2018-02-15Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting February 15, 2018.
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of February 15, 2018, was
called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Rhonda McCarvel.
Members Present: Chairman Rhonda McCarvel, Commissioner Steven Yearsley,
Commissioner Jessica Perreault, Commissioner Bill Cassinelli, Commissioner Ryan
Fitzgerald and Commissioner Lisa Holland.
Members Absent: Commissioner Gregory Wilson.
Others Present: C. Jay Coles, Chris Johnson, Andrea Pogue, Bill Parsons, Sonya
Allen, Josh Beach and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-call Attendance
__X____ Lisa Holland ___X___ Steven Yearsley
______ Gregory Wilson ___X___ Ryan Fitzgerald
__X___ Jessica Perreault ___X___ Bill Cassinelli
___X___ Rhonda McCarvel - Chairman
McCarvel: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. At this time I'd like to call to order the
regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission on
February 15th, 2018. Let's begin with roll call.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda.
McCarvel: Thank you. The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda.
Could I get a motion to -- or a motion to adopt the agenda?
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, if there are no changes that I'm aware of --
McCarvel: No.
Fitzgerald: -- I move we adopt the agenda as printed.
Perreault: Second.
Cassinelli: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All those in favor
say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 2 of 76
Item 2: Consent Agenda
A. Approve Minutes of the February 1, 2018, Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting.
McCarvel: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and we just have the one
item on the Consent Agenda to approve the minutes for the February 1st meeting.
Could I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda as presented?
Cassinelli: So moved.
Perreault: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to accept the Consent Agenda. All those
in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT.
McCarvel: At this time I would like to briefly explain the hearing process for this
evening. We will open each item individually and, then, start with the staff report. The
staff will report their findings regarding how the item adheres to our Comprehensive
Plan and Uniform Development Code with the staff's recommendations. After the staff
has made their presentation, the applicant will come forward to present their case for
approval of their application and respond to any staff comments. The applicant will
have 15 minutes to do so. After that the -- after the applicant has finished we will open
to public testimony and there is a sign-up sheet in the back as you entered for anyone
wishing to testify. Any person testifying will come forward and be allowed three minu tes
and there is a timer on the screen and a bell will ding at the end of your three minutes.
If you are speaking for a larger group, like an HOA, and there is a show of hands to
represent that group, then, they will be given ten minutes. After all testimony has been
heard, the applicant will be given another ten minutes to have the opportunity to come
back and respond if they desire. After that we will close the public hearing and the
Commissioners will have the opportunity to discuss and, hopefully, be able to make a
recommendation to City Council.
Item 4: Action Items
A. Public Hearing Continued from January 18, 2018 for
Summertown Subdivision (H-2017-0142) By 745 W Ustick, LLC,
Located at 745 W. Ustick Road
1. Request: An Annexation and Zoning of 15.13 Acres of Land
with a TN-R zoning District
McCarvel: So, at this time we would like to open the public hearing for item H-2017-
0142, Summertown Subdivision, and we will begin with the staff report.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 3 of 76
Beach: Good evening, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. As you see before
you, this is the -- called the Summertown Subdivision. This is an application for
annexation and zoning. The site consists of approximately 15.13 acres of land. It is
currently zoned RUT in Ada county and it's located at 745 West Ustick Road. To the
north is commercial property zoned C-N. To the east is commercial property zoned C2
and agricultural land, zoned RUT. To the south are single family residential homes in
the Vallen Court Subdivision, zoned R-8. And to the left are single family residential
homes and the Crossfield Apartments in the Crossfield Subdivision, zoned TN-R and
R-8. As this is an annexation there is no current history with his property within the City
of Meridian. The Comprehensive Plan future land map designation for this property is
mixed use community. I will also mention that there is what's called a neighborhood
center overlay over this intersection. I'd kind of like to explain a little bit about what that
means before we get too much further into this, so that there is a clear understanding --
at least as clear as I can explain. So, in addition to the items listed for the mixed use
community designation, the following items will be used in reviewing development
applications and all mixed use community areas have a neighborhood center overlay
and there is several bullet points here. First, four specific design elements should be
incorporated into a neighborhood center development, which are street connectivity,
open space, pathways and a residential density that is eight dwelling units per acre or
more. The second, most blocks should be no more than 500 to 600 feet, similar to Old
Town and Heritage Commons. Larger blocks are allowed along arterial streets. The
third bullet point. Reduced travel lane widths are encouraged. Fourth. The design
should provide an interconnected circulation pattern that is convenient for automobiles ,
pedestrians, and transit. The next one. The center should offer an internal circulation
system that connects with adjacent neighborhoods and regional pathways connecting to
and integrated with larger street and pathways system . The next development should
provide a neighborhood accessible commercial services that do not force residents onto
arterial streets. The next one is development should provide a variety of housing
choices and types. Housing within development should be arranged in a radiating
pattern of lessening density from the core. And, then, the last. Alleys and roadways
should be used in transition from dissimilar land uses or residential densities . I kind of
wanted -- I can go over this again if you would like or you can -- I think they are in your
handout as well. You can read through those. But those are kind of the main things we
look at a specifically when there is a neighborhood center overlay over the mixed use
community Comprehensive Plan designation. Hopefully that makes sense. The
applicant in this case is proposing a mix of multi-family and single family residential
uses. An overall gross density of 18.57 dwelling units per acre, which is slightly above
the density of three to 15 dwelling units desired in the mixed use community
designation. Most of the density is in the form of the multi-family development. Staff
believe that the interconnectivity between this development and the development to the
west could be enhanced. The applicant did align the intersection to the west, Stanhope,
and the driveway constructed with the Crossfield apartment complex to the west. So,
you see on my -- I shouldn't say my -- the applicant's fancy slide here. Stanhope is the
road where my mouse is indicated now. Staff -- staff is recommending -- so is the
highway district -- that the -- the road somehow align -- whether there be a -- some sort
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 4 of 76
of a jog or shift that forward, so that those align better. Staff's condition would be that
the driveway here from these apartments line up with the proposal driveway across the
street to intersection activity and the applicant would like to discuss that a little further
with you as well. So, there is not a small scale commercial entertainment office
component plan for this site as detailed in the neighborhood center designation . Only a
mix of -- excuse me -- a mix of residential. However, there is commercial property
zoned C-C and C-N across the street on the north side of Ustick Road, which should
provide the commercial component of the neighborhood center designated area . So, I
guess going back to that, to explain the neighborhood center overall, again, we don't
expect each property to provide all of those uses. It's the neighbor center overall. So,
there is a -- there is a radius around the intersection and we -- we want those to be
mixed in on an entire corner. So, we don't hold one applicant on their property to
provide all of those different -- the zoning designations or uses. So, that's why staff is
comfortable with the mix of both multi-family and single family residential. I will say it is
important to note that when the apartments to the west came through as part of a
rezone application, staff contemplated the commercial component as part of this
property, which provided the justification to allow additional residential units to the west .
A commercial component is not proposed, as I said, as part of his application. So, the
applicant is, again, for annexation and zoning of 15.13 acres of land into what's called
the TN-R zoning district or traditional neighborhood residential. We don't get a lot of
that, so I will explain a little bit further what that means. That zoning is generally
consistent with the mixed use community land use designation . Something specific that
typically happens when we have a n apartment complex come through is that there is an
additional conditional use permit that -- that the applicant has to go through in order to
get the city's approval. The TN-R designation lists multi-family as a principally permitted
use, so there is not another layer of scrutiny or review from the Planning and Zoning
Commission that there typically would be. So, in this case we have asked the applicant
to provide us a lot more detail than we would normally get to feel comfortable moving
this forward this evening, which is part of the reason why it's been continued a couple of
times, just by way of explanation. So, moving on. The applicant's provided a concept
plan, as you have seen, that depicts 272 multi-family units consisting of ten multi-family
structures, three and four stories in height. The clubhouse and nine single family
residential lots on approximately 15 acres of land. On the submitted concept plan the
applicant has provided the open space calculations and depicted the amenities that are
proposed for the future development, which were some of the things that we asked
them to provide knowing there wouldn't be further review. And in general staff is
supportive of the submitted concept plan. However, because the multi-family use is a
principally permitted use and only requires certificate of zoning compliance and design
review approval upon annexation, staff is recommending that the applicant modify the
concept plan in the following ways. And there are seven there. First, along the northern
and southern access with the accesses to the west side of North Venable Lane -- and
this orientation is backwards. North is to your left. So, again, line up the access points
here where my mouse is and, then, with Stanhope. Venable Lane should be
constructed as a complete residential collector with the first phase of development. The
applicant should comply with the open space and site amenities as depicted on the
submitted concept plan. Further, the site should comply with the common open space
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 5 of 76
and site amenity standards specified in the UDC and specifically for subdivisions and for
the specific use standards for apartments. Four. Cross-access should be granted to
the Ada county parcel -- is located in this location, which is currently zoned C2 within
the county, unless the property there is to be used as a residential property. So, we
have asked them to provide cross-access. There is a business running there now. We
want there to be ability to have cross-access between commercial properties if -- if that
is to remain that way long term. The applicant has indicated that the multi-family portion
of the site is the first phase of development. The applicant has been informed that the
property must be further subdivided in order to create the single family lots along the
southern boundary. Staff recommends as a development agreement provision the
applicant record a final plat prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit for any
structure. Future subdivision should comply with the subdivision standards set forth in
the UDC. The applicant should clarify at the public hearing if the single family
residences will have access to the amenities and open space proposed for the multi-
family portion in accord with the mixed use standards. We did speak with the applicant
a little bit further on that and he indicate that that is the case, the amenities and open
space will be able to be utilized by the single family residences on the south side of the
project. Lastly, to provide an appropriate transition to the adjacent Ada county parcels
and the single family residences. No multi-family structures should exceed three stories
in height and the multi-family buildings that front along public streets do not exceed two
stories in height. Further, to the proposed garage structures along the south boundary
of the multi-family portion of the site shall be broken up into multiple structures to break
up the monotonous appearance of structures. So, that last one was a big one. Talked
with the applicant and, then, talked internally about the height. They are asking for -- for
four story structures. Staff feels that that's not necessarily appropriate for the area and
so we have asked them to reduce those down to -- down to three stories in the interior
and two around the perimeter. The landscape plan as you see here, again, was
submitted with the project. They were showing approximately 22.5 percent of the site or
a little over three acres of open space. The area includes several areas of open space
that are larger than 5,500, as well as half of the landscape buffer along Ustick Road.
Amenities. The applicant included in the project a pool and two play structures, a
clubhouse, an outdoor patio, a dog park and a water feature. The applicant is required
to comply with the open space requirements in the UDC and specifically those for the
multi-family portion. So, moving to a slightly -- you may have seen accidentally already.
We have also asked the applicant to provide us with -- knowing that there are several
large parcels in between projects that were already developed, how they would
conceptually visualize a road network system through there and I think this -- this helps
staff visualize connectivity and helps their argument that there will be connectivity
through their project. Again, noting that a cross-access point would be required if this
property were to redevelop into something commercial. As I said, we require the
applicant to go through the standards of the TN-R, the traditional neighborhood
residential district, because there are some unique setback requirements in that zoning
designation that are not typical. The conceptual site plan indicates that there will be 544
parking stalls, which is, in fact, a ratio of two parking stalls per unit. Staff is aware that
because Venable is a collector -- been designated a collector and used to get to an
arterial, there are -- similar to other projects we have had recently, there is not a lot of
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 6 of 76
additional on-street parking available to this -- to this project, so the applicant has
provided some additional parking to alleviate that concern. Not much else to say. They
have given us some elevations. We have asked that the applicant provide some
additional detail for the architecture elevations. Don't currently have specifically what
the materials are. We have the conceptual elevations and it's difficult to tell whether
they would meet design standards at this point, because we don't -- we don't have the
material designated. We have also asked the applicant to provide elevations of the
carports for the project. With that staff is supporting the project with the changes with
those conditions that we have added and I will stand for any questions that you have.
McCarvel: Any questions for staff? Would the applicant like to come forward.
Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, before that -- before we give the
applicant his ten or 15 minutes, I would like to just make note that we did have ACHD's
staff report on this application and in their -- again, because this is an annexation they
don't really have any conditions that go along with annexation requests , they usually
provide comments on a CUP or a land use -- or subdivision and we don't have that in
process. So, their staff report is geared toward a future subdivision coming through the
city or when they come in with their CZC or -- and their design review application for the
multi-family development. But if you hadn't had a chance to read that staff report, a
couple things you should take into consideration this evening. One, ACHD wants the
city to ensure that Venable Lane is constructed as a complete street and we do, too.
We have that in the development agreement. But they want the road to terminate at
Stanhope. They want -- don't want it to extend any farther south than that, because
there is not any additional right of way for that to happen and staff is in support of that.
So, what has happened is there is -- back in 1909, if you look at ACHD's staff report,
there is actually a 20 foot wide sliver that abuts the applicant's property that's dedicated
right of way and if it's -- if the road is not going to be extended, there is no need to leave
that as unimproved right of way and we will end up with a spite strip between properties.
So, it is our recommendation, as you consider this application this evening, that the
applicant work with ACHD to try and vacate that right of way and incorporate that into
the boundary of this project, so we don't create that situation. Just wanted to bring that
to your attention this evening.
McCarvel: Thank you.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: Can you bring the -- back up. Venable is a driveway to a house; correct?
At the end of it? So, they want it to end. What happens to the house's access? Does it
just become a driveway? This is a driveway. So, that will not -- until it further
developed or are they -- they are done at this time?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 7 of 76
Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, the hope is that we will get a
pedestrian corridor when that property further to the south develops. And the property
owner is here in the audience this evening and I'm sure will provide some insight on
that. But we don't want to sandwich a collector street in between two residential
subdivisions, so we don't -- both the city and ACHD don't see a need for that to be
extended beyond Stanhope.
Fitzgerald: Okay.
Parsons: We see that more as a pedestrian corridor in the future . But we don't want --
we want to make sure we don't leave something out of the boundary of a plat and,
again, this isn't even in the annexation boundary from what I recall looking at our aerial,
so we are going to have to work with the applicant and try to get this annexed in with
this piece of property, too, and change that property description. So, there is -- it's
getting a little -- a little dicey for us this evening with that information coming before you.
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: And I apologize. With that -- and I apologize, I didn't have a chance to read
the ACHD staff report. Is there planning to be a signal or anything at that intersection?
Because it's a mid-block intersection, so I didn't know what was planned to be there.
Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Yearsley, believe
it or not, one of the conditions for ACHD is the applicant to do a traffic study when
development -- when that CZC comes in. So, they are going to have to do the traffic
study and determine -- that's when ACHD will determine whether or not that's going to
be -- a signal is going to be warranted.
Yearsley: Okay.
McCarvel: Any other questions for staff before we move on? Okay. And, please, state
your name and address for the record.
Brown: Before I do that, how do I get rid of what -- I'm technologically challenged here.
McCarvel: All right. And could you pull the mic a little closer so our recorder can get
you.
