
that are -- seem to be reasonable and I would think, as we sit here and we are often told
one of the biggest challenges we have is that housing could be driving out families from
Meridian -- I don't want to find us in 20 years where we are in one situation where not a
lot of kids and families around, because they can't afford to live here. So, you know, this
many homes in this area, as it sounds like, as I have been gathering this information
tonight, we don't have a lot of it and as I drive along the freeway I have often looked out
and thought is this just going to be a massive development. I don't know. I think -- I
know I wouldn't want to buy an apartment -- or a home next to 500 apartments, so I
would look to the applicant in make -- making that happen to some degree. So, I -- I'm -
- I would be supportive of this for the reasons I have pretty obviously stated. I don't
think it's appropriate that an outdated Comprehensive Plan dictates decisions made
today, when the condition on the ground are so different from the vision we envisioned
years ago and if we want to change that I think that would be a worthwhile policy
discussion that we should undertake. We know that this area is probably going to
develop pretty quickly. There is not a lot of areas in such prime locations to do that. I
envision a lot of apartments, but I would like to -- I -- I understand the point being made
of alley homes. I live in a community where there are some. I would never buy one,
because I have four kids. So, I agree with that. But would prefer that -- my mom would
prefer that. She doesn't want a yard. So -- so, I get it. Not to suggest to my mother, but
-- but that kind of category is fine. It is appropriate. So, for those reasons I -- I am in
favor of moving ahead with the application as it is, although I recognize it puts us in a bit
of a bind and I think what Council Woman Strader -- her comment I do consider
seriously, like if we allow this allowance, then, the door is open for future ones.
recognize that. But, again, I'm more troubled by the fact that an old outdated -- in my
opinion an old outdated comprehensive plan is to be trumping what's the reality on the
ground today.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: I'm happy to maybe kind of continue the conversation. Similar -- similar
thoughts in this area and I hopped on my Google machine during that testimony I
Googled the population of Meridian in 2007 when -- we were half. We were half the
population in 2007 than we are today and I started to think a little bit about what housing
looked like in 2007 and it was largely, you know, nice size house on a nice size lot, big
backyard, big front yard and I noticed part of it was designed to really encourage a lot of
housing diversity and I think the Ten Mile Plan largely helped encourage job creation
and, then, provide housing for those jobs. The housing piece was certainly a big help.
Meridian City Council
March 12,2024
Page 56 of 66
But I look back in 2007 and diverse housing was not near the level that it is today.
Taylor's comments about density and -- and the testimony from the one citizen who
came today is that the applicant is in a really unique spot where they see what is called
for in the Ten Mile Specific Plan and our Comprehensive Plan and I think have tried
really really hard to meet, at the same time also trying to be sensitive to the feedback
that they have heard that we have right now too much multi-family in Meridian and it's --
it's unique in that you have got this and has brought something -- but they likely could
have something with greater density and I would have been very vocally opposed and
so now they are in this situation where they are lower on their density range and are
having a rank denial from our Planning and Zoning Commission staff, which as a
Council Member really makes me open my eyes to this application and we really need
to be particular about -- you know, when you let -- have your Planning and Zoning
Commission recommend denial, for me to look at this differently I really want to make
sure that I feel really confident in my decision. I don't necessarily know if it is outdated.
I'm more speaking towards is taking into account more of what is happening in the real
world today, as opposed to what was contemplated in a crystal ball, you know, close to
18 years ago. So, I like most of this. Not all of it. I tried in the early in the evening with
staff was about those design elements for that -- that did receive -- their design included
in this application that they had wanted to see and the only thing that I can -- I can see
that this application doesn't have that has been talked about in other housing
applications that around the area, was townhomes and so to me that is not the nexus
that I think this application should be required to overcome. Frankly, this is kind of
unique in that a single housing complex in relation to a lot of different jobs centers isn't
any different than what we are seeing in that area and so I think for that reason I'm likely
to be in support of this this evening.
Simison: Thank you. And I won't stay shut up, but -- and -- and staff's heard me say
this before, so, you know, I'm not the best example, because I don't necessarily adhere
to the -- every part needs to meet every single element when you come into certain
elements. Like when we -- you know, we have -- we have this conversation when you
are talking about mixed use where one -- one parcel can hit all elements, another parcel
can hit the elements that -- because it's the area is -- it's not development by
development, parcel by parcel. I know that they have to do projects, but I think it's the
right way to look at these larger areas and saying are they fulfilling the goal? Does
every single annexation property to have that element to it or not? Again you guys got
to make the hard decisions on these things, but, you know, sometimes -- I know it can
be difficult in the conversation, because I don't know -- it's hard, you know, for people to
say, well, when that one doesn't have it or conversely how do they work together to
make that work and sometimes that's what it does is say we got to bring them in
together, like we did up at Waltman, to get the desire to achieve a plan or the plan or the
city without having to be on each individual location to have all the elements that
everyone wants to have. So, housing types in this -- if there is other housing types in
the plan that help consideration. Maybe not.
Little Roberts: Mr. Mayor?
Meridian City Council
March 12,2024
Page 57 of 66
Simison: Council Woman Little Roberts.
Little Roberts: Mr. Mayor and fellow Councilman and staff, I would like to say thank you
for your due diligence in trying very hard to -- to do what we have tasked you with
regarding the Ten Mile Plan, but to me I think I'm -- from what you just said, Mr. Mayor,
substantially meets what we are looking for in that area and I struggle a little bit with the
alley loaded homes, because that is not something I would purchase. I'm a dog lover
and so I appreciate the fact that there is a dog park, so -- like to be able to open the
door and let the dog out, so -- so, I'm tending toward -- for approval, because I think that
in -- when we plan, even though it doesn't specifically meet what we have said in the
2007 plan, I think substantially it fits in that area.
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: The discussion is appreciated. I will miss this dearly. I think if there is a time to
highlight the difficulty that comes from being on City Council is -- we don't have it all the
time, but this is the type of application where you have got subjective discretion, you
have conflicting recommendations from what an applicant wants versus what staff
wants. This is the perfect storm of trying to exercise your individual discretion of what's
right for the city. So, I will -- my understanding where this thing is headed, but I will give
you some brief background on -- from my perspective, having been on Council when
the Ten Mile Plan was adopted. So, it's old, it kind of tells me that maybe I am, too, but
some of the anecdotal things that inform my decision are the years and years of time
when the Ten Mile Plan after it was passed sat largely vacant and there was such a
great deal of lag and we were concerned at times about is it the plan that's holding
everything back perhaps and should you abandon the plan perhaps and -- or should
you adhere to it and allow the developed community and our -- and our community's
needs to meet it. It was a higher bar. It was designed to be a higher bar and if you look
at it now I'm extremely proud of not only the good work -- what happened. I remember
all the charrettes in '27 -- 2007 and '6 1 think it was. A lot of good work. I don't think it's
that outdated. So, the older guy philosophy that -- that gives me pause -- first when --
when staff, who are subject matter experts in this and they rarely make that kind of
recommendation -- it gives me pause and -- and P&Z's review certainly gives me pause,
because that just -- and the focused attention on that discretion and is it right for
Meridian. So, that's a starting spot for my review and for listening to the application.
We have got an exceptional team in the back. You guys have done amazing work in
Meridian. You know what you are doing. But you have highlighted that question that
comes up at times is is this the right time. Is this the right project and the right spot at
the right time and my predecessors used to say that. Councilman Rountree was
famous for it. Dave Zaremba would say it. Mayor Tammy would say it. And every now
and then that question fits, so -- then I think about the value of long term planning and
staying relatively consistent and diligent and disciplined. The fear that I have -- I have
talked about before -- broader maybe than this applicant -- is -- is the risk of incremental
change and -- and item by item, a variant or a deviant -- deviation from -- whether it's a
Meridian City Council
March 12,2024
Page 58 of 66
long term plan. This could be a financial plan. This can be a land use specific area
plan. But, boy, it takes a lot of energy and discipline to stay focused on that and think to
yourself I'm going to try and make a decision that is correct in 2035 and it might not feel
good in 2024. For me as -- again, maybe I'm being nostalgic, because my time is short,
but I get most proud of the long-term perspectives. So -- and to be disciplined here.
That being said, I think the Ten Mile Specific Area Plan is truly aspirational. I think what
Hethe is saying is correct about the discretionary role of those standards versus, you
know, code requirements. It's not designed -- it's designed to put us in this exact
situation where you have got to make difficult calls. It's not required that you have 47
alley -- alley loaded, not 46. We purposely left it to create flexibility. So, the question
amongst us as decision makers in exercise of our discretion is this enough; right? What
if it had a -- what if it had six. Two? Right? You could. Does one; right? So, I don't
fault the applicant for bringing what they presented and I think it's a beautiful project and
it's got so many great elements met and I don't think having said that it's the right time. I
think it's described is an attractive application that isn't ready for this location at this
time. I appreciate staff standing strong and having the difficult conversations, making
the recommendation, helping us make an informed decision and maybe I'm the minority
in this, but I'm going to finish up being kind of sturdy and focused on the long-term
benefit of this Ten Mile Plan and follow staff and P&Z. I just think this -- this attractive
application is at the wrong time at this location.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mr. Mayor, I just -- as the Council contemplates what you would like to do, I would
like to at least put on the record both for the -- well, the no one that's watching it online,
but for the record itself -- I mean cities are required by code to create a comprehensive
plan and we have and comprehensive plans may be in place for many years. The prior
comprehensive plan to what we have now was in place about 18 years. Now, in that 18
years it was amended periodically for reasons similar to what was brought to you
tonight. Didn't fit. The vision that was there wasn't really -- was still the -- still the same
vision, but just didn't fit and there were some alterations that were made to that
comprehensive plan. A sub plan is not significantly different. It's the same concept.
You created a vision for an area and this is an annexation, so you have free reign to
deny it or approve it based on the vision that you -- you or prior councils have
envisioned in this area. So, you don't have to adhere to the code. It -- whether there --
if it complies with the code isn't -- isn't the only determining factor. It's whether it's the
right fit for the city and you are the only ones that could decide that. Staff, to their credit,
and Planning has said if you don't think it fits the Ten Mile vision, then, do a comp plan
amendment to come back and bring your vision, what you think should be altered from
just making a slight change here and there, which is what they are proposing, to
something maybe that's a little more significant and that was -- that was an option they
didn't choose to do. So, it is within your authority to simply say this isn't the vision you
want it, but I would be cautious on saying -- either saying the Ten Mile Plan is somewhat
outdated, because you will get applications from tomorrow on saying Ten Mile doesn't
Meridian City Council
March 12,2024
Page 59 of 66
apply anymore and I don't think that's what you are saying tonight. But that's the
message that may have been resonated with others and Planning will have to deal with
that. It doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It's still there. It's still required or still a vision for
this area and you have many -- you will still have many applications to go in some of
parts. So, if your decision is you want to approve it, if you think the Ten Mile needs to
be revisited that's your call. If you think this fits the generalized vision with some
alterations, that's your call. But please make that clear on what your intentions are if
that's what you would like to do and stay within the Ten Mile Plan. If you don't think it
fits the vision of the Ten Mile Plan, that is completely within your discretion, because this
is an annexation. You can simply deny if you don't think it is the right fit or the right time
for the city to annex this property. So, all of those are within your purview, but I didn't
want that to get lost from a future conversation or as part of your motion that, again,
comprehensive plans can exist for many years, but when they get outdated the process
is to amend it and that's what was proposed here and that was declined. So, I that's
really the way it should work. If you don't think it fits anymore, well, then, we should go
and look at amending it. Again, you don't have to go through a full scale process, we do
those periodically on individual projects, and this is just one they didn't do that. So, I
just didn't want to get that lost in whatever your decision is.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: Yeah. I just totally agree and I -- I guess I'm not totally alone, but, you know, I
think I already explained my reasoning pretty succinctly. This is the area -- where I think
the Ten Mile Plan had the vision and where I -- where it really speaks to me is this is the
area that density is planned in the city. This is an employment center. It's near
transportation. That was very intentional. I am probably harder than anybody on multi-
family off of two lane roads that will never be widened, so I have to lease space for
higher density to go places like there and that's just a philosophy I am coming at it from.
I don't want to see sprawl. I want to see the density focused intentionally in places like
the -- the Ten Mile Specific Area Plan where that was very much contemplated and so,
you know, I feel like it would be logically inconsistent for me to be so tough on these
applications, you know, for multi-family, but there needs to be a place for it in the city
and this is the type of place that it belongs and so if I start allowing, you know,
subdivisions that look to me very similar to subdivisions that are all across the city, then,
you know, we are not going to get any more of this dirt back, so that there is an
opportunity cost to that and so that's where I'm coming from. I am a big process person
as well. I believe in the consistency our backing up our staff and our Planning and
Zoning Commission in terms of having them adhere to a plan that's been very
intentional and I think basically feel like, hey, it's been a long time, I'm very open to us
looking at the plan and it's -- take a look at this area holistically and say, you know what,
we overshot it and there is -- there is way too much multi-family compared to what we
thought. Maybe there is a change that's needed in the plan. I'm open to those kinds of
conversations on a policy level, but what I'm not open to is this getting a green light,
because once we make these exceptions, get ready, the floodgates will open, we will be
Meridian City Council
March 12,2024
Page 60 of 66
getting exceptions every week. That's just my -- it's a little harsh, that's my two cents. I
think it's important to be consistent in our processes and it's important to be strong to
our long-terms plans and be intentional about how we go about things, so if we feel like
this plan needs to be upgraded, I think that's appropriate. I also appreciate that staff
tried to direct the applicant toward that type of a process. I think that was the right
recommendation.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: Really I would I like to correct the record. I don't think this was Council
Member Strader's intention, but those of us that are supportive of this application are
not somehow not having our staff's back in the collaborative process and we value the
feedback from staff and just because we disagree on one particular point here, I would
hope that that wasn't your intent to infer at the least some -- those of us that are
affirmative of this application aren't supportive of staff and so I just -- I thought that was
an important point to make. Maybe I'm hearing differently here in Arizona than it sounds
in Meridian, but I just think that distinction is very very important to make.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: Yeah. Absolutely. Thank you for giving me that opportunity to clarify. No, I
didn't mean that at all, but I do just feel like their recommendations weigh heavily on all
of us. I know that we all take those into account and anytime it's -- by its nature anytime
that we deviate from I think a staff recommendation we should be really clear I think in
articulating the reason, so that we are supportive in that process. So, I would just
encourage everybody who is in support to make sure to do that and know that you all
will and that will help support staff just to articulate the reasoning going forward for other
applicants.
Taylor: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Taylor.
Taylor: And I don't disagree with anything that's been said by anyone tonight and I
never -- I didn't take any comments to suggest that those of us who were looking to be
supportive any other way with staff. I think they did exactly what we wanted them to do
and I think that's the right thing. But to Councilman -- President Borton's comments, we
find ourselves at moments where as an elected official you have to make a decision that
-- I think the applicant was totally within their -- their right and their ability to challenge
some of the assumptions and to elevate that to use, because we are accountable to the
people, so I don't think it's in any way a reflection of how any of us feel about the
Planning and Zoning Commission or about the good work that the staff does. I just
Meridian City Council
March 12,2024
Page 61 of 66
think this is one of those unique situations where it kind of bubbles to the surface and,
then, as members of Council we get to make a hard decision where we bring in our
discretion and bring in our opinions and we tell people what -- how we would view the
world and how we would approach these decisions and this is where we get to kind of
express that, irrespective of the previous things that had occurred. So, again, I think
this is an interesting and challenging conversation for sure, because we are talking
about some really significant decisions, not just for the applicant, but for what as a city
we want to see one of these really last, your know, big open areas and how we want to
see that -- that develop. So, I'm certainly sensitive to that and I think getting one
suggestion anyway that we don't appreciate the staff doing exactly what we wanted
them to do or to suggest Planning and Zoning maybe got it wrong, I just think it is one of
those things that is kind of unique and that's why we are in this situation.
Simison: And if I could just add, you know -- and this is probably the perfect application
for these comments and I don't want to single out anybody specifically, but, you know, I
have asked staff to give us their opinion, you know, much to -- maybe to some of the
development community they would not like your opinion, they would like your
compliance in that element. We have had this conversation with this applicant, you
know, sometimes this is -- that would be their preference and I believe that's their
opinion. Conversely, Planning and Zoning, we ask does it comply, you know. I have not
asked for their -- when I have done my interviews with them I have not asked for their
opinion on a value judgment, it has been does it meet the intentions of the code and the
policy and I have tried to put them -- you know, at least the ones I have appointed into
that realm and into the mind frame, because I say Council is where the -- where the
value decision is to be made outside of that. The decision purview on what is right
when -- for the community and so to me this process has worked perfectly when it
comes down to maybe not of only liking or appreciating -- or I don't want to say anyone
appreciates it, but, yeah, everyone would like to have a yes from staff, a yes from
Planning and Zoning and a yes from Council on every project, but ultimately these --
this is a -- like I say, it's a value judgment on an annexation for the Council to determine
and Planning and Zoning I think -- I think they have got it right from their perspective
when they looked at the -- you know, there is a little bit of value judgment in there as
well for them, but their opinion it maybe doesn't comply with the standards that they felt
and their -- to their reading of it. So, great application for this wonderful conversation.
Parsons: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, if I'm reading the room right and we do
need -- and you may want us to -- staff would recommend if this is going in favor of an
approval that we continue this item and, then, bring back some conditions of approval,
because currently with the denial from staff and P&Z there currently are no conditions of
approval. So, we will need some time to work with the applicant and craft some of
those up and bring them back for your review and approval. If that's your desire. I'm
glad you left the public hearing open. Thank you.
Simison: Okay. From that standpoint timing. The 27th or the 2nd?
Meridian City Council
March 12,2024
Page 62 of 66
Parson: Council, Mayor, I think the later the better for us. Probably the first one in April.
Give us some time. We got spring break next week. We are missing -- we are
canceling City Council hearing next week and that's going to push some more hearings
on the 26th. So, things are backing up a little bit. So, that gives us time to work with the
applicant.
Simison: Does the 2nd work with the applicant? Give us time to get that done and
bring it back? Okay.
Taylor: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Taylor.
Taylor: So, it seems appropriate to -- if I'm doing it correctly -- make a motion for a
continuance for File No. H-2023-0049 to allow the applicant to work with the staff on a
list of -- forgetting the word -- conditions of approval. Thank you. It's getting late. That
would be my motion.
Little Roberts: Second.
Simison: Have a motion and a second to continue this item to April 2nd. Is there further
discussion? Further guidance from legal or otherwise?
Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, no, only that, though, with the hearing still
open and the conditions of approval, if all six Council Members are here, you haven't
made a decision on what you are doing, on what this project is doing. So, is that the
intention to consider it on April 2nd for final decision, with conditions of approval as an
offer an option to be able to move forward with an approval?
Taylor: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Taylor.
Taylor: I think that was my intention was that we would vote on -- on this -- this
applicant's proposal with the conditions being outlined. That's my intention with the
motion.
Little Roberts: Second concurs.
Simison: Okay. Is there further discussion?
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Meridian City Council
March 12,2024
Page 63 of 66
Strader: I just want to understand -- maybe I'm getting confused. Is the motion maker
intending to approve in concept tonight with a continuance for the purposes of crafting a
future development agreement set of conditions for that? Is that -- so, kind of an up or
down vote with those to come or review -- because if you -- I think if you leave it totally
open, then, other members of Council that are not here would vote on it. So, I think
that's what Mr. Nary was kind of trying to --
Taylor: I'm open to being corrected on the right process here.
Simison: Let me save us a little bit of time. If another Council Member is here and
would choose to vote no I will respect the will of the Council tonight and vote yes. So,
that is not a question mark. If that just -- you know, from that standpoint. Now, if people
that are going to vote yes aren't here, I can't speak to that situation, because that isn't
the same agreement, so -- but that's -- I -- I don't know what the other Council Member
will choose to do, if they will choose to participate or not participate, but --
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: It's -- it's been the practice -- you can make the motion now to take action,
decide it, subject to the conditions of approval that will be brought back and formally
approved on April 2nd. At least it gives the applicant some certainty, so there is nothing
goes off the rails. I'm gone April 2nd. That's my last day, so --
Simison: But you will be here on April 2nd.
Borton: At least present, but -- and in which is fine. That doesn't matter for the -- the
practice has been that and that would be appropriate to do the same thing tonight.
Taylor: So, Mr. Mayor, if I'm -- to clarify, since I made the motion, to make the motion
correctly, that the motion would be to continue the public hearing.
Simison: I think we would want to close the public hearing.
Taylor: Or -- do you do want to close the public hearing? I thought Councilman
Cavener wanted to keep the public hearing open, so -- maybe I'm ahead of my skis.
Nary: Mr. Mayor, can I help?
Simison: Yes.
Nary: Mr. Mayor. So, what I have heard the Council say -- I think you should leave the
public hearing open, because you are going to need findings that are going to have to
be approved. You haven't seen them yet. So, just to be -- in case there is a discussion
about any of the findings. But I think Council Member -- I think what we are trying to do,
Meridian City Council
March 12,2024
Page 64 of 66
Councilman Taylor, you are wanting to move to approve the project tonight with -- set
over until April 2nd for the findings to come back and, then, an opportunity to review.
So, it can always be rescinded on April 2nd if there is a problem with the findings, but
you will be able to hear them, because the hearing will still be open. But you won't be
voting on approving or denying it on April 2nd at this juncture.
Taylor: So, Mr. Mayor -- so, we will be voting on the -- the application tonight subject to
the conditions that we will be receiving on April 2nd. I would be supportive of that.
Little Roberts: Second concurs.
Simison: Okay. So, we have a path. This is a new one on me. I don't know that we
have ever not -- approved a project without closing the public hearing essentially without
taking another vote, but if it's legal it's legal. So, we have a motion and a second. Is
there further discussion?
Borton: Mr. Mayor? And --
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: It's only open for the purpose of receiving the conditions, not for members of
the public or the applicant is not making a presentation. So, it's --
Nary: Yeah. I apologize for not making that clear. Not for further testimony. Is to
receive the findings and since we don't have them to discuss we want to make sure that
the Council has a full opportunity to discuss the findings only.
Simison: All right. Further discussion? Clerk will call the roll.
Roll Call: Borton, nay; Cavener, aye; Strader, nay; Overton, absent; Little Roberts, yea;
Taylor, yea.
Simison: Three ayes, two no's, and the item is agreed to and it's continued to come
back on April 2nd.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO NAYS. ONE ABSENT.
ORDINANCES [Action Item]
5. Ordinance No. 24-2048: An ordinance (Crowley Park Subdivision — H-
2023-0053) annexing a parcel of land lying in a portion of the
northwest quarter of Section 10, Township 3 North, Range 1 West,
Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more
particularly described in Exhibit "A"; rezoning 1.13 acres of such real
property from R1 (Estate Residential) to R-8 (Medium-Density
Residential) zoning district; directing city staff to alter all applicable
Meridian City Council
March 12,2024
Page 65 of 66
use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps and all official
maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of
Meridian in accordance with this ordinance; providing that copies of
this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada
County Treasurer, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax
Commission, as required by law; repealing conflicting ordinances;
and providing an effective date.
Simison: With that we will move on to Item 5, which is Ordinance No. 24-2048. Ask the
Clerk to read this ordinance by title.
Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It's an ordinance related to Crowley Park Subdivision,
H-2023-0053, annexing a parcel of land lying in a portion of the northwest quarter of
Section 10, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada
County, Idaho, more particularly described in Exhibit "A"; rezoning 1.13 acres of such
real property from R-1 (Estate Residential) to R-8 (Medium-Density Residential) zoning
district; directing city staff to alter all applicable use and area maps, as well as the
official zoning maps and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning
districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance; providing that copies
of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Treasurer,
the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law;
repealing conflicting ordinances; and providing an effective date.
Simison: Thank you. Council, you have heard this ordinance read by title. Is there
anybody that would like it read in its entirely? If not, do I have a motion?
Taylor: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Taylor.
Taylor: Make a motion that we approve Ordinance No. 24-2048.
Little Roberts: Second.
Simison: Have a motion and a second to approve Ordinance No. 24-2048. Is there any
discussion? If not, Clerk will call the roll.
Roll Call: Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Strader, yea; Overton, absent; Little Roberts, yea;
Taylor, yea.
Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is agreed to.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
FUTURE MEETING TOPICS
Meridian City Council
March 12,2024
Page 66 of 66
Simison: Council, anything under future meeting topics? Or do I have a motion to
adjourn?
Borton: Move to adjourn.
Simison: Motion to adjourn. All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The
ayes have it. We are adjourned.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:27 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
3 / 26 24
MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON DATE APPROVED
ATTEST:
CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK
E IDIAN;---
/hl R
AGENDA ITEM
Public Forum - Future Meeting Topics
The Public are invited to sign up in advance of the meeting at
www.meridiancity.org/forum to address elected officials regarding topics of
general interest or concern of public matters. Comments specific to an active
land use/development applications are not permitted during this time.
By law, no decisions can be made on topics presented at the Public
Forum. However, City Council may request the topic be added to a future
meeting agenda for further discussion or action. The Mayor may also direct
staff to provide followup assistance regarding the matter.
j
CITY OF MERIDIAN
CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC FORUM SIGN-IN SHEET
Date:
Please sign in below if you wish to address the Mayor and City Council and
provide a brief description of your topic. Please observe the following rules of
the Public Forum:
i
• DO NOT:
o Discuss active applications or proposals pending before Planning
and Zoning or City Council
o Complain about city staff, individuals, business or private matters
• DO
o When it is your turn to speak, state your name and address first
o Observe a 3-minute time limit (you may be interrupted if your topic
is deemed inappropriate for this forum)
Name (please print) Brief Description of Discussion Topic
C� E IDIAN
Planning and Zoning Department Presentation and Outline
h2
City Council MeetingMarch 12, 2024
ExistingProposed
ExistingProposed
5application. lopment A flood plain development permit with base flood elevations and flood protection elevations shall be required with a future dk.. 6-3A-The existing irrigation ditch
on the eastern portion of the site shall be piped or otherwise covered as set forth in UDC 11j.districts (i.e., CD).commercial residential design standards in the Architectural Standards
Manual for-Future structure(s) on the site shall comply with the noni.34E as long as the property abuts a residential district.-3-4-shall be limited to 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. as set
forth in UDC 11if developed on the site,,facility hours of public operationStoragesThe h.10C.5.-3B-Mitigation is required for existing trees on this site that are removed as set forth
in UDC 11g.buffer width from 25 feet to 5 feet. Note: The City Council approved a reduced 9C, as approved by City Council with consent from the property owner to the north. -3B-UDC
11rds listed in wide buffer shall be provided to the residential land use to the north (Parcel #R3579000015), landscaped per the standa-foot-f.Division with the Certificate of Zoning
Compliance application for the proposed use. 3A.2. A copy of the recorded easement should be submitted to the Planning -3A-south (Parcel #R3579000025) in accord with UDC 11perty to
the egress easement granted to the pro-access/ingress-A driveway stub shall be constructed to the southern property line and a crosse.Division with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance
application for the proposed use. 3A.2. A copy of the recorded easement should be submitted to the Planning -3A-north (Parcel #R3579000015) in accord with UDC 11perty to the egress
easement granted to the pro-access/ingress-A driveway stub shall be constructed to the northern property line and a crossd.N. Linder Rd., unless otherwise approved by the City and ACHD.
t side of The existing driveway via N. Linder Rd. Shall be closed and a new driveway constructed in alignment with the driveway on the c.., as applicable16-3A-service uses in UDC 11-and
the standards for self18) -3-4-flex space facilities (UDC 1134-3-4-UDC 11(listed in service storage facilities -self42), -3-4-warehouse facilities (UDC 11Comply with the specific use
standards for b.design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual, and the provisions contained herein.Report attached to the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law attached hereto
as Exhibit “B,” Unified Development Code Standthe Staff Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the conceptual development plans included in Section VIII
a.:conditionsspecialfollowingwithaccordanceinPropertydevelopshallOwner/Developer.1.5:PROPERTYSUBJECTOFDEVELOPMENTGOVERNINGCONDITIONS.
Conceptual Elevations
ZoningAerialFLUM
REVISED
ZoningAerialFLUM
TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN accommodate treesInsufficient space for adequate parkways to Long Block Lengthscar garages-loaded two-the frontSeparate garage doors are not proposed
for Missing functional/usable porchesdominated units are proposed-Garageloaded units -Proposing only ten (10) alleystreet and sidewalkappropriate street canopy to shade both the
Residential streets should provide an friendly neighborhoods -Pedestrian and familyShorter block lengthsdesigned with two separate garage doorsloaded two car garages must be -Frontfacadefeet
behind the primary -Garages located 20Useable porches (at 30% of front façade)Mix of housing typesAPPLICANT’S PROPOSAL
Changes to Agenda: None
th
Item #1: Linder Condos (H-2023-0074) – Continued from Feb. 13 (public hearing was left open)
The Council continued this project in order to allow the Applicant time to provide clarifying information as to the specific tenant use and
that the proposed use is not a more intensive use that’s similar to what was contemplated in the original application, that the parking is
appropriate for the use proposed; and to address the impact on residential neighbors. The applicant submitted a letter addressing
these concerns, which includes a letter from Ronald Hatch, the owner of the residential property to the north, in support of the proposed
MDA request.
Application(s): Development Agreement Modification
Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 0.98-acre of land, zoned R1 in Ada County, located at 300 N.
Linder Rd.
History: An annexation application with I-L zoning was recently approved for this property with the requirement of a DA, which was
never executed.
Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: General Industrial
Summary of Request: The applicant proposes to modify the terms of the DA required with the previous annexation application with
this application. Because the previous development plan was for a self-service storage facility, future use of the property was restricted
to that use through the DA. The applicant proposes to modify the DA to include warehouse and flex space uses along with the
previously approved storage facility use to allow more variety in uses that can develop on the site. All of the proposed uses are
principal permitted uses in the I-L district and are subject to specific use standards in the UDC.
The concept plan has changed slightly – previously, there were 8 tenant spaces in two buildings; now 7 tenant spaces are proposed,
still in two buildings, totaling 15,643 s.f. The west building had to be reduced in size to accommodate the cross-access
easement/driveway required to the adjacent properties to the north and south. The access driveway via Linder Rd. was also shifted to
the south to align with the driveway on the west side of the street.
Off-street parking is proposed in accord with UDC standards. A minimum of 7 spaces are required, 13 are provided, which should
accommodate any of the proposed uses.
The building elevations have also changed slightly, as shown. Final design is required to comply with the standards in the ASM.
Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: None
Staff Recommendation: Approval
Possible Motions:
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2023-0074, as presented in the staff
report for the hearing date of March 12, 2024: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions)
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2023-0074, as presented during the
hearing on March 12, 2024, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial)
Continuance
I move to continue File Number H-2023-0074 to the hearing date of ___________ for the following reason(s): (You should state
specific reason(s) for continuance.)
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Item #2: Ultra Clean Franklin – MDA (H-2023-0064)
Application(s): Development Agreement Modification
Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 2-acres of land, zoned C-G, located at 3070 E. Franklin Rd. on
the north side of Franklin, just west of Eagle Rd.
History: This property was annexed in 1996. The annexation Ordinance (#737 Haskin Green) approved for the property requires the
property owner to enter into a DA with the City prior to issuance of a building permit or plat approval, whichever occurs first. The
ordinance includes requirements for inclusion in the future DA and compliance with the Findings associated with the annexation.
Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Commercial
Summary of Request: The Applicant requests a new DA with a modification to the terms of the agreement required with the
annexation ordinance. No development has occurred on the property and the property has changed ownership since it was annexed.
The original plan was to subdivide the property for individual building sites but that plan never came to fruition. The new owner would
like to develop the property with a vehicle washing facility. Because there are many outdated requirements for the DA and references
to City Code that are no longer in effect, Staff recommends new provisions with this application that are applicable to the proposed
development, which will replace the original ones.
A conceptual development plan was submitted as shown, that demonstrates how the site is proposed to develop with a vehicle
washing facility. The proposed use is a principal permitted use in the C-G district, subject to the specific use standards in the UDC for
such use.
Staff has reviewed the site plan and finds it demonstrates safe pedestrian and vehicular access and circulation on the site. Stacking
lanes have sufficient capacity to prevent obstruction of the public ROW. Although no residential uses or districts abut the site, an
extended stay hotel exists directly to the north, which may be impacted by noise from the carwash & vacuums. As mitigation, Staff
recommends the hours of operation are limited from 6:00 am to 10:00 pm; dense landscaping is provided along the northern boundary
of the site; and mufflers are provided on the vacuums, which should assist in reducing the noise and visual impacts of the proposed
use.
Access is proposed via N. Olson Ave., a local street, along the west boundary of the site; no access is proposed or approved via
Franklin Rd. Although a cross-access easement exists to this site from the abutting property to the north, there is a 9’+/- fall in grade
from the proposed driveway to the existing driveway and a significant cross-slope, which would make a shared access difficult. For this
reason, Staff & ACHD supports the proposed access via Olson and does not recommend the cross-access easement to the north is
utilized.
The Snyder Lateral bisects the western portion of this site within a 40’ wide easement and is proposed to be piped with development. A
35’ wide street buffer is required along Franklin Rd., an entryway corridor, landscaped in accord with the enhanced landscape
standards for such. A detached sidewalk is proposed to be constructed along Franklin Rd. that Staff recommends is 10’ in width,
extending off-site along Franklin to the east across the ACHD property to connect to the 10’ pathway along Eagle Rd. if consent can be
obtained from ACHD.
Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed structure as shown. Building materials consist of a mix of natural
limestone and burnished CMU in neutral colors, and woodgrain printed metal cladding. Final design is required to comply with the
design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual.
Written Testimony: None
Staff Recommendation: Approval
Possible Motions:
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2023-0064, as presented in the staff
report for the hearing date of March 12, 2024: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions)
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2023-0064, as presented during the
hearing on March 12, 2024, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial)
Continuance
I move to continue File Number H-2023-0064 to the hearing date of ____________ for the following reason(s): (You should state
specific reason(s) for continuance.)
Item 3: Stonehill Church (H-2023-0041)
Development Agreement Modification
Rezone
Preliminary Plat
Conditional Use Permit
Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 65.43 acres of land, zoned R-4, located at 799 W. Amity Rd. on
the south side of Amity, midway between Meridian & Linder Road.
History: This property was part of the area included in the South Meridian annexation area in 2015. A DA exists for this property that
requires an amendment to the agreement prior to any future development of the site.
Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Low Density Residential (LDR)
Summary of Request: The Applicant requests a modification to the existing DA to allow for the development of a church on the
northeast portion of the property and removal of that property from the original agreement for inclusion in a new agreement just for the
church property. The remainder of the property will continue to be governed by the existing DA.
A rezone of 13.36-acres of land is proposed from the R-4 to the R-8 zoning district for the development of a church, which requires a
conditional use permit in the R-8 district.
A preliminary plat is proposed consisting of 4 building lots on 65.43-acres of land in the R-4 & R-8 zoning districts for Stonehill Crossing
Subdivision. The preliminary plat is proposed to develop in one phase. The reason the property is proposed to be subdivided at this
time is to create a lot for the church to develop on; the remainder of the site, except for the lot where the existing home is located to the
south of the proposed church, is proposed to be re-subdivided in the future prior to development.
Transportation improvements proposed with this subdivision consist of construction of a collector street from Amity Rd. to the southern
boundary of the site & a roundabout at the Amity/collector street intersection in accord with the MSM; and the widening of Amity Rd.
The church is proposed to develop on Lot 1, Block 1; the existing home on the east side of the proposed collector street is proposed to
remain on Lot 2, Block 1; Lot 3, Block 1 & Lot 1, Block 2 are proposed as “mega” lots to be further re-subdivided in the future prior to
development. Another existing home on the west side of the collector street is proposed to remain for the time being on Lot 1, Block 2.
Access is proposed for Lot 1, Block 1 (the church) via two (2) driveway accesses from the collector street & an emergency only access
driveway from Amity Rd. The existing home on the east side of the collector is proposed to be accessed temporarily through the church
property; subsequent access is proposed from a local street at the east boundary via a “flag”. The UDC limits access points to collector
and arterial streets to improve safety and to ensure that motorists can safely enter all streets, unless otherwise waived by City Council.
Further, the UDC requires all subdivisions to provide local street access to any use that currently takes direct access from an arterial or
collector street. For this reason, Staff recommends a local street is provided between the church & the existing home to provide access
to both uses and the accesses via the collector are removed. The Applicant requests approval of a waiver from Council for the two (2)
proposed accesses via the collector street. A temporary access is proposed via the collector street for the existing home on the west
side of the collector since no development is proposed on that lot at this time. If that home is retained with the future re-subdivision,
local street access should be provided.
The Calkins Lateral lies on the western portion of this site within a 56’ wide easement & the Belle Sub Lateral lies along the east
boundary of the southern portion of this site within a 50’ wide easement (25’ on each side).
A 25’ wide street buffer is required along Amity Rd. & a 20’ buffer is required along the collector street, landscaped per UDC standards.
A 10’ wide detached sidewalk is required along Amity and a 5’ wide detached sidewalk is required along the collector street. A 10’ wide
multi-use pathway is required along the Calkins Lateral in accord with the PMP.
The Applicant requests deferral of several improvements typically required with a subdivision, until such time as Lot 3, Block 1 and Lot
1, Block 2 is re-subdivided in the future, as follows:
Street buffer landscaping & 10’ sidewalk along Amity Rd. west of the collector street;
The multi-use pathway along the Calkins Lateral;
Open space & site amenities for the residential development;
Piping or improving the laterals that cross this site as a water amenity or linear open space; and,
Closing of the existing farm access & irrigation district accesses via Amity Rd.
Staff is amenable to deferral of these improvements as requested. If Council doesn’t approve deferral of these improvements, the
Applicant requests approval of a phasing plan, which would essentially defer these items through future final plats.
A CUP is proposed for a 52,000+/- s.f. church on 13.09-acres of land in an R-8 zoning district; compliance with the specific use
standards in the UDC for church uses is required. The church is proposed to develop in (2) phases as shown on the phasing plan; the
nd
first phase will consist of approximately 40,000 s.f. and the 2 phase will consist of approximately 12,000 s.f.
Access to the site will be determined with the associated preliminary plat by the City and ACHD. Off-street parking is required in accord
with UDC standards; a minimum of 104 spaces are required, approximately 710 spaces are proposed at build-out.
Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed 2-story structure as shown. Building materials consist of a mix of
stucco, vertical rough sawn NICHIHA architectural wall panels and corrugated painted metal panels in horizontal orientation. These
elevations have not been reviewed for compliance with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual and are not
approved with this application. Review will take place with submittal of a design review application with a Certificate of Zoning
Compliance application prior to submittal of a building permit application.
Commission Recommendation: Approval
Summary of Commission Public Hearing:
i. In favor: John Rennison, Rennison Design (Applicant’s Representative)
ii. In opposition: None
iii. Commenting: None
iv. Written testimony: John Rennison, Rennison Design (Applicant’s Representative)
v. Key Issue(s): None
Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission:
i. The Applicant’s request for deferral of improvements typically required with a subdivision.
ii. The Applicant’s request for removal of the condition (#2.1g) requiring a local street to be provided between Lots 1 & 2, Block 1
for access to the church & existing residence.
Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation:
i. None
Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council:
i. The Applicant’s request for deferral of certain improvements typically required with a subdivision, as noted.
ii. The Applicant’s request for removal of condition #2.1g requiring a local street to be provided between Lots 1 & 2, Block 1 for
access to the church & existing residence.
iii. The Applicant’s request for a waiver to UDC 11-3A-3A.1 to allow two (2) accesses via S. Oak Briar Way, a collector street.
Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: None
Possible Motions:
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2023-0041, as presented in the staff
report for the hearing date of March 12, 2024: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions)
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2023-0041, as presented during the
hearing on March 12, 2024, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial)
Continuance
I move to continue File Number H-2023-0041 to the hearing date of ________ for the following reason(s): (You should state
specific reason(s) for continuance.)
Item #4: Avani Neighborhood (H-2023-0049)
Application(s):
Annexation & Zoning
Preliminary Plat
Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 33.71 acres of land, zoned RUT in Ada County, located at the
Southeast of Franklin Road and Black Cat, North of I-84.
History: None
Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Medium High-Density Residential (MHDR)
Summary of Request: The Applicant proposes to annex 35.214 acres of land with an R-15 (Medium-High Density Residential) zoning
district which is listed in the Zoning District Compatibility Matrix in the TMISAP as one of the best choices for zoning in the MHDR
designation.
This property is designated Medium High-Density Residential (MHDR) on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and is located within the
area known as the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan (TMISAP). MHDR areas are recommended to develop primarily with
relatively dense multi-family housing types, such as row houses, townhouses, condominiums, and apartments, not all single-family
attached and detached homes as proposed by the applicant. These areas should have a mix of housing types that achieve an overall
average density target of 12 dwelling units per acre with densities ranging from 8-15 units per acre.
The proposed development incorporates a mix of single-family attached (95) and single-family detached (161) homes, resulting in an
overall gross density of 7.59 units per acre inconsistent with the target density desired in the MHDR FLUM designation in the TMISAP.
Townhomes should be included in this development to be more consistent with the plan; however, the property to the east has
approval to construct a 552-unit multi-family development to offset the need for additional multi-family in the area. Mixed– Employment
areas are also entitled or in the development process to the west, south, and southeast so it is conceivable that this development may
provide additional housing options for these employment areas.
Background: Ten Mile Interchange Area was intended to look, feel, and function differently than a typical residential subdivision. It
operates as a form-based specific area plan, where the design of the built environment is the primary review element and is intended to
work in conjunction with the land use and zoning designations. These design elements should not be treated as a checklist, but used to
implement the overall vision and support a traditional neighborhood design desired by the Plan.
Out of the 256 single-family units, only 10 are alley-loaded; the others are all front-loaded with living area either at the same plane or
behind the garages away from the street. A few of the units have usable porches that might meet the guidelines. No porches are
proposed on the side facades. All units have single 2-car garage doors, not separate doors.
The proposed elevations do not meet the design criteria that encourage building entrances to be situated close to the street, primarily
due to their garage-dominated nature. Elevations for the alley-loaded units were not submitted with the application, making it difficult
for Staff to determine if they comply with these guidelines.
Staff believes the plat should incorporate more ally-loaded lots however, the Applicant believes there isn’t a market for this
type of housing and has elected to limit the number of alley-loaded homes to ten (10) which is inconsistent with the Plan.
Shorter block lengths and narrower streets help build a greater sense of community. As proposed, these lots are narrow and garage-
dominated, creating more driveways and less tree-lined streets along the primary streets, which contradicts TND principles. More alley-
loaded homes would enhance the streetscape for this development and ground the front porches to the primary street per the Plan.
Some of these design elements are not required by the UDC as envisioned by the Plan. Therefore, the applicant requests that
Council allow some deviations to these design elements.
Preliminary Plat: A preliminary plat is proposed consisting of 256 \[95 single-family attached, 10 alley-loaded, and 151 single-family
detached units\] building lots and 25 landscape, six (6) common driveways, two (2) alleys, and one (1) non-buildable lot on 33.71-acres
of land in the R-15 district. Proposed lots range in size from 2,436 to 5,357 square feet (s.f.) with an average lot size of 3,584 (sf.) The
subdivision is proposed to develop in three (3) phases as shown on the preliminary plat
The applicant is currently collaborating with the property owners directly to the south and east to complete the Collector Street
(Vanguard Way) connection to Black Cat. The City desires to have this street dedicated and constructed before residents occupy the
homes in this development.
Site Amenities: A minimum of seven (7) points of site amenities are required based on the area of the single-family residential
development. Qualified amenities should include features listed in UDC Table 11-3G-4. A large park that includes a children’s
playground with a play structure, swings, climbing rocks, a climbing dome, seating benches, within a safe fenced area, two pickle ball
courts, and fenced dog park (9 points) is proposed which meets the minimum standard. The 10-foot wide regional pathways along
Black Cat Road and Vanguard Way consist of approximately 2,500 linear feet. Additionally, the 5-foot micro-pathway running north
and south on the east side of the property spans approximately 1,000 linear feet (4 points). Overall, the proposed amenities exceed
the minimum standards.
Staff recommended denial to Commission of the proposed annexation and preliminary plat as the proposed project does not align with
the purpose and intent of the TMISAP, as outlined in the analysis in the Staff Report in accordance with the Findings. The applicant
has been made aware of Staff’s concerns and has elected to forego some of Staff’s recommended changes to gain a favorable
recommendation. Despite Staff’s repeated suggestions for the Applicant to apply for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to better align
with the design criteria in the TMISAP, the Applicant showed no interest in pursuing this recommendation. However, Council should
rely on all relevant information when determining if this project is consistent with the Plan and open to allowing deviations from the
design elements as desired by the Applicant.
Commission Recommendation: Denial
Summary of Commission Public Hearing:
vi. In favor: Hethe Clark
vii. In opposition: None
viii. Commenting: Hethe Clark
ix. Written testimony: None
x. Key Issue(s): None
Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission:
iv. Meeting the target density for the project.
v. Does the Annexation request before the City fit the vision of the community and what the City is trying to accomplish in this
area.
vi. The spirit of the TMISAP is to provide something different, not the same characteristics as you find everywhere else in the City.
vii. The project lacks the design elements required within the TMISAP.
Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation: None
Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: None
Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: None
Notes:
Possible Motions:
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2023-0049, as presented in the staff
report for the hearing date of March 12, 2024: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions)
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2023-0049, as presented during the
hearing on March 12, 2024, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial)
Continuance
I move to continue File Number H-2023-0049 to the hearing date of March 12, 2024 for the following reason(s): (You should state
specific reason(s) for continuance.)
W IDIAN�
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing Continued from February 13, 2024. for Linder Condos (H-
2023-0074) by The Architects Office, PLLC., located at 300 N. Linder Rd.
Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2023-0074
A. Request: Development Agreement Modification to modify the existing development
agreement (H-2022-0091) to allow warehouse and flex space uses along with the previously
approved self-storage facility and update to the conceptual development plan and building
elevations.
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET
DATE: March 12, 2024 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 1
PROJECT NAME: Linder Condos (H-2023-0074)
Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify
(Please Print) HOA? (mark X if yes)
If yes, please
provide HOA name
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
STAFF REPORT C�I
w IDIAN --
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .►A H O
HEARING March 12,2024 Legend
DATE: Continued from:February13, 2024
l Lacatan L-0
TO: Mayor&City Council : Q�=
FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner �`oc �RUT-
208-884-5533 —i
SUBJECT: H-2023-0074
Linder Condos—MDA R1 _
m
LOCATION: 300 N. Linder Rd. in the SW 1/4 of
Section 12,T.3N.,R.l W. I
J�
Vw�FRAHIJFI= _
C, ,
R1 �-N .�
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Applicant proposes a modification to the development agreement required with H-2022-0091,Linder
Storage Condos,to allow warehouse and flex space uses along with the previously approved self-service
storage facility; and update the conceptual development plan and building elevations.
II. SUMMARY OF REPORT
A. Project Summary
Description Details Page
Acreage 0.98-acre
Future Land Use Designation General Industrial
Existing Land Use Rural residential property
Proposed Land Use(s) Self-service storage facility or warehouse or flex space
Current Zoning RI in Ada County
Proposed Zoning Tentatively approved with I-L(Light Industrial)zoning(with
approval of the development agreement and annexation
ordinance H-2022-0091)
Physical Features(waterways, None
hazards,flood plain,hillside)
Neighborhood meeting date 1/11/24
History(previous approvals) Lot 4,Heppers Acre Subdivision;H-2022-0091 (AZ,VAC)
Pagel
III. APPLICANT INFORMATION
A. Applicant:
Jeremy Putman, The Architect's Office—499 Main Street,Boise, ID 83702
B. Owner:
Greg Herman—300 N. Linder Rd.,Meridian, ID 83642
C. Representative:
Same as Applicant
IV. NOTICING
City Council
Posting Date
Newspaper notification
published in newspaper 1/28/24, 2/25/24
Radius notification mailed to
property owners within 300 feet 1/26/24, 2/24/24
Public hearing notice sign posted
1/13/24, 2/28/24
on site
Nextdoor posting 1/29/24, 2/26/24
V. STAFF ANALYSIS
The Applicant proposes to modify the development agreement(H-2022-0091)to allow warehouse and flex
space uses in addition to the previously approved self-service storage facility use; and update the conceptual
development plan and building elevations for the site. The Applicant's narrative states the target market for
these spaces will be for contractors,mostly for storage,with the potential for each space to have a small
office and restroom.Note: The development agreement associated with H-2022-0091 has not yet been signed
and recorded.
Proposed Use: The proposed modification will allow for more variety in the uses allowed on the site as can
be accommodated with the proposed development plan. Per UDC Table 11-2C-2,warehouse and flex space
uses are listed as principal permitted uses in the I-L district. The proposed uses are subject to the specific use
standards listed in the UDC, as follows:
• 11-4-3-42 Warehouse:
A. Accessory uses allowed. Office not to exceed twenty-five(25)percent and retail sales not to
exceed ten(10)percent of the total enclosed area of the use.
B. Outside activity areas shall be located a minimum of three hundred(300)feet from any property
line adjoining a residence or a residential district.
• 11-4-3-18 Flex Space:
A. Office and/or retail showroom areas shall comprise a minimum of thirty(20) percent of the
structure and/or tenant space.
B. Light industry and warehousing shall not comprise more than seventy(70)percent of the tenant
space.