Brown: Yes. I understand that. For the record my name is Kent Brown. 3161 East
Springwood, Meridian, Idaho. And glad to be before you this evening. Here is an aerial
shot of the -- of the property looking from Ustick looking south. You can see over here,
as my time ticks away, the driveway to Mr. Simunich's house that's back in this location
and Venable Lane with the apartments on the very right hand of the screen. Here is --
along our southerly boundary with a road stubbed to us and, then, the seven houses
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 8 of 76
that back up to our development, big storm drain pond and the storm drain pond in the
southeast corner of our site also. Here is the neighborhood -- oh. How do I go back?
Okay. Here is the neighborhood center that's called out in the Comprehensive Plan and
the area that they are talking about and you can see -- and why the -- south to the
Summertown that -- and on our location -- all of that, you take the area that's above the
blue, that's a part of that. Traditional housing laid out in there. Same with south of the
Crossfire and a part of the Crossfire development and south of the apartments, has a
similar layout. All -- all of that residential and including our 14 plus acres, including the
Crossfire Apartments, were 21 percent of the residential component of the overall
neighborhood center. The -- in that overall neighborhood center with our proposed
density that we were having on this site, when we come in at 8.41 units per acre for the
entire neighborhood center, which is in that goal range that you want to be. To the east
of us you see the three or four parcels that are there that is the remaining undeveloped
portion of the neighborhood center and, then, there is one parcel to the west of the blue,
which is the commercial that is the other one on the north side . Everything else has
been developed and kind of designated for those uses . For those reasons we feel that
we are in compliance of those seven items that are discussed . As staff talks about
radiating out from the center, the center of the site is the intersection of Venable and
Ustick Road and, then, as you go to the perimeters of that edge, the density can go
down and up to that area, but near the intersection that the density is supposed to be
higher, the Crossfield Apartments has a -- sits on five acres, has 80 units and has a
density of the 16 units per acre. Our overall density, just for our project, is 18.4. So, we
are a little bit higher, but not that much higher. The commercial components I think lie
in the 13 acres that is to the north and as a part of the Crossfire in the corner there at
the entrance. We -- in our layout and design of our project we have intended this
driveway closest to the intersection, so I was able to turn it -- I'm not as challenged as
Josh and have north at the top. This driveway -- the driveway at the top we -- we had
told staff in a previous application meeting that we would just have that as an
emergency access. The one and only access that we want for the apartments is this
main entrance that comes into where the clubhouse , the pool, the patio area and the
playground is, we want that to be the main entrance. We feel that that is far enough
away from the other accesses that are in the area and we have a water feature that we
have proposed as a part of that entrance. We have the ability -- we have the dog park
sits -- sits here. A patio area and we have a large lawn in here. There is a sprinkling of
picnic tables and any of the -- the big green spaces that we have been able to provide.
We had some raised beds that are here at the end of thi s parking lot and adjacent to
this building. We have tried to create the center of the site as to where the amenities
are, mostly because that's kind of how we do apartments when I do them in Boise city.
They -- they like the buildings out on the streets and, then, having inside the
development, the -- the roads, so that you don't see the cars parked, everything's
internal. The developer told me that with this clubhouse , because they are building
another one here in Meridian, and the pool and so forth, that we are -- we are
somewhere around 900,000 dollars in the amenity package that we are proposing for
this project. The way that we accomplish that is by having the four story buildings, by
not placing buildings in these green spaces that we have within the project and along
the southerly boundary we have a series of garages, we felt that that was, again, an
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 9 of 76
amenity that would be nice to provide -- and provides a transition for the neighbors here
to the south. We do have an ability to probably move this building up, maybe move
where that water feature sits and move the dog park down and make this road tie into
Stanhope. A series of S curves that would be there to make that happen. Personally, I
think that the two T intersections were better than a cross, but if ACHD thinks that that's
what we need, we are not opposed to doing that. As we looked -- I think the -- the issue
ends up being the height of the buildings. As we looked at other projects that have
been done in Meridian we can see why staff is concerned about the four stories. If we
build traditionally, like everybody else, the four stories would be much higher. The
Herring Cove right down in here, it says that those buildings are 35 feet tall. The
Selway buildings, they are the same height as ours. They are -- they call out 35 here,
but they are -- they are actually taller than that. They are 39. Brighton Apartments that
are a mile to the north of us, they are actually the same height as our buildings are.
They are three story. They have a greater number of units. They have less parking
than we are proposing. Overall, we are proposing the 272 units on -- that comes out to
18.2. Here is the four story that has been built in Meridian and it ends up being 42 feet.
I brought the architect, so that he can explain how we have -- and the things that we
have done to make us be as close as possible to the same height as the -- the
surrounding buildings and still four stories. Here is a -- these are TN-R standards that
talk about that you have to have a minimum density of six units per acre . Here is our
buildings. The architect can speak to some of the building materials and how we have
an ability to make them move back and forth, so that it's just not a big block wall, which
is not what we would intend to do. Here is a three story building that if we do the three
story it's actually the same height as -- almost the same height that we were looking at,
we are around 35 feet. The two story building that is at the intersection across the
street from us, it's 34 feet. We went out and measured it this week and found that that
building is -- is four feet different than what we were proposing to do with our four story
building. Here is a rendering of the -- the clubhouse. It has a fitness room inside and
other amenities that people can -- and from here you can go to the patio and so forth
that's on either side. We have looked at approximately 18 different renderings trying to
come up with something that would work. Many of those renderings -- just put smaller
buildings and fill more of the space , which I think is typical and decided that if we could
go up with the buildings that, then, we could create that space that we so wanted in the
center of our project. One of the things that we did is our architect has done a rendering
here being at these two homes that are in the existing neighborhood to the south and
shows what they would see from their -- their view. So, this first one is going to go to a
two story and this first house and looking at a two story window at the project to the
north, there is the single family homes that is adjacent to them and our -- and our
apartments that are in the rear. Now, we are going to move to the one story building
that's next door and, again, looking out the window and what you would see as you look
out the window and see the buildings in the distance . A big part of the difference that
we have here is the distance that we are away from people . With the collector level
road here, the collector -- or the arterial road along our northerly boundary and you have
directly across the street from us those commercial businesses and the city park.
Another item that we put in in our design -- we have a -- a business is here that's in this
corner. This building aligns with their parking lot. We tried to keep buildings away from
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 10 of 76
being right adjacent to them. We have the ability to provide the cross-access if -- if
needed there. This is where the apartment building is next door to us, these two that
are the closest to us, and with us having five foot of difference between those two
buildings in height, we feel that we meet that transition that we would be looking for. If
you could stop my time, I think Adam could explain the buildings.
McCarvel: Sure. And, please, state your name and address for the record.
Garcia: Adam Garcia. 1307 North 39th Street, Nampa, Idaho, with Houston-Bugatsch
Architects. If we can get this back up. As Kent stated before, you know, talking about
all the green space and everything we have talked about and concern was height and
the developer came to me and asked me if we could do this and the way we
accomplished it is really reduced the height of the ceiling of each of the spaces to eight
feet versus nine and put a really sloped roof -- low sloped roof on it with a metal roof on
it to maintain that. So, we are at 39 feet nine inches. So, we meet that requirement.
So, the big challenge is trying to reduce the look of a massive building. So, the 32-plex
on a four story building, our objective is to go ahead and offset that at the middle, so it
doesn't look like a continuous long building, but these floor plans, footprint, and
everything is very -- in fact, similar to the ones that he is currently building, Rainier
Village. So, we didn't change anything, other than the roof slope. Other than that, the
pop out floor plans, entrances, everything is the same. The only thing we are changing
is materials and as we get into the design review stage we will make sure we follow the
correct requirements for those and so I don't foresee that being an issue. But the idea
behind this is kind of giving it more of an upper -- or should I say improved look of what
we have been seeing being built around the areas and so that's pretty much where we
accomplish things within our requirements. Everything in our guidelines and
requirements that we had to stay within we feel we could accomplish that and still meet
the density that's required.
McCarvel: Thank you.
Brown: Do you have any questions?
McCarvel: Yeah. Any questions for the applicant?
Cassinelli: Madam Chair, I do have a question.
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: Currently the four story buildings are -- is the proposal to have each -- every
one -- every building be four story or is there --
Brown: That's correct.
Cassinelli: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 11 of 76
Brown: As drawn there and -- and that's how that parking is determined that we have
two -- two parking stalls per -- per unit. So, that's the -- the 72 -- 272.
McCarvel: Okay. So, there -- all of these are four story? None of them are three.
Brown: Correct.
Perreault: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault.
Perreault: Staff had mentioned in the report that the structures don't appear to have the
80 square foot open space; is that correct?
Brown: No. They do have the -- the open space and the building -- the Rainer is one
that -- that he made reference to has the little balconies that are that 80 square feet,
yes. So, it does comply with that.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: Mr. Brown, where is the Rainier Village that you are referring to? Is that a
Boise project?
Brown: It's a Meridian project over off of Main Street as you leave town , Corporate and
Pennwood -- Corporate and -- between Corporate and Pennwood. Kentucky Fried
Chicken is Main Street leaving town and if you're --
Fitzgerald: Oh. Okay. So --
Brown: -- to the left those apartments are over there. Those are three story, but they
are the same height that these would be with the flatter roof and the changes that were
outlined by Adam. That's why we feel that this building will comply with everything
from a design review standpoint.
McCarvel: And you said the single family homes do -- are going to have access to the
amenity package?
Brown: They will have access and a part of that -- if you looked at our design, is the
intent was -- is by having sidewalks that's in the front of them and crossing here, that
they can be close to that. Many times as we do these designs you end up putting your
amenity package in some corner of the site and this allows us to be able to be close to
the entire site, including the single family residential that's on the other side of the street
and proximity to everything and -- and, realistically, if you think about that, if -- if I made
the center of this all high with the four story buildings as staff's talking about and, then,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 12 of 76
have shorter buildings, I end up having a lot of parking that I need to remove to make
that happen, but the reason that we put the amenity package here was that it's centrally
located versus putting a big tall building in the center . I mean if I were to replace that
with a building and, then, put the amenity package on the periphery of the development,
you're kind of defeating one purpose to try to -- to try to meet a requirement. It makes
sense to me that -- and this is what at least I get told over and over again with Boise is
by putting the buildings along the roadway, we help block the noise and so forth to the
rest of the development and you -- it's not like an old cowboy fort type deal, but it does
screen everything and makes it private. As you're driving down the road your -- your
streetscape is a lot nicer than looking at the parking that's out there. We think that that's
a lot more beneficial to the driving public.
McCarvel: And then -- Josh, can you -- where did it go? There you go. Okay. So --
and Venable -- Venable will be extended just down and will end right there below that
open space; right?
Brown: Apparently. Yes.
McCarvel: Okay.
Brown: I wouldn't -- to be honest, I hadn't seen that myself when -- until --
McCarvel: Okay.
Brown: -- seconds before you heard about it.
McCarvel: Okay. So, you're wanting to make that north access emergency only?
Brown: That's correct.
McCarvel: Okay. So, there would be no access out there and, then, just the center --
Brown: Main entrance --
McCarvel: -- main entrance to the apartments and, then, the road down south to the --
to the residents.
Brown: And, then, you have the office and everything else from a leasing standpoint.
You're coming right to the location there. We have an entrance down here in the
southeast corner of the apartments, out to Stanhope.
McCarvel: Okay. So, yeah, they could get out there as well.
Brown: And you will be able to get out there. We will need to continue some kind of
access as we do an S curve to align -- to make that street align. Might have to move
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 13 of 76
the dog park to the area where the road 's currently at and -- something like that. Might
end up being more of a pointed park, instead of a square one, but --
McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions for the applicant?
Holland: Madam Chair, one more question.
McCarvel: Commissioner Holland.
Holland: On any of the proposed four story buildings would there be any elevator
access or is it all stair access?
Brown: It's all stairs.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, I have a question for staff.
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: Josh, is there -- are you amenable to the emergency access to the north? I
just -- and, Mr. Brown, I think the concern I have is we are talking about 500 plus cars
accessing onto one street out of one location potentially or two, but it's still going into a
collector at some point. So, I just under -- understanding your perspective on this.
Beach: Sure. Madam Chair, Commissioner Fitzgerald, so are you asking me if we are
okay with cars not leaving in this location and coming in this location? We prefer that
they not go in and out there. It's very close to the intersection --
Fitzgerald: Even if it aligns -- so you're looking for alignment --
Beach: Yeah.
Fitzgerald: -- so you want it to still be an emergency access at the cross-connect --
Beach: Right. The condition in the staff report says that they -- that they align. I guess
from my perspective, now that we are thinking it's going to be an emergency access, I
don't know that that makes much of a difference that it aligns. The thought was --
discussing it further was that, yes, if we have cars not entering and leaving at this
location that we will have less of a problem with stacking, because we don't know
whether or not there is going to be a light here yet. They have to get through the traffic
study first, so --
Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you.
Brown: I can say that the traffic study is underway.
Fitzgerald: Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 14 of 76
McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant? Thank you.
Brown: Thank you.
McCarvel: Okay. So, at this time we will open to public testimony. The first person I
have signed up that wishes to testify is Devin Robinette.
Robinette: For the record, Devin Robinette. Address is 1037 West Pine, Meridian,
Idaho. I work for the developer, so I'm a little biased on this project, but I wanted to
point out a few things and, then, kind of reiterate some points that Mr. Brown kind of --
kind of pointed out. So, I wanted to take a look at this picture here. If you take a look at
a few of these houses, there are only two homes that have second story access to view
our project. This home right here and this home right here. All of the other homes are
single level and would have the visibility that video provided . Another -- another key
point to point out that Kent told us is the apartments next door are 34 feet in height and
we -- we took those measurements yesterday. So, we were -- we were able to confirm
that those are close to the same height as what we intend to do. Also wanted to point
out here that we have spoken with the listing agent of this property here. Mr. Bob
Runyon is listing the property at 870 West Ustick Road. One of the conversations that
we have had with him is that he is very excited for the increase in residents based on
the fact that he has had that property listed for quite a few years and it has changed
hands with multiple listing agents. That property is zoned C-C and he is looking to -- to
have a neighborhood center or a commercial neighborhood center in that location . He
would like to have multiple potential restaurants, offices, medical offices and -- and feels
that he is being hindered with a lack of residents. So, just wanted to reiterate a few of
those points that Mr. Brown hit on and I will stand for questions.
McCarvel: Thank you.
Robinette: Thank you.
McCarvel: The next person wishing to testify -- Vida Ballard.
Ballard: Hi. I don't want to get to any technical points --
McCarvel: Please state your name and address for the record.
Ballard: Oh. It's Vida Ballard. 646 West Sedgewick.
McCarvel: Okay.
Ballard: Your name is Josh? When he was reading, he was saying how much better he
thought it would be if there were three stories around and , then, the two story on the
edge. Now, I realize they won't make as much money, but the idea of looking out my
window -- and I know it's not -- and just seeing cement is not an exciting -- exciting
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 15 of 76
thing. I'd like three to be some -- something more interesting. He talks about just one --
one row of homes. That's okay, but all of us are looking at cement walls and fences.