C. In the C-C, C-G and M-E districts,roll-up doors shall not be visible from a public street.
Page 2
D. Except in the I-L and I-H districts,loading docks are prohibited.
E. Retail use shall not exceed twenty-five (25)percent of leasable area in any tenant space.
Site Plan: Originally, eight(8)tenant spaces were proposed in two(2)buildings;now seven(7) tenant
spaces are proposed in two(2)buildings totalling 15,643 s.f., including mezzanines. The west building had
to be reduced in size to accommodate the cross-access easement/driveway required to the adjacent properties
to the north and south.
Access: Access is proposed via N. Linder Rd., an arterial street.The location of the cross-access driveway to
the south has changed from the middle of the site between the buildings to the west side of the front building
along Linder Rd.; a cross-access driveway is proposed to the north in alignment with the driveway to the
south in accord with UDC 11-3A-3A.2.A Fire Dept.turnaround is proposed between the two structures as
depicted on the site plan.
Parking: In the I-L zoning district, a minimum of one(1)off-street vehicle parking space is required for
every 2,000 s.f. of gross floor area per UDC 11-3C-6B.2, except for self-service storage facilities,which only
require parking for the associated office space(if provided)and not for the storage facility. Because a variety
of uses are proposed,the more restrictive parking standard should apply to the overall development.
Based on the square footage of the structures(i.e. 15,643 s.f.), a minimum of seven(7)parking spaces are
required; 13 spaces are provided, exceeding the minimum standard by six(6) spaces,which should be
sufficient for any of the uses proposed. The extra spaces should accommodate parking for the flex space use
(if developed),which would likely create a need for more parking for customers and employees of the
retail/office component of the use.
A minimum of one(1)bicycle parking space is required for every 25 proposed vehicle parking spaces or
portion thereof per UDC 11-3C-6G;bicycle parking facilities are required to meet the location and design
standards listed in 11-3C-5C. A bicycle rack is depicted on the site plan.
Development Agreement(DA): The existing DA provisions are included in Section VII.A below; the
Applicant's proposed changes are noted in strike-out/underline format. The Applicant requests DA provision
#5.1h,which limits the hours of operation for storage facilities from 6:00 am to 11:00 pm as set forth in
UDC 11-4-3-34E, is revised to include warehouse&flex space. However,because the proposed uses aren't
subject to the same limitations on the hours of operation as storage facilities, Staff does not recommend a
change to this provision.
The existing and proposed conceptual development plans and building elevations are also included below in
Section VII.B. Other than the reduction in the size of the west building,the proposed development plan and
elevations are generally consistent with the previously approved plans and conditions of approval. Therefore,
Staff is supportive of the proposed changes and inclusion of the additional uses proposed to allow more
flexibility for the use of the site.
VI. DECISION
A. Staff:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed Development Agreement modification as requested by the
Applicant.
B. The Meridian City Council heard this item on February 13'.At the public hearing,the Council
moved to continue the subject MDA request to March 12'b in order to allow the Applicant
additional time to address concerns discussed during the hearing by the Council.
1. Summary of the City Council public hearing:
a. In favor: Jeremy Putman,The Architect's Office(Applicant's Representative)
b. In opposition:None
Page 3
C. Commenting: None
d. Written testimony: Ronald Hatch,property owner to the north(in supportl
e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen
f. Other Staff commenting on application:None
2. Key issue(s)of public testimony:
a. None
3. Key issue(s)of discussion by City Council:
a. Concern pertaining to intensity of the additional uses proposed and their potential
negative impact on existing adiacent residential neighbors and the adequacy of on-site
parking.
4. City Council change(s)to Commission recommendation:
a. None
Page 4
VII. EXHIBITS
A. Existing Development Agreement Provisions—Proposed Changes Shown in Strike-out/Underline
format
4. USES PERMITTED BY THIS AGREEMENT: This Agreement shall vest the right to develop the Property in
accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
4.1 The uses allowed pursuant to this Agreement are only those uses allowed under the UDC.
4.2 No change in the uses specified in this Agreement shall be allowed without modification of this Agreement.
5. CONDITIONS GOVERNING DEVELOPMENT OF SUBJECT PROPERTY:
5.1.Owner/Developer shall develop the Property in accordance with the following special conditions:
a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the conceptual development plans
included in Section VIII of the Staff Report attached to the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
attached hereto as Exhibit`B,"Unified Development Code Standards, design standards in the
Architectural Standards Manual, and the provisions contained herein.
b. Comply with the specific use standards for warehouse facilities(UDC 11-4-3-42),self-service storage
facilities,; iUDC 11-4-3-34,, flex space facilities (UDC 11-4-3-18) and the standards for self-
service uses in UDC 11-3A-16, as applicable.
c. The existing driveway via N. Linder Rd. Shall be closed and a new driveway constructed in alignment
with the driveway on the west side of N. Linder Rd.,unless otherwise approved by the City and ACHD.
d. A driveway stub shall be constructed to the northern property line and a cross-access/ingress-egress
easement granted to the property to the north(Parcel#R3579000015)in accord with UDC 11-3A-3A.2.
A copy of the recorded easement should be submitted to the Planning Division with the Certificate of
Zoning Compliance application for the proposed use.
e. A driveway stub shall be constructed to the southern property line and a cross-access/ingress-egress
easement granted to the property to the south(Parcel#R3579000025)in accord with UDC 11-3A-3A.2.
A copy of the recorded easement should be submitted to the Planning Division with the Certificate of
Zoning Compliance application for the proposed use.
f. A 5-foot-wide buffer shall be provided to the residential land use to the north(Parcel#R3579000015),
landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-9C, as approved by City Council with consent from
the property owner to the north.Note: The City Council approved a reduced buffer width from 25 feet to
5 feet.
g. Mitigation is required for existing trees on this site that are removed as set forth in UDC 11-3B-1OC.5.
h. The-sStorage facility hours of public operation, if developed on the site, shall be limited to 6:00 a.m. to
11:00 p.m. as set forth in UDC 11-4-3-34E as long as the property abuts a residential district.
i. Future structure(s)on the site shall comply with the non-residential design standards in the Architectural
Standards Manual for commercial districts(i.e., CD).
j. The existing irrigation ditch on the eastern portion of the site shall be piped or otherwise covered as set
forth in UDC 11-3A-6.
k. A flood plain development permit with base flood elevations and flood protection elevations shall be
required with a future development application.
Page 5
B. Existing Conceptual Development Plan&Building Elevations VICINITY MAP Wstudio
co
FRANKLIN RD z
REDUCED LS BUFFER APPROVED ; O
w —BY ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER a U
4
EXISTING RESIDENCE(R-1) 4@23'= 92'-0" LLI
m9-' C. 4 @ 23'=92'-0" 14 Tom" Q
0
EXISTING
- VINYL FENCE O
y co
EXISTING w
4 PROPO5EDLIGHT FIEPPER'SACRE FIRE TRUCK IRRIGATION DITCH Cr
SUBDIVISION INDUSTRIAL I-L URNARDUND W
{� v EXISTING LIGHT ❑ mo
LINDE INDUSTRIAL(I-L) a—
25'-0 - Ant
W LS B FFER J o w
Q NEW STORAGE CONDOS! NEVV STO GE CON 5 CREAMLINE PARK Z
0 4 �30'X 60' SUBDIVISION 226061
io (4}-30'x 60' I ) BLOCK 1
n I
a �
35'-0' 30'-0" 30'-0" 30'-0"
30'-0"
t.
EXISTING NON-DEDICATED
EXISTING 35'-0" 125-0" EASEMENT TO BE VACATED
V I NYL FENCE
WY
SETBACK
EXISTING COMMUNITY BUSINESS IC-C)
RECORD OF SURVEY
No.aeuo
5
PRELIMINARY
(;`�PPELINMARY SRE P VJI SITE PLAN
Al00
Page 6
EVstudio
° o
_ R
O
r � n U
3 WL w
- o
LLJ
W.
Z =s
J za
— ——S Z
22ED61
t�
k I
E%TERIOR
k = - _ -ma'B BIIILGING IS
A201
QQ EVstudio
O
- . o
O
U
Q Q Q Y Q C)
a
- - -,��
U)
- WIMP; =
Ir
z z7
J z�
z M�
Q Q Q Q Q 22BOGI
c
—=
BUILOING2
A202
Page 7
EVsfudio
E ,
E�40
•� i C 303bTY.T�2
. irtspeclbmJQc�tioom
[xy��
Jl1LE 1.4`ER
I W ereE'ie�@r.n�oaxa^
2➢fld��H.�6 vs�I9
V J
_ U
w
0
BIDE PEFSPECTNE VIEW
w O
rI---
V)
�.
ui
AL
ONO
R.
— L
J �
z �w
m
22BO61
A
PERSPECTIVE
j FROY PER 2 l yySPPCTIYE VIEN1 ' ^
�/�l
ti
Page 8
C. Proposed Conceptual Development Plan,Floor Plans&Building Elevations(dated: 2/6/24)
- TAOP
__
I I --- ------------
P it --' THE ARCHITECTS OFFICE
�
�� I --eLDGA- -----J ��
—eLDGB_�^ b�
I I I —
LU W I
I
CINDER CONDOS
I I
I
I Enaeuexr'cceae Fort Frtorvmmixesa�m pie
moo, 3WN LINDER RU
MERIDIAN,ID 83687
SIT61 LAN-NEW
Project status
NOT FOR—
CONSTRUCTION
lIP
A1 .0
`;ITE PL-,N
Page 9
QQ 4 Q TA-
I F-I _��` - ,.r +urpRCNI1ECTS�7hH4t
o a LIMDER CONDOS
L
"A FLOOR PLAN
O — O O O MOT T-
I I I I wF+smuclox
A
F I F
6
MEIIANINE A PLUI . omR A2.0
sRmi1[nsarraE-
FI F F 7
�-
_ LINDER CM06
1-1 F� T117
4V
e.e M az.1
Page 10
4 4 Q 4 4 Q TArJ
T4 I ARCH REMO FF I C I
= ,O
0 0- o o LINDER CONDOS
BIDG A WBT ELE4AlICN ELOO A SO-ELEYATON
NOTu
A5.0
==1
Q Q 4 4 4 Q Q TAO
IHEALCNDECADFFICE
CINDER CONDOS
aeiovw.icaw�-
-`
�ascea
3:.`�.. 4 „ co umucnox
A5.1
Page 11
C i E IDIAN.;---
Agenda Item
Applicant Presentation
The Best Laid Plans…project (under The Architects Office)Mr. Herman did not see DA until Jeremy Putman was added to the •Herman.(no longer with EV) and which it was not forwarded to
Mr. Agreement document was sent to Julie DevelompentApproved •Shortly after approval Julie Miller exited EV Studio•Mr. Herman terminated the project after the original hearing.•The
project continued under Julie Miller••architecture)neUdesignOriginally contracted to EV Studio (formerly •
Sensitive to Growth
Highest and mind.recently with development in side of Linder have been sold Most of the parcels on the east •Best Use
Highest and instead of 1.principally allowed in the zone, limiting the use to 3 of 25 The modification request is •zone.L -principally allowed uses of the IThe proposed uses fit within
the •use of properties in this area is determined the highest and best The City of Meridian has •Best Use
Non Herman’s development.Mr. Hatch is in support of Mr. •other use.occupied as residential or any The property is not currently •industrial use.to develop the property for Linder Rd
in 2023 and has plans Mr. Hatch purchased 330 N •Residential-
Parking which is almost 100% moreThis project is proposing 13 stalls •minimum of 7 parking stallsMeridian Code requires a •occupy these condosadequate for any use that may The staff
report agrees this is •
Small Business N Linder.recently approved project at 160 Smaller in scale but similar to a •2,000sf (approx.) per unit•entrepreneur.up and -small business, startThis project is designed
for the •Focus
City Oversight thorough staff.City’s presence here will have to apply for review by the Any owner wishing to establish a business •review the CCRs.plat overlayed on the property. The
City will This project when approved will have a condo •
W IDIAN�
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Ultra Clean Franklin (H-2023-0064) by KM Engineering,
LLP., located at 3070 E. Franklin Rd.
Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2023-0064
A. Request: Development Agreement Modification to modify the terms of the agreement
required with the Annexation Ordinance (No. 737 Haskin Green).
I
{
I
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET
DATE: March 12, 2024 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 2
PROJECT NAME: Ultra Clean Franklin (H-2023-0064)
Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify
(Please Print) HOA? (mark X if yes)
If yes, please
provide HOA name
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
STAFF REPORT C�I
w IDIAN --
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .►A H O
HEARING March 12,2024 Legend
DATE:
leiProject Lorca fan
TO: Mayor&City Council ;
IM
FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner
208-884-5533 �.
SUBJECT: H-2023-0064
Ultra Clean Franklin—MDA
C`
dr,
LOCATION: 3070 E. Franklin Rd., in the SE 1/4 of
i {
Section 8,T.3N.,R.IE. (Parcel L;O- .
#51108449810)
R T
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Request for a new development agreement with a modification to the terms of the agreement required with
the annexation ordinance (#737 Haskin Green).
II. SUMMARY OF REPORT
A. Project Summary
Description Details
Acreage 2.01-acres
Future Land Use Designation Commercial
Existing Land Use Vacant/undeveloped
Proposed Land Use(s) Vehicle washing facility
Current Zoning C-G(General Retail&Service Commercial)
Proposed Zoning NA
Physical Features(waterways, The land slopes down significantly to the north.
hazards,flood plain,hillside)
Neighborhood meeting date 11/20/23
History(previous approvals) Ord.#737 Haskin Green;PBA-2021-0016(ROS 413121)
III. APPLICANT INFORMATION
A. Applicant:
Stephanie Hopkins,KM Engineering,LLP 5725 N. Discovery Way, Boise, ID 83713
Pagel
B. Owner:
WWOZ Boise Meridian, LLC—3070 E. Franklin Rd.,Meridian, ID 83642
C. Representative:
Same as Applicant
IV. NOTICING
City Council
Posting Date
Newspaper notification
published in newspaper 2/25/2024
Radius notification mailed to
property owners within 300 feet 2/24/2024
Public hearing notice sign posted
2/23/2024
on site
Nextdoor posting 2/26/2024
V. STAFF ANALYSIS
The Annexation Ordinance(#737) approved for the property in 1996,requires the property owner to enter
into a Development Agreement(DA)with the City prior to issuance of a building permit or plat approval,
whichever occurs first. The ordinance includes requirements for inclusion in the future DA and compliance
with the Findings associated with the annexation.See DA requirements in Section VITA below.
No development has occurred on the property and the property has changed ownership since it was annexed.
The original plan was to subdivide the property for individual building sites but that plan never came to
fruition. The new owner would like to develop the property with a vehicle washing facility. Because there
are many outdated requirements for the DA and references to City Code that are no longer in effect, Staff
recommends new provisions with this application that are applicable to the proposed development,which
will replace the original ones. The Applicant's narrative provides a response to the existing requirements.
A conceptual development plan was submitted, included in Section VII.B,that shows how the site is
proposed to develop with a vehicle washing facility. Future development is required to comply with the
dimensional standards for the C-G district listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3.
The property is currently zoned C-G(General Retail and Service Commercial),which allows a vehicle
washing facility as a principal permitted use, subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-39,
as follows:
A. A site plan shall be submitted that demonstrates safe pedestrian and vehicular access and circulation
on the site and between adjacent properties.At a minimum,the plan shall demonstrate compliance
with the following standards:
1. Stacking lanes shall have sufficient capacity to prevent obstruction of the public right-of-way by
patrons. Three(3)stacking lanes are proposed, which should provide sufficient capacity to
prevent obstruction of the public right-of-way.
2. The stacking lane shall be a separate lane from the circulation lanes needed for access and
parking. Vehicles stack in the drive leading into the carwash on the south side of the building,
which is a separate drive than the one on the north side of the building that exits the carwash
with access to parking for use of the vacuums.
Page 2
3. The stacking lane shall not be located within ten(10)feet of any residential district or existing
residence. There are no residential districts or existing residences within 10 feet of the stacking
lanes.
4. A letter from the transportation authority indicating the site plan is in compliance with the
highway district standards and policies shall be required. This will be required with the
Certificate of Zoning Compliance application.
B. Within the industrial districts, a vehicle washing facility shall be allowed only as an accessory use to
a gasoline or diesel fuel sales facility for use by non-passenger vehicles. The vehicle washing facility
shall be limited in capacity to a single vehicle. The intent is to discourage facilities that cater to
passenger vehicles.Not applicable (this property is in a commercial district).
C. Any use that is not fully enclosed shall be located a minimum of one hundred(100) feet from any
abutting residential district, and shall be limited in operating hours from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
There are no residential districts abutting this site; however, an extended stay hotel was recently
constructed on the abutting property to the north. The Applicant states the proposed hours of
operation are from 7:00 am to 9:00 pm. Staff recommends hours are restricted from 6:00 am to
10:00 pm to minimize any negative impacts to the adjacent hotel use.
D. If the use is unattended,the standards set forth in section 11-3A-16 of this title shall also apply.Not
applicable (the use will be attended).
Although residential uses do not abut this site,the extended stay hotel(Waterwalk)to the north will
likely be impacted by the noise from the proposed carwash and vacuums. For this reason, Staff
recommends the Applicant provide dense landscaping(i.e. a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees and
shrubs)that allows trees to touch within five(5)years of planting along the northern boundary of the
site.The Applicant states the type of vacuums planned to be installed come with mufflers,which
should assist in reducing the noise impacts to adjacent properties. To ensure mufflers are provided,
Staff recommends a provision in the DA requiring such.
Access is proposed via N. Olson Ave., a local street along the west side of the site;no access is proposed via
E. Franklin Rd., a commercial arterial street, along the southern boundary of the site nor is it allowed.A
cross-access easement(Inst. #2021-105300)was required to this property with the DA for Waterwalk(H-
2019-0111,Inst. 92020-011637),the project to the north. However,there is a 9'3"fall in grade from the
proposed driveway to the existing driveway and a significant cross-slope exists,which would make a shared
access difficult(see grading exhibit in Section VIII.E below). For this reason, Staff and ACHD supports the
proposed access via Olson and does not recommend the cross-access easement with the property to the north
is utilized.
An attached sidewalk exists along E. Franklin Rd.,which is proposed to be replaced with a detached
sidewalk in accord with UDC 11-3A-17C. Staff recommends a 10-foot wide detached sidewalk is
installed on this property as well as off-site on the adajent property to the east owned by ACHD if
consent can be acquired from the property owner.
The Snyder Lateral bisects the western portion of this site within a 40-foot wide NMID easement depicted on
the site plan and is proposed to be piped in accord with UDC 11-3A-6B.2.
A 35-foot wide street buffer will be required along E.Franklin Rd., an entryway corridor(measured from
ultimate back of curb location); and a 10-foot wide street buffer will be required along N. Olson Ave., a local
street(measured from back of sidewalk), landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C,
including enhanced landscape standards for entryway corridors. Internal parking lot and perimeter
landscaping will be required per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C.
Conceptual building elevations were submitted as shown in Section VII.D. Building materials consist of a
mix of natural limestone and burnished CMU in neutral colors, and woodgrain printed metal cladding. Final
Page 3
design is required to comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual.
A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application will be required to ensure compliance
with UDC standards and the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual and must be approved
prior to submittal of an application for a building permit.
The DA should include the provisions listed in Section VII.F below.
VI. DECISION
A. Staff. Staff recommends approval of the proposed Development Agreement modification as requested by
the Applicant and as recommended by Staff.
Page 4 —
VIL EXHIBITS
A. Existing Requirements in Annexation Ordinance:
Section 2. That the property shall be subject to de-annexation if the owner shall not
meet the following requirements:
a. That the Applicant will be required to connect to Meridian water and sewer
at his expense and resolve how the water and sewer mains will serve the
land; the City may enter Into a late comers agreement for the extension of
the City sewer and/or water, if requested by the Applicants.
b. That the development of the property shall be subject to and controlled by
the Subdivision and Development Ordinance and the Meridian Comprehen-
sive Plan adopted.January 4, 1994, and shall only be developed as a
commercial or general planned development or under the conditional use
process.
C. That. as a condition of annexation, the Applicant shall be requ+red to enter
into a development agreement as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D
Prior to the issuance of any building permit ar plat approval which ever
Comes first; that the development agreement shall address inclusion into the
subdivision of the requirements of 11-9-605 D, G 1., H, K and L of the
Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian and other matters
that the property may be de-annexed if the terms and conditions of the
Uevelopment,Agreement are not satisfied.
d_ That the development of annexed land must meet and comply with the
Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in particular Section 11-9-618, which
pertains to development time schedules and requirements, 11-9-605 M.
which pertains to the tiling of ditches and waterways, and 11-9-606 B 14
which pertains to pressurized irrigation.
e. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind the Applicant, the
titled owners, and their assigns.
f. Meet the requirements and conditions of the Findings of Fact and Conclus-
ions of Law and meet the Ordinances of the City of Meridian, which include
that the property must be developed as a commercial or general planned
development or under the conditional use permit process.
g. That the Applicant is required to hook up to the sewer and water and
participate in the costs of extending the sewer and water services though
the payment of late-corner's fees.
Page 5
B. Proposed Conceptual Development Plan(dated: 10/11/23)
N'd1d 311S1N3W31111N3
OH W 1'NVIOIH3V4
OVOU NI1NNVHA'3 OCOE NV31,')vu_u l
IIII I I i '
IIII�IIIIII {� 1 ,_:�
t I �
I IIII}Ilhh� I l � f
fa
llyllhyl}y}{}I II IIII i R11 II R I i!'` �1\�. r�1�•� ?F f b -
� FF 1`1
I I
I
111,\
-'..1111\1 • $ a f1 J s& .aa.._ bb=_�§as>e� Na
—
\1 n �
.� �.... I =-.ryl-"-'I' h'.-:•.� ¢q G a# 6 Y
i 1RS i45ga i
sfF , ; LlJJ SFF 3 6 3 3af �53
IN�� �
p�ps; S�
I
� 1 iY � 3T`'I ••I NCI��W�� ��o�� I .fr.�'� i � �j
II F;� �IIIIIIP1lfliii �
I (o° I /rxwrm6� l r r P�• I —„I--lam
Page 6
C. Conceptual Landscape Plan(dated: 10/5/23)
Fi
a a � Ntlld 3dtlO$UNtlI W
"� � OHtlOI'NtlIOItl3W �E e
�«
UtlOH NIINNtllIj'3 OLO£-Ntl3la tlllllfl
®e• ! c z
C I� 2 8�riA9e '4. 111R 411
.7 pill
16116
w cry
0e
pill
_ a a
gY�{ �� �e
sl'38
oil
•�. 1 i - y �i �3a � 3# a �� � 6 d
•off
o = 9# 3
I I i y y NN
c'ltr 1 - 4 f �� � � �R� • a
ff } Ill;
$1
NOR
L 1
l ,
r
o,.T7�IIffF
Op F
R'woo
O ®O°�-�'g O "s'/ rl- •. a G S v, =`f3� A� a� � �� '� ae @9 � �# �€ xa arks# az
t�aEjI co G lip le 0 0 0 10 a a C' A EEJ
Page 7
D. Conceptual Elevations
ER
GI
ueIPNeW v�$ gg WIM��j 3OLOC
pa d r
y`�I o'
GU� �Yyy��J MO1�1^ AAMOVA1 NY
t�t
7
G
G
G
C �
�'a 3�fug55$m
Page 8
E. Grading Exhibit
NVId 311S 1N3W311UN3 ® o
,a OHV01'NVI(MOVY
s'+wsw� OVONNMN".1"30L0£-NV31a"i I
11111IIYV1,� I V �, r �.
Illlllllllllllxl V1 � e � ti � � v a
s-
I
£8.1-fix 1111 '0 1T4
llllllllll11111yi I i h \ €i 3§:M a.,.
�g� a4'E gaaaa
Ill}lY}Yl1JJ g a
III1}I}yjl{ I 1 I ;' � � �
11LIIVIy1 I 1 \ I i � v a iA, i�EN
e
6 i§ z 64 Eu S
3a jlVVljl}1 I l v �
i
AN
41
'ss €
�VVAVll�e 1
�
t' s
Lj
1 T O
- Z I ! I � IIIIIIIII t
y icy^ I !I LL
Page 9
F. Staff Recommended Development Agreement Provisions
The Development Agreement shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning
Division within six(6)months of the date of City Council approval of the Findings of Fact, Conclusions
of Law and Decision&Order for the development agreement modification request. The DA shall, at
minimum,incorporate the following provisions:
1. Future development of the subject property shall substantially comply with the conceptual
development plans included in Section VII,the standards in the Unified Development Code, and the
provisions contained herein.
2. Mufflers shall be installed on all vacuums to mitigate noise impacts on the abutting hotel use to the
north.
3. Dense landscaping consisting of a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees and shrubs shall be
provided along the northern boundary of the site that allows trees to touch within five(5)years of
planting to mitigate noise from the proposed development to the hotel use on the abutting property to
the north.
4. The hours of operation of the vehicle washing facility shall be limited from 6:00 am to 10:00 pm to
mitigate noise impacts on the abutting hotel use to the north.
5. A 10-foot wide detached sidewalk shall be installed along E. Franklin Rd. on the subject property
and off-site on the adjacent property to the east owned by ACHD if consent can be acquired from the
property owner.
6. A 35-foot wide street buffer, measured from ultimate back of curb location, shall be provided along
E. Franklin Rd., an entryway corridor; and a 10-foot wide street buffer,measured from back of
sidewalk, shall be installed along N. Olson Ave., a local street. Landscaping shall be installed within
these street buffers in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C, including enhanced
landscape standards for entryway corridors (i.e. E. Franklin Rd.).
7. The future structure on the site and the layout of the site shall comply with the design standards
listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and in the Architectural Standards Manual.
Page 10
C i E IDIAN.;---
Agenda Item
Applicant Presentation
Development Agreement Modification 3070 E Franklin Road–Ultra Clean Carwash
Site Plan
Landscape Plan
Building Elevations
Building Elevations
THANK YOU
Ordinance No 737 Haskin/Green Annexation–
Ordinance No 737 Haskin/Green Annexation–
Grading Exhibit
Floor Plan
Building Materials
Building Materials
W IDIAN�
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Stonehill Church (H-2023-0041) by Stonehill Church,
located at 799 W. Amity Rd.
Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2023-0041
A. Request: Development Agreement Modification to the exiting Development Agreement (H-
2015-0019, Inst. #2016-007090) to allow for the development of a church on a portion of the
property and removal of that property from the original agreement for inclusion in a new
agreement.
B. Request: Rezone of 13.36 acres of land from R-4 to R-8 zoning district.
C. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a church on 13.09 acres of land in an R-8 zoning district.
D. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 4 building lots on 65.43 acres of land in the R-4 and R-8
zoning district.
i
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET
DATE: March 12, 2024 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 3
PROJECT NAME: Stonehill Church (H-2023-0049)
Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify
(Please Print) HOA? (mark X if yes)
If yes, please
provide HOA name
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
STAFF REPORT
E IDIAN --
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 1,H p
HEARING March 12,2024 Legend LM
DATE: ff 0
Proc- Lx a=or.
TO: Mayor&City Council
ei
FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner ------'
208-884-5533 L
SUBJECT: Stonehill Church—MDA,RZ,PP, CUP '
H-2023-0041
LOCATION: 799 W.Amity Rd.,in the north 1/2 of
Section 36,T.3N.,R.1W. -- ------� "
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Modification to the existing Development Agreement(MDA) (H-2015-0019, Inst.#2016-007090)to allow
for the development of a church on a portion of the property and removal of that property from the original
agreement for inclusion in a new agreement; Rezone (RZ)of 43.49 13.36-acres of land from the R-4 to the
R-8 zoning district; Conditional use permit(CUP) for a church on 43.21 13.09-acres of land in an R-8 zoning
district; and Preliminary Plat(PP) consisting of 4 building lots on 65.43-acres of land in the R-4 and R-8
zoning districts for Stonehill Crossing Subdivision.
II. SUMMARY OF REPORT
A. Project Summary
Description Details
Acreage 65.43-acres
Future Land Use Designation Low Density Residential(LDR)
Existing Land Use Rural residential,agriculture with 2 existing homes
Proposed Land Use(s) Commercial(church)—existing residential homes are proposed to remain
Current Zoning — R-4(Medium Low-density Residential)
Proposed Zoning R-8(Medium-density Residential)for the church site(Lot 1,Block 1). The
remaining area (Lots 2-3,Block I and Lot 1,Block 2)will remain R-4(Medium
Low-density Residential)
Lots(#and type;bldg/common) 4 building lots/0 common lots
Phasing plan(#of phases) 1
Number of Residential Units(type 2 existing single-family detached units that will remain
of units)
Page 1
Density(gross&net) 0.04 units/acre(R-4 residential portion of the property will be resubdivided in
the future prior to development)
Open Space(acres,total[%]/ NA(residential portion of the property will be resubdivided in the future)
buffer/qualified)
Amenities NA(residential portion of the property will be resubdivided in the
future)
Physical Features(waterways, The Calkins Lateral crosses the western portion of this site and the Belle Sub
hazards,flood plain,hillside) Lateral runs along the southern portion of the east boundary of the site.
Neighborhood meeting date 6/26/23
History(previous approvals) H-2015-0019(South Meridian—Kent&Donna Mills Development
Agreement Inst. #2016-007090, AZ Ordinance#16-1670); ROS #2914
(1994); ROS #10324 (2015)
B. Community Metrics
Description Details
Ada County Highway District
• Staff report(yes/no) Yes
• Requires ACHD No
Commission Action es/no
• TIS(yes/no) No
• Level of Service(LOS) Amity Rd.: Better than"E"
• Trip Generation(estimate) 351 additional vehicle trips/day(19 existing);23 additional vehicle trips/hour
in the PM peak hour 2 existing)
• Existing Conditions
• CIP/IFYWP Capital Improvements Plan(CIP)!Integrated Five Year Work Plan(IFYWP):
• Linder Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 3-lanes from Amity Road to Lake Hazel Road
between 2036 and 2040.
• The intersection of Linder Road and Amity Road is listed in the CIP to be reconstructed as a
dual lane roundabout with a westbound right-tum bypass lane with 4-lanes on the north leg,
4-lanes on the south,4-lanes on the east, and 4-lanes on the west leg between 2036 and
2040,
• The intersection of Amity Road/SH-69 is listed in the CIP to be widened to 6-lanes on the
north leg,6-lanes on the south,7-lanes on the east,and 7-lanes on the west leg and signalized
between 2031 and 2035,
Access(Arterial/Collectors/State There are three(3)existing driveways via W.Amity Rd.,an arterial street—
Hwy/Local)(Existing and one for farm access at the west boundary,one for irrigation district access
Proposed) along the Calkins Lateral and one for the existing homes.An emergency only
access is proposed via Amity and two accesses are proposed via Oak Briar,
the collector street,on Lot 1,Block 1 —one of which will also provide access
to the existing residence on Lot 2,Block 1;a temporary access for the
existing home is proposed on Lot 1,Block 2.The existing farm access and
irrigation district access road are proposed to remain until future
resubdivision of the property.
Proposed Road Improvements • ACHD is requiring dedication of ROW totaling 50' from centerline of Amity
and pavement widening to 17' from centerline with a 3'wide gravel shoulder
along the frontage of the property.
• A roundabout is required at the Amity/Oak Briar intersection.
Fire Service
Page 2
• Distance to Fire Station 2.6 miles from Station#6
• Fire Response Time Don't have total response times that meet NFPA 1710 standards or current City
adopted standards.
• Resource Reliability 84%(does meet targeted goal of 80%or greater)
• Risk Identification 4(current resources are not adequate)
• Accessibility Meets all required access,road widths and turnarounds.
• Special/resource needs Will require an aerial device; can meet this need.
• Water Supply 3,000 gallons per minute for 2 hours
• Other Resources
Police Service No comments were received
West Ada School District No comments received
Wastewater
• Distance to Sewer Services
• Sewer Shed
• Estimated Project Sewer ERU's See application
• WRRF Declining Balance 14.61 MGD
• Project Consistent with WW
Master Plan/Facility Plan
• Impacts/Concerns
Water
• Distance to Services Available at site
• Pressure Zone 5
• Estimated Project Water ERU's See application
• Water Quality Concerns None
• Project Consistent with Water Yes
Master Plan
• Impacts/Concerns Fire flow modeled at 2,000 GPM.If additional flow is required,contact
Public Works.
C. Project Maps
Future Land Use Map Aerial Map
Legend 0 Legend
file '-`H
Protect Laca-fion t nsity 1 � PPOJ t L..3TKM _
Residen#iai -
-r-T
mu-C
AAe� ium DenrHy
Residential
Page 3
Zoning Map Planned Development Map
Legend -� � Legend
��Proje�t Lnc€3�ior �' ��Prnjent Lncaior
C?Jy Lima# I
— Purred Pci?L-e's u
. �rnmrrmn r ,
1 Ru I ------
RUT -
RI
i 4 —
R-8 c
A
A RUT-
R-1
I Rlii.A. Applicant:
Kason Wedel, Stonehill Church— 1608 N.Meridian Rd.,Meridian,ID 83686
B. Owners:
Stonehill Church— 1608 N.Meridian Rd.,Meridian,ID 83686
Kent&Donna Mills—799 W.Amity Rd.,Meridian, ID 83642
C. Representative:
Same as Applicant
III. NOTICING
Planning& Zoning City Council
Posting Date Posting Date
Newspaper notification
published in newspaper 1/16/2024 2/25/2024
Radius notification mailed to
property owners within 300 feet 1/12/2024 2/24/2024
Public hearing notice sign posted
1/12/2024 3/1/2024
on site
Nextdoor posting 1/12/2024 2/26/2024
IV. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS
LAND USE: This property is designated as Low Density Residential(LDR)on the Future Land Use Map
(FLUM)contained in the Comprehensive Plan. This designation allows for the development of single-family
homes on large estate lots at gross densities of three dwelling units or less per acre. These areas often
transition between existing rural residential and urban properties. Developments need to respect agricultural
Page 4
heritage and resources,recognize view sheds and open spaces, and maintain or improve the overall
atmosphere of the area. The use of open spaces,parks,trails, and other appropriate means should enhance
the character of the area. Density bonuses may be considered with the provision of additional public
amenities such as a park, school, or land dedicated for public services.
TRANSPORTATION: The Master Street Map(MSM) depicts W. Amity Rd. as a residential arterial street
along the northern boundary of this site. A north/south residential collector street is depicted on the MSM
through this property from Amity Rd. to the southern boundary of the site for future extension to the south.
A roundabout is depicted at the Amity Rd./collector street intersection.
ACHD's Roadways to Bikeways Master Plan(BMP) identifies Amity Rd. as an existing Level 1 facility and
future Level 3 facility that will be constructed as part of a future ACHD project. The BMP also identifies
Level 1 facilities on the new collector street within the site which should be constructed consistent with the
MSM and the BMP.
Transit services are not available to serve this site.
PROPOSED USE:The Applicant's proposal to develop a church on this site with future single-family
residential uses is generally consistent with the LDR FLUM designation,which supports residential zoning
in which a church use is allowed as a conditional use and single-family residential densities at 3 or fewer
units per acre are allowed. The portion of the site zoned R-4 is proposed to be platted with"mega"lots for
future resubdivision prior to development.With future resubdivision,the density of the overall area should
be consistent with the density desired of 3 or fewer units per acre in the LDR FLUM designation.
GOALS,OBJECTIVES,&ACTION ITEMS: Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be
applicable to this application and apply to the proposed use of this property(staff analysis in italics):
• "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 future residential development will contribute to the variety of housing types available within the
City for present and future residents.
• "Permit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities and
urban services at the time of final approval, and in accord with any adopted levels of service for
public facilities and services."(3.03.03F)
City water and sewer service is available and can be extended by the developer with development in
accord with UDC 11-3A-21.
• "Require all new development to create a site design compatible with surrounding uses through
buffering, screening,transitional densities, and other best site design practices."(3.07.01A)
The proposed site design of the church includes perimeter landscaping which should assist in
screening the use from existing and future residential uses in the vicinity. The future redevelopment
of the residential area at densities of three(3) or fewer units per acre should be compatible with
adjacent existing and future uses.
• "Encourage compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land."
(3.07.00)
The proposed church and future single-family residential uses should be compatible with existing
and future residential uses in the vicinity which should minimize conflicts and maximize use of land.
• "Integrate the Meridian Pathways Master Plan into the site development review process to ensure
planned paths are built out as adjacent land develops."(3.07.02H)
Page 5
With future resubdivision of the residential portion of the property, a segment of the City's multi-use
pathway system will be required to be constructed along the Calkins Lateral in accord with the
Pathways Master Plan. In the interim, an easement for the pathway should be recorded with the
proposed subdivision.
• "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)
The proposed church will provide an opportunity for public worship in this portion of the City near
existing and future residential uses.
• "Eliminate existing private treatment and septic systems on properties annexed into the City and
instead connect users to the City wastewater system; discourage the prolonged use of private
treatment septic systems for enclave properties."
With redevelopment of the site, the existing homes are required to connect to City water and sewer
service and the existing septic system and well should be abandoned.
V. STAFF ANALYSIS
A. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT MODIFICATION(MDA)
The subject property is part of a larger area annexed into the City with the South Meridian annexation
application in 2015 (H-2015-0019). As a provision of annexation, a Development Agreement(DA)was
required between the City and the property owner(Kent&Donna Mills,DA Inst. #2016-007090).
Among other provisions,the DA requires an amendment to the agreement prior to any future
development of the site in order to approve the proposed development plan.
An amendment to the DA is requested for the development of a church on the northeast portion of the
property. The amendment proposes to remove the church property on proposed Lot 1,Block 1 from the
existing DA in favor of a new DA,which will only govern development of the church property. The
remainder of the property,will continue to be governed by the existing DA until such time as the
property develops in the future, at which time the agreement will be amended to include a conceptual
development plan.A legal description for the property subject to the new DA is included in Section
IX.A.
A site plan was submitted, included in Section V111.E,that shows how the portion of the site subject to
the new DA will develop with a church and associated access,parking and drive aisles. Analysis of this
plan for compliance with UDC standards is included below under Sections VI.C,D. Future
development of this site(proposed Lot 1,Block 1)should be generally consistent with the proposed
site plan, subject to the conditions contained in this report for the preliminary plat and conditional
use permit as noted below in this section. Staffs recommended DA provisions are included in
Section VIII.A based on the analysis below.
B. REZONE(RZ)
The Applicant proposes to rezone 43.49 13.36-acres of land from the R-4 to the R-8 zoning district for
the development of a church, consistent with the LDR FLUM designation as discussed above in Section
V.A legal description and exhibit map for the rezone area is included in Section VIII.A.
A site plan was submitted,included in Section V111.E that shows how the rezone area is proposed to
develop with a church.
Page 6
A church is listed as a conditional use in the R-8 zoning district per UDC Table 11-2A-2. Future
development is subject to the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-6 for the R-8 zoning
district.
As noted above, a new DA is proposed for the rezone area.
C. PRELIMINARY PLAT(PP):
The proposed preliminary plat consists of 4 building lots on 65.43-acres of land in the R-4 and R-8
zoning districts for Stonehill Crossing Subdivision. The subdivision is proposed to develop in one(1)
phase if Council approves the request for deferral of certain improvements as noted below.If
Council does not approve the requested deferral,the Applicant would like to develop the plat in
phases.
Proposed Use: A church is proposed to develop on Lot 1,Block 1. There are two(2) existing homes that
are proposed to remain on Lot 2,Block 1 and Lot 1,Block 2. Lot 3,Block 1 and Lot 1,Block 2 are
proposed as"mega"lots to be resubdivided in the future consistent with the density desired in the LDR
FLUM designation. Staff recommends no building permits are allowed to be issued on Lot 3,Block
1; and no building permits except for an accessory structure(s) (if desired)is allowed to be issued
on Lot 1,Block 2 until these lots are resubdivided in the future.
Conceptual Development Plan for Resubdivision: A conceptual development plan was submitted for a
possible site layout for the future resubdivision of Lot 3,Block 1 and Lot 1,Block 2, as shown in Section
VII.D. Future development is not tied to this plan as a DA modification is not proposed or required with
this application. However,requested a development plan be submitted for this area for consideration.
Staff offers the following comments on this plan:
• Dead end streets(i.e. Street C) should not be longer than 500'; however,City Council may
approve a dead end street up to 750' in length where an emergency access is proposed or a large
waterway exists that prevents or makes impractical the extension or other conditions exists as noted in
UDC 11-6C-3B.4. Although an emergency access via W. Amity Rd. is proposed and there is a large
waterway that exists at the east end of the street,the dead end street exceeds 750' at 870' in length.
• Block faces are limited to 750' in length without an intersecting street or alley, except Council
may approve a block face up to 1,200' where block design is constrained by site conditions such as an
abutting arterial street or a large waterway and/or irrigation facility, among other conditions. The
block face on the north side of Street C exceeds the minimum block face length allowed and would
require approval from City Council as proposed.
• Stub streets should be provided to adjacent parcels for future extension and interconnectivity. A
collector street is no longer required at the west end of the site along the southern boundary as the
collector street has been moved to the south in alignment with Quartz Creek St. and is no longer
needed in this location.
• The Applicant should consult the Irrigation District to see if a pedestrian bridge will be allowed
across the Calkins Lateral.
• A local street should be provided between Lots 1 and 2,Block 1 from S. Oak Briar St. to the east
end of Lot 2,Block 1, at a minimum,to reduce access points on the collector street and in accord with
UDC 11-3A-3A.3,which requires all subdivisions to provide local street access to any use that
currently takes direct access from an arterial or collector street.
• The Calkins Lateral and the Belle Sub Lateral are required to be piped unless used as a water
amenity or linear open space as defined in UDC 11-IA-1 per UDC 11-3A-6B. The decision-making
Page 7
body may waive this requirement if it finds that the public purpose requiring such will not be served
and public safety can be preserved.
• If the Calkins Lateral and the Belle Sub Lateral are approved to be left open and not required to
be piped and not improved as a water amenity or linear open space as noted above,fencing will be
required to deter access to the laterals for public safety per the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6C.
Common open space and site amenities will be required in accord with the standards set forth in
UDC 11-3G-3 and 11-3G-4.
• Access to the collector(i.e. S. Oak Briar Way)and arterial streets (i.e.W.Amity Rd.) is limited
as set forth in UDC 11-3A-3A,unless otherwise waived by City Council.
Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There are two(2)existing homes and associated accessory
structures on the property that are proposed to remain on Lot 2,Block 1 and Lot 1,Block 2 as shown on
the aerial map below. The addresses of the existing homes are required to change with development
of the subdivision as they will no longer be directly accessed from Amity Rd.
There are four(4) existing radio towers on the abutting property to the east, depicted as green squares on
the map below,whose easements encroach on this site.
adig
�d
s f�
J
� W
•W IJNDERW DR
Existing Easements: There are two(2)existing radio tower easements,recorded in 1945, depicted on
the plat on the east side of Lots 1 and 3,Block 1 for the towers shown on the aerial map above. These
easements may limit the placement of underground utilities located within the easements until the towers
are removed at an undetermined date in the future. The proposed location of the church building on Lot
1,Block 1 is outside of these easements.
Request for Deferral of Improvements: Because Lot 3,Block 1 and Lot 1,Block 2 are not proposed to
develop at this time and are proposed to be resubdivided in the future prior to development,the
Applicant requests deferral of certain improvements typically required with the plat, as follows:
• Amity Rd. frontage improvements along Lot 1,Block 2 (i.e. pavement widening,borrow
ditch/drainage improvements, 10' wide multi-use pathway, street buffer landscaping and
associated overhead and underground utility relocations(see narrative for more information).
(Note: ACHD will require a formal request for a waiver of policy and written support from
the City to defer the road widening and sidewalk until future resubdivision of this lot.)
Staff is amenable to this request if City Council and ACHD finds it appropriate.
• 10' wide multi-use pathway along the east side of the Calkins Lateral on Lot 1,Block 2.
Page 8
Staff is amenable to this request as this lot will be resubdivided in the future and the pathway can
be constructed with future development. In the interim, the Park's Dept. requests a public
pedestrian easement for the future pathway is provided with subdivision of the property.
Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): Future development is required to comply with the dimensional
standards listed in UDC Tables 11-2A-5 for the R-4 zoning district and 11-2A-6 for the R-8 zoning
district. The proposed lots comply with the minimum dimensional standards. The existing homes and
accessory structures on Lot 2,Block 1 and Lot 1,Block 2 appear to comply with the minimum setback
standards of the district.Any structures that do not comply with the minimum setback standards
should be removed prior to submittal of the final plat for City Engineer signature.
Subdivision Design&Improvement Standards: The proposed subdivision is required to comply with
the design and improvement standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3.
Transportation: There are currently no public streets within the site and no stub streets exist to this site.
Amity Rd. is currently a 2-lane roadway with no curb,gutter or sidewalk abutting the site within 50' of
ROW(20-25' from centerline). ACHD is requiring dedication of ROW totaling 50' from the centerline
of Amity Rd. abutting the site and widening of the pavement to 17' from centerline plus a 3' wide gravel
shoulder adjacent to the entire site.
There are three(3)existing access driveways via Amity Rd. —one at the west boundary for farm access,
one for irrigation district access along the Calkins Lateral,and one that provides access to the two(2)
existing residences on the site. The residential driveway will be replaced by the new collector street;the
other two(2)driveways may remain until Lot 1,Block 2 is resubdivided in the future,unless otherwise
required to be removed by ACHD.
A collector street is proposed as depicted on the plat from W.Amity Rd. at the northern boundary of the
site extending to the southern boundary of the site in accord with the Master Street Map (MSM). A
temporary cul-de-sac is required to be constructed at the terminus of the collector street at the
south boundary with a minimum turning radius of 50' as required by ACHD.
The MSM also depicts a multi-lane roundabout at the Amity Rd./Oak Briar Way intersection. The
Applicant is required to dedicate right-of-way(ROW) for construction of the roundabout consistent with
the template shown in the ACHD report. A roundabout exhibit was submitted, included in Section
VIII.B, in accord with this template.
Access(UDC 11-3A-3): Three accesses are proposed to the future church on Lot 1,Block 1. Two(2)
accesses are proposed via the collector street(S. Oak Briar Way) on Lot 1,Block 1;the northern access
is proposed for the church and the southern access is proposed to be a shared access for the church and
the existing residence. The other access at the east end of Lot 1,Block 1 via W.Amity Rd. is proposed is
for emergency access only.
The UDC(11-3A-3) limits access points to collector and arterial streets to improve safety and to ensure
that motorists can safely enter all streets,unless otherwise waived by City Council. Further,the UDC
(11-3A-3A.1)requires all subdivisions to provide local street access to any use that currently takes direct
access from an arterial or collector street. The Applicant requests approval of a waiver from Council
for the two(2)proposed accesses via the collector street(Oak Briar)proposed on Lot 1,Block 1.
Because a subdivision is proposed, Staff recommends a street is constructed from the collector
street(Oak Briar)between Lots 1 and 2,Block 1 to provide local street access to the church and
the existing residence.A cul-de-sac or ACHD/Fire Dept. approved turnaround should be provided
at the end of the street,which should extend to at least the eastern boundary of Lot 2,Block 1 but
may extend further depending on the access needs of the church.This street should be extended in
the future with resubdivision of Lot 3,Block 1.
Page 9
Staff recommends bollards are constructed with a chain and a Knox padlock at the emergency
access driveway via Amity Rd.to prohibit public access.
Landscaping: A 25-foot wide street buffer is required along W. Amity Rd., an arterial street,measured
from ultimate back of curb location; and a 20-foot wide street buffer is required along S. Oak Briar Way
measured from back of curb. Landscaping is required to be installed within the buffers in accord
with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C.3; the proposed landscape plan should be revised to
comply with these standards.
Landscaping should be provided in parkways in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17E and
11-3B-7C.
There are some existing trees on the site but they appear to be contained within Lots 2, Block 1 and Lot
1,Block where the existing homes are located. A few trees appear to be located in the area where the
collector street will be extended,which will not require mitigation.
Common Open Space& Site Amenities(UDC 11-3G-3): Because all of the residential portion of the
property except for Lot 2,Block 1 will be resubdivided in the future, Staff recommends the provision of
open space and site amenities is deferred until that time.
Pathways: All pathways should be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-8 and
11-3B-12C. A multi-use pathway is depicted on the Pathways Master Plan along the east side of the
Calkins Lateral. A 14-foot wide public access easement should be submitted to the City and
depicted on the plat for the multi-use pathway(10' for the pathway+2' shoulder each side). If
permission can be obtained from the Irrigation District,the pathway may be located with their easement;
if not,the pathway shall be located in a separate linear lot outside of the irrigation easement behind the
future rear residential lot lines. Construction of the pathway may be deferred until future development of
Lot 1,Block 2.
Sidewalks(11-3A-17): Minimum 5' wide detached sidewalks are required within street buffers along
collector and arterial streets per UDC 11-3A-17. However,ACHD policy requires a greater width of 10'
along arterial streets;therefore, a 10' wide pathway should be provided as proposed a minimum of 38'
from the centerline of Amity abutting the site.
Waterways: The Calkins lateral crosses the western portion of this site within a 56' wide easement(28'
on each side of the centerline); and the Belle Sub Lateral runs along the southeast portion of the site
within a 50' wide easement(25' on each side of the centerline) as depicted on the plat.
The UDC(11-3A-0)requires all irrigation ditches/laterals crossing the site that aren't being improved
as a water amenity or linear open space as defined in UDC 11-IA-1 to be piped or otherwise covered,
unless otherwise waived by City Council. Because both of the waterways on this site lie on lots(i.e.