So, just, you know, think about what he said. And I wanted to ask about -- you know,
there is a ditch all the way along West Sedgewick behind all the -- it's behind all the
homes. The ditch here is behind the -- I want to know what's going to happen to that
ditch. I have been told that -- that a property next door to the last house is a storm drain
pond. It is for sale right now. What happens to the rain, to the liquid? That concerns
me a whole lot. Also, I -- I didn't quite understand is there going to be a whole road
behind these homes, one through nine? Is this road behind homes one through nine a
real road? Is this going to go down here and turn in on the left or what 's -- what's the
purpose of that road there?
McCarvel: I believe that's where the home's driveways would come out to.
Ballard: Oh, they are going to filter onto a road that's going to be built behind our
homes?
McCarvel: No. There is no road in between those. You would have this home's
backyard.
Ballard: What is this gray area then?
McCarvel: Those yellow homes are homes yet to be built.
Ballard: Okay.
McCarvel: So, they are yellow flats there.
Ballard: Okay. I just think about it. Thanks so much.
McCarvel: Thanks. Bill Jackson.
Jackson: Bill Jackson. 12365 West Lewis & Clark Drive, Boise. I own the property to
the east of that proposed subdivision and I just want to make sure I have it on record
that I have a couple of concerns. One of the concerns pertains to the irrigation ditch
which comes from Meridian Road east and, then, when it hits the property it goes north
and, then, it goes west again. So, I want to know what exactly is going to be done with
respect to the southern end of that property, because it's been an issue over the years,
because it -- we have no access to get in there to clean it out so the water can flow on
to the west and it kind of backs into our property. And, then, also I would like to get a
feel of what type of fencing will be put around the perimeter of the subdivision . I did
have a conversation this morning and was advised they might have the vinyl fencing.
From my experience and observation sometimes those fences do not sta nd up very well
and, consequently, sometimes people will be able to come onto our property as such .
The other part of the thing is you all will determine what this area will look like . We read
in the paper how great Meridian is and, obviously, I would like to see a nice plan of
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 16 of 76
different residents, apartments, single level residents and what have you. So, hopefully,
you will be mindful to leave that area. So, 20 years from now it's going to be viewed as
a very nice area. I do have concerns about apartments, because you got a lot of
people, a lot of traffic, and it depends on how people behave in apartments. Sometimes
they can be disorderly. The police have to come out and, you know, those kind of
issues. Right now I will not be in proximity to those issues, but I want to be sensitive to
our surrounding neighbor -- neighborhoods. So, hopefully, you will keep that area as it
grows to be a beautiful and a good example of what the Planning and Zoning
Commission is doing in Meridian and that's my thoughts.
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you.
Jackson: I beat the buzzer. Perfect timing.
McCarvel: By that much. Katherine Garcia.
K.Garcia: My name is -- good evening, everybody. My name is Katherine Garcia. I live
at 2978 Northwest 8th Avenue in Meridian. So, actually, like someone said, my two
story house will be looking right at this view. A few points that --
McCarvel: Could you pull one or the other mics close to you.
K.Garcia: All right. And I will run out of time, but there is quite a few issues that I have
with regards to concerns about this. There is a lack of infrastructure that is severely
lacking for what Meridian is developing. There is many one lane each direction roads
and it just kind of seems as though the city is not really taking into any account or very
much account what the impact of all of these cars does. I come from southern
California, an area called the Inland Empire, for any of you that aren't familiar with it, it
blew up over the last 20 years and what used to take a 15 minute drive will now take
you 45 minutes to an hour, depending on what it is, and nobody took any of that into
consideration really. Meridian is a main road for all of these people to get to corridor 84.
Is any of that being taken into account? All of these people are going to have jobs, they
are not going to work in Meridian, they will likely commute to Boise. Is that any -- being
taken into account? These are no longer senior homes. What's going to happen with
the school age children that we already have a lottery for existing kindergarten ers. You
don't have a guarantee as to where your kindergartener is going to go , because the
schools are so full. My next door neighbor is trying to figure out where her
kindergartener is going to go. With regards to the -- they made a comment about
building them four feet high -- or four stories high, so that it blocks the sound from
Ustick. Well, all that's going to do is take the sound and reverberate it right back onto
my house. This also happened when they wanted to put freeway 210 through in
southern California. It was supposed to be above ground. Nobody wanted it above
ground. They dropped it about 50 feet below ground. It is now an echo chamber and
my parents' home three miles away can hear the freeway like it's 50 feet away from
their house. The Settlers Park in the summertime is insane for parking. There is not
enough room. There is not enough room for 540 cars getting out in the morning.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 17 of 76
Everybody going to commute. I fully expected there to be development on this land. It's
one of the reasons we bought in Meridian and looking around. Every field has a for sale
sign in it. We knew what was coming. We knew that there was going to be
development. But four stories is not in line with the aesthetics of the general vicinity of
the community and I would very much hope that you guys would vote against it. That's
my beep.
McCarvel: You thank. Tyler Moss.
Moss: Tyler Moss. 2946 Northwest 8th Avenue, Meridian, Idaho. Thanks for your time
for listening to us. I just had a couple of comments and echoing what Katherine just
said. I just wanted to do -- I guess I have been noticing all of the apartments that are
already going up right now. So a mile to the north -- I don't know how many hundreds of
units -- thousand of units are going up just off of McMillan. We also have apartments to
the east that are being planned and prepared -- about a hundred units to the east of us
on that corner block of that -- of this same square block and so this creates a lot of
units. It creates a lot of people. It creates a lot of traffic, obviously, and, like she said,
the one lane roads, especially north and southbound, will create a lot of bottlenecks, as
well as where do all these people go and we are trying to find a place for my girls to go
to school and we are in the lottery. We don't know where they will go to school.
Supposedly there is one that we are assigned to, which is three miles away, and those
are very full. We are on the lottery -- or trying to get into the lottery for schools that are
closer to us and, then, this thing they showed at school just to the north -- on the north
side of Ustick there is no school there. So, I hope there is a school that goes in before
any of this happens, because with all these apartments going in, multiple units, there
will be a lot of kids and they need to go somewhere and especially with the parks.
Ustick -- or I mean Settlers Park just off of Ustick is full during the day -- during the
week. My wife goes there. And so I hope that this plan provides enough space for
these people to enjoy this, rather than all going over to the Settlers Park to enjoy those
amenities, because it's already full as it is with those apartments one mile to the north. I
don't know where they will be going. In addition, the water rights -- I'm not sure what
the water rights are for this particular facility. I know during this last summer we lost
water -- our lawn went dead, because we didn't have enough water to water our
subdivision and so we are trying to figure out a time during the day where we can water
all of the parts of our lawn. Our lawn went dead. As well as this bottleneck of the traffic
entering in and out on the west side of this, I know there will be a lot of cars going in and
out there. I just wonder if there is another way to go in and out off of Ustick as well. So,
it just doesn't seem like planning has gone into this fully. I know they have been
pushing this off and pushing it off for months and months and it just doesn't seem like
it's ready for it right now. Thanks for your time.
McCarvel: Thank you. That's all I have on the list that has indicated that they would like
to testify. Is there anybody else in the room that would like to testify? Come forward.
And as you approach the mic, please, state your name and address for the record.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 18 of 76
Simunich: I'm Joe Simunich. I live at 2715 Venable. For -- I live, then, west of this
property. I owned the Crossfield Subdivision area and I finally determined I had to sell
it, because I couldn't afford enough equipment to do the hay and silage . My customers
decided they would not fight with the traffic, so I sold it. I see they built an apartment
there and several houses. One thing we need to consider -- we are growing a lot of
families, but no more land. We have got to start saving this land and put these people
in apartment houses. Also, we need a signal at Ustick and Venable. There is many
children that come from the north side of Ustick, they cross that intersection to go to
Tully Park where there is skateboards and other recreation. So, we should have a
signal there. Ada county has put a pedestrian signal on 3rd Street and there is only 14
houses there to cross Ustick and I just couldn't understand that. And one more question
I have. I noticed that they said something -- there will no access south of Stanhope
Street on Venable Lane. That's my access to my house, so I just wonder if I am going
to get cut off. And that's about all I have. I would like to have that question answered
and that will do it. Thank you.
McCarvel: Thank you.
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Mr. Yearsley.
Yearsley: Can I --
McCarvel: Go ahead.
Yearsley: Sorry. So, from what I understand what you're saying is you're for this
project, because of the apartments? Because you're saying you want people to be put
in apartments? Is that what I'm understanding?
Simunich: I'm saying we need more dense -- density in -- in the town of Meridian and
Boise.
Yearsley: Okay.
Simunich: We are spreading and using up farm ground. We don't make any more farm
ground and who is going to feed these kids. Boise won't let anybody build in the
foothills anymore. They are buying it all up. So, I don't know what's going to happen
eventually in this -- in this valley here in Ada county. Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you.
McCarvel: Anybody else from the public? Okay. Would the applicant like to come
forward? You may want to sit. Bill wants to speak again.
Parsons: Thirty seconds.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 19 of 76
McCarvel: Okay.
Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, just -- just a clarification. Mr.
Simunich is not going to lose his access to the road. He's just going to have access to a
public street that will be stubbed to his driveway.
McCarvel: Yeah. It's just the public street. It's not going to go past that point. Your
driveway would connect to that. Yeah. Your driveway will connect to that street. Okay.
Brown: I guess I don't need Josh's picture, but -- most of the comments -- the ditches --
I think if you have been on the Planning and Zoning any period of time, code requires
that we tile the ditches through our site --
McCarvel: Could you pull one mic to you. There you go.
Brown: Thank you. The state code requires that we tile ditches on our property -- or
city code does require that we tile them on our property and that we continue the water
though. We are planning on fencing our site. Your code also requires that, especially
when we do a subdivision. So, we will address those items. I think it was -- Veda was
concerned about -- I believe she was at the neighborhood meeting and apparently when
they flood irrigate water currently puddles on her p roperty. That -- that ditch will be
titled, so that it doesn't -- doesn't cause that to happen. Mr. Jackson -- and wanting that
to go through, the ditches, that would be taken care of with what I spoke to. Roads.
Our impact fees help take care of the roads and help address those issues. Our traffic
study that we are in the process of is going to help determine whether there is a signal
that goes in at that intersection. I believe it will be and it is the location that the city is
looking for. That's why there isn't any other reason for Venable, south of that road, to
be a collector. It is not the number of cars that travel on it, it is because it's on your
master plan as showing out -- it being a collector. But it does make sense to be able to
get people in this neighborhood center to the other side to where the commercial uses
are on -- the other side of the street and where the park's located and if that takes place,
then, having the school that hasn't been built yet, but the school site the school district
owns, you can look on my drawing, that it actually shows they can walk from there and
go to the middle school. They can walk and go to the elementary school. And they can
walk and go to the grade school. And all of those things are on that -- that aerial that
shows those areas. So, it helps the circulation and helps people meet that area.
Obviously, our property has water rights. We are only allowed to use our water rights,
not anybody else's, to irrigate our property and that's how we would move forward with
that. I think I addressed everything that they said. The real issue to me ends up being
is that most of the buildings -- you know, I did beat Josh and Bill up a little bit that they
said no to four story buildings and that they wanted shorter buildings on the perimeter
earlier today as we talked about it and I get where they are coming from when I started
looking at other projects and how tall those buildings are. We have made an effort on
our part to try to shorten those buildings , still have -- you know, as the issue is number
of floors versus the height of the building. It sounds like to me the height of the building
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 20 of 76
and the mass of the building is the concern, but we keep going back to number of floors.
Is there things that we could do? Yeah. I guess we could take the ends of the buildings
of some of those and drop them down to three story and , then, keep the middle up high
and, then, have some four story. I mean, obviously, there is some of that that we can
do and we can do that through design review. But we would ask for your approval and I
think we have done everything to make that happen . The code requirement says be
under 40 feet. We are meeting that requirement. I think we have shown and
demonstrated that we can park the site and we have tried to make sure that there is the
connectivity and the traditional neighborhood, even though it's all apartments, it's a
traditional neighborhood design and that's all I have, unless you had a question for me.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: Kent, can you give your answer to Mr. Jackson's question about what type
of fencing you're going to use.
Brown: I -- I think most likely vinyl is what I have seen in the past, but, obviously, we
don't want it to be one of those cheap ones that has the panels coming out , because we
have a maintenance company that is taking care of all the landscaping, so we want to
install something nice. Obviously, we are trying to make something really nice when we
are talking about the cost of the amenities that we are trying to do. So, the nicer the
fence you put in, the ability you have to do that.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, one follow up. Mr. Brown, in regards to the breaking up of
the garages, is that something that you have contemplated , have a plan for? Staff's
looking for break up of that building along the south end. Thoughts on that?
Brown: With everything else that was going on it's not what I would prefer and I don't --
and I don't know what the advantage is. I guess what, you know, I was thinking is that
we would put landscaping against the one wall of that and enhance that so that you just
are looking at the roofs across the street. Now, you're looking at a landscaped area
with one story garages, which is real similar to -- on many of the ones that we have
seen around the -- the town we do have landscaping in front of it, but if we -- I guess if --
I don't know what breaking it up really does. I know that their -- their concern was a
continuous look. I would rather take care of that in design review and do something to
the structure. You end up getting that same discussion when you -- when we are doing
designs of storage units. How do you break up that wall. And there is a number of
things that you can do. You can put pilasters out. You can break that wall up. I would
rather do that then -- then break the storage building up personally.
McCarvel: And could you tell --
Yearsley: Madam --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 21 of 76
McCarvel: Oh.
Yearsley: Oh. Sorry, Madam Chair.
McCarvel: Yes. Just for the record, exactly how high are your buildings?
Brown: Thirty-nine nine.
McCarvel: Okay. Commissioner Yearsley.
Brown: Under 40. Yes.
Yearsley: So, following up with Commissioner Fitzgerald's comment. Would you be
willing to -- I think one of the things -- you know, you will see a pitched -- you know,
basically the backside of a pitched roof. Would you be willing to maybe leave the
buildings the way they are, but change the pitch so you actually see some e aves and
that way as well as an option?
Brown: Which -- which building are you --
Yearsley: Well, for the garages.
Brown: For the garages?
Yearsley: Yes. Because we have seen that in some areas where they have actually
had the longer run of homes, but they have actually, you know, had the -- had the --
kind of a -- in part way have a pitch change, so you could have --
Brown: So, you have gables that you're looking at --
Yearsley: Yes.
Brown: -- instead of --
Yearsley: That's what I'm -- the word I was looking for.
Brown: Instead of the solid wall.
Yearsley: Yeah.
Brown: Adam says it's paper and he can do anything.
Yearsley: Right.
Beach: Madam Mayor?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 22 of 76
McCarvel: Yes.
Beach: We have -- looking at our architectural standards manual for multi-family, we
have specific standards about pitch, what it needs to be. It specifically wants them to be
significant pitches and no less than five to 12. So, they are going to have to meet what
the design standards say regardless of what the proposed conceptual elevations are
before you tonight, so --
Yearsley: Thank you.
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: I have a question that's been bugging me. Hopefully, I'm not going to go
down a rabbit trail here. In the original application there was senior housing and what -
- what happened to that? Because, obviously, that provides -- looking at that, the
original application, that provides a whole lot -- a whole different transition.