Lot 3,Block 1 and Lot 1,Block 2)that will be resubdivided in the future prior to development,
Staff recommends the piping of these waterways take place upon resubdivision of these lots.
This property is located in an"area of minimum flood hazard"in flood zone"X"(see FEMA map for
more information).
Fencing: All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6C and I1-3A-7.
Fencing is not depicted on the landscape plan.
Utilities(UDC 11-3A-21): Connection to City water and sewer services is required in accord with UDC
11-3A-21. However,because Lot 3,Block 1 will be resubdivided in the future prior to
development, Staff recommends services are not required to be provided to that lot at this time.
The existing homes on Lot 2,Block 1 and Lot 1,Block 2 are required to connect to City water and
sewer service within 60 days of it becoming available and disconnect from private service, as set
forth in MCC 9-1-4 and 9-4-8.
Page 10
Street lighting is required to be installed in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and
ordinances.
Pressurized Irrigation System (UDC 11-3A-I5): Underground pressurized irrigation water is required
to be provided to each lot within the subdivision per UDC 11-3A-15. However,because Lot 3,Block 1
will be resubdivided in the future prior to development, Staff recommends underground
pressurized irrigation is not required to be provided to that lot at this time.Pressurized irrigation
should be provided to the existing homes on Lot 2, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2.
Storm Drainage(UDC 11-3A-18):An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments
in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Design and construction shall
follow best management practice as adopted by the City as set forth in UDC 11-3A-18. A Geotechnical
Investigation Report was submitted with this application.
D. Conditional Use Permit(CUP)
A CUP is proposed for a 52,000+/-square foot(s.f.)church on 13.21 13.09-acres of land in an R-8
zoning district as required by UDC Table 11-2B-2.
Phasing: The church(and associated drive aisles,parking and landscaping)is proposed to develop in
two (2)phases as shown on the phasing plan in Section VIII.E. The first phase will consist of
approximately 40,000 s.f, and the second phase will consist of approximately 12,000 s.f.
Specific Use Standards: Churches are subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-6, as
follows: "Schools, child daycare services, meeting facilities for clubs and organizations, and other
similar uses not operated primarily for the purpose of religious instruction, worship, government of the
church, or the fellowship of its congregation may be permitted to the extent the activity is otherwise
permitted in the district."
Dimensional Standards: Future development of this site should comply with the dimensional standards
of the R-8 zoning district in UDC Table 11-2A-6.
Access: The extension of the residential collector street(S. Oak Briar Way)shall be completed
with development of the subdivision prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for the church.
Pathway/walkway: A 5' wide pedestrian walkway is proposed as required from the perimeter sidewalk
along Amity and Oak Briar to the main building entrance of the church in accord with UDC 11-3A-
19B.4. The walkways should be distinguished from the vehicular driving surface through the use of
pavers,colored or scored concrete,or bricks.
Minimum 5' wide walkways should be provided in the parking area for any aisle length that is
greater than 150 parking spaces or 200' away from the primary building entrance(s) as set forth in
UDC 11-3A-19B.4c.
Pedestrian connections with pathways should be provided from the church site to future abutting
residential uses to the east and south for interconnectivity.
Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-1 : All sidewalks around buildings are required to be a minimum of 5' in
width.
Parking: Off-street parking is required to be provided based on the square footage of the church per the
standards set forth in UDC 11-3C-6B.1 for commercial districts (i.e. 1 space for every 500 s.£ of gross
floor area). Based on a total of 52,000+/-s.£,including the future addition, a minimum of 104 spaces
will be required. The Applicant proposes to provide 545+/-spaces with the first phase and 269+/-spaces
with the second phase,which exceeds the minimum standards by 710+/-spaces.
Page 11
Parking stalls and drive aisles should comply with the dimensions noted in UDC Table 11-3C-5. Where
parking spaces abut a sidewalk or a perimeter landscape buffer,wheel stops should be provided to
prevent vehicle overhang or the length of the parking space may be reduced 2' if an additional 2' is
added to the width of the sidewalk or the perimeter buffer to total 7' as set forth in UDC 11-3C-5B.4.
The site plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application should depict
dimensions that demonstrate compliance with these standards.
Landscaping: Parking lot landscaping is required to be provided in accord with the standards
listed in UDC 11-3B-8C; the landscape plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance
application should comply with these standards.
Landscaping is required to be provided along all pathways in accord with the standards listed in
UDC 11-3B-12C.
Outdoor Lighting(UDC 11-3A-11): All outdoor lighting is required to comply with the standards listed
in UDC 11-3A-I IC. Light fixtures that have a maximum output of 1,800 lumens or more are required to
have an opaque top to prevent up-lighting;the bulb shall not be visible and shall have a full cutoff shield
in accord with Figure 1 in UDC 11-3A-11C. Details of the site lighting demonstrating compliance
with these standards should be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application.
Outdoor Service& Equipment Areas(UDC 11-3A-12): Outdoor utility meters, HVAC equipment,
trash dumpsters,trash compaction and other service functions 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. Safe access and adequate
lighting should be provided in these areas. The site plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning
Compliance application should demonstrate compliance with these standards.
Building Elevations: Conceptual building elevations of the proposed 2-story church structure are
included in Section VIII.G. Building materials consist of a mix of stucco,vertical rough sawn NICHIHA
architectural wall panels and corrugated painted metal panels in horizontal orientation. These elevations
have not been reviewed for compliance with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual
and are not approved with this application. Review will take place with submittal of a design review
application with a Certificate of Zoning Compliance application prior to submittal of a building permit
application.
Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC): A CZC application is required to be submitted and approved
for the proposed church prior to submittal of a building permit application.
Design Review: A Design Review application should be submitted concurrently with the CZC
application for approval of the design of the proposed structure. Compliance with the design standards in
the Architectural Standards Manual is required.
VI. DECISION
A. Staff:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed DA modification,rezone,preliminary plat and CUP with the
provisions in Section IX in accord with the Findings in Section X.
B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on February 1, 2024. At the
public hearing,the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject RZ, PP and CUP
requests.
1. Summary of Commission public hearing_
a. In favor: John Rennison,Rennison Design(Applicant's Representative)
b. In opposition:None
C. Commenting. None
Page 12
d. Written testimony: John Rennison,Rennison Design(Applicant's Representative)
L. Staff presentinggpplication: Sonya Allen
f. Other Staff commenting on application: Bill Parsons
2. Key issue(s) public testimony
a. None
3. key issue(s)of discussion by Commission:
a. None
4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation:
a. None
5. Outstanding issues for City Council:
a. The Applicant requests a waiver to UDC 11-3A-3A.1 to allow two(2)accesses via S.
Oak Briar Way, a collector street.
b. The Applicant requests deferral of several improvements typically required with a
subdivision,until such time as Lot 3,Block 1 &Lot 1,Block 2 is re-subdivided in the
future, as follows: street buffer landscaping& 10' wide sidewalk along Amity Rd. west
of the collector street;the 10' wide multi-use pathway along the Calkins Lateral, open
space& site amenities for the residential development;pipingor r improving the laterals
that cross this site as a water amenity or linear open space; and closing of the existing
farm access and irrigation district accesses via Amity Rd.If Council does not approve
the request, the Applicant proposes to phase the development to defer these
improvements.
b. If Council does not require a local street to be provided between Lots 1 and 2,Block 1,
Staff recommends a new preliminaryplat condition is added for the plat to be amended
to include a"flag"out to the future cul-de-sac on the east side of Lot 2,Block 1 as
shown on the conceptual development plan and condition#2.1 g requiring such is
removed.
Page 13
VII. EXHIBITS
A. Legal Descriptions&Exhibit Maps for Rezone &New Development Agreement—REVISED
Rezone:
Description for
R-8 Zone
Stonehill Crossing Subdivision
September 20,2023
A portion of the North 112 of Section 36,Township 3 North, Range 1 West,
Boise Meridian, City of Meridian,Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as
follows:
Commencing at the North 1/4 corner of said Section 36 from which the
Northwest corner of said Section 36 bears North 89°32'29"West, 2,650.91 feet;thence
on the north line of said Section 36,South 89'04'30"East, 36.65 feet to the POINT OF
BEGINNING:
thence continuing,South 89"04'30"East,478.26 feet;
thence leaving said north line,South 00'55'30"West,25.00 feet;
thence South 45'31'08"East,432.13 feet;
thence South 26'33'19"Eastr 374.29 feet;
thence 110.35 feet on the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 165.50
feet,a central angle of 38'12'15",and a long chord which Bears South 52'52'14"West,
108.32 feet;
thence South 33'46'07"West, 11.67 feet;
thence North 89'04'30"West,942.31 feet;
thence North 00'32'48"East, 60.50 feet;
thence 245.16 feet on the arc of a curve to the right,having a radius of 800.00
feet,a central angle of 17"33'29",and a long chord which bears North 09'19'32"East,
244.20 feet;
thence 244.85 feet on the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 800.00
feet,a central angle of 17"3210",and a long chord which bears North 09'20'12"East,
243.89 feet;
thence North 00'34'07"East, 108.05 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Containing 13.360 acres, more or less. aN1,
i_AND
End of Description.
r Ns�
11779
'ft r°
ndp�AE of �op�
MCC
Page 1 of 1
Page 14
Paint of
Beginning
5.2fi 5.25
Basis of Bearings S89'04'30"E 7318,52. E 1/1fi
N89'32'29"W 2650.91' N1/4 W. Amity Rd. _ 801.67'
5,35 S.36 SBW04'30"E 478,26' L1 -
38.fi5'
J � I
sal/ I
pF
� I
ram. I
ro
U
I
113.360 Acres
s
rob,
a�
Line Table
[V �1
U �
Line Bearing Length
L1 S0C'55'30"W 25.00'
L2 S33'46'07"W 11.67'
J G1
L3 N00'32'48"E 50.50'
"
L4 N00'34'07"E 198.05' NB9'04'I 30 W 942.31' L2
pl LA
Curve Table `,�GENSE
Curve Length Radius Delta Chord Bearing Chord Length a 779 J Scale: 1"=200'
Cl 110.35' 165.50' 38'12'15" S52'52'14"W 10B.32' 4.
1 7
'Aj`? 2bh.t>0 0 50 100 200 4C0
C2 245.16' BOO 00' 17'33'29" N09'19'32'E 244.20' 0, 9p�OF apQ 0$
C3 244.85' 800,00' 17'32'10" N09'20'12'E 243.89' y�C McGA�l�
�2-P3B\I•plEdGlJtF2w"R9 wp Bf2�/4023 P.4D.]0 AM
I-t LI Exhibit Drawing for Jon No.
DA O AYE 22-039
SURVEY 9B56W.EMER4LDS. R-8 One Sheet No.
(ms 57Dera
u���Es�o StOnehill Crossin Subdivision 1
GROUP, LLC A portion ar the Ni/2 of Section W. T.3N., R.1W., E.M., Drg. Date
City Of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho. gpo/2m
Page 15
New Development Agreement:
Description for
development Agreement Mod ifleation
September 20, 2023
A portion of the North 112 of Section 36, Township 3 North, Flange 1 West,
Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County. Idaho, more particularly described as
fQllows.
Commencing at the North 114 corner of said Section 36 from which the
Northwest corner of said Section 36 bears North 89"32'29"West, 2.650.91 feet; thence
on the north line of said Section 36, South 89"0430" East, 38.65 feet;thence leaving
said north line, South 00"34'07"West.25_00 feet to the south right-of-way line of _
Amity Road and the POINT OF BEGINNING:
thence on said south right-of-way line, South SWUM" East, 478.11 feet;
thence leaving said south dght-of--way lime, South 45631'68" East,432.13 feet;
thence South 26°33"1Oil East, 374.20 feet;
thence 110.35 feet on the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 165.50
feet, a central angle of 3891216'. and a long chord which bears South 52'52'14"West,
108.32 feet;
thence South 3346'67"West, 11.S7 feet;
thence North 59°04'30"West, 942.31 feet;
thence Forth 00°32'46" East, 56.50 feet;
thence 245.16 feet on the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of 800.00
feet, a central angle of 17033'29", and a long chord which bears North 09°19'32" East,
244.20 feet;
thence 244.85 feet on the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 800.00
feet, a central angle of 17'32'10", and a long chord which bears North 09'20'12" East,
243.89 feet;
thence North 00°34'07" East, 173.05 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING-
ordaining 13.486 acres, more or less.
End of Description, P& LAND
f Ncrs
{
1177
{" j9 4" Of tiOP ,s
MCCN
Page 1 of 1
Page 16
Basis of Bearings 69r SO4'30"E 1316.52. •...,•,
5.2fi $.25 N8932'2_9"W 2650.91' _ N1/4 "" W. Amity Rd. 1279.88' E 1/16
3.35 5.36 `L'1 --- --- --- _
38•65' S89'04'30"E 478.11'
Point of
Beginning sys
U
1
1
±13.086 Acres
Line Table
ry �1
V r
Line Bearing Length —
Lt S00'34'07'W 25='
L2 S33'46'07'W 11.67'
r>
� G
L3 N00'32'48'E 50.50'
N89r04'30"W 942,31' L2
L4 N00'34'07'E 173.05' i
N,L LAVo
Curve Table g �1pF-Ns�� �r
Curve Length Radius Delta Chord Bearing Chord Length p 1V Scale:
Q1�1779
4"C1 110.35' 165.50' 38'12'15" S52'52'1W 108.32' �'�J Pa2- U 0 50 100 200 400
C2 245,16' 800,00' 17'33'29" N09'19'32'E 244.20' 6'0>"17PP OF �V" 4,
C3 244.85' 800.00' 17'32'10" N09-20'12'E 243.89' �4( MCC0,
3�3-641 C—A %b 22-03B%A„\[�NLJMwIc k A —t Mo ir—ki— 9 0 y023 9.12:20 m
IDAHO Exhibit Drawing for zJ2-a3,
SURVEY "M EMElDST Development Agreement Modification Shen No.
lOI...I nAQ4q ldRlr
[2081 eas es o i
GROUP, LLC A portion of the 1,111/2 of Section 36. T.31,1.,RAW., IBM., Dwg, Date
City Of Meridlon, Ada county, Idaho.
Page 17
B. Preliminary Plat(dated: 7/6/23)&Roundabout Exhibit
FIIRI�IM�RY FLAT to
STONEHILL GROSSING SUBDIVISION
RE I I I I 111
I w ��
c�pyn
I
r
--�
NKpn4.y"n _ 05va;E 9if
Page 18
Stonehill Crossing Subdivision
FUTURE ROUNDABOUT PLANNING EXHIBIT
7 ^
PPALY1R'� PARG4uoE 5
60� T
_L RTt cp�N gY'J
ALIA LOUN I Y F 6_FW.kY TIIS'IiiG I ML_I I-_ANE I
- ILEN-HIEII HIL;HI-ul-,V.4YI.1 R;ME A-1!IY�^ic
W Amity Road
_ L
Ll
N -----
{1SG'VSkI]NICHI{1F-'NRT I]GIHCR31OM
I
uLIINwIEar-vwE �� � i � `.
HIrr1I�r-wnrstclxxl � � i �.
E>usl�Lc wEacallon � ,
eOx CLxvExl � � +
I
E7tls I�IG STA>IU Loetr se•-moE EnSENeNI } � 51oraEnlu atas5mc 51�ms{oN
L ^I
C& D LICIT .
ai(tlGA11CIlNp, 171u4{XACEIUd E4sEMEN1LIIY
I
J f
Page 19
C. Preliminary Plat-Landscape Plan(dated: 9/25/2023)
4
--- 4 •:�•••e a ..aM��."m Y.,, w.N.1m'ROHu - -
.`-�..a�rs
-�-- ------ IIIIIII �y�.•:....�j t
F
........�,�,......... = 9
4 f
V
MATCH UNE
.ZIP aw- •,;° a°§
TT rH 11 W `•l
Page 20
STONEHILL CROSSING SUBDIVISION
s
it
LOT,
MTl
• LM3 V e a
COj oh Ili!
Page 21
D. Conceptual Development Plan for Future Resubdivision of Lot 3,Block 1 &Lot 1,Block 2 -REVISED
I j 1
I I
I j I
i I j
I j I
I I I
.. _.._. !
I
I
u D
IE
------------
EEE
i r jfj 6e. .• i•. ,•,. ..
/ �•t E
-
I
m _ I
Street R
o ® �
r'
Page 22
E. Conditional Use Permit—Site Plan&Phasing Plan(dated: 7/6,12023 09/20/23) -REVISED
STONEHILL CHURCH 71
d
e.F
gy
— —
n
Amity Ho d
9-1
-
O
a
U U
e
I J U J
1 -
J S
8
x x
w pow
x e4'.w�`'°E�'� I I x�,"'wn�� �[r...-1 I :tea`/i •� �$���6}
r �
0
Page 23
F. Conditional Use Permit—Landscape Plan(dated: 9/25/2023)
—+ - -i
• ..-. Pi1A5E 1 �` .� .xu.w.. .m ti .w x
:'�. J• _ '� � awuweu ww.vwn n.aaway.aaw�w^r ae rY
1�..�� � � r c•rM+,evn x....a�.n.z.i...m wwr
G R
i MnrCn uwE
i
HQ�O
yb gre.Ytww — .,.nN
//���`A �' ` � •�u�a-- 4muK pY YYffiN �. �it x0.
I� ' 1��,`•. � � �� wrie v.. uu wxrum.w icr .mx IROJ.M0.. �s_F
"TCn LrN� L ..�acr wN .Y4 .II C_1xh
Page 24
G. Conditional Use Permit—Conceptual Building Elevations (dated: 4/24/23)
q E E Y 6 5 5! 4 5 ] h �
---------------
i of3h ELEYwTEYh - �
N [I • ��} E A L B !1
fire �
• I _...—.___..__.___......___.._.._—.....___.._..._._..__—
aourx ELPrwEfIN �—7 NEVHpTE6
4
U'�
uer ELrvargrr 7! REV PLAN d y i7
u c o w 11 c i
11 I ICI 1 E 1[ I
n IJ ::sxt•'�v-:
- ^f10ir11 ELEV.i}qX .. 1 Y-W�^
Page 25
VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS
A. PLANNING DIVISION
1. Development Agreement Modification
1.1 The amended DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within
six(6)months of the City Council approval of the Findings. The DA shall, at minimum, incorporate
the following provisions:
a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the site plan and conceptual
building elevations included in Section VIII and the provisions contained herein that are
applicable to Lot 1, Block 1, Stonehill Crossing Subdivision.
b. The future use of this site is limited to a church or place of religious worship and associated
accessory uses as allowed by UDC 11-4-3-6. Any change to the use shall require a modification
to the agreement.
c. The new north/south residential collector street(S. Oak Briar Way) shall be constructed in its
entirety prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for the church.
d. The final plat in which the subject property lies shall be recorded prior to issuance of Certificate
of Occupancy for the proposed church.
2.Preliminary Plat
2.1 The final plat shall include the following revisions:
a. Depict a minimum 25-foot wide street buffer along W.Amity Rd., an arterial street, in a
common lot or a permanent dedicated buffer easement maintained by the property owner in
accord with UDC 11-3B-7C.2a. The buffer shall be measured from the ultimate curb location as
anticipated by ACHD.
b. Depict a minimum 20-foot wide street buffer along both sides of S. Oak Briar Way, a collector
street,measured from back of curb, in a common lot or a permanent dedicated buffer easement
maintained by the property owner or homeowner's association in accord with UDC 11-3B-
7C.2a.
c. Depict a temporary cul-de-sac at the south end of the collector street(S. Oak Briar Way)with a
minimum turning radius of 50' as required by ACHD.
d. Graphically depict a 14' wide public pedestrian easement along the Calkins Lateral on Lot 1,
Block 2 and include the recorded instrument number of the easement.
e. Include a note stating direct lot access via W.Amity Rd. is prohibited except for the existing
driveways on Lot 1, Block 2 for farm and irrigation access and the emergency only access on
Lot 1,Block 1 (unless otherwise restricted by ACHD).
f. Include a note stating direct lot access via S. Oak Briar Way is prohibited except for a temporary
access for the existing home on Lot 1,Block 2,which shall be removed upon resubdivision of
that lot in the future.At that time, access shall be provided from an internal local street if the
home remains on a lot in the subdivision. The location of this access(curb cut)shall be depicted
on the plat.
g. Depict a local street off S. Oak Briar Way between Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 for local street access
to these lots in accord with UDC 11-3A-3. This street shall extend at a minimum,to the east
boundary of Lot 2,Block 1 and shall be extended with future resubdivision of Lot 3,Block 1 in
Page 26
the future.A turnaround shall be provided at the end of the street that meets ACHD and Fire
Dept. standards.
h. All sidewalks and parkways shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17.
2.2 The landscape plan submitted with the final plat shall include the following revisions:
a. Depict landscaping within the 20' wide street buffer along S. Oak Briar Way; and within the 25-
foot wide street buffer along W. Amity Rd. on Lot 1,Block 1 in accord with the standards listed
in UDC 11-3B-7C.3. The street buffer along Amity Rd. on Lot 1, Block 2 is deferred until future
resubdivision of that lot.
b. Include a calculations table that demonstrates compliance with the aforementioned street buffer
requirements, including required vs.provided number of trees,percentages and tree
classifications.
c. Landscaping shall be depicted in parkways in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-
17E.
2.3 All existing structures that do not comply with the setbacks of the R-4 zoning district in UDC Table
11-2A-5 shall be removed from the site prior to submittal of the final plat for City Engineer
signature.
2.4 Comply with the subdivision design and improvement standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3.
2.5 The existing homes on Lot 2,Block 1 and Lot 1,Block 2 shall connect to City water and sewer
service within 60 days of it becoming available and disconnect from private service as set forth in
MCC 9-1-4 and 9-4-8.
2.6 The addresses of the existing homes shall change with recordation of the subdivision.
2.7 No building permits shall be issued on Lot 3,Block 1 until this lot is resubdivided in the future; and
no building permits shall be issued on Lot 1,Block 2 except for accessory structures associated with
the primary residence.
2.8 A 14-foot wide public access easement shall be submitted to the City and depicted on the plat for the
10' wide multi-use pathway along the east side of the Calkins Lateral(10' for the pathway+2'
shoulder each side).If permission can be obtained from the Irrigation District, the pathway may be
located with their easement; if not, the pathway shall be located in a separate linear lot outside of
the irrigation easement behind the future rear residential lot lines.
2.9 Underground pressurized irrigation water shall be provided to Lots 1 and 2,Block 1 and the existing
home on Lot 1,Block 2 with development of the subdivision as set forth in UDC 11-3A-I5;
underground pressurized irrigation is not required to be provided to Lot 3,Block 1 until
resubdivision of this lot occurs in the future.
2.10 Connection to City water and sewer services is required for the proposed church on Lot 1,Block 1
and the existing homes on Lot 2,Block 1 and Lot 1,Block 2 in accord with UDC 11-3A-21; services
are not required to be provided to Lot 3,Block 1 until resubdivision of this lot occurs in the future.
2.11 The frontage improvements along Amity Rd. on Lot 1,Block 2(i.e.pavement widening,borrow
ditch/drainage improvements, 10' wide multi-use pathway, street buffer landscaping and associated
overhead and underground utility relocations is deferred until resubdivision of this lot in the future.
(Note:ACHD will require a formal request for a waiver ofpolicy and written support from the City
to defer the road widening and sidewalk until future resubdivision of this lot.)
2.12 The piping of the Calkins Lateral and the Belle Sub Lateral,which lie on Lot 1,Block 2 and Lot 3,
Block 1,respectively, is deferred until resubdivision of these lots in the future.
Page 27
2.13 The two(2) driveways on Lot 1,Block 2 via Amity Rd.,used for farm and irrigation access,may
remain until resubdivision of this lot in the future unless otherwise required by ACHD to be closed;
access will be evaluated at that time.
2.14 Construction of the 10' wide multi-use pathway required along the east side of the Calkins Lateral
on Lot 1,Block 2 per the Pathways Master Plan is deferred until resubdivision of this lot in the
future.
2.15 A sign shall be erected at the terminus of the collector stub street(S. Oak Briar Way)that states
the street will be extended and widened in the future as required by ACHD.
2.16 Approval of a preliminary plat shall become null and void if the applicant fails to obtain the city
engineer's signature on the final plat within two(2)years of the approval of the preliminary plat.
Upon written request and filing by the applicant prior to the termination of the period,the director
may authorize a single extension of time to obtain the city engineer's signature on the final plat not
to exceed two (2)years.Additional time extensions up to two(2)years as determined and approved
by the City Council may be granted.With all extensions,the director or City Council may require
the preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat or short plat to comply with the current
provisions of this title.
3. Conditional Use Permit
3.1 The site plan and landscape plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application shall
be revised as follows:
a. All outdoor utility meters,HVAC equipment,trash dumpsters,trash compaction and other service
functions shall be incorporated into the overall design of buildings and landscaping so that the visual
and acoustic impacts of these functions are fully contained and out of view from adjacent properties
and public streets as set forth in UDC I1-3A-12. Safe access and adequate lighting should be provided
in these areas.
b. The pedestrian walkways from the perimeter sidewalks along W. Amity Rd. and S. Oak Briar Way
to the main building entrance shall be distinguished from the vehicular driving surface through the
use of pavers, colored or scored concrete, or bricks as set forth in 11-3A-19B.4.
c. Depict pedestrian pathway connections from the church site to future abutting residential uses to the
east and south for interconnectivity; landscaping shall be depicted along all pathways in accord with
the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C.
d. Depict minimum 5' wide walkways in parking areas for any aisle length that is greater than 150
parking spaces or 200' away from the primary building entrance(s) in accord with UDC 11-3A-
19B.4c.
e. Depict bollards with a chain and a Knox padlock as required by the Fire Dept. across the emergency
access driveway via Amity Rd. on Lot 1,Block 1 to prohibit public access.
f. Depict dimensions for parking stalls and drive aisles that comply with the dimensions noted in UDC
Table 11-3C-5. Where parking spaces abut a sidewalk or a perimeter landscape buffer,wheel stops
should be provided in parking stalls to prevent vehicle overhang; or,the length of the parking stalls
may be reduced 2' if an additional 2' is added to the width of the sidewalk or the perimeter buffer to
total 7' as set forth in UDC 11-3C-5B.4.
g. Depict landscaping in the parking lot in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C.
3.2 Compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-6 Church or Place of Religious Worship is
required.
Page 28
3.3 Direct access via W.Amity Road is prohibited except for emergency only access on Lot 1,Block 1 and
the existing farm access at the west boundary of the site and the irrigation district access along the
Calkins Lateral on Lot 1,Block 2,unless otherwise approved by City Council.
3.4 Future development of this site shall comply with the dimensional standards of the R-8 zoning district in
UDC Table 11-2A-6.
3.5 Details of the lighting proposed on the site shall be submitted that demonstrate compliance with the
standards listed in UDC 11-3A-11.
3.6 A Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC) application shall be submitted and approved for the proposed
church use and site layout prior to submittal of a building permit application.
3.7 A Design Review application shall be submitted concurrently with the CZC application and approved for
the proposed structure prior to submittal of a building permit application. The design of the proposed
structure shall comply with the standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual.
3.8 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 11-5B-6F.
B. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=316105&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity
C. MERIDIAN FIRE DEPARTMENT
https://weblink.meridianciN.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=316107&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCiU
D. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID)
https://weblink.meridianciU.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=324861&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCiU
E. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ)
https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=317458&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCioX
F. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO
https://weblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=329876&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity
G. PARK'S DEPARTMENT
https://weblink.meridianciU.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=316108&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity
H. BOISE PROJECT BOARD OF CONTROL
https://weblink.m eridia n c i ty.org/WeUink/Doc View.aspx?id=324823&dbid=0&rep o=Meridia n City
I. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD)—Revised
https://weblink.m eridia n c i ty.org/WeUink/Doc View.aspx?id=335356&dbid=0&rep o=Meridia n City
Page 29
IX. FINDINGS
A. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-513-3E)
Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full
investigation and shall,at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation
and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings:
1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan;
The Commission finds the Applicant's request to rezone a portion of the subject property to the R-8
zoning district for the development of a church is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
per the analysis in Section V.
2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district,
specifically the purpose statement;
The Commission finds the proposed map amendment to the R-8 zoning district will allow the
proposed church as a conditional use.
3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health,safety,and
welfare;
The Commission finds the proposed map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health,
safety and welfare as the proposed church use should be compatible with adjacent existing and
future single-family residential homes/uses in the area.
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
The Commission finds City services are available to be provided to this development and the
proposed church use will not impact the school district.
5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city.
This finding is not applicable as the request is for a rezone, not annexation.
B. Conditional Use Permit(UDC 11-513-6E)
The Commission shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit requests upon the following:
1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and
development regulations in the district in which the use is located.
The Commission finds Lot 1, Block 1 where the church is proposed will be large enough to
accommodate the proposed use and dimensional and development regulations of the R-8 zoning
district(see Analysis, Section V for more information).
2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with
the requirements of this Title.
The Commission finds that the proposed church use will be harmonious with the Comprehensive
Plan as noted in Section V and is allowed as a conditional use in UDC Table 11-2A-2 in the R-8
zoning district.
Page 30
3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the
general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such
use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area.
The Commission finds the proposed design of the development, construction, operation and
maintenance of the church should be compatible with existing and future residential uses in the
general vicinity and that such use should not adversely change the character of the area. The
proposed church should provide more options for public worship for area residents in this area of
the City.
4. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely
affect other property in the vicinity.
The Commission finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the
proposed use will not adversely affect other property in the area.
5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as
highways,streets,schools,parks,police and fire protection,drainage structures,refuse disposal,water,
and sewer.
The Commission finds that essentialpublic services are available to this property and that the use will
be adequately served by these facilities. Police and Fire currently provides service to this property.
C. Preliminary Plat(UDC 11-613-6)
In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat,or short plat,the decision-
making body shall make the following findings: (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005)
1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified
development code; (Ord. 08-1372, 7-8-2008, eff. 7-8-2008)
The Commission finds the proposed plat is in conformance with the UDC and generally conforms
with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the
proposed development;
The Commission finds public services are currently provided and/or can be made available to the
subject property and will be adequate to accommodate the proposed development.
3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the city's capital
improvement program;
The Commission finds the proposed plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in
accord with the City's capital improvement program.
4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development;
The Commission finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed
development.
5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and
The Commission finds the proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety
or general welfare.
Page 31
6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005,
ef£ 9-15-2005)
The Commission is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that need to
be preserved with this development.
Page 32
C i E IDIAN.;---
Agenda Item
Applicant Presentation
Stonehill Crossing Subdivision - Sewer
.. Hawkins
Companies
Property
-
_ a ^• r
^ Amity Road
, sT
Stonehill III
t t +��r - Church ^� -
-� < Site
V
ku
Stonehill Crossing Subdivision
low
w IDIAN�
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Avani Neighborhood (H-2023-0049) by Conger Group,
located at Southeast of Franklin Rd. and Black Cat, North of 1-84.
Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2023-0049
A. Request: Annexation of 35.086 acres of land from RUT to the R-15 (Medium High Density
Residential) zoning district.
B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 256 buildable lots and 25 common lots on 33.71 acres
of land in the proposed R-15 zoning district.
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET
DATE: March 12, 2024 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 4
PROJECT NAME: Avani Neighborhood (H-2023-0049)
Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify
(Please Print) HOA? (mark X if yes)
If yes, please
provide HOA name
's v� Cd t\ �� NO
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
STAFF REPORT
C�W IDIAN�--
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT I D A H O
HEARING March 12, 2024 Legend
DATE:
Project Location
TO: Mayor&City Council ,
FROM: Stacy Hersh,Associate Planner ® �®
208-884-5533
------- ---
SUBJECT: Avani Neighborhood AZ,PP
H-2023-0049
........................................
_..
LOCATION: Southeast of Franklin Road and Black
Cat,North of I-84, in the SW 1/4 of the
NW 1/4 of Section 15,T.3N., R.1 W.
(Parcel#S1215233650) o 0
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Annexation of 35.086 acres of land to the R-15 (Medium-high-density residential)zoning district; and
Preliminary Plat consisting of 256 building lots and 25 common lots on 33.71-acres of land in the R-15
zoning district for Avani Neighborhood Subdivision.
NOTE: Staff is recommending denial of the project because the applicant's design(plat and
elevations)is inconsistent with the design elements outlined in the TMISAP.The applicant has been
made aware of Staffs concerns and has elected to forego some of Staffs recommended changes to gain
a favorable recommendation.Below provides the basis for Staffs recommendation; however,the
Commission and Council should rely on all relevant information when determining if this project is
consistent with the Plan and open to allowing deviations from the design elements as desired by the
Applicant.
Page 1
IL SUMMARY OF REPORT
A. Project Summary
Description Details
Acreage 33.71acres(35.086 acres-annexation area)
Future Land Use Designation Medium-High Density Residential(MHDR)in the Ten Mile Interchange
Specific Area Plan(TMISAP)
Existing Land Use agricultural
Proposed Land Uses) SFR detached and attached dwellings
Current Zoning F Rural-Urban Transition(RUT)in Ada County
Proposed Zoning R-15
Lots(#and type;bldg/common) 256 building/8 common lots
Phasing plan(#of phases) 3 Phases
Number of Residential Units(type 256 residential lots(95 attached units, 161 detached units)
of units)
Density(gross&net) 7.60 units/acre(gross)
Open Space(acres,total [%]/ 6.68(or 19.8%)qualified
buffer/qualified)
Amenities Large central park,community pool with changing rooms,fenced play
structure,swing set,seating benches,climbing dome,climbing rocks,fenced
dog park and 2 ickleball sports courts.
Physical Features(waterways, The Rosenlof Drain bisects the northwest corner of the site.
hazards,flood plain,hillside)
Neighborhood meeting date 7/26/2023
History(previous approvals) None
B. Community Metric
Description Details
Ada County Highway District
• Staff report(yes/no) Yes
• Requires ACHD No
Commission Action
es/no
Access(Arterial/Collectors/State A portion of the collector street(Vantage Point Way)is required to be extended
Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) from the west boundary to the east boundary of the site per the Master Street
Map.
Page 2
Proposed Road Improvements Capital Improvements Plan(CIP)/Integrated Five Year Work Plan(IFYWP):
• Franklin Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be widened to 5-lanes from McDermott Road to
Black Cat Road with the design year in 2026 and the construction date has not been
determined.
The intersection of Franklin Road and McDermott Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be
reconstructed as a single-lane expandable roundabout. There is no design year or
construction year,and this project requires coordination with the Nampa Highway District.
2 DRAFT Avani Subdivision/MPP23-00101
H-2023-0049
• Black Cat Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 5-lanes from Franklin Road to Overland
Road between 2036 and 2040. Funding for ITD's portion is not included with this project.
Fire Service
• Distance to Fire Station 2.8 miles from Station#2
• Fire Response Time Falls just outside of the 5-minute response time goal
• Resource Reliability 82%(above the targeted goal of 80%)
• Accessibility This project meets all required access,road widths,and turnarounds as presented
in the preliminary plat. The shared drives shall have an address sign at each
entrance,the roadways,common driveways,and alleys shall be maintained 365
days a year for fire,EMS,and police responses.
• Additional See Fire Staff Report in the link provided below under Section IX(C).
Comments/Concerns
Police Service No comments received
• Distance to Fire Station
• Fire Response Time
• Accessibility
West Ada School District No Comments received
Distance(elem,ms,Its)
Capacity of Schools
#of Students Enrolled
#of students estimated for this
development
Wastewater
• Wastewater Modeling •Must provide to and through to S 1215325450
•End of the line requires 0.6%slope
•Flow is committed
•Sewer/water easement varies depending on sewer depth. Sewer 0-20 ft deep
require a 30 ft easement,20-25 ft a 40 ft easement,and 25-30 ft a 45 ft easement.
Adjust easements accordingly.
•Sewer easement varies depending on sewer depth. Sewer 0-15 ft deep require a
20 ft easement, 16-20 ft a 30 ft easement,and 21-30 ft a 40 ft easement.Adjust
easements accordingly.
•Ensure no permanent structures(trees,bushes,buildings,carports,trash
receptacle walls,fences,infiltration trenches,light poles,etc.)are built within the
utility easement.
•Ensure no sewer services pass through infiltration trenches.
• Project Consistent with WW 9T "wirw
Master Plan/Facility Plan
• Impacts/Concerns See Public Works Site Specific Conditions under Section IX(B)
Water
Page 3
• Distance to Services Water available at site
• Pressure Zone 2
• Estimated Project Water See Application
ERU's
Water Quality Concerns None
• Project Consistent with Water Yes
Master Plan
• Impacts/Concerns See Public Works' Site-Specific Conditions under Section IX(B)
•If a well is located on the site it must be abandoned per regulatory requirements
and proof of abandonment must be provided to the City.
•Each phase of the development will need to be modeled to verify minimum fire
flow pressure is maintained.
•Development requires two connections for looping. There are two options
Option 1:Provide a second connection in zone 2 from either the north or the east
Option 2:A second connection to Black Cat Rd.However,this requires a
connection from Franklin road through parcel S1216120735 to parcel
S1216131200.Additionally,the main in Black Cat Rd along the western
boundary mast be connected to the rest of the water system in two different
places.In other words,the development cannot have two ties to Black Cat Rd if
that run of main is a dead end.
•There are multiple spots where fittings are located within the gutter.Don't have
fittings in the gutter.
Page 4
J �
FRAN�KLIN.•°......,•. NFU
FRANKLIN
co
MOM
o e i
v
No ��� ,
OVERLAND O,VERL`AND
who
`FRANKLIN �9 MEN ' • rFRANKL-INN;
FmJ
Q Fm
i
JJ �
84�111 � 84�tl11 � •
O�/�AN� -mmmm
� ��
C. Representative:
Laren Bailey, Conger Group—4824 W. Fairview Avenue,Boise,ID 83706
IV. NOTICING
Planning&Zoning City Council
Posting Date Posting Date
Newspaper notification
published in newspaper 1/16/2024 2/25/2024
Radius notification mailed to
property owners within 500 feet 1/12/2024 2/24/2024
Public hearing notice sign posted
1/18/2024 2/23/2024
on site
Nextdoor posting 1/10/2024 2/26/2024
V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS
LAND USE: This property is designated Medium High-Density Residential(MHDR)on the Future Land Use
Map(FLUM)and is located within the area known as the Ten Mile Specific Area Plan(TMISAP). MHDR
areas are recommended to develop primarily with relatively dense multi-family housing types, such as row
houses,townhouses, condominiums, and apartments,not all single-family attached and detached homes as
proposed by the applicant. These areas should have a mix of housing types that achieve an overall average
density target of 12 dwelling units per acre with densities ranging from 8-15 units per acre.MHDR areas
typically are relatively compact areas within a larger neighborhood and generally should be located around
and near more intensely developed areas, such as Mixed Use Commercial or Employment areas,in order to
provide convenient access to these commercial activity and employment centers for the greatest number of
residents.
As noted above,the proposed development incorporates a mix of single-family attached(95)and single-
family detached(161)homes,resulting in an overall gross density of 7.59 units per acre inconsistent with the
target density desired in the MHDR FLUM designation in the TMISAP. Townhomes should be included in
this development to be more consistent with the plan;however,the property to the east has approval to
construct a 552-unit multi-family development to offset the need for additional multi-family in the area.
Mixed—Employment areas are also entitled or in the development process to the west, south, and southeast
so it is conceivable that this development may provide additional housing options for these employment
areas.
TRANSPORTATION: ACHD's Master Street Map(MSM)depicts a new town center collector street across
the southern portion of this property from the west to the east boundary eventually connecting to S. Ten Mile
Road. The Transportation System Map in the TMISAP lists the functional classification for this street as a
collector street and the Street Section Map lists the design classification as a major collector street,which is
intended to be constructed consistent with Street Section C as follows:
Page 6
1
1d' 9 B' 6' 1 r l r fi' ' d'
tfte si e
Lane 24' Lane 7
Cur�-n.cA dfslance
This street is planned to eventually provide a connection from S. Black Cat Road to S. Ten Mile Road. The
applicant is currently collaborating with the property owners directly to the south and east to complete the
Collector Street(Vanguard Way)connection to Black Cat. It is the City's desire to have this street
dedicated and constructed before residents occupy the homes in this development.
Local streets,alleys, and common drives are proposed internally for access to the proposed residential units.
Staff believes the plat should incorporate more alley-loaded lots however,the Applicant believes there
isn't a market for this type of housing and has elected to limit the number of alley-loaded homes to ten
(10)which is inconsistent with the Plan.
BACKGROUND: Ten Mile Interchange Area was intended to look, feel, and function differently than a
typical residential subdivision. It operates as a form-based specific area plan,where the design of the built
environment is the primary review element and intended to work in conjunction with the land use and zoning
designations. These design elements should not be treated as a checklist;but used to implement the overall
vision and support traditional neighborhood design desired by the Plan.
DESIGN ELEMENT: The design element is intended to serve as the basic framework for a project within the
Ten Mile Interchange Area and the basis for the development of future design guidelines. They are
considered the most important elements to"get right,"there is not flexibility allowed in the modification of
design elements. Future development should be consistent with the design elements in the TMISAP for the
MHDR FLUM designation as determined by the Application of the Design Elements table(refer to the table
below). Staff s analysis for how the Applicant's design adheres to the applicable design elements are italized
below.
NOTE:Some of these design elements are not required by the UDC as envisioned by the Plan. Therefore,
the applicant requests the Commission and Council allow some deviations to these design elements.
Page 7
Page . Design Element Residenlrnl Wked Use Employment Spedol Areas
LDR MDR MHDR HDR MUR MUC LC LDE HDE ME I Parks Civic
3-32.Architecture and Heritage ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
3-33.Street oriented design
Commercial&mixed use bldgs. ■ ■
Residential Buildings ■ ■
3-34.Buildings to Scale ■ ■ ■
3-35.Gateways
3-36.Neighborhood Design ■ ■
3-37.Building Form&Character ■ ■
Commercial Activity Centers ■
Building Facades ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Building Heights ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
General Lim int of 4 stories ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
First Floor Ceiling Heights for Retail ■
Up to 6 Stories ■ ■
Base,Body,and Top ■ ■ ■ ■
Frontage
Commercial Retail Frontage ■ ■
Live/Work Unit Frontage ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Urban Resid.Frontage in Commercial Districts ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Neighborhood Residential&Institutional ■ ■
Roofs
Flat ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Pitched ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
3-41.Building Defails
Materials ■ ■
Screening of Mechanical Units and Service Areas ■ ■
Awnings ■ ■ ■
Canopies ■ ■
3-46.Signs ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
3-47.Public Art 1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
RfmdEm*pmt Med'um High Den*
_
Resiaenlial11PM.W High Densily Residenfiiil Liles*Carlo
FVERTO>L
HUNTSBM1ubme21lYbndY4sBi or0O1lR4R M aamnadtleol MIfibaimtefeMbmAsY�B 3T0M1pY�ep9s.m�j mee brt Ib3V>ma6aaW;R[Osa@sC6aYrs Blsexed.m&J'®16 1u.Plaa�R.wI nhw 0.I®b1tle�tli®no tlnme oma•beas 1I91diay�aS T.W8eo oJiYms B
cTrem M1�OPux Ma;in
FRONTA
9 melM1efionl
A%%i�b-sryepbs wi to%wbao.a ae►m.d fosmm�� �o%e r�r�er.el� v.a�im�r%rbrAm mame•+e.. �a%a aeeEem.rmnwesral
n®i.nim®=nJ*v r.V+ mmd�...etem-h+se�. Fletlmh Nalri lv�e b+u-�re.'nr�.m�P wtisnmm�reum.icbWis ISYp"+reen.nn�nrcmn'.
.......... ..................................
s f .._... 1.�._. it
._...o4....................................... . h................................
R3 ..................... .
...... ' _*. .I .. ........... .R&.
Medium
H sity fi ReReal RMU0N
3-33. Street-oriented Design: Useable porches should be a dominant element of residential buildings and
should be located along at least 30%of the front facade of the buildings—a higher percentage is
recommended as is the location of porches on one or more side facades. When possible, garages should be
Page 8
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. Front-loaded 2-car garages that are visible from the primary street
must be designed with two(2) separate garage doors.
Out of the 256 single-family units, only 10 are alley-loaded; the others are all front-loaded with living area
either at the same plane or behind the garages away from the street. A few of the units have usable porches
that might meet the guidelines. No porches are proposed on the side facades. All units have single 2-car
garage doors, not separate doors.
3-34.Buildings to Scale: Everything seen and experienced from the sidewalk—building fronts,lighting,
open space—should be designed for human interaction at a pedestrian's perspective.Key elements to
consider are the continuity of the 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 and other open space. Human-
scale design is critical to the success of built places for pedestrians. Building entrances should be placed
close to the street; ground floor windows,articulated facades, appropriately scaled lighting, awnings and
other weather protection should be provided.
The proposed elevations do not meet the design criteria that encourage building entrances to be situated
close to the street,primarily due to their garage-dominated nature. Elevations for the alley-loaded units
were not submitted with the application, making it difficult for Staff to determine if they comply with these
guidelines. Lighting at a pedestrian scale should be provided on the buildings facing the street and internal
walkways. A different product type should be provided for the detached and attached units with garages
behind the units, and building entrances facing the street with front/side porches.
3-36.Neighborhood Design: All residential neighborhoods in the Ten Mile interchange area should be
developed in consideration of traditional neighborhood design principles and concepts,which pertain to
mixed housing stock, architecture and design, streetscapes and streets.Front porches and garages accessed
from an alley are usually the standard in residential areas;parking for homes is primarily located behind
buildings. Streetscape design relates to the street itself and consists of landscaped parkways with trees
between curbs and sidewalks, adjacent sidewalks and front yard spaces and provides public space for street
trees, street furniture and view corridors. Other aspects of neighborhood design that contribute to a
traditional streetscape are connected network of streets, alleys and sidewalks. Roadways and pedestrian ways
are interconnected so that access for pedestrians, cyclists and automobile drivers is direct and convenient and
allows traffic to be dispersed through a variety of streets and ways.Narrower streets designed with TND
characteristics result in slower moving traffic and provide a safer,more pleasant pedestrian environment and
encourages interaction among residents.
As previously noted, usable porches that meet the minimum guidelines are not provided for the single-family
attached and detached units as desired. Alley-accessed garages and parking are only provided for the 10
detached units; the other 246 single-family units are all accessed from the street with parking in front of the
garages facing the street, which is not desired.
Shorter block lengths and narrower streets help build a greater sense of community. As proposed, these lots
are narrow and garage dominated which creates more driveways and less tree-lined streets along the
primary streets which is contradictory to TND principles. More alley-loaded homes would enchance the
streetscape for this development and ground the front porches to the primary street per the Plan.
3-37.Building Form& Character: Building Facades—Buildings should be designed so that their primary
facades relate to active public spaces and pedestrian areas. The primary fagade of a structure is that frontage
of the building that has been designed and detailed so as to represent the building's most important
elevations. The primary fagade should always include an entry into the building. Entries should be located so
as to provide direct access from adjacent public spaces,primary streets and activity areas. Access from
walkways should be uninterrupted by vehicular traffic. Buildings should be located so as to help frame
Page 9
adjacent public spaces and to provide an architectural backdrop for associated passive and active activities.
The space between a building fagade and the adjacent walkway should be appropriately landscaped with a
combination of lawns, groundcover, shrubs and trees.
Access from walkways to the main living areas is only uninterrupted by vehicular traffic for 10 alley-loaded
units, as these units have garages accessed from the alleys. The other single-family attached and detached
structures are not designed to have the primary fagade relate to active pedestrian areas,public spaces, or
primary streets due to the orientation of the garages and building entries. Building entries are not the focal
point of the homes and the front-loaded garages limit direct pedestrian access from the street because most
of the entries are located behind the garages. As noted above, the 8 foot parkways are also diminished due
to this design.
Building Heights: Low-rise buildings of 2-4 stories over much of the area is recommended.
A mix of one-story single-family and two-story single-family attached and detached structures are proposed
in general conformance to this guideline. This applicant's preference is to have single-story homes along
collector and arterial streets to enhance the streetscape.
• Pitched Roofs: A mix of flat and pitched roofs are anticipated in the Ten Mile area based on a wide
variety of individual buildings. Pitched roofs should be,where possible, symmetrical hips or gables,with
a pitch between 4:12 and 12:12 with an overhang of at least 12 inches and a maximum of 2.5'. Roof
brackets and rafter tail treatments are encouraged.
All of the roofpitches proposed fall within the desired pitch range. Corbels are depicted some of the
concept elevations; rafter tail treatments are encouraged as well as other design elements as noted in
the ASM. Staff cannot verb if there is at least 12 inches of overhang for all of the one-story and two-
story homes proposed.
3-47.Public Art: Public art should be incorporated into the design of streetscapes,public buildings,parks,
transit,infrastructure,and other public projects in the Ten Mile area. Public art should be meaningful and
encourage the free flow of ideas and cultural ideologies. Public art should be integrated into either the
architectural design or the design of plazas and public spaces associated with a building and should be easily
visible to the public (e.g.visible from the street or publicly accessible open spaces rather than interior
courtyards).
Public art is not proposed but could be provided in accord with this guideline. If the applicant desires to
include public art as part of the development it would qualify as another amenity(I point).