Brown: In the fact that senior housing was like one story --
Cassinelli: Transition on the south -- transition on the south side I should say.
Brown: I don't know, because I wasn't --
McCarvel: You can't speak from back there. Name and address again, please.
Robinette: Devin Robinette. 1037 West Pine, Meridian, Idaho. When we originally
spoke to staff we talked about the three product types, the commercial, the multi-family
and, then, the senior housing in the rear. When we came back and they had asked us
to eliminate the commercial in the front, we had asked what they would prefer to see,
would it be single family or would it be the senior living. I don't know that we have a
problem going back to senior living if that's a concern. We did have plans involving very
high end builders to build this product . So, regardless of if it's single family or if it's 55
plus, we don't really have a problem.
Cassinelli: Okay. Thank you.
McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant?
Brown: Obviously, senior housing probably wouldn't have the two story, though. You
would have a one story adjacent to most of those. Just as kind of what you see -- I
mean you usually have two bath, two bedroom on the senior housing all on one level,
with a great room type deal.
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 23 of 76
Brown: Thank you.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: I move that we close the public hearing on H-2017-1042.
Cassinelli: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2017-
0142. All those in favor say aye. Opposed. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT.
McCarvel: You know, I guess I will just start and we can fan out from here. I, too, when
I was reading this, I thought four stories, oh, my word. But if they do have it right at the
level, I think it offers -- I'm still not totally convinced. I want to hear everybody's
thoughts on it. But offering all the extra green space and the extra parking , all these
things we are always trying to get to, those amenities are there. Now, there is still other
issues to look at, but I just -- I want to start out with -- I'd like to start out with that one
and get everybody's thoughts.
Perreault: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault.
Perreault: I'm sorry, were you finished?
McCarvel: Yes.
Perreault: Okay. The applicant had mentioned Rainier Village -- Rainier Vista and
that's in just an entirely different area that's not really residential and so I don't -- I think
for comparison purposes on the height that's not maybe the best property to compare
and, you know, you see some four story structures just north of The Village, but that's
also on, you know, a state highway. This is a residential area, primarily single family
with one and two story structures and I just -- I guess I wouldn't compare the two and I
would like to see the buildings closer to the height of -- of the apartments to the west,
which I think he said was 35 feet, to just stay with the consistency of that. That's just a
-- that's my thought, just because pretty much everything else around there is single
family residential.
McCarvel: Okay.
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 24 of 76
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: Any kind of -- and going off what Commissioner Perreault said, the same --
same thing. What we have seen some other developers do -- I think in the past when
they are bringing apartments next to residential, they are doing a two story and then --
and, then, bringing that into a three story, which is actually what staff's recommended
and on that one point there on number seven on their summary and I know when you're
looking at the amenity package and all the green space, the parking and everything, I
like that. I mean it's -- obviously, it's a tremendous amenity package. But that transition
-- I think that transition is so important along 8th and -- and the neighbor that we heard
speak, they are -- I mean right on the other side of Venable they would be looking at a --
we are going from single story or perhaps two story there on 8th to a four story, forty
foot building and that's not -- to me that's not a transition, that's -- that is a -- that's a big
concern. But I agree with you, the -- you know, that mini package, the green space, the
parking, those are the things that we want and they are there. But I wish there was a
way that they could do it in a -- you know, in the two story, going to three story, and --
and making it work.
Holland: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Holland.
Holland: I appreciate the applicant's intent of putting the -- the single row of houses that
was on the -- the bottom part of the picture and trying to make an easier transition. I
don't see a huge concern with having the four story on some of the buildi ngs, but I
agree that maybe it would be nice to have a transition that's a little bit more sloped
leading up to that. Maybe that the apartments that are closest to that row of houses
could maybe be the two story and the other ones could potentially be four story . I think
-- they did a nice thoughtful job of laying out some community assets and I like the
green space, it's in the middle of the complex that they have put together.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: And I tend to agree. I think you -- you all have done a great job of -- the --
the buildings look -- look very nice. The amenity package is awesome. I think if I could
pick this up and put it somewhere that was closer to a state highway or somewhere else
I would do that in two seconds. I just don't know if the transition fits for a four story all
way around. So, I'm kind of in agreement with my fellow commissioners on that, even
though I think it -- I do give the team huge kudos for their efforts.
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 25 of 76
Yearsley: It looks like I'm going to be the dissenting vote . The applicant came with an
option of stepping some of the outside of the buildings and going from a three to a four .
I kind of like that option. It kind of gives you a little -- instead of a block of apartment, it
gives you kind of step of an apartment and maybe, you know, on those four we -- the
out -- the exterior we dropped to a three and leave the centers at four and give it kind of
a varying look, so it's not so blocky as an option. I like the open space. I like the -- the
parking with it. I guess for me my biggest concern is how are these people going to
cross the road to get to the park and the commercial and stuff like that and so -- you
know. So, I think that's personally my biggest concern is I think it -- at minimum we
need a HAWK signal, at most a signal at that intersection.
McCarvel: Yeah. And as I understand the traffic study is in the works and I would
imagine if they knew that there was something even close to this going in there that
would send that traffic study over the edge that it might need that signal.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, I'm still -- and back to my original comment. Having that
many cars out of what would be two exits -- or, basically, one. Three.
McCarvel: Three.
Fitzgerald: I call it two for the moment. But that's the same -- you're on the same road.
So, I understand the reasoning for not wanting it for stacking purposes up to the north,
but without having a light there and without some additional exits , I -- it's a little dense,
but --
McCarvel: Yeah. I just think you have got -- with that road being cut off to the south
there is nothing else going to come out there. I guess the road that goes down there
next to the first house in the yellow there, that -- those houses have access to come out
there.
Fitzgerald: Yeah. You're going to have apartments to the west already.
McCarvel: Right.
Fitzgerald: All coming out on Venable and other parts of the neighborhood.
Yearsley: Well, actually, the apartments to the west don't come out on Venable, they
have their own exit -- entrance.
Fitzgerald: But not when they put Venable in. Those are to be connected.
Yearsley: No. Because if you look they have a major access --
Fitzgerald: I know, but there -- these guys are going to come out --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 26 of 76
Yearsley: You will have a few come out that way.
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: Question for staff. Josh, on the -- on that NC overlay, when you look at
those bullet points are you looking -- are you looking at kind of the -- are you looking at
the overall -- are you looking at that overall circle and is everything in that circle kind a --
meet those seven, are you looking at -- at the individual parcels within that and how
they are going to develop? Do they meet -- because, obviously, you said you didn't
have a concern on the commercial, because there is -- there is commercial across the
street, but there is -- I look at these -- get my glasses -- and, you know, there is a
number of things that this doesn't seem to me -- and, obviously, the transition heights,
one of the housing within the development should be arranged in a radiating pattern of
lessening from the core, which this, as it stands right now, doesn't do -- should provide a
variety of housing choices and types. There is two. But, again, when you're looking at
that at -- that NC overlay are you looking at it as one -- are you looking at it from 20,000
feet or ground level, if that makes sense?
Beach: Yes. So, Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli, what we look at is -- yeah,
we look at the overall corner, so we look at the neighborhood center. I touched on this
a little bit, but it probably wasn't as clear as I would have liked it to have been. We do
look at each individual project within that neighborhood center to make sure that they do
their best to comply with this Comprehensive Plan overlay for the neighborhood center
and, you know, obviously, it's part of the Comprehensive Plan, a guiding document. We
go through this and we kind of have to make a judgment call with whether or not we
think it fits with that; right? It's not a thou shalt in all of these. It's -- how does it fit, is
there connectivity, does it generally do what we want it to do , and I think we are able to
say that if there is some -- and I don't want to harp on this too much, but the main thing
was it wasn't density for us, it was -- it was the height of the structures and how they fit
in with the rest of the neighborhood. I tried to pull up Google Earth a second ago to kind
of show you, but the buildings weren't there. But it's hard for me to say -- I know the
applicant indicated that they are within five or so feet of the height of the structure s that
are just to the west and that's why I -- I hate to defer back to the Commission on that,
but I think that there -- there is an argument that can be made both ways there. There
is some commercial. It's already built. There is some commercial that's zoned, but not
much going on and working with that northwest corner of that intersection for myself a
couple of years to -- if they can get something going there. There is some commercial
and there would be a lot of residential, which -- which it gets us to kind of that mix that
we are looking -- I don't have a good aerial map to show you -- actually, that might -- the
neighborhood center overlay and exactly -- Kent Brown had that pulled up as well. But I
can -- I can kind of show you -- looking for a mixture of housing types as well. So, this
is the overall neighborhood center. So, you got your Fast Eddy's here with some
commercial. This is all residential. So, these two commercial components are,
essentially, the commercial in the area. We don't know what's going to happen with
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 27 of 76
this, so we have got this corner right now that's commercial. I guess that we do want a
mixture of uses. We want to make sure housing types -- we have already got that in the
area and the applicant kind of his calculation as to how much of that is residential, how
much of it is commercial, even though it's not built. So, I guess back to your question.
We do look at these. It's not -- it's not a set in stone -- we make a judgement call based
on what we -- what we see that's existing there and what they are proposing to make
that determination.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: So, Josh, I know you're not Eric Excline, but is that school anytime -- coming
anytime soon in your -- or in your knowledge base?
Beach: They are planning on schools all the time and they typically take a couple years
to build, so --
Fitzgerald: So, that a common -- or is that --
Beach: I don't -- I don't have an answer for you on that.
Fitzgerald: And then -- so, I mean looking at this and taking the percentage of
residential, you got part of it's in a park, part of it's a school, so the other chunk's
residential and you have two big chunks -- or two relatively small areas that are
commercial. So, are we hitting the neighborhood center you're talking about?
Beach: I will say that -- and as has been talked about a little bit already, this project has
gone through some changes as to what they are proposing. Originally there was some
commercial off Ustick. Staff was supportive of that. We -- we would like commercial
there. We also understand that there is commercial across the street that's not being
developed. So, I don't -- I don't know if the market is -- it's needed. I mean that's kind
of what we also have to take a look at. You know, we don't want property sitting vacant,
because it's -- the market doesn't want it and I'm not an expert on that either, but this
still fits with that, just not as well as we would have liked it to.
Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, if I could just elaborate a little
more on that. In the perfect world, if we were to look at this mixed use area, we would
have commercials on all four of those corners. We would transition to higher density
residential or office and, then, we would feather out to the single family or alley loaded
that's currently developed in that area . Over time projects have come forward that have
kind of changed the dynamic of this area. As Ken was pointing out, we have
commercial sitting on the corner. I worked on that project in 2007. It was called Settlers
Square. At that time the comp plan didn't define how a mixed use should develop. It
didn't care if you had a mix of uses -- it cared if you had a mix of uses, but it didn't
require three different types of land uses. It didn't require that it all had -- it had to have
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 28 of 76
a residential component. So, at the time that we annexed that in we envisioned that
being commercial to support the residential uses that were north of that and we
provided that connectivity to that consistent with the mixed use standards that we have
now. The apartment complex came through in 2009 and they rezoned that property to
TN-R in order to -- again, to meet a need for the market and at that time , as we
mentioned in this staff report, we allowed that to develop with more residential uses,
because we envision commercial uses on this piece . We were kind of kicking -- we
were looking at projects and saying, okay, well, we are not getting any with this one, so
we will look -- we will see if the property to the east will have a component. Well, now
we are here this evening talking about the one -- the probability of one last piece to
have a commercial node on it and, yes, we met with the applicant, they wanted some
commercial, we told them staff was honest with them and said we don't necessarily
think there has to be a commercial component with this. We have commercial property
to the north that can serve this area. So, we are willing to concede on that, but we still
want you to integrate the open space and have two types of residential uses and that's
what they provided for you. So, really, what we are still concerned about is, again, with
the neighborhood overlay, we want to make sure that that use integrates with the
surrounding uses and that's why we brought it to your attention that we feel that four
story may not be appropriate in this location . Those buildings will stand out on this
property. I'm not advocating which way for you to go , I'm just saying a 40 foot tall
building in this area is going to be a stark contrast to what's in that area . Ustick is a five
lane roadway now. It's widened. It's all done. It's built. So, again, it's -- that's kind of
where we are at. It is a neighborhood center. Yes, we are not necessarily wanting a
commercial component, but we want it to be integrated. We want those single family
residents that are up against that to use that open space and those amenities with this
development and we want to make sure that tho se intersections align and that we have
connectivity throughout that entire area. So, that's really what we took into
consideration as we made this recommendation to you this evening.
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: A question, Bill. Did that -- what happens if the owner of that parcel on the
northwest corner comes back and wants to change it from all commercial to some other
component, then, there is -- because nothing is happening there. If you can't sell that,
can't develop it, comes back and says, well, I want to do some -- some higher density
residential, with a little commercial up front, you know, then, we have lost all
commercial. So, I would almost say going back to -- I'm going to go back to that first
rendering -- the original application that had some commercial. To me I like that there
was transition in that. So, I mean it -- so, my question -- you don't have to answer the
question, it's more rhetorical I guess. What happens, though, if -- if the owner of that
piece comes back and says I'm not selling this thing commercial, I got to -- I got to
change it up.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 29 of 76
Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, that particular property on that --
at the intersection has a development agreement tied to it at this point. So, they would
have to go back before -- at least City Council to change the concept plan. As it's
originally been approved it is all -- it is all commercial. There is not a residential
component as part of that development. If -- again, things can change. People can
come back and ask for that to change, but at that point I think staff would start looking at
possibly recommending a comp plan change at that point, because we are not getting
the mix of uses as we envisioned.
McCarvel: Any other thoughts? Yeah. I -- I tend to agree. I mean if we have some
transition in the building -- because the buildings themselves architecturally are very
blockish and so to have that many 40 foot blocks there seems like a lot in that
neighborhood. I just -- I wish it was somewhere else, because it's a beautiful -- I mean
the idea -- the concept in the open space in the parking is everything we have ever
asked for, so if there could be some sort of transition on that and just a little variety in
the building I guess, that it wouldn't be such a big box, because with no real roof -- you
know, pitch to the roof and everything, it makes it real boxy.
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: I'm going to kind of jump ahead a little bit with getting to possible motions. If
-- in -- in trying to maybe look at something else differently here, would we be looking at
a continuance or would we be looking at -- at denying this and having them go back to
sketching this out a different way?
McCarvel: I'm guessing we would need to reopen the public hearing and ask the
developer if they would be willing to change or if they want to move forward with our
comments as they are. I am -- am I right on that, counsel? Okay.
Fitzgerald: And what are we asking, Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli's comment was if -- where we are at right now, do
we deny it or do we continue it and ask -- and have --
Fitzgerald: Are they willing to take it down to two and three or somewhere of that
entry --
McCarvel: Or if they wanted to come back with something different or they want to
move forward with what's there based on our comments so far.