Goals,Objectives, &Action Items: Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to
this application and apply to the proposed use of this property;however,the TMISAP takes precedence over the
Comprehensive plan(staff analysis in italics):
• "With new subdivision plat,require the design and construction of pathways connections,easy pedestrian
and bicycle access to parks, safe routes to schools, and incorporation of usable open space with quality
amenities."(2.02.01A)
The Applicant is proposing to construct 10 foot wide multi-use pathways along S. Black Cat Road and
Vanguard Way(new collector)in accordance with the Meridian Pathways Master Plan Map.Additionally,
a 5-foot wide micro path is proposed on the east side of the site, extending in a north-south direction. The
following amenities are proposed.• community pool and changing rooms,fenced play structure, swing set,
seating benches, climbing dome, climbing rocks,fenced dog park, and two(2)pickleball courts, exceeding
the requirements outlined in UDC 11-3G-4.
Page 10
• "Require all new residential neighborhoods to provide complete streets,consistent with the
Transportation and Land Use Integration Plan."(2.02.01C)
The plat illustrates that all internal local streets within this development are depicted as 27 foot wide
street sections with curbs and gutters, allowing parking on only one side. "No Parking"signs shall be
installed on that designated side of the street. The smaller street sections are encouraged in the TMISAP
to promote pedestrian movement and access by enhancing connectivity and promoting walking.
• "Require pedestrian access in all new development to link subdivisions together and promote
neighborhood connectivity."(2.02.01D)
The proposed 10 foot wide pathways and 5-foot wide micro path provide connectivity to the Mixed
Employment developments proposed to the south, the proposed multi family development(Vanguard
Village) to the east, and the future medium-high density development to the north.
• "Continue to develop and implement the desired vision in special areas, areas with specific plans, and
along key transportation corridors."(3.03.01A)
The TMISAP is a form-based specific area plan where the design of the built environment is the primary
review element. The City's vision for this area is for all residential to have a Traditional Neighborhood
Design.Front porches and alley-loaded garages are the standard and help to create a pedestrian friendly
environment. Streetscapes should relate to the street itself and landscaping with trees between curbs and
sidewalks, the adjacent,front yard spaces, and the building frontages. Staff finds that the proposed plat,
landscape, and elevations do not align with the City's vision for this area.
• "Annex lands into the corporate boundaries of the City only when the annexation proposal conforms to
the City's vision and the necessary extension of public services and infrastructure is provided."(3.03.03)
The Applicant's design does not align with the Plan; therefore, stafffinds it is not in the City's best
interest to annex this property.
• "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 with development in
accord with UDC 11-3A-21.
• "Ensure that new development and subdivisions connect to the pathway system." (4.04.01A)
The proposed subdivision proposes a 10 foot wide pathway along S. Black Cat Road and Vantage Point
Way(new collector) in accordance with the Meridian Pathways Master Plan Map, thereby enhancing
connectivity to future developments.
• "Assess and compare response times to adopted standards for identification of additional needed
resources."(4.11.0113)
This project currently falls in an area where emergency personnel don't have response times that meet
NFPA 1710 standards or the current City of Meridian adopted standards. The first due station is Fire
Station 2. This fire station is approximately 2.8 miles from the project.
• "Foster a walkable and bikeable community through good site and street design."(5.01.01A)
The pathways and sidewalks within the development contribute to creating a walkable community.
However; the proposed narrower street sections should coincide with shorter block lengths or traffic
calming to provide a more compact, diverse, and walkable neighborhood as envisioned by the plan.
Page 11
ACHD is also requiring shorter block lengths or passive traffic calming.
• `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 with development of the
subdivision;services are required to be provided to and through this development in accordance with
current City plans.
• "Encourage the integration of public art as an integrated component with new development". (5.03.01B)
Public art is not proposed with this development as emphasized by the TMISAP. Public Art should be
included as a fundamental element in new development projects within the TMISAP. This policy
suggests a commitment to fostering a visually enriched and culturally vibrant environment by actively
encouraging the inclusion of artistic elements as an integral part of the overall development strategy.
Public art could be displayed either at the entrance to the subdivision and/or within the large central
park proposed in the development.
VI. STAFF ANALYSIS
A. ANNEXATION(AZ)
The Applicant proposes to annex 35.214 acres of land with an R-15 (Medium-High Density Residential)
zoning district which is listed in the Zoning District Compatibility Matrix in the TMISAP as one of the
best choices for zoning in the MHDR designation.
A preliminary plat and conceptual building elevations were submitted, included in Section VIII, showing
how the property is proposed to be subdivided into 256 building lots and 25 common lots for the
development of 10 single-family detached alley-loaded dwellings, 95 single-family attached dwellings&
151 single-family detached dwellings.
The proposed residential use and mix of housing types may be consistent with the MHDR FLUM
designation; however,the proposed density of 7.59 is below the target density of 12 dwelling units
per acre. The proposed architectural design does not comply with the TND guidelines in the
TMISAP, as discussed above.Development in this area should conform to these guidelines in order
to be deemed consistent with the Plan and determine if it is in the City's best interest to annex this
property.
This property, is surrounded by an existing light industrial development to the west(Black Cat Industrial
future residential uses to the north, future multi-family development to the east(Vanguard Village), a
future R-15 development to the north(extension of Baraya), and mixed employment(M-E)proposed to
the south.
A legal description and exhibit map for the boundary of the property proposed to be annexed is included
in Section VIII.A. This property is within the City's Area of City Impact boundary and within the area
governed by the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan(TMISAP), as discussed above in Section V.
The City may require a development agreement(DA) in conjunction with an annexation pursuant to
Idaho Code section 67-6511A. A DA is not necessary based on staff s recommendation of denial.
B. PRELIMINARY PLAT(PP):
A preliminary plat is proposed consisting of 256 [95 single-family attached, 10 alley-loaded, and 151
single-family detached units] building lots and 25 landscape, six(6) common driveways,two (2)alleys,
and one(1)non-buildable lot on 33.707-acres of land in the R-15 district. Proposed lots range in size
Page 12
from 2,436 to 5,357 square feet(s.f.)with an average lot size of 3,584(sf.)The subdivision is proposed
to develop in three(3)phases as shown on the preliminary plat in Section VIII.C.
Single-family attached and detached dwellings are listed as a principal permitted use in the R-15 zoning
district per UDC Table 11-2D-2. The proposed plat appears to comply with the R-1 S zoning standards.
Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There are no existing structures on the property that are
proposed to be removed upon development.
Dimensional Standards(UDC Table 11-2D-6): The proposed plat and subsequent development is
required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2D-6 for the R-15 zoning
district. There is a 2,000 minimum lot size in the R-15 district; each building site is required to be of
sufficient size to meet the minimum setbacks for the district.
Access: Access is proposed via the extension of Vantage Point Way, a new collector street, along the
southern boundary of the subdivision. Vantage Point Way will extend to the west boundary across Black
Cat Road to be extended with the Black Cat Industrial Development(H-2021-0064).
Vantage Point Way should be constructed in accordance with Street Section C(major collector street)in
the TMISAP,which requires(2) 11-foot travel lanes, 6-foot bike lanes, 8-foot parkways with streetlights
at a pedestrian scale, and minimum 6-foot wide detached sidewalks (see pg. 3-20, 3-22, 3-23). The
Applicant proposes a modification of the street section to include 10-foot wide detached
sidewalks/pathways in lieu of on-street bike lanes,which is required by ACHD and as set forth in the
Meridian Master Pathways Plan.
All streets should be constructed as complete streets as defined in the TMISAP (see pg.3-19 &3-
20). Prior to submitting the final plat,the Applicant shall coordinate with the property owner to
the south and east to construct Vantage Point Way and deed the right-of-way to ACHD. The
Applicant should ensure that the intersection of Vantage Point Way and S.Black Road aligns with
the entrance of the Black Cat Industrial projects on the west side of S.Black Cat Road.
The Applicant is proposing one(1) curb cut-off of Vantage Point Way, a planned collector street in the
TMISAP. In accordance with UDC 11-3A-3 (Access to streets),multiple accesses off an arterial and/or
collector roadway shall be restricted The Applicant has proposed an emergency access only off of
Black Cat Road and has included a stub street to the north(Street H)for potential future access. Staff
recommends that the Applicant collaborates with the property owner to the east to consider
incorporating a potential stub street on the east side of this site for connectivity to the future
Medium-High Density Residential Development,subject to approval by ACHD.
Common Driveway(UDC 11-6C-3D): Six(6)common driveways are proposed within the
development of the site on Lot 42,Block 1, Lot 16,Block 1,Lot 41,Block 2,Lot 33,Block 2,Lot 16,
Block,2,and Lot 23,Block 5. Common driveways are allowed to serve a maximum of four(4) dwelling
units; in no case shall more than three(3)dwelling units be located on one(1) side of the driveway. A
total of four(4) dwelling units are proposed on the south side of driveway for Lot 23,Block 5; the
final plat and common driveway exhibit shall be revised to depict a maximum of three(3)units on
one(1) side of the driveway as required; or, alternative compliance may be requested as set forth
in UDC 11-5B-5.
A perpetual ingress/egress easement is required to be filed with the Ada County Recorder for the
common driveway,which shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of
supporting fire vehicles and equipment. This may be accomplished through the depiction of the
easement on the face of the final plat and an accompanying note.If a separate easement is
recorded,a copy should be submitted to the Planning Division with the final plat for City Engineer
signature.
Page 13
Alleys (UDC 11-6C-3B.5): Two(2)40-foot wide alleys are proposed for access to the single-family
detached dwelling units on lots in Block 3 and Block 4. The Alley should be constructed in accord with
the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3B.5.A detail of the alley should be submitted with the final plat
that demonstrates compliance with these standards.
Parking: All single-family attached and detached dwelling units are proposed to have a 2-car garage
with a 2-space parking pad consistent with UDC Table 11-3C-6 for 1-to 4-bedroom units; if any units
contain more than 4 bedrooms, an additional two (2) spaces are required with at least one(1)of those
being an enclosed space. An additional 150 on-street parking spaces (0.5+per home) are available for
residents and guests as shown on the parking exhibit in Section VIII.I. These spaces are located adjacent
to common areas and in front of the detached dwelling units and attached dwelling units. Staff finds
that there is not adequate room in front of the attached units for on-street parking with the width
of the lots vs.the driveways.With the narrow 27-foot wide streets proposed internally,which are
desired with the TMISAP,parking is only allowed on one side of the street.
Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): A 25-foot wide street buffer is required is required along all arterial streets
(i.e. S. Black Cat Road)in residential districts. A 20-foot wide street buffer is required along all
collector streets(i.e. Vantage Point Way) a collector street,per UDC Table 11-2D-7, landscaped per the
updated standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. The proposed buffer along the southern half of Black
Cat Road appears to be 20-feet in width and should be 25-feet in width. The 20-foot wide buffer
along the new collector street(Vanguard Way) appears to meet the requirements of the UDC code;
however,there is a lack of a combination of planters (shrubs and rock mulch)within both of the
buffers(refer to the figures below).
FIGURE 1
i
An 8-foot wide parkway with Class 11 trees is required along all local streets per UDC Table 11-2D-6,
landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C.
Page 14
All common open space areas are required to be landscaped with one deciduous shade tree for every
5,000 square feet of area and include a variety of trees, shrubs, lawn or other vegetative groundcover per
UDC 11-3G-5B.3. The landscape plan appears to comply with this requirement.
There are several existing trees on the south side of this this site that will be removed with development.
An existing tree inventory and mitigation plan is not included in Section VIII.H. Mitigation is required
to be provided per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-10C.S; calculations demonstrating
compliance should be included on the landscape plan submitted with the final plat application.
Landscaping is required along all pathways per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C.
Common Open Space(UDC 11-3G-3): A minimum of 15%qualified open space is required to be
provided within the single-family development per Table 11-3G-3 for the R-15 zoning district. Based on
33.707-acres of land,a minimum of 5.06 acres is required to be provided that complies with the
standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3B.
The exhibit included in Section VIII.F depicts 19.8%(or 6.68 acres) of common open space for the
single-family(detached and attached dwelling units)development consisting of one(1)large common
area over 5,000 square feet(s.£) at 60,785 (s.£),a micro-path that runs along the entire east side of the
site; 8-foot wide landscaped parkways along the residential lots; and 10-foot wide pathways running
along S. Black Cat Road and the new collector(vantage Point Way). The collector street buffers do
not count toward qualified open space unless they meet the enhanced buffer requirements noted in
UDC 11-3G-3B.3,which is interpreted to mean buffer landscape materials consistent with
entryway corridors listed in UDC 11-3B-7C.3f. Additionally,per UDC 11-3G-3B.3, one hundred
(100) percent of the landscape buffer along collector streets and fifty(50) percent of the
landscape buffer along arterial streets that meet the enhanced buffer requirements that follow
may count toward the required common open space.
In order to qualify,common areas should be landscaped per the updated standards listed in UDC
11-3G-4B.3; parkways and street buffers should be landscaped per the standards listed in UDC H-
3A-17E and 11-3B-7C[collector buffers must meet the enhanced buffer requirements(i.e.
entryway corridor standards)in order to qualify]; stormwater swales that are incorporated into
required landscaped areas should comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-11C, and linear
open space should be landscaped per the requirements in UDC 11-3B.
Site Amenities(UDC 11-3G-4): A minimum of seven(7)points of site amenities are required based on
the area of the single-family residential development. Qualified amenities should include features listed
in UDC Table 11-3G-4. A 5,000+ s.£ children's playground with a play structure, swings, climbing
rocks, a climbing dome, seating benches,within a safe fenced area,two pickle ball courts,and fenced
dog park(9 points) is proposed which meets the minimum standard. The provision of public art, as
recommended,will also qualify as an amenity(1 point). The 10-foot wide regional pathways along
Black Cat Road and Vanguard Way consist of approximately 2,500 linear feet. Additionally,the
5-foot micro-pathway running north and south on the east side of the property spans
approximately 1,000 linear feet. Combined,the proposed pathways total(4 points). Required
sidewalks adjacent to public right-of-way do not qualify. Overall,the proposed amenities exceed the
minimum standards.
Pathways: The Pathways Master Plan depicts multi-use pathways on this site along S. Black Cat Road
and Vantage Point Way. The pathways shall be constructed in accordance with UDC 33-3A-8 and 1I-
3B-12. A 14-foot wide public use easement for all multi-use pathways shall be submitted to the
Planning Division prior to submittal for City Engineer's signature on the final plat(s).
Sidewalks (11-3A-17): A 5-foot wide detached sidewalks are required along local streets within the
development along with 8-foot parkways consistent with ACHD and the TMISAP. The plans appear
Page 15
to comply with this requirement. Additionally,the common driveway located at the southwest
corner of the development should incorporate a sidewalk adjacent to the 5-foot landscape buffer
connecting to the 10-foot wide pathway along S.Black Cat Road to enhance walkability within the
neighborhood.
Fencing 11( 3A-D: Fencing should comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. Six-foot tall solid
vinyl fencing is proposed around the west,north, east, and south perimeter boundaries of the subdivision
and on shared lot lines between building and common lots that are visible from the public street,as
shown on the landscape plan. A 5' tall open vision iron fence is proposed around the children's
playground area,pool,and dog park. A black chain link fence is proposed around the pickleball courts as
shown on the picture in the narrative. All proposed fencing on the landscape plan appears to comply
with the UDC.
Lighting(UDC 11-3A-11): All proposed lighting shall meet the standards set forth in this title.
Waterways: The Marvin Lateral courses along the north and east boundaries of this site. Nampa
Meridian Irrigations District's easement for the Marvin Lateral at this location is a minimum of thirty-
five feet(35')total,ten feet(10)left and twenty-five feet(25')right facing downs stream. The
Applicant is working with the irrigation district to obtain a license agreement. Per UDC 11-3A-6,the
irrigation lateral intersecting, crossing or lying within the area being developed, shall be piped,
or otherwise covered.
Utilities(UDC 11-3A-21): Connection to City water and sewer services is required 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.
Pressurized Irrigation System (UDC 11-3A-15): Underground pressurized irrigation water is required
to be provided to each lot within the subdivision as set forth in UDC 11-3A-15.
Storm Drainage(UDC 11-3A-18):An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments
in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances.Design and construction shall
follow best management practice as adopted by the City as set forth in UDC 11-3A-18. A geotechnical
report was submitted with this subdivision.
Building Elevations: Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed structures within
the development as shown in Section VIII.J. Six(6) elevations were submitted for the 1-story and 2-
story attached and detached dwelling units. Building materials consist of mix of board&batten siding,
horizontal lap siding with fiber cement panel accents,limited shake, and some stone. An elevation was
not submitted for the pool changing rooms/bathrooms.
The proposed elevations are not approved and should be revised to incorporate traditional
neighborhood design elements as set forth in the TMISAP,as noted above in Section V,and in the
Architectural Standards Manual(ASM).
Certificate of Zoning Compliance Review: A CZC application(s)is required to be submitted for the for
the pool changing rooms/bathrooms building within the development.
Design Review: A design review application(s)is required to be submitted for all single-family attached
structures within the development. Final design of all structures should comply with the standards
for single-family residential design listed in the Architectural Standards Manual(ASM) and the
traditional neighborhood design guidelines in the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan
(TMISAP)for the MHDR FLUM designation(see the Application of Design Elements table on pg.
3-49).
Page 16
VII. DECISION
A. Staff:
Staff recommends denial of the proposed annexation and preliminary plat as the proposed project does
not align the purpose and intent of the TMISAP, as outlined in the analysis in Section V in accordance
with the Findings in Section X.
B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on February 1,2024.At the
public hearing,the Commission moved to recommend denial of the subject Annexation and
Preliminary Plat requests.
1. Summary of Commission public hearing_
a. In favor: Hethe Clark
b. In opposition:None
c. Commenting. None
d. Written testimony: None
e. Staff presenting application: Stacy Hersh,Associate Planner
f. Other Staff commenting on application: Bill Parsons,Planing Supervisor
2. Key issue(s) public testimony
a. None
3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission.
a. Meetingthe hget density for the project.
b. Does the Annexation request before the City fit the vision of the community and what
the City is trying to accomplish.
c. The spirit of the TMISAP is to provide something different,not the same characteristics
as you find everywhere else in the City.
b. The project lacks the design elements required within the TMISAP.
4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation:
a. None
5. Outstandin issue(s)ssue(s) for City Council:
a. None
Page 17
VIII. EXHIBITS
A. Annexation Legal Description and Exhibit Map
5awtooth Land urveying, __C:
(20b)395-51 05
2030 5.Wanh,ngton Awe.,Emmett,D 83r.17
Avani Annexation Descr ption
BASIS OF BEARING for this description is N.UP43'f]U"E., between a brass cap marking the 1/4
cornef common to Sections 15 and 16 and an aluminum cap marking the northwest corner of Section
15,T.3 N., R. 1 W., B.M.,Ada County, Idaho.
A parcel of land located in the SW 1/4 of the NW114 or section 15,T. 3 N., R. 1 W.,0.M.,Ada County,
Idaho, more particularly described as follows:
BEGINNING,at an aluminum tap marking the 1/4 corner common to Sections 15 and Ili;
I
Thence N. 0043'DO" E.,coincident with the west IIne-of said SW 1/4 of the NW114 and the oenterlineof
S. BlackCat RoW, 1319.36 feet;
Thence leaving said west line and said centerline, S. 75°42'00"E., 1359.87 feet na the east line of said
SW114 of the NW114;
Thence S.0,,39'50"W.,coincident with said east line, 1000.87 feet to the SE comer of said SW1/4 of
the NWi/4(CW1/16 corner);
Thence N.89014'42"W.,coincident with said south line, 1322.76 feet to the POINT GE BEGINNING.
The above described parcel contains 35.214 acres more or less-
1 574 2
f I� �
4T{Af{SPA
P:4X=I EMTi123135-AVANI SUB❑IV18ION PLATrCMGlSurve)ADrawings"@1❑escripki ns1123135
Annexafeon.docx
Page 11
Page 18
PRO
S,
C23
z p 134;915 4yr BEARIFG
....................................... ......... ...... ... M 043W Er 2FS7-Jgr
K r L r. NLACN CIV,
IE
ZZ
rn
1p
IF
Page 19
B. Preliminary Plat Legal Description and Exhibit Map
A& 9awtooth Land Surveying, LLC
2030 5.Wash,nc)ton Ave.,Emmett. I D 83E J 7
Avani Boundary Description
BASIS OF BEARING for this description is N.0043'00"E., between a brass cap marking the 114
corner common to Sections 15 and 15 and an aluminum cap marking the northwest comer of Section
15,T.3 N,, R- 1 W., B.M.,Ada County,Idaho.
A parcel of land located in the 5W1}4 of the NW1{4 of Section 15,T.3 N., R. 1 W., B.M.,Ada County,
Idaho,more particularly described as follows:
COMMENCING at an aluminum cap marking the 1}4 tamer common to Sections 15 and 16;
Thence S.8901442"E.,coincident with the south line of said SW1}4 of the NWI/4,a dlsonce of 50,00
feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence leaving said south line,N.004TOO"E.,parallel with the west line of said SW1}4 of the NW114,
a distance of 1307.31 to the northerly property line of the parcel shown on Record of Survey No, 11965
of Ada County records;
Thence S.7V42'UIO"E.,coincident with said northerly line, 1308.43 feet to the east line of said SW114
of the NW1/4;
Thence S.d°3nV W.,coincident with said east line, 1000.87 feet to the SE corner of said S L/4 of
the NW1f4(CW11 16 corner);
Thence N. 891114'42"W.,cc incident with said south line, 1272.76 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
The above described parcel ccntains 33.7a1 acres more or less.
I
1157
•PV02311 EUT023135-AUANI SUBQIVIVON PLAT-CMMSur%rWDra1 ingslLaga1 Desuioions1123135 Boundary-do"
P 1
Page 20
Al
CA�lp
;I ohm BUR=
44, .................................................................................
up...
n;t US M. ELAM CA7 RD am"
cs
W40vr E Lw-w
-0 IE
rf
S&W wwar
_wju-
Page 21
C. Preliminary Plat(dated: 10118123)—NOT APPROVED
PREUkUNMV PLAT FOR
AVANI 5116DMSIDN
• — ,o.er3 sw,nor,xrrvs��,s � �n�.._� � -------
��K�,�
k ! i
p { f o r
z
PP1.0
Page 22
A Common Drive Exhibit—NOT APPROVED
I ;
I�
r—— '
LOT 17 TAKES MOT STRUT 17
�5
ON NOm ME OF LOT "'Y3
1Pa 'k
ilk
I II � I Ir I
r
I I I I
j li I 14
I II Ir I � I
1 POW SIDE r l � 1 .& ' SIDE I r I
SErWKAML ESW I F—sUWCK TWI I J
I I I r I LOT 12 TAXES EW4= j rSUr
1 1 1 I I ACCE5a DRIVE"Y LOGATEID
I O I I 1 1 I I as FAST SIDE -OF W-r.
IBL—, --- ----,�j - -----1 � I
G 11/IL QITC
ro emc aoSa
AVANI SUBDIVISION
Door,larmsr LO75 12-1 f RLOCY 1 COMMON LWVE E HIBJT 1-
Ph:r.?-M 94 47 V4
Page 23
I�
E 1 II I I I
r � �
ti
iL
SMMK T
43
� I I I I �"
I `• I I I Il
LIT 47 TAKR9 DIRECT S bEFT
MXUsraam MAN � i M I I � I I � EbST' Sian OrL Tm
ODMuow UoT #� �
II I
I
124,25'
- -----+ ---- - -�
112.M' FEAR
1M Trp
•i'
LET #1 rAM DIRM STREET
AI DRR+EI W LOCATED Ln {
13N SQUrH SIDE (F l.UcT. � i
-- ———— ——-
k
.r
14
r
4a y 4.
N
S
G 11+IL CITE
-
16
aa BOX gasp AVANI SUBDIVISION
DOME.IDLYM7 LOT 4 1 4f Rl01I 103141"[}RIVV rXHlUl I
Ph: 44e- WM
Page 24
f'
i• i a
is Zm WRACK
LIVE, TM.
20.DO' 1
J screux WP I
i I l a 11,10' Fam
L + sEtapr* wp r
14
Y • � I
} LOT 17 TAKES DIRECT SfREFEr
003 ACC£ . DAP41YAY LOCATED
0 ON MORTH SIDE OF LOT-
_ - ----
1�
x
X�
I I I I I I I I
I
la
I I 12 r I 13 I I 14 J
r
II II II I
LOT 11 TAM
QIREL 571�r
CCM, DRf4E11w,Y LOrAR,T�D a ISEMWK TYP —I I I �� I LMLrrY ESWF
GM wmr SIDE OF LoT. I I I
I I BLOCK z
N
G IYI L 0=TE
pooarcask AVANI SUBDIVISION
Door,to 1rya LOTS I I-I J kOCK 2 COMMUN URIVE EXHIBIT
Ph:r?,W ada M4
Page 25
LOT AL5 TAKES CWCT STREET
ON WEST SEC Of LOT_
47 1 I I
4s 1� a I K 2
I
1 sFre�lcK
II �
II II II I
as I I �a I I 43 I J I
I I I j l 42 I I
e � I tiX l I
I I
0,03,
` 41
L �
,5 1
V a I — LOT Z TAM QIRM STREET
AWESSi. dFlW"i ILOWE0
I d4 ON MU H SEE OF LOT.