Yearsley: Well -- and I don't know -- just speaking out loud, Madam Chair -- that we
would have to necessarily deny it. We could always come in and just -- we can either
continue it or recommend approval based on conditions to a three story max height or,
you know, that way, so --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 30 of 76
McCarvel: Yeah. I think you would have to put -- I mean because I think -- if I looked at
that right, part of their -- they got their elevation because they -- that first story is kind of
dug down. So, if you put three stories and just raise it up to ground level --
Yearsley: Well, yeah. I mean it was actually already in the staff report that those four
should be three stories --
McCarvel: Yeah.
Yearsley: -- on the -- so, you can just approve the staff report the way it is with any
additional modifications that you have or you can ask to see if they want to come up
with something different, so I don't know if we necessarily need to deny this application
based on those --
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, I would rather open -- reopen the public hearing, because I --
having been on the other side of the dais and not have an opportunity to say, wait, can I
add my comments or answer the question you're asking. So, if we are going to do that I
would rather have Ken come back up and tell us his thoughts before we move in a
direction to approve something that he -- he doesn't want to do. So, I would make a
motion to reopen the public hearing on H-2017-0142 for comments from the applicant.
Perreault: I second that motion.
McCarvel: It's been moved and seconded to reopen H-2017-0142. All those in favor
say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT.
McCarvel: Welcome back, Kent.
Brown: Long time. Kent Brown. 3161 East Springwood. We would prefer going
forward with an approval. I think Commissioner Yearsley hit it correctly. You have a
staff recommendation that is asking to make that transition . If that's your feeling I
guess, then, that's how you should go forward. I guess our pitch has been instead of
thinking of the stories, we felt that we were making the transition, because we are five
feet different than the tallest building that's adjacent to us.
McCarvel: Yeah. And I think we are -- we are looking at not just what's adjacent to you,
but how that filters out around you the other way. So, I think that's where they want to
see --
Brown: I understand.
McCarvel: -- some transition come from those buildings.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 31 of 76
Brown: I mean the ones along the south, you know, those -- those houses are over 160
feet away, so it's -- I understand that you're trying to get the transition. Again,
Commissioner Yearsley has -- we suggested that, you know, that we could step down
the edges of those buildings, so the one building that has something, you know, we
could step that end down. We propose to keep the middle at four feet -- at four stories
or the 39.9, you know, feet height versus floors.
Perreault: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault.
Perreault: So, can you make some more comments on the commercial element that
you originally proposed -- your thoughts on that and whether there is concerns about
whether that would sell based on what happened across the street ?
Brown: The biggest concern -- and, obviously, we have gone back and forth. I would
say this is the first TN-R zone that I have done. To realize that there is so much that is
needed up front as a part of that zone, because we don't have to come back for a
conditional use really wasn't understood I think at the beginning and, then, when we
came forward with the commercial, we had commercial on one side, we had the
driveways aligning that you're concerned about and that staff was concerned about and
has the commercial buildings there, but on the other side of the parking lot was the
residential. Staff's concern was -- is that you're mixing commercial and residential
parking. We do it in other places in the valley and you have kind of like overflow
parking. When the business isn't working during the evening you have got places that
you can additionally park when people come to visit . But that was their concern and
they didn't like that intermingling. So, then, there needs to be another road in there and,
then, move the apartments further south to put a strip commercial, which we were
thinking if we did the commercial, the only thing that we can see that would work is
some office -- is some professional office. I think that there is still means of doing
professional office. The property to our immediate east is a commercial business. They
have been in existence there for a long time. They are right across from the park. I
don't know what businesses would want to be across from the park , but there is a
chance for those to continue to have that and they are still in the neighborhood center
that would allow those uses. You have commercial and office uses at the corner. The
assisted living, the Springhill and the church, are viewed as commercial uses. So, it's
not spot zoning, it's just a continuation of that.
McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions?
Brown: We definitely don't want to be denied.
Perreault: Say that again?
McCarvel: Definitely don't want to be denied.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 32 of 76
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: The question I think comes back to if -- if it's approved with staff
recommendations, it's a transition from two to three stories. So, I guess the question is
that -- are you willing to redraw --
Brown: I think we are going to have the same discussion before the Council, because
you're making a recommendation. I think we made a good presentation tonight. I think
that listening to your comments you have -- you have struggled the way that we have
struggled. It ends up becoming an interpretation. If you had five different developers
grab this site, they have got something in their pocket that they would like to use and we
have a building that meets architecturally even though cutting the top of the roof of f
instead of having gables on the top, the rest of the building has that architecture and
makes it not so blocky as what you're seeing. But it's hard to see that in a black and
white flat piece of paper, so --
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
Brown: So, those differences would take place and so our design is -- I think -- I think
we have tried to do the best we can with the tools that we have in our pocket.
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: I -- I think the architect on your team should be commended. The product
looks great. I think it's -- it's a matter of how it transitions and I think you hit the nail on
the head. We are -- we are trying to make it -- we like what you guys have done and
so --
Brown: So, Josh, what -- your screwy drawing that has north going -- so, if we had put
buildings -- those buildings over on our -- oh, there. So, on the left over here where the
vacant -- Mr. Jackson's property -- obviously, we could have stuck some buildings a little
closer to that property line, but we didn't. The reason we put the buildings where we are
is that we felt with the road in between those we were protecting everything versus what
you're going to approve in the future. You're going to have that transitioning going from
the core and I think staff has talked about that, that that core is the intersection that we
have talked about, so --
Perreault: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault.
Perreault: With the decrease in number of units and height -- and the high change and,
then, taking out those parking spots, does that allow you to build one more structure
and add some of those units? I mean like is there like a balance that can be found --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 33 of 76
Brown: Obviously, if we wanted to try -- if you're not limiting us and the staff report
doesn't limit us to that, we probably would end up taking some of that space and put --
trying to pick it back up. The one issue I guess is that we are doubling the amount of
open space that is required, if -- if --
Perreault: And I bite my tongue as I say that, because you know how much we love
open space.
Brown: I do, but the only reason we are able to do that is because of the height of the
buildings. I guess if -- in a perfect world is you say, okay, knock the buildings down and
so we do three story buildings, we don't make the roofs flat, our three story buildings are
just as tall as the four story that we are providing, but if we have to go to a two story on
the perimeter, then, we add more buildings in the interior -- is what we would propose
and ask that that condition be changed, so that we can go down to what's allowed, ten
percent, and we eat up some of the open space. There is a balance that takes place
there and the way that we have chosen to attack the balance is by going higher.
Obviously, in Boise they have -- they don't have sites that are this big and so they try
putting the parking underneath the building. You see a number of those, so that you
can still do that and they don't have a ten percent open space requirement . So, there is
a balance that you end up fighting with.
McCarvel: Anymore questions for the applicant?
Brown: Thanks.
McCarvel: I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing.
Cassinelli: Madam Chair, I moved to close the public hearing on Item H-2017-0142.
Holland: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H -2017-
0142. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Holland: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Holland.
Holland: What I heard in the testimony we just heard is that if you look at a three story
building versus a four story building, they are not too much of a difference in height in
the way that they are designed. I would suggest that we think about maybe keeping
some of those four story buildings and maybe looking at those two ones on the south
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 34 of 76
there as a possible shorter transition, maybe take out one of the two stories. But we
look at the other one as being four story.
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: Comment on that would be the one -- the buildings on the west side up
against Venable, because you -- you have the -- those are -- you have got single family
just to the south of those other apartments on -- I think that street was 8th -- that back
up to it, too. See, that's the problem in that transition and one of the comments Bill
made was in -- in this area, this four story project, would really, really stand out. As
much as I like it and the comments that have been made about that, there is several
other places in town where this would be a dead on fit. Another comment I had when
we were just talking about open space that hit me was the open space is all -- it's
internal and it does still provide some -- there is a lot of green there, which we are losing
it in this town, so anywhere we can pick up some green space is nice, but it's all
internal. What everybody's going to experience from the outside looking in is -- would
be a transition that just doesn't -- to me doesn't blend.
McCarvel: Thank you.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: So, I tend to appreciate internal green, because that's -- that's the livable
space that those folks are looking for. I know we have a park right across the street, but
I like that we have put buildings on the edges and live to the middle in certain
circumstances. I think that's a good way of handling these. I wouldn't mind seeing a
transition to the south. I understand what Commissioner Cassinelli said on the west as
well, but the tradeoff of eating up that whole down to ten percent makes me a little
concerned, if that's the direction we are going to go.
McCarvel: I'd like to see transition and maintain the open space. I want my cake and
eat it, too.
Fitzgerald: Yeah.
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley?
Yearsley: I don't know. I guess for me I think we -- I still go back to the four stories and
put three on the ends and keep our heights that way and have your transition and kind
of gives you a step up and step do wn and have it on those four outside buildings and I
think that might break up the --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 35 of 76
Fitzgerald: The wall.
Yearsley: -- the wall to blend the heights a little bit better. You know, I don't know about
to the south. I think there is enough buffer between the homes that are proposed, the
garages and stuff, that -- I don't know if that's going to be an issue. The homes to the
west, if you look at those, those are mostly patio homes. So, they are -- they are very
high density type homes. So, you're still in that high density range and, then, you have
apartments. So, I don't know, I -- I still kind of like it with the step.
Fitzgerald: Believe me, I like a design. The roof that -- I'm not sure if you can -- but I --
the wall is a concern for me, too.
McCarvel: So, who would like to tackle a motion?
Fitzgerald: I don't know if we are in agreement.
Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, again, I think you -- as you take
in your deliberations, you do have the option to continue this and ask for some
additional elevations be presented to you, so you can see if that is an appropriate look
that you want to see on this property. I will let you know that the design manual doesn't
necessarily support that style of roofing tha t they are showing on these units. So, that's
why I don't want to kick them too far down the road with the intention that they can get a
four story building with a sloped roof. Again, as Josh mentioned to you, we are looking
for variation in roofs. So, maybe the step down as Commissioner Yearsley is
suggesting, may work better for the -- to the advantage of the architects and just saying
-- you know. Or the other option you have is in the DA you can restrict the height of the
building to no more than 35 feet. I mean that's in our R-2, R-4, R-8 zoning districts
that's the maximum height is 35 feet. So, that's pretty standard. Because in TN-R the
maximum height limit is 40.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: Bill, it -- and I mean you and Josh are -- you're recommending a DA with
this. How much does this -- this rendering and the concept plans go along with that
DA?
Parsons: Well, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, we have not supported
these elevations. We did not recommend that these be tied in the development
agreement, because we don't have enough information to determine whether or not
they comply with the design manual. So, what we have done is say what other -- what
other -- whatever elevations you have proposed will have to comply with the design
standards. That's how we have it structured now. And, then, we put a cap in there that
they transition from two stories to three stories as you go internal to the development ,
as we shared with you this evening. So, that's how it's laid out at this point.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 36 of 76
McCarvel: I think -- I think we are all kind of on the verge and I think what would help is
to actually see what's especially in Commissioner Yearsley's head and that he maybe
sees it clearer than the rest of us and maybe sees some more of these renderings,
because I do -- I agree, I hate to pass it on and, then, it's not a viable option anyway as
it -- as it sits.
Yearsley: Madam Chair, I kind of like that idea as well. Let's -- let's see what we have,
what they can do, and -- and at least try to get an elevation that we can tie to the
development agreement would be my recommendation.
McCarvel: So, if we are going to continue what date do staff and the applicant
recommend? How much time do you need? You want the 1st or the 15th?
Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, we have a pretty full agenda on
the 1st.
McCarvel: Okay.
Parsons: So, it would be our recommendation at least the second hearing in -- in March
if the Commission is amenable to that.
McCarvel: Yeah.
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: I move to continue file number H-2017-0142 to the hearing date of March
15th to see more detailed elevations. Is that enough in there?
McCarvel: Plus the changes that are going to be required.
Cassinelli: Of the proposed changes by staff .
McCarvel: Okay.
Holland: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to continue file number H-2017-0142. All
those -- to March 15th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT.
McCarvel: It will be on the 15th. I believe we have hit our two hour mark on this
application and, unfortunately, I don't think the ones that are coming are any less
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 37 of 76
complicated. So, let's take a very quick break and come back. Reconvene at 8:00
o'clock.
(Recess: 7:56 p.m. to 8:02 p.m.)
B. Public Hearing for Oaks West Subdivision (H-2017-0170) By
Hayden Homes Idaho, LLC, Located at the Southeast Corner of
North McDermott Road and West McMillan Road
1. Request: For An Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan
Future Land use Map to Change the Land Use Designation
on 7.25+/- Acres of Land from Office to Medium Density
Residential (MDR)
2. Request: A Development Agreement Modification to Amend
the Conceptual Development Plan Consistent with the
Proposed Development
3. Request: A Rezone of 5.57 Acres of Land from the L -O to
the R-8 Zoning District and 17.91 Acres of Land from the R-15 to
the R-8 Zoning District.
4. Request: A Preliminary Plat Consisting of 100 Single-Family
Residential Building Lots, 20 Common Lots and 2 Other Lots
for a Well and Lift Station on 30.91 Acres of Land in the R-8
Zoning District.
McCarvel: Okay. At this time we would like to reconvene the Planning and Zoning
meeting for February 1, 2018, and at this time we would like to open the public hearing
for Item H-2017-0170, Oaks West and we will begin with the staff report.
Allen: Having technical difficulties. Sorry. We are ready to go.
McCarvel: Okay.
Allen: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, the applications before you with this
application are a request for a Comprehensive Plan map amendment, a development
agreement modification, which only requires Council action, does not require a
recommendation from Commission. A rezone and a preliminary plat. This site consists
of 31 acres of land, zoned R-8, R-15, and L-O, located at the southeast corner of North
McDermott Road and West McMillan Road. Adjacent land uses. To the north are land
approved for single family residential properties in Oaks North Subdivision, zoned R-4
and R-8. To the east are single family residential properties in the development process
in Oak South Subdivision, zoned R-4 and R-8. To the south is land approved for single
family residential properties in Aegean Subdivision, zoned R-4 and R-8. And to the
west is North McDermott Road, rural residential properties zoned RUT in Ada county.
The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for this property is medium
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 38 of 76
density residential, which is three to eigh t units per acre. A little history on this property.
In 2008 this property was annexed as the Oak Creek project with R-8 and R-15 zoning.
In 2013 the property was rezoned to its existing zoning, which is R -8, R-15, and L-O,
with a new concept development plan as shown there on the left that depicts a park, fire
station, office and multi-family residential uses. The L-O zoning was approved based
on the applicant's request to float the office future land use map designation from near
the mid mile on the south side of McMillan and that is -- as you can see there on the
right map there. To the subject without an amendment to the future land use map -- to
the subject property without an amendment to the future land use map. Single family
residential medium density homes were then constructed on the office -- former office
designated area. Since 2013 the Western Ada Recreation District has determined it's
not in their budget to develop a park on this site and the city has determined there is not
a need for a neighborhood park in this area. Additionally, the fire department found a
better location for a fire station and no longer needs one on this site. City Well No. 29
and a lift station have been constructed on this site along the frontage of McDermott
Road. The applicant has applied for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan future
land use map as shown there on the right to change the land use designation on 7.25
acres of land from office to medium density residential. The change will update the
future land use map to reflect what is actually developed on the site in accord with
Council's previous decision to float the office designation to the west from the mid mile.
Alternately, if -- if Commission doesn't feel that this is a -- in the best interest to the city,
the L-O zoning should remain on the subject property where it's at , just as a side note
there. A modification to the development agreement is proposed to remove the subject
property from the Oaks South development agreement and draft a new development
agreement for the subject property with the current property owner and developer,
which has changed since the original agreement. The concept plan is also proposed to
be amended consistent with the proposed development plan for one hundred single
family residential homes and that proposed plan is shown there on the right with the
former plan on the left. A rezone is proposed consisting of 5.57 acres of land. Again,
that's the purple area, the L-O zoning to the R-8 zoning district and 17.91 acres of land
from the R-15, which is on the southern portion of the property there to the R-8 zoning
district consistent with the medium density residential future land use map designation .
A preliminary plat is proposed consisting of one hundred single family residential
building lots, 20 common lots and two other lots for a city well and lift station on 30.91
acres of land in the R-8 zoning district. Proposed lots range in size from 5,250 square
feet to 10,940 square feet, with an average lot size of 7,410 square feet. The
subdivision is proposed to develop in two phases with the portion the south of West
Quintail Drive developing first. A city well house and lift station exists on this site. One
access is proposed via McMillan Road and one access via North McDermott Road. A
stub street, West Quintail Drive, is proposed to be extended from the east boundary of
the site. A 35 foot wide landscape street buffer is required along North McDermott
Road, an entryway corridor. A 25 foot wide buffer is required along West McMillan
Road, an arterial street. A 20 foot wide buffer is required along the Quintail Drive and
Trident Avenue, both collector streets. A minimum of ten percent or 3.1 acres of
qualified open space is required to be provided on this site. A total of 5.28 acres is
proposed per the open space exhibit shown. However, some of the area counted does
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 39 of 76
not qualify towards the minimum requirements. The exhibit should be revised
accordingly. Staff also recommends that more consolidated open space for gathering
within the development is provided, since one of the larger areas will be used for a
storm drainage facility and that is that area here at the southwest corner of the site. The
applicant proposes to construct a segment of the city's m ulti-use pathway system along
the south boundary of the site adjacent to the Five Mile Creek. Internal micropaths and
a fitness station as amenities for the site, which complies with UDC standards. The
future State Highway 16 is planned to be extended 300 feet approximately to the west
of McDermott Road north-south between State Highway 20-26, Chinden, and I-84. An
overpass this planned on McMillan Road over State Highway 16, which will encroach
along the north boundary of the site. A letter was received late this afternoon from ITD
stating that a total right of way width of 140 feet from the section line on the south side
of McMillan Road is needed for construction of the overpass. ITD requests that the city
assist in keeping construction costs down for the future highway by leaving their
proposed Highway 16 corridor free of any major structures. Therefore, staff
recommends that a provision is added to the development agreement to preserve the
requested future right of way along McMillan Road. Staff further recommends that the
applicant revise the plat to reflect the additional future right of way and the cul-de-sac
plan for North McDermott Road. So, I was just speaking with the applicant about the
whole right of way situation needed for the overpass that it -- they had worked with ITD
previously to come up with the area needed for the future right of way improvements.
They don't necessarily conflict with what staff has, but staff did not get a diagram from
the folks at ITD demonstrating exactly where it was at. So, I think that we may be on
the same page, but I -- I can't really verify that without seeing a drawing from them and
that did not accompany their letter today. I did see the -- the drawing that they provided
to the applicant and I think that the applicant has accommodated their requests in their
preliminary plat, but I can't verify that for sure. It is something that I want to follow up
with -- with ITD. But I just wanted to state that on the record and I think we are covered
on that. So, this was a diagram I put together, but I -- the applicant was actually saying
that it was 140 feet is what they were needing for the overpass, but that it was
measured from the intersection here, from the section line south 140 feet, but that it
tapered back in and I think that that's probably the case, so ignore my drawing. So,
these are photos of the variety of single family residential detached homes that were
submitted with this application that demonstrate what future homes within this
development will look like. Because the homes that back up to West McMillan and
North McDermott Roads, both arterial streets, and West Quintail and North Triton
Avenue, both local -- excuse me -- collector streets, will be highly visible, staff is
recommending the rear and/or sides of these structures that face these streets
incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: Modulation.
For example, projections, recesses, step backs, pop outs, bays, banding, porches,
balconies, material types or other integrated architectural elements to break up
monotonous wall planes and roof lines that are visible from the subject public street and
this would only apply to two story homes , not the single story. Written testimony has
been received from Becky McKay, the applicant's representative, in response to the
staff report and I will let her go over her -- her response. Staff is recommending
approval per the conditions in the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 40 of 76
McCarvel: Any questions for staff? Sonya, your conditions in the staff report, do they
cover what's happened today with ITD?
Allen: Yes, Madam Chair, I believe that they do. They do require the applicant to
provide the right of way necessary for ITD. It probably would be good to supplement
that with maybe the 140 feet and an actual diagram in the development agreement,
which I would like to get from ITD, but I can ask the Council to include that at their
hearing.
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: Sonya, I think I -- maybe I missed it when you were going through that.
What -- the L-O that got moved from the -- the one on the right to -- and, then,
eventually got moved over to where it is on the left -- is that right? When those
agreements changed years ago?
Allen: Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli, so, the map on the right is our future
land map contained in the Comprehensive Plan. The map on the left is our zoning map.
Previously the Council approved the applicant's request to float the land use
designation. Because those are -- those are general locations. They approved the
applicant's request to float that to the corner, which allowed for the L-O zoning on the
property and now they have developed medium density residential uses where the
office designation was and now they no longer want the office zoning designation on the
corner. So, staff recommended the applicant actually come in and modify the map, so
that it accurately reflects what -- what is there and what's proposed. If the Commission
does not think that the -- removing the L-O zoning from this area is in the best interest of
the city, then, the -- then, the Commission should not recommend approval of the
comp plan map amendment or the rezone on the office portion.
Cassinelli: To follow up with that. So, have -- in what's going on here, would we
potentially be losing that L-O zoning out in that -- that area? So, it went from where it
was on the right to where it is currently and if we get rid of it now there is no -- there is
no L-O zoning along McMillan until where? Black Cat?
Allen: I don't have the whole zoning map here. I can't tell you for sure.
McCarvel: You don't have it memorized?
Allen: I don't.
Cassinelli: Thank you.
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 41 of 76
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: So, that dark green area is not considered part of the open space calculation;
is that correct?
Allen: Madam Chair, Commissioner Yearsley, the -- the dark green is depicted as the -
- let's see. That is the -- I believe that's the parkway landscaping they have shown.
They are allowed to count 50 percent of street buffers along arterial streets. So, yes,
they can count half of that.
Yearsley: So, even when that becomes an overpass and that becomes a hillside --
Allen: No, they can't count it. That -- that area -- part of that area is designated for
future right of way.
Yearsley: Okay.
Allen: It's not designated for future right of way. I shouldn't say that. But that's --
Yearsley: Right.
Allen: -- where right of way will be eventually.
Yearsley: Okay.
Allen: No, they can't count that.
Yearsley: Right. Perfect. The other question is -- our impact area ends here at
McDermott, so this is kind of the end of Meridian; is that not correct?
Allen: Yes.
Yearsley: And so Nampa will probably pick up eventually on the other side. Okay.
That's all I had. Thanks.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Allen: I'm incorrect. Excuse me.
Fitzgerald: I didn't -- you want to expand that?
Allen: We go to Can-Ada, actually and that area. Sorry.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 42 of 76
Yearsley: Okay.
Fitzgerald: Just not there yet. Sonya, in your report you talked about noise abatement.
What is that -- what do you use that for? What is in the situation? Is that close to a
highway? What is proposed or used in that scenario, jus t so I understand it, not
necessarily maybe Becky into that in the discussion, but --
Allen: It's -- I don't have the code right in front of me. It's -- it's -- I'm going to back up
just a little bit. Our code requires that adjacent to a state highway. This is on a state
highway. It is an overpass associated with the state highway improvements, but it's not
a state highway. The applicant is addressing that in her response and because of that
does not want to provide the noise abatement . I'm not sure that it would really serve a
purpose, to be honest with you, with the overpass being up above. That can be part of
your decision if you want that condition to remain in or not.
Fitzgerald: What would be the remedy?
Allen: It's a rock wall, basically.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you.
Allen: Uh-huh. And it has to be up on a berm, measured from the center -- is it ten
feet? Ten feet in height measured from the center line of the adjacent road. And, then,
the --
Fitzgerald: I knew there was a number of things that had to be done. I just wanted to
make sure it was clear. Okay. Thank you.
Allen: It's been a very long week.
Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, that -- that section of code is
eligible for alternative compliance, so I just put it out there.
Fitzgerald: Thank you.
McCarvel: Any other questions for staff? Would the applicant like to come forward?
Quickly.
Fitzgerald: Did city staff beat you or something?
McKay: Kicking me when I'm down. Okay. Let me get oriented here. Does this tilt
down a little bit? There you go. Thank you. Appreciate that. Don't start that clock yet.
Okay. Thank you. It's up. I'm good. Okay. Thanks, Sonya. Becky McKay with
Engineering Solutions. Business address 1029 North Rosario in Meridian. I'm
representing Hayden Homes of Idaho, LLC, on this particular application. They have
retained us to -- to help them with the planning entitlements on this, since I was the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 43 of 76
original planner on The Oaks project and so we had all the history and , obviously, you
know, had worked with agencies for years on different situations and complexities. As
you can see, the site is right there at that -- at that southeast corner of McMillan and
McDermott roadway. It's proximately 31 acres in size. We worked with the city to
design and build a 1.4 million dollar regional lift station for the city, that the city is taking
ownership of, located here. We also donated property to the City of Meridian and they
constructed a new municipal well that just came on line last year and is operational . So,
there is sewer and water in this future street alignment that comes up to McMillan.
There is an 18 inch sewer and a 12 inch water main. One of the things that -- that was
unique about this property was the fact that we were , obviously, cognizant of the fact
that Highway 16 extension, phase two, will be going just west of this project. The ITD
has not funded the right of way acquisition, nor have they funded the design and ITD
staff's been begging the legislature to allocate funds, but it is anticipated that they will
purchase 300 feet west of the existing McDermott roadway of right of way and, then,
they will have their second phase of the Highway 16 extension. Now, one of the things
that we worked with them on was -- they planned on -- if you look at that ITD letter, they
cul-de-sac McDermott. So, it terminated here at McMillan on both sides and they
showed a cul-de-sac, because that -- that was at the time just provide -- to provide
access to The Oaks property, but what we did is we took it a step further and said, well,
on your EIS and your approved alternative -- where did my arrow go? You show a
bypass for McDermott roadway. So, it just doesn't stop and how about we construct
and plan within our project this bypass. So, McDermott Road will come up to this
intersection here at Quintail and, then, it will go east and, then, up and, then, it will go
and wrap back and bypass that overpass and that's the long range plan. Now, what I
had approved back in 2013 -- obviously, over a five year span things have changed. At
the time we talked to the Western Ada Recreation District and they wanted to have a
satellite park with possible swimming facility out in north Meridian and at the time the
fire chief said, you know, with a project of this magnitude we will need another satellite
fire station and so could you guys, obviously, provide a lot for us. So, in doing so, then,
we decided, well, we ought to put some office around the fire station, so we are not
backing residences up and so we worked with your staff , Bill in particular, to float that L-
O designation over to this particular area and so it was zoned L-O and, then, we had a
multi-family component here next to Five Mile Creek and that was zoned R-15. So,
basically, what's before you this evening is a down zone of this 31 acres. We are down
zoning it from R-15 and L-O to an R-8 medium density designation. On your
Comprehensive Plan land use map that's what it is designated. It is designated medium
density residential. This is the north section, just to kind of give you an idea and so as
you can see here is the north leg of that McDermott bypass and, then, it goes up and
cul-de-sacs before it hits Chinden. But, obviously, ITD has to provide access --
alternative access to all those properties that lie along that corridor . So, The Oaks
project, by incorporating their long range plan and spending our dollars for design and
installation of these bypasses, will save public funding in the future. So, ITD was
ecstatic. In fact, they sent a letter in 2013 that they reviewed the project, we worked
with them for over a year determining how much area we needed for the overpass and
they recommended approval. They are also recommending approval again. What we
used, since they had no design, we looked at the Locust Grove overpass, at I-84. Now,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 44 of 76
obviously, I-84 is a 150 foot span and what we are talking about is an 82 or less foot
span and the right of way is going to be centered within -- or the roadway, excuse me,
will be centered within the 300 foot right of way. So, you can see here is the bypass
roads that are within The Oaks and, then, the need for the cul-de-sac disappears,
because we have the bypass. And, then, you can see it cul-de-sacs up here with a
planned interchange at Chinden. Here is a section -- the 82 foot section. So, you have
two lanes going in both directions. Now, what ITD told me is what they ended up
constructing was less than an 82 foot section. I think they told me it was like a 76 and
so -- oops. This is a drawing to kind of give you an understanding of -- that what we are
doing is in compliance with ITD. We met with Shawna King, Erika Bowen, Amy Revis,
the district three engineer, Ken Couch and Chris Kronberg is ITD's attorney from
headquarters and we went through everything that is proposed within The Oaks West
development to make sure that we are incorporating what -- what is considered the
worst case scenario as far as how much area they are going to need . Now, obviously,
they are restricted -- this is just going to be two lanes on this overpass , because
McMillan Road is a minor arterial three lane. So, you wouldn't take three lanes over,
you would just take two and so the distance between the edge -- even if it were
considered an 82 foot section to the back of our lots is 207 feet. So, I would have 207
feet separation between the edge of the new State Highway 16 and the rear of the lots.
And, then, on the overpass we got an e-mail and a drawing from ITD and they had us --
even though we had initially a 200 foot corridor, they had us expand that a little bit wider
and, then, taper it back and so the design that the staff has reviewed on the preliminary
plat matches identically what ITD's diagram showed and it's, like I said, the worst case
scenario. I had some traffic engineers evaluate what ITD was asking for and they said,
well, I can't believe it's going to take that much room , you know, even Locust Grove, in
which you're taking four lanes over 150 foot span, you know, that's overkill as far as
they are concerned. However, we complied with ITD and, then, the staff asked us to
submit a drawing showing what that toe of slope would be and all they can do is kind of
anticipate the toe of the slope, because, see, the overpass -- the actual structure is west
of us. It's west off the site. So, all you're seeing is the ramping up and elevation to get
over to -- across to Highway 16. Now, what I wanted to show you was how this fits in
with what's been built out here on Oaks South, the central open space is located right
here. There is a pool facility, playground equipment, gazebo. There is a ten foot multi-
use pathway that comes down and , then, goes down and links into Five Mile Creek.