12-DO' RDA
I
R I j 3FTBACK rfv I�--
17 I
} - --- - - - - - --- I
ry
CIVIL OITC
15 -P 15 !3
poMeCAso AVANI SUQDMSION
MIMr,IISr]MT I_CT 40-45 gLL7CK 2-LOM OH MM EXHIBIT
Ph:PM Mf.-3r?w
Page 26
d
T;
I
f z5
i•
}
U
——— — _ -
Fac
,F 18
I � I I 22
$ I
ON NO" sM of I �.
CBT�CK.5 s TMCK IYPTj I uw SE�BV�C
L---- ---� — ----I
- —T
rd
G IYIL OITE
7S D Is �
woatmm AVANI SUBDIVISION
Door,IGrm7 LOTS 17-23 BLOCK 5 CL�h Witj fjPJVE EMIBIT {' 1- - W
Ph:R,G=..
Page 27
E. Landscape Plan—Preliminary Plat(dated: 10/19/2023)—NOT APPROVED
- -i
yJ o�
f
AVANI SUBDIVISI0N Apr
PRELIMINARY PLAT LANDSCAPE PLAN MERIDIAN, ID
Page 28
F. Common Open Space Exhibit&Calculations
I
-- I
I
1 '
I jI ,
I N
I l
I I I I € AVANI SUBM4510N
} OPEN SPACE E%HBff
I 1 I �• � I 411�111f•1'ING OPEN SPACE-x6.68 h[[19.8%}
I I — � 41uu ay.i1 a[
LL-TI I I I M
I • � buNR+u eed Earn
Page 29
T AA9
Qu a lified 0 pe ri Space Ca Icu la tions
Project Avant Negh orhood late: li7.la_ffM
do& lut 3¢r op-5paco Dbmmr2m Dostdpdon GAhsomm
1 29 O-M5 Arwna W,,Ak=r Franrago CD
1 3C 4W4 ArLAAkmkdor Fronwo C.D
1 6 L ZG+l Lnd i:a p E
2 1 21.M Cow"Fron1w t
2 15 im 713 u mar ndt ww Pa twm &B
2 3. a P2mwaM a
2 sa 7lUl End{ap E
3 1 2r790 End{3p E
3 7 zmm k3rW CW E
3 13 3JM End Cap E
19 3.912 Lnd c6p E
d 1 2-3m End c6p E
d 7 2-3m End c6p E
d 16 7j"1 Lnd{Sp E
5 12 5z51 Lnd{Sp a
5 34 GQWC kiln Part A
5 36 411M EndCw E
5 54 4�59 EndQkp E
5 59 3,112 LndQv E
fi 1 4AW End cw E
6 14 7,94iG Lrrd CW E
7 1 a Lnd cp E
F a 2A® Lnd Qp E
F 19 61 1 7d Cap E
5u 6r ova Ls Al P or{.ory a r Tor al
Tor315 t 29L41L5 GM31MY G
QualMedCgen SpauPr- 6.69
Toral Frofm Acrc: 33.71
Alan Qual"nR Open
5paac 1_ 1
Foroun d QwIIFk7d Opon
Sparc 1`�_6596
Page 30
TAJ�
Amer lw and
CIkmtor UXa zm 4231%
Frcrrta Re
9uffils&
Endcaps ].m M EM
lrlsldc QGo D-DM
it e' 97, 3 zm 3MGM
.217
Page 1
fade SEC don DLsu43dan
A JJ 313 3A 29 Dpcn tira'r area M at koa Sp a'In w nx
I-m-arapen span arcs that is at ksasttwL4wC kct t'1 and w m tItW tee*CW9.
B 11 M 38 JE has an aoms&at coda crrdr and Es inprawnd and larrdflcapad as scr tenth in
subsLd3&n E all tfrkssedion.
C 11 3G 38 3 Full Ama d BuflLr_The full area of ihc landsape tester alert{colecwsUects mar
count reward tfac rtquttd eorrrmn open spae-
0 11 3G 38 3
PerEentmw el Bufler_MY p rmmt MM etthLL landsape butteralNm arterial
strt#s nvM carat mo-rvrd the mgdrcd can-rnunaprn spocc.
Parkways AlorW Colic-cwt and Loc.W Rcsldcfydal StrL-clm:Parbwayrr along kcal
F. 11 3G 38 4 rrsrdr:rrtol strt,2ts ilvr meet all ihe tollaring sarr=ris may caurc myrvrd the
ewmmn open spaac rcgLMVWL-rM
Page 31
G. Site Amenities
Proposed Amenities:
Large Central Park The one and a ha If.acre park vnll contain the following reveation farilitics:
Community Pool and Changing Rooms
Fenced Play Structure
Swing Set
Seating Mnches f
Climbing Donne
Clirnhing Rocks
Attractive Landscaping
Fenced Oo%Park
2 Pidde Ball Sports Courts
# a -IL
Pathways The Avani Neighborhood will include Lhe following pedestrian pathways:
5'Wide Pedestrian Pathway on the east side of the project running North and South for
apprmdrn wly 1,000 L.F.
10'Regional Pathways will be constructed along Black Cat Road and Vantage Point Way
for appFuArnately 2,500 L.F.
fte estnan nathways within the Avani,Place�lti�hhorhood will total,ovE!r one half mile in
length_
r
_ r�Y
Page 32
H. Pedestrian Connectivity Exhibit
F i
.01
. II
u
— Regional Pathway
Pedestrian Connectivity
Page 33
I. Parking Exhibit
PrR FUUMC3
The Avwi Wighbhorhond will have are additiaoetial 150 on-street parking spacr-s above the-I per horne olt-
streee parking requiremerYL That will equgl aver hall a#an additional parking space per Int.
jai
-T.a vl a fad �3{•:
i
D 3
5 •i r
R'mkiik)$1;5ft
Page 34
J. Conceptual Building Elevations—NOT APPROVED
Single-Family Attached
_ f
r
Page 35
'L 'L
i
Detached
Page
-
I
7
_ 1
•
ATANY PLA. ur
r
Troon
Page 37
Page 38
IX. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS (Based on staff's recommendation for denial there
are no conditions of approval from the Planning Division)
A. PUBLIC WORKS
https:llweblink.meridiancily.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=313340&dbid=0&redo=MeridianCity&cr
=1
B. FIRE DEPARTMENT
https:llweblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=313343&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianCitX
C. ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=315460&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX
D. POLICE DEPARTMENT
No comments were submitted.
E. PARK'S DEPARTMENT
https:llweblink.meridianciU.ofglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=313341&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX
F. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID)
https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=315577&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianCitX
G. IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT(ITD)
https:llweblink.meridianciU.o.-glWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=313402&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX
H. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(WASD)
No comments were submitted.
I. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD)
https:llweblink.meridiancily.orglWebLink/DocView.aspx?id=317398&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX
J. SCHOOL IMPACT TABLE(COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT)
No comments were submitted.
K. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT QUALITY(DEQ)
https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=314802&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX
L. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO(COMPASS)
https:llweblink.meridianciU.orglWebLink/DocView.aspx?id=322170&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianCitX
Page 39
X. FINDINGS
A. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-5B-3E)
Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full
investigation and shall,at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation
and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings:
1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan;
Stafffinds the Applicant's request to annex the subject property with R-15 zoning and develop a mix
of single family attached and detached dwellings falls short of the target density of 12 dwelling units
to the acre and lacks specific design elements making it inconsistent with the comprehensive plan.
2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the
purpose statement;
Stafffinds the map amendment complies with the R-15 district regulations however; the proposed
development fails to comply with the purpose statement and found to be inconsistent with the design
elements for this area, nor does it achieve a target density of 12 dwelling units to the acre.
3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare;
Stafffinds the proposed map amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and
welfare.
4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any
political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school
districts; and
Stafffinds City services are available to be provided to this development.
5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city.
Stafffinds annexation is not in the best interest of the City because the proposed development lacks
specific design elements contained in the comprehensive plan.
B. Preliminary Plat(UDC 11-613-6)
In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat,the decision-
making body shall make the following findings: (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005)
1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified
development code; (Ord. 08-1372, 7-8-2008, eff. 7-8-2008)
Stafffinds the proposed plat is generally in conformance with the UDC, however the plat lacks
specific design elements as noted in Section V. which makes the development inconsistent with the
comprehensive plan.
2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the
proposed development;
Stafffinds public services can be made available to the subject property and will be adequate to
accommodate the proposed development.
Page 40
3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the city's capital
improvement program;
Staff finds the plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements for this area in accord
with the City's CIR
4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development;
Staff finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development.
5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and
Staff finds the proposed map amendment would not be detrimental to the public health, safety and
welfare.
6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005,
eff. 9-15-2005)
Staff is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that need to be preserved
with this development.
Page 41
C i E IDIAN.;---
Agenda Item
Applicant Presentation
AVANI NEIGHBORHOOD 1Planning and Zoning3/12/2024 BY DEVCO
SOME CONTEXT the South, West, and EastSignificant development applications to •developed in this areaOne of few remaining parcels to be •Collector currently being constructed•Black Cat
widening•with infrastructure improvementsArea seeing significant development •Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan •2PRESENTATION TITLE3/12/2024
SURROUNDING 3PRESENTATION TITLE3/12/2024 DEVELOPMENT
ABOUT THE 4PRESENTATION TITLE3/12/2024-MidTransportation Network With Provides for Completion of •City Services Available•Priority Growth Area•Proposed Density: 7.6 DU/Ac •(per Ten Mile
Plan)15 Units Per Acre -Residential 8High Density -Medium•PROPERTY
SITE PLAN Plan transportation planslocation identified on Ten Mile Mile Collector in -Completes Mid3.Slightly less than 8 units per Acre2.Variety of Housing Options1.Meets Ten Mile Plan
Goals:•15 Standards-Consistent with R•Sale Product-For•-256 Single•33.71 Acres•5PRESENTATION TITLE3/12/2024
TRANSPORTATION Completion in late 2024•currently under constructionCollector Roadway is •DevCo•CBH•BVA•Local Developers:Partnership between Three •Much needed Collector•Vanguard Way
Includes Completion of •6PRESENTATION TITLE3/12/2024
OPEN SPACE Attractive Landscaping•Numerous Amenities•Pathways3,532 L.F. of Internal and Regional •acres)Large Neighborhood Park (1.41 •19.8% Open Space 7PRESENTATION TITLE3/12/2024
3/12/2024 AMENITIES Regional and internal pathways•Seating Benches (Ten Mile Plan)•Fenced Play Structure•Fenced Dog Park•2 Pickleball Courts•Community Pool and Changing Rooms•(Only 7
Required)24.5 Amenity Points 8PRESENTATION TITLE
PEDESTRIAN ProposedPedestrian Pathways 9PRESENTATION TITLE3/12/2024
HOUSING Single Story 10PRESENTATION TITLE3/12/2024
HOUSING Detached Two Story 11PRESENTATION TITLE3/12/2024
HOUSING Attached 12PRESENTATION TITLE3/12/2024
HOUSING Load-Alley 13PRESENTATION TITLE3/12/2024
STAFF DISCUSSIONS Addition of porches to a portion of the homes•at entryloaded product -Addition of alley•Removed entry on Black Cat per City direction•Modifications made include:•application
meetings with staff-preFour•revisions of applicationThree•Current proposal comes after 18 months of work•14PRESENTATION TITLE3/12/2024
STAFF RECOMMENDATION Block length3.“Target” density2.Alleys and porches1.Ten Mile Plan:Staff claims inconsistent with •(emergency, utility, etc.)City services available All •)UDC15 standards
(i.e., -Complies with R•: Staff Conclusion•15PRESENTATION TITLE3/12/2024
TEN MILE PLAN MHDR ZONE loaded-alleyfamily detached and attached product, including -singleProject provides a variety of housing types, including •Variety of Housing Types•15 units per
acre -Between 8•Recommended Density•16PRESENTATION TITLE3/12/2024
TEN MILE PLAN MHDR ZONE Alleys•Porches •elements:designStaff concern is with •“Recommendations”design elements as Ten Mile Plan identifies •17PRESENTATION TITLE3/12/2024
TEN MILE PLAN: TWENTY YEARS LATER one can’t achieve required density with a big porch on the front of each homethey aren’t used by residents and –In MHDR, porches are a square peg in
a round hole •Space at lower densities makes porches usable and visually pleasing•Porches = Nice country home with a porch, chairs, and a swing••Reduces density in project that is already
at the bottom edge of MHDR requirements•loaded home in Meridian in 15 years-We have not voluntarily built a single alley•Today’s buyer wants a traditional home with a backyard•no longer–loaded
homes were in vogue at the time -Alley•18PRESENTATION TITLE3/12/2024
HOW WE SATISFIED THE TEN MILE PLAN Debate is only as to quantityAll elements of Ten Mile Plan incorporatedDensity is still satisfied•across the Ten Mile PlanIncluded a variety of housing
types that contribute to the overall mix •Code requirement: 750’; No proposed block length longer than 521’•Block lengths well below what is permitted by code•Included a porch in two
of our four designs•Creates “feel” advocated for in the Ten Mile Plan in most prominent lots/area•loaded product at the entry of the project-Placed alley•19PRESENTATION TITLE3/12/2024
PORCHES 20PRESENTATION TITLE3/12/2024 LOADED LOTS-ALLEYAND
BLOCK LENGTH 250’Many are less than •’521is Our longest block length •750’less than City code requirement: •21PRESENTATION TITLE3/12/2024
SUMMARY required density and usability for the end userof the Ten Mile Plan while still maintaining We have incorporated each of these elements Target density3.Block length2.Alleys and
porches1.Three Staff Report Items:22PRESENTATION TITLE3/12/2024
THANK YOU
SUMMARY accommodate all agency requirementsWe have worked for the last 18 months to We have incorporated the Ten Mile Plan itemsthey want back yards–homes loaded -Meridian buyers do
not want alley 24PRESENTATION TITLE3/12/2024
REQUEST consistent with this plat and Council directionat next available meeting with conditions of approval With motion providing direction to staff to come back •Approve submitted
preliminary plat application,•We ask for approval of our project: incorporates and satisfies the Ten Mile PlanAvani 25PRESENTATION TITLE3/12/2024
THANK YOU
ALLEY VS. homesIncreases the cost of new •eyes on the alley)Creates less safe areas (no •Concrete and Utility Lines)Use more resources (Asphalt, •Requires more real estate.•Space)No
backyard (Private Open •Alley Loaded Homes 27PRESENTATION TITLE3/12/2024 TRADITIONAL HOMES
TEN MILE PLAN MHDR ZONE(“When possible”)loaded garages -Alley•“recommended”)sides -façade, higher percentage and two(at least 30% of front “Useable porches” •in Ten Mile Plan include:Some
design elements discussed •28PRESENTATION TITLE3/12/2024
PARKING PLAN required above the 4 per unit Street Parking Stalls -Additional On150 29PRESENTATION TITLE3/12/2024
ATTACHED UNIT EXHIBIT 30PRESENTATION TITLE3/12/2024
EMERGENCY 31PRESENTATION TITLE3/12/2024 RESPONSE
TEN MILE PLAN MHDR Close to 12 unit per acre target •per acre. 11 Units -average density is +/in the MHDR Designation the Over the 11 approved projects •15 Units Per Acre-Residential
8High Density -Medium•32PRESENTATION TITLE3/12/2024 DENSITY
3/12/2024 UTILITY AND PUBLIC SERVICES ACHDTIS Approved by •Transportation:CapacityDistrict Has Current •DistrictWest Ada School •Schools:be reduced. response times to of Vanguard Way
With the Extension •Emergency Services:Capacity availableSewer and Water •Public Utilities:33
WASD STUDENT POPULATION TRENDS 324-11,87411,55012)-High (96398,6119,2508)-Middle (65,56216,36321,9255)-Elementary (KSeats Available23-22Capacity District Wide School Capacity Vs. Actual
Students Fewer School Age ChildrenBuyers = Aging Population Demographic + Older Homeowner Demographics: 34PRESENTATION TITLE3/12/2024
NEIGHBORHOOD finishes/yardsHigh Quality, but low maintenance Smaller, more manageable lotsNeighborhood Character schoolkeep kids in the same Divorced parent, wants to Empty NestersYoung
ProfessionalsHome Buyer Profile 63 Homes–NewKirk92 Homes–Edington 212 Homes–Stapleton 102 Homes (Boise)–Moxie Ridge 220 Homes–Verado 189 Homes–Movado 77 Homes–Solterra Similar
Developments 35PRESENTATION TITLE3/12/2024
HOUSING 36PRESENTATION TITLE3/12/2024
TEN MILE PLAN MHDR ZONE 37PRESENTATION TITLE3/12/2024
TEN MILE PLAN Mile Interchange AreaDesign guidelines be developed for Ten •The UDC be amended, and •Required:Ten Mile Plan “Action Plan” •38PRESENTATION TITLE3/12/2024 BACKGROUND
V IDIAN�
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Ordinance No. 24-2048: An ordinance (Crowley Park Subdivision — H-2023-
0053) annexing a parcel of land lying in a portion of the northwest quarter of Section 10,
Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more
particularly described in Exhibit "A"; rezoning 1.13 acres of such real property from R1 (Estate
Residential) to R-8 (Medium-Density Residential) zoning district; directing city staff to alter all
applicable use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps and all official maps depicting
the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance;
providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada
County Treasurer, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by
law; repealing conflicting ordinances; and providing an effective date.
ADA COUNTY RECORDER Trent Tripple 2024-012755
BOISE IDAHO Pgs=5 BONNIE OBERBILLIG 03/13/2024 08:04 AM
CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO NO FEE
CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 24-2048
BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BORTON, CAVENER, LITTLE ROBERTS,
OVERTON, STRADER, TAYLOR
AN ORDINANCE (CROWLEY PARK SUBDIVISION — H-2023-0053) ANNEXING A
PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF
SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST, BOISE MERIDIAN, CITY OF
MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT
"A"; REZONING 1.13 ACRES OF SUCH REAL PROPERTY FROM RI (ESTATE
RESIDENTIAL) TO R-8 (MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT;
DIRECTING CITY STAFF TO ALTER ALL APPLICABLE USE AND AREA MAPS AS
WELL AS THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAPS AND ALL OFFICIAL MAPS DEPICTING THE
BOUNDARIES AND THE ZONING DISTRICTS OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THIS ORDINANCE; PROVIDING THAT COPIES OF THIS
ORDINANCE SHALL BE FILED WITH THE ADA COUNTY ASSESSOR, THE ADA
COUNTY TREASURER,THE ADA COUNTY RECORDER,AND THE IDAHO STATE TAX
COMMISSION, AS REQUIRED BY LAW; REPEALING CONFLICTING ORDINANCES;
AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE
WHEREAS, the City of Meridian received a written request from property owner Gilbert RE
Holdings, LLC to annex and rezone the land described in the legal description attached hereto as
Exhibit "A" and the map attached hereto as Exhibit "B" ("Subject Property"), which exhibits are
incorporated herein by reference;
WHEREAS,the Subject Property is contiguous to the corporate limits of the City of Meridian,
Idaho;
WHEREAS,the City of Meridian is authorized by Idaho Code section 50-222(2)to annex the
Subject Property;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO:
SECTION 1. That the City Council of the City of Meridian hereby annexes the Subject
Property.
SECTION 2. That the City Council of the City of Meridian hereby rezones 1.13 acres of the
Subject Property from RI (Estate Residential) to the R-8 (Medium-Density Residential) Zoning
District.
ANNEXATION ORDINANCE—CROWLEY PARK SUBDIVISION H-2022-0053 Page I
SECTION 3. That City Staff is hereby directed to alter all applicable use and area maps as
well as the official zoning maps and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts
of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance.
SECTION 4. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this ordinance
and its exhibits with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Treasurer, the Ada County Recorder,
and the Idaho State Tax Commission, within ten (10) days following the effective date of this
ordinance.
SECTION 5. That all ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith are
hereby repealed.
SECTION 6. That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon publication, in
accordance with law.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN,IDAHO,this 12th
day of March, 2024.
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this 12th day
of March, 2024.
MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON
ATTEST:
CHRIS JOHNSON, CITY CLERK
STATE OF IDAHO, )
) ss:
County of Ada
On this 12th day of March ,2024,before me,the undersigned,a Notary Public in and for said
State,personally appeared Robert E.Simison and Chris Johnson known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk,
respectively,of the City of Meridian,Idaho,and who executed the within instrument,and acknowledged to me that the
City of Meridian executed the same.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first
above written.
Notary Public
Commission Expiration: 3-28-2028
ANNEXATION ORDINANCE—CROWLEY PARK SUBDIVISION H-2022-0053 Page 2
CERTIFICATION OF SUMMARY:
William L.M.Nary, City Attorney of the City of Meridian,Idaho, hereby certifies that the summary
below is true and complete and upon its publication will provide adequate notice to the public.
j
William L. M.Nary, City Attorney
i
I
SUMMARY OF CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 24-2048
An ordinance (Crowley Park Subdivision—H-2023-0053)annexing a parcel of land lying in a portion
of the northwest quarter of Section 10, Township 3 North, Range I West, Boise Meridian, City of
Meridian,Ada County,Idaho,more particularly described in Exhibit"A";rezoning 1.13 acres of such
real property from RI (Estate Residential) to R-8 (Medium-Density Residential) zoning district;
directing city staff to alter all applicable use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps and all
official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance
with this ordinance; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County
Assessor,the Ada County Treasurer,the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission,
as required by law; repealing conflicting ordinances; and providing an effective date. A full text of
this ordinance is available for inspection at City Hall, City of Meridian, 33 East Broadway Avenue,
Meridian, Idaho. This ordinance shall be effective as of the date of publication of this summary.
[Publication to include map as set forth in Exhibit B.]
ANNEXATION ORDINANCE—CROWLEY PARK SUBDIVISION H-2022-0053 Page 4
EXHIBIT A
Ci O
DAVID EVANS
At,11) --\ SS0CIA1-ES iNc
ANNEXATION
BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION
The following Describes a Parcel of Land lying in a portion of the NW 1/4 of Section 10,
Township 3 North., Range 1 West., Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County
Idaho being more particularly described as follows:
COMMENCING at the Northwest Corner of said Section 10 which is being Monumented
with a found 5/8" Iron pin with "No Cap"; From which, the North 1/4 Corner of
said Section 10 which is being Monumented with a found Brass Cap bears,
South 8901631" East, 2645.04 feet; Thence along the Northerly Boundary Line
of the NW 1/4 of said Section 10, South 89015'31" East, 2195.88 feet to the
POINT OF BEGINNING:
Thence continuing, South 89015'34" East, 124.22 feet;
Thence leaving said Northerly Boundary Line, South 00004'22" East, 386.74 feet to a
found 5/8" Iron Pin "PLS 4116";
Thence, North 88°23'57" West, 130.98 feet to a found 5/8" Iron Pin "PLS 4116";
Thence, North 00°55'39" East, 384.74 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING:
The above Described Parcel of Land contains 1.13 Acres (49,213 Sq. Ft.), more or
less.
,Pi&ef
It
1.Iz1/Z3
EXHIBIT B
ANNEXATION EXHIBIT
A PORTION OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST,
BOISE MERIDIAN, CITY OF MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO
2023
BASIS OF BEARING:
S89°1631"E 2645.04'
3 4 W.Cher Lane_ S89°15'31"E 124.22' 4
9 10""° 2195.88'
a Cap„ 324.80' —10
oC N 1/4 Corner
is "PLS 5291"
U
di
z
z
0' 30' 60' 120'
a
t
c
M co
IM
W
dl co N
'w 10G O �� I V
O O; o
C. Cn
U
I I �
(D I �'
� o
U Z
14
b 11
O V M.N
°''m
�a�
c rn
I a
O o"PLS N88°23'57"W 130.98' "PLS o
I4116" / 4116"
joP- LAIVO 14 Block 1 O
5�\ GINS SG� Cherrywood Village 15
�� F G Subdivision
p 2/2//
a- 8251 ox DAVID EVANS
we
ANDASSOCIATESiNc.
of �,w8K�� 9179 W. BLACK EAGLE DR.
Boise Idaho
Phone: 208-900-9049
]0� 1,34�
W N
01CD
wa
p n w
U1
A nN]
C [p
21 ZJl Z-3
1aa.sa
n ,5
CROWLEY PARK ANNEXATION DESCRIPTION 2/20/2023
Scale: 1 inch= 44 feet File: Aneexation Boundary Description.ndp
Tract 1: 1.1298 Acres(49213 Sq.Feet),Closure:n00.0000e 0.00 ft.(1/295714),Perimeter=1027 ft.
01 s89.1534e 124.22
02 s00.0422e 386.74
03 n88.2357w 130.98
04 n00.5539e 384.74