This is your major greenbelt along Five Mile Creek. So, we have installed a 14 foot
pathway that runs all along Five Mile Creek. The project before you this evening, The
Oaks West, will make a continuation of that 14 foot pathway and take it over here and,
then, your parks department has asked that we increase the width of the sidewalk along
McDermott, which would be detached, to ten feet, so, then, that could also go north. As
far as the open space is concerned , there is about 1.6 acres back in here creating this
greenbelt friendly area and we have these micropaths that come up and go north-south,
obviously, creating interconnectivity and, then, they have this linear open space here
that is about 30 -- a little over 30,000 square feet. As far as the product line, they have
two -- kind of two different products here, 50 foot wide lots. They have some 60s and,
then, some of them even range up to 71. Some of their depths are 110 and, then, up to
130. They were limited in their design, obviously, because, as you can see, we have
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 45 of 76
our landscape buffer, our mandatory 25 feet, and, then, we have to, obviously, set aside
area to -- for that future slope for the overpass. We utilized some shared driveways,
which, obviously, gives a little bit different look within mixture within the subdivision and
that was one of the things within The Oaks was that we wanted diversity in look and
providing different product lines. Now, The Oaks West will be able to use the facility --
the amenities -- central amenities that are within The Oaks South project and, like I said,
will be interconnected along the Five Mile Creek and through this public street here
called Quintail. The proposed density that's before you, we have about approximately
one hundred buildable lots. We have these -- are buildable. Obviously, the well and the
lift station lot are buildable. So, we did factor those into our density at 3.30. The
question arose as far as our calculations on the open space . We did provide a
supplemental breakdown of the open space. We did not calculate in this anticipated
right of way that ITD will purchase in the future. As far as the vehicle trips per day we
will generate about 952 vehicle trips per day. Ada County Highway District reviewed the
project, sent a staff report and they, basically, said that they commended us for taking a
proactive approach in our planning to incorporate, obviously, the bypass for McDermott
and then -- and in anticipation of that future overpass. Reviewing staff's conditions, I did
submit a letter of response, so we do have a few comments. If you look at page 13,
Exhibit B, under 1.1C, it indicates the detach sidewalk and street buffer landscaping will
be constructed along the entire frontage of McDermott and McMillan with the first phase
of the development. We do object to that, because we have two phases. Phase one is
to the south, we will be building the collector roadway in this area here and, obviously,
our pathway along and landscaping along Five Mile Creek, but in order to build the
landscaping here we have to generate dirt by pulling these streets and , then, what
happens is we end up tearing up the landscaping and pressurized irrigation system
when we go in and try to build the phase and so I'm not sure why the staff asks that all
of the exterior frontage and sidewalk be constructed with the first phase. The only time I
have ever seen that asked for was when we had a school that was adjacent to a site
and they wanted to create a safe route to schools. So, we have no problem with, you
know, building our exterior landscaping and sidewalk, but we, obviously, want it two
phased. 1.1.E, staff indicated the developer will coordinate with ITD in the amount of
right of way necessary for the overpass, which we have done and we are okay with that
portion of that requirement and, then, it said the right of way for the overpass project
shall be depicted on the plat in a separate common lot for dedication purposes . I asked
the Commission to remove that last sentence, because I cannot comply with that. If I
show that as a separate lot, then, it is dedicated at the time the plat is supported and
that is unfair for this development to do that , because they don't even have a design for
the overpass, they don't even know exactly how much right of way they are going to
need and no -- ITD is going to have to come and, obviously, acquire right of way from all
of the adjacent properties. We are setting aside that in the common lot and we are
planning for it, but I cannot dedicate it or put it in a separate lot at this time . That would
be, basically, a taking of that property, because it's not part of the mitigation for the
transportation impact of this development. 1.2.1 is the same comment. Include a
separate lot for the future right of way. 1.2.3, talking, again, about building the entire
street buffer and sidewalk with the first phase. And 1.2.1.O, noise -- traffic noise
abatement. In the EIS study they -- based on the location of State Highway 16, there
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 46 of 76
was no need for any analysis or noise abatement requirement and that came directly
from Chris Kronberg. I have that in an e-mail where he looked at the EIS. Now, I think
where Sonya was indicating having like some type of cross-section would be at the
overpass. The overpass is part of ACHD's network. That's McMillan Road, a minor
arterial. So, the noise abatement that would be required would be along these lots here
that, obviously, will, eventually, be 207 feet from Highway 16. So, I would ask that
1.2.1-O be eliminated as far as its reference to the overpass . Plus I don't know how you
would create noise abatement for an overpass. I mean that's impossible. And, then, I
think that covers everything. The letter I gave you has all of my items highlighted. Do
you have any questions?
McCarvel: Any questions for the applicant?
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: Becky, on the phase two, east side, you have a common lot that goes to six
lots and, then, you have three lots that are kind of -- those aren't facing the main -- or
are they facing the main collector? So, I'm not sure how to -- you have a common
driveway that has six lots on it and, then, you have --
McKay: Correct.
Fitzgerald: So, those three lots at the bottom, are they facing the collector street?
McKay: No, sir.
Fitzgerald: Okay.
McKay: No, sir.
Fitzgerald: How are we accessing that?
McKay: One thing I wanted to clarify. The collector status for this section of Quintail
and -- stops right at Trident. This is a local street and in our original traffic study
prepared by Six Mile Engineers, this is a local. And, then, the other collector -- this is
the mid mile collector. There is anticipated to be a roundabout here. This collector,
then, goes to the south and connects to Aegean. So, this -- these do not front on a
collector. And ACHD did evaluate this shared driveway and they said that they
approved it.
Fitzgerald: So, Madam Chair, just to follow up.
McCarvel: Uh-huh.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 47 of 76
Fitzgerald: So, does that road choke down right there? Is there a choker or what do
you have to designate that you're going from a front-on street collector to a local street?
It seems to me like that would be a hard transition.
McKay: Yeah. This -- this would be a 36 back to back collector and, then, when we
transition to the local streets they go to like a 34 or a 33. We can -- ACHD allows us to
go down to 33 if we so choose.
Fitzgerald: Is it hard curb and gutter or is it rolled or what --
McKay: Vertical curb is -- would be on the collector and, then, once we get past this
intersection we would go to rolled curb.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you.
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: So, your -- the road -- the roadway going north and south there where that
shared driveway is, isn't that the -- the -- what's the word I'm looking for? It's detour, but
that's where you're rerouting --
McKay: The bypass?
Cassinelli: -- the bypass. Thank you.
McKay: Yes, sir.
Cassinelli: That's where you're rerouting it. So, you're going to reroute -- you're going
to reroute McDermott through a residential street?
McKay: This -- this will be considered a collector, because McDermott being
downgraded. McDermott is no longer a designated arterial. McDermott designated a
collector roadway, because it will no longer connect to Chinden. So, there will be these
intermittent segments of McDermott. It will no longer be a section line arterial roadway,
like it is today. And so this is what the plan is.
Cassinelli: But you said that's not going to be a collector there?
McKay: It will be a collector. This is all a collector roadway.
Cassinelli: That's the collector east-west coming in through --
McKay: Correct. This little section here I think is what they asked is this portion a
collector. No.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 48 of 76
Cassinelli: Okay. Then I'm talking about going north now to -- to McMillan. To
McMillan.
McKay: Yes.
Cassinelli: That section right there.
McKay: That is a collector.
Cassinelli: That is still a collector. So, you got a shared driveway coming off a
collector?
McKay: I have one shared driveway coming off a collector. And ACHD did analyze that
and said that that was acceptable. I will also have an access for the well lot coming off
the collector. All of these lots are internally accessed through these local streets and,
then, these three lots are oriented on the local portion of Quintail. There will be no
signal -- this will not be a signalized intersection. In fact, this will be a low volume. They
don't anticipate high volume, because it's only going to serve the properties south of
Chinden. Only on the east side of Chinden. I mean -- I mean McDermott. Sorry.
Because what's going to happen is Highway 16 will be a natural barrier. There will be
no access to Highway 16, other than the proposed interchanges every two miles.
Chinden and Ustick and Franklin.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, can I ask one quick question?
McCarvel: Sure.
Fitzgerald: Can you go back real quick? Are you -- so, what do you see in your -- as
you have talked to ITD, what happens to the section -- from the collector that's going
east-west, north to the -- where it terminates at the overpass? Are you using that as a -
- that could be turned into a -- a bike path or -- I mean because you have a road section
there that's going to be torn up -- are they going to tear it up and they turn it into a -- you
know, pathway going around it?
McKay: Madam Chairman, Commissioner Fitzgerald, I did ask that question of ACHD
and ITD, because McDermott is an ACHD roadway and what ACHD told me is that they
will end up vacating that right of way, 25 feet will go to the west and, then, whateve r
right of way on our side, I think they are asking us for 37 feet, then, that will get the 37
feet back and, then, it could be landscaped --
Fitzgerald: Okay.
McKay: -- or it could be used as, you know, a pathway or something, yeah.
Fitzgerald: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 49 of 76
McKay: We are already proposing a ten foot detached pathway along McDermott here.
Fitzgerald: That's good. Okay. Thank you.
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: Becky, how many homes are currently in The Oaks? That's -- the yellow is
all The Oaks; right? Not Oaks South with the pool?
McKay: There are currently 200 -- ACHD I think in their staff report indicated how many
-- in fact, I provided that -- 233 platted single family lots within The Oaks.
Cassinelli: So, you would be adding a hundred to -- proposed a hundred to the current
amenities over there; is that right?
McKay: Correct. And what we are going to be building is -- we will have workout
stations along the Five Mile Creek, which is what I had workout stations that were along
The Oaks South portion and, then, here we single loaded this street, so that there could
be parking -- people could park and, then, ride their bikes along that greenbelt.
Cassinelli: And are those separate HOAs between Oaks South and Oaks?
McKay: My understanding is they are going to be joining their HOA. They will be
hooking into their pressurized irrigation system and paying the same dues. So, they will
all be one. That's -- that's what I have been told. That is correct.
Cassinelli: Thank you.
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
McCarvel; Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: So, I'm thinking R-4 for this area. I -- looking at it, it's kind of the end of an
area. I think this would be better served as an R-4 than an R-8, given the lack of open
space and other items with that. Just wanted to get your thoughts on that.
McKay: Madam Commissioner, Commissioner Yearsley, when -- when I worked with
the staff one of the things that -- that we did in that planning process was thought out,
obviously, the Highway 16 impact and we saw that there would be a radiating density
and so the R-4 -- majority of the R-4 was in the southern portion here along the creek,
within Oaks South. Then up here in the north portion along the arterial we had R-8 and,
then, that's why we kind of went with R-15 and the L-O, because we saw that, you
know, the densities and the lot sizes should decrease as it headed toward that state
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 50 of 76
highway. You know, you have to look for a practical perspective. One of our conditions
is that we have to, obviously, make our potential buyers aware that Highway 16 will be
built, so will the overpass. We had -- I think we were required to put it in our CC&Rs for
the Oaks South and plus in their marketing material. So, therefore, you know, from a
practical perspective are you going to want to put a 350 or a 450 thousand dollar home
right here, knowing that there will be a state highway expressway that will be, what, 60 -
- 65 miles per hour -- 55 to 65, 207 feet away. But you can sell a house that's 250. So,
we kind of have to look at the economics of that and -- and everything that I have done,
including Aegean that you guys -- came before you here just a couple of months ago to
the south, we have R-8. We did the same type of product, R-8 right here next to the
state highway. Then we transitioned to an R-4 as we move east. So, this would be
totally consistent with what we have done in The Oaks and what we did in Aegean just
two months ago.
Yearsley: Okay. Thank you.
McKay: Thank you.
McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant?
Perreault: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault.
Perreault: Becky, do you happen to know where the new proposed high school is going
to be in relationship to this or talk of that ? I thought it was off of Ustick, isn't it, or
McDermott?
McKay: The elementary -- there is an elementary that is proposed over along the -- let's
see. How far does this go? Over on the east side of Black Cat, just -- just north of
McMillan in Volterra Subdivision. I worked with the school district when I did that one
for Bridgetower. The developers. It got sold, but there is an elementary site that's
supposed to be constructed over there. They donated a site. And I think Brighton in
their Bainbridge donated part -- part of it. It was kind of split between the two
properties. As far as a high school -- there is a middle school -- let me show you --
oops. The school district has purchased this property right here . It's just south of
Chinden and there is like a private road that comes off Chinden and there is a middle
school that is proposed right up here just north of Oaks North, but as far as a high
school location in this vicinity, I have not been notified of any, but I -- but they are
planning for schools, because they, obviously, see this area as a high growth priority
area.
McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you.
McKay: Thank you. Is there -- I don't have anybody signed up to speak on this
application, but is there anybody in the room would who like to speak on the public
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 51 of 76
testimony? No. Do you want to come back and refute anything, Becky? I was just
asking if you would like a little more exercise on that. Okay.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: I would move we close the public hearing on H-2017-0170.
Cassinelli: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H -2017-
0170. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT.
McCarvel: Who wants to start on this one?
Perreault: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault.
Perreault: Long, long term I struggle seeing -- seeing this as a good location for
residential.
McCarvel: Why?
Perreault: Why? If you have an on ramp at Ustick and you have an on ramp at
Chinden, where are you going to put any kind of commercial out in that area ?
McCarvel: I would have --
Perreault: Or office.
McCarvel: -- I mean -- yeah. It's --
Fitzgerald: I think that's where it would go is off those off -ramps.
Perreault: You think so?
Fitzgerald: Yeah. This is where the residential would go and the off ramps would have
the business --
Perreault: Would any kind of neighborhood community -- can't go in those locations?
McCarvel: I'm trying to envision -- I mean if McDermott's not going through anymore --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 52 of 76
Perreault: Right.
McCarvel: -- and you can't get off of the highway there anymore, it's kind of a dead end,
so I don't know what commercial is really going to want to be on that corner. I don't
know that I would want to live there either, but that's -- I mean -- because, you know,
with the overpass and everything, but I don't know that there is going to want to be
commercial. I could be wrong. Any other thoughts?
Holland: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Holland.
Holland: I struggle a little bit with his application, too, because I liked what they had with
their former plan of having a park and I know some of the changes -- some of those
desires have changed. The city has said they didn't need a park there right now. But I
-- I agree that I -- I see this being more of a commercial use perhaps long term . If you
think about where interstates come in, one of the challenges we have in this community
is we only have one interstate that really runs thro ugh from Nampa through to Boise and
I think this is going to become -- the Highway 16 as proposed is going to become a
major thoroughfare for people to get to Eagle, to get to Star and usually when you see a
road that's developing like that you have got a lot more development that comes
alongside those roads. People want to have that frontage. So, I worry that -- you know,
there is a lot of residential in this area. I think just having a good mix.
McCarvel: Okay. Maybe I'm seeing this wrong. People can't get off that road there.
Fitzgerald: Yeah. Madam Mayor, I totally agree. I completely say the complete
opposite.
McCarvel: Yeah.
Fitzgerald: People are going to -- commercial doesn't want to be where they can't get
access and this is an overpass, not interchange, so -- I have lived over -- I have -- and I
lived in a neighborhood that was next to an overpass . You can't -- commercial doesn't
want to go there, because people can't access it. They can see them go by, but they
have to drive another mile back to get to them through kind of a dead end area . I don't
see that as a commercially viable area. So, I think for me it makes sense for residential,
but that's just me.
Perreault: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault.
Perreault: Personally I would not buy a home knowing there is a collector street running
through the community. I understand the idea that this is going to become much more
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 53 of 76
localized. I get that. What it is that's being proposed and why it will become more
localized. I just -- and that's not our decision to make if -- if they are going to be able to
sell these homes and whatnot. But I just -- as far as the bigger picture, I don't --
Yearsley: Well -- and I think what you need to understand is -- if you look at most
subdivisions there is a collector road running through that subdivision . Even in Tuscany
we have collector roads in Tuscany. I mean -- and so I don't see that being as big an
issue. All the -- really, all the collector means is you're not accessing any homes off of
the collector and so most of your subdivisions have a collector road running through that
to get it out to a major -- major roadway and so I see this as nothing more than anything
else -- you will have a little bit more traffic through this area just because of the bypass
for McDermott and a lot of this is going to determine how it develops. Sonya, can you
go to the overall layout of the -- that she had for the -- not the entire stretch of the
Highway 16. Sorry. My -- I don't know where that's at. Right there. I mean if you look
on a mile either way you're going to have an interchange there. So, most of your people
are going to be heading back to the interchanges to get to -- to State Highway 16 to get
access to where ever they want to go. So, I don't see that collector being that big of an
issue, to be honest with you. My opinion is I think phase two should be an R-8 and
phase one should be an R-4 or -- R-4, so -- it seems like we are always getting R-8s
anymore and very few R-4s, so that might not be a bad area for an R -4, because you
have got some screening from the lift station and the well already.
Fitzgerald: I don't see that at all. I think it being by an overpass, the R-4, I just don't
think that makes sense. But I -- I mean I -- I can be convinced.
McCarvel: Sonya, could you go back to the map that shows the rest of The Oaks again
and -- there you go. So, your R-4 is kind of just to the east of that. Yeah.
Fitzgerald: And you're stepping down a density from a multi-family housing
development that --
McCarvel: Yeah. And it was supposed to be R-15.
Fitzgerald: So, I -- I mean I think -- can you go to -- Sonya, we are going to make you
-- the actual plat map or landscape. My only -- I, actually, think it's -- I think it's -- for
where it is and what they are dealing with in regards to what's on the west and what's
going to happen in the north I think it's a good plan. I think they have given the -- ITD
and ACHD the leeway that they need to build what they want, even though they don't
know what they want, unfortunately. My only -- my concern is those three lots -- and I
think you put that into a pocket park, but that's just my thought, if you want to take away
density, but that's -- I don't think R-4 fits up against a neighborhood that's on a -- on a --
both on a highway or on an overpass, so --
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 54 of 76
Cassinelli: I would -- on the comment of R-4, yeah, we are -- we could use more maybe
further to the west up towards -- towards Can-Ada we see more R-4. I would have to
agree with -- with Becky, I don't think that, you know, we would see people -- you know,
the ability to sell something that's in the four or five hundred thousand dollar range
backing up to -- I think it's Highway 16 is 70, actually, isn't it? I go 70. I don’t know -- on
that -- on the new stretch.
Fitzgerald: The legislature won't buy the right of way, but they are going to raise the
speed to 80.
Cassinelli: You know. So, I want to throw out my two cents and change the subject a
little bit. I kind of see them cheating on the green space going up on the -- on the path
along the creek and out front. There is not a whole lot when -- especially when looking
at the entire Oaks overlay, I don't -- you know, there is -- I see a lack -- a huge lack of
green space. That's one of my big comments on this. And, then, they are also -- I
mean if the HOAs are going to be tied together I -- you know, they are -- they are using
the amenity -- you know, they are pigging backing off the pool and everything, the only
amenities, then, I saw are the -- I think are the paths and the workout -- some workout
stations and, then, they are using the amenities there. But the green space, I have got
a huge problem with that. I see -- to me it's -- to me it's kind of cheating to tuck it down
the backside there. It's not in the middle. It's not where people are going to see it and
where it's really usable.
Yearsley: Madam Mayor?
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: That's why I like the R-4 is because there really is no green space, even --
even if you put both of them together there is not a lot of green space. You have one
pool to serve a lot of homes, which means you're going to overcrowd your pool and
have not much else besides pathways. So, that's -- I -- that's I guess my point is exactly
is we don't have a lot of green space.
McCarvel: I think I would almost go with the layout if they could maybe cut out some
and do another nice amenity on this end of this subdivision, because if you're going to
connect it all, this end is definitely lacking.
Fitzgerald: I agree.
Holland: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Holland.
Holland: I think that's part of the reason I was leaning towards liking the first one. I
know that's not what we are considering here, but because if you had multi-family you
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 55 of 76
might have more ability to have green space. I like that there was that proposed park,
even though that's not on the table at the moment either. I think I get challenged
looking at it long term, too, because I wouldn't want to have a house backing up to a
highway if I was to purchase one and I think R-4 might be a little bit too -- too much for
here. I think R-8 would make more sense. But, yeah, I struggle with the green space
as well.
McCarvel: Yeah. I mean with it somewhat locked in as this corner is going to be, I don't
know if you want to put high density out there either . I mean I don't know that a 15 goes
where that -- where it's kind of landlocked there and I guess I just want to make sure
that we do leave enough space for whatever ITD came up with today. I mean I know
they are changing -- changing the balls on people, but I think that's important that we
absolutely leave some wording in there that -- what needs to -- what that plan is
accommodated for.
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: I don't think I have heard this many differing opinions on any project.
Cassinelli: It's a good thing.
McCarvel: Yeah.
Cassinelli: Do we need -- does it need to be continued to find out exactly what ITD is
really going to do and how much -- how much they are going to want?
McCarvel: I think -- let's -- yeah. I was going to say, let's ask staff. I think if you're
comfortable with that, because you're the one that got the call, so -- or e-mail or
whatever it was.
Allen: Madam Chair, as I stated previously, your hearing outline says something else,
but after speaking with the applicant about it I think we are all on the same page.
McCarvel: Okay. So, the wording in the staff report would be appropriate to leave as is
for that issue?
Allen: Yes, ma'am.
McCarvel: Okay. But you want 140 foot and a diagram in the DA?
Allen: Yes.
McCarvel: Okay. And, then, I guess we have all these -- do we need to hit up all the
items in Exhibit B, Sonya?
Fitzgerald: 1.1 C and E.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 56 of 76
McCarvel: We have got 1.1 C, E. 1.2.1B. And 1.2.3. They are all kind of --
Fitzgerald: And 1.2.10.
McCarvel: Oh, yeah. And ten.
Allen: Madam Chair, if there is any of those that you feel like should be changed, then,
make a motion accordingly. If not, then, you don't need to necessarily address it.
McCarvel: Okay. Well, I think the sidewalk could be -- I mean it's kind of a sidewalk to
-- just for -- for use of those people in that area. Yeah, that can go to phase two. That
1.1.C can be worded with the second phase. And 1.1.E was the dedication of the
common lot.
Fitzgerald: Which I think makes sense. Better than taking --
Yearsley: Well -- and my question is is why can't we have two common lots together
instead of -- I understand dedicating -- not wanting to dedicate that property now, but
can't you just have two common lots adjacent to each other that makes it easier that you
don't have to go back and revise the plat to take the purchase of the right way. That
way you can just take that piece of property when they buy the right of way. I don't
know.
Fitzgerald: That's a challenge. I mean they -- they are asking for a certain -- you don't
know how much they are going to take. If you're going to do two common lots, you're
going to have to come back with a plat revision anyway.
Yearsley: Well, they will just take 140 feet.
Fitzgerald: Take the maximum they can get.
Yearsley: Absolutely.
Allen: Madam Chair, if I may. Staff didn't require the dedication of right of way right
now. Staff did suggest it be in a separate common lot, like Commissioner Yearsley
suggested. Staff doesn't care one way or the other. It just needs to be in a common lot.
McCarvel: And 1.2.1B, same --
Fitzgerald: Same thing.
McCarvel: Same thing.
Fitzgerald: 1.2.3 the same.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 57 of 76
McCarvel: Yeah.
Fitzgerald: Relates to the common --
McCarvel: Okay. And the traffic noise abatement on 1.2.1.
Fitzgerald: So, ITD doesn't necessarily require that is what I heard the applicant say.
McCarvel: Yeah.
Cassinelli: That should be ITD's responsibility --
McCarvel: Yeah.
Cassinelli: -- to put in noise abatement.
Fitzgerald: Yeah.
Cassinelli: Everywhere else in the country it is.
McCarvel: Okay.
Fitzgerald: So, it gets back to the core issue, Madam Chair.
McCarvel: Yes. So, I guess I would be okay with it if we find some room for one more
amenity out on this end of this subdivision.
Fitzgerald: My suggestion would be taking those lots that are on the end that don't
seem to make sense to me, but that's just -- make it a pocket park. Because I think
that's a strange transition into the Oaks.
Cassinelli: I would agree.
Fitzgerald: So, I think you can turn that into an amenity or they can adjust it, but I think
it makes -- and gives a little bit of a buffer on the collector and you don't have any on-
street facing houses right there.
McCarvel: And, then, maybe that makes room for -- to bring those other lots down a
little bit and make room for a cul-de-sac there, instead of a common driveway.
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 58 of 76
Cassinelli: Before we -- before we move to a motion, Bill, on the -- would losing that L-
O -- there is nothing on the future land use map anywhere close that I'm seeing. What's
going to --
Fitzgerald: They can come make a request for a map amendment, though. And if the
world changes I'm sure you're going to get it around some of those interchanges,
especially the first one.
Cassinelli; Yeah. I mean right now it's -- I guess it would have to be done quickly
before it filled up -- because if you're looking at McMillan and Black Cat --
Fitzgerald: Maybe that's a suggestion for the team as they go do the -- the new --
Cassinelli: Yeah.
Fitzgerald: -- review of the map.
Yearsley: Land use map. Yeah.
Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, the nearest commercial node is
at Mile and McMillan. So, it's not terribly far down the road. But there is a Walmart
there and a lot of that -- back in 2008 the city went through a Comprehensive Plan map
amendment with that developer to change that to mixed use community and as part of
that there is, again, another conceptual development plan that was supposed to have
employment, mix of commercial, office uses and some multi-family on that corner and
so we envisioned that area serving some of this area . It's not all of it, but there is
certainly services planned at all four of those intersections as well, so -- they haven't
developed yet.
Cassinelli: But I mean here you're getting -- to the edge of this you getting two miles
away.
Parsons: You're correct. We are losing --
Cassinelli: There needs to be something small and available.
Parsons: And I know we have annexed some property on the Chinden -- southeast
corner of Chinden and Black or office component on that corridor as well, so -- that's the
nearest commercial that I can think of right now in the area.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, do we want to ask the applicant if they are okay with --
because I do agree with Commissioner Cassinelli and you on some additional green
space and I think that's a logical place to put it, but I'm willing to let the applicant answer
the question if that's something we are willing to do.
McCarvel: Sure.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 59 of 76
Fitzgerald: So, with that, Madam Chair, I open the public -- I move we open the public
hearing on 2017-0170 to allow some feedback from the applicant on additional green
space.
Holland: Second.
Cassinelli: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to open the -- reopen the public hearing
on 2017-0170, Oaks West. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT.
McCarvel: Would the applicant come forward, please.
McKay: Thank you, Madam Chairman, Members of the Commission. Becky McKay.
So, you guys were talking about kind of like this -- these lots here -- you know, we kind
of had this discussion earlier today and they had -- this is a common lot here, so we had
the discussion about possibly putting additional open space here or one could,
obviously, put open space right -- you know, right back here in this corner. Those seem
to probably be like good options, then, it gives, obviously, the bulk of these lots access
to, you know, like to play equipment or, you know, some type of amenity, some little tot
lot, and if we stick it over here it's kind of segregated by the collector. There aren't very
many lots on this east side. So, I would be inclined, you know, like to combine this lot
with this open space here or, like I said, over in this corner option would probably make
the most sense.
McCarvel: I think out there on the -- the first -- yeah. Combined with that other common
area and just make it a really nice feature in there I think would be --
McKay: And puts that amenity in there.
McCarvel: Yeah. Put something usable. Yeah.
McKay: Something usable.
McCarvel: Yeah.
McKay: Okay.
McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant?
McKay: I saw an awesome yard shuffleboard game in Hawaii when I was there. That I
want somebody to put in one of these submissions.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 60 of 76
Perreault: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault.
Perreault: Becky, I am sitting here racking my brain trying to think of other areas around
overpasses in -- you know, in Meridian, even in Boise, and to try to get a visual feel for
what this is going to be like close to the overpass. But I'm struggling and it's late. So,
do you have any thoughts on that?
McKay: Cloverdale overpass where it goes over I-84, I did residential subdivisions all
around that. Edgeview Estates. Ironwood. I also did the mini storage that we put next
to the freeway that was the buffer from the freeway to my residential in Ironwood. It's --
you know, you go over Five Mile overpass -- it's pretty common at the overpasses, as
one of the Commissioners mentioned earlier, you don't get any commercial because
there is no access.
Perreault: Yeah.
McKay: So, we end up with either a higher density single family, like an R-8, a multi-
family type component. But usually with the overpass, you know, you have some
access restrictions. So, typically it's single family. And now over at like Locust Grove,
that's primarily commercial area over there. So, Meridian --
Perreault: Yeah. Five Mile is -- got some office down there and -- I think the difference
is is when you're going over the interstate you have a mayor -- you have a pretty major
elevation change on the south side, where in this you're not necessarily going to have
that.
McKay: Correct.
Perreault: So --
McKay: Correct. You're not -- you don't have to take a huge span and, you know -- like
you do -- so, it's going to have a different -- a different look, but I'd say, you know, like
Cloverdale is one of the older overpasses. The residential, you know, popped up after
that -- is probably a good example and, you know, you're going to get your office at
Bridgetower and Volterra. I did all that land planning. We had office and commercial in
there. So, that's going to be your office core to support this and, then, like was
mentioned earlier, you know, with the interchanges that's where you're going to get your
-- your other commercial, because there is going to be no access for this property and
just because you can see it, if you can't get there it's not a viable business. So, that's
kind of what they determined. Thank you.
McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant before she hobbles back? Thank you,
Becky.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 61 of 76
McKay: Thank you.
McCarvel: At this time could I get a motion to close the public hearing for H-2017-
0170?
Holland: So moved.
Fitzgerald: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2017-
0170. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: Quick question for staff. Sonya, do you just like us to give you the leeway to
say work with the applicant before Council to figure out where that is going -- that
additional couple -- two to three lots is going to go?
Allen: Yes. That would be great.
Fitzgerald: Got it. Looking around and everybody is smiling.
McCarvel: We are all looking at you.
Fitzgerald: Okay. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I would
move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number H-2017-0170, as
presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 15th, 2018, with the
following modifications: Remove 1.1.C in regards to landscaping being allowed to be
handled in the second phase. The last -- removal of the last sentence in 1.1.E. Do we
need to qualify that or is it okay just to remove it and allow it to be handled in the
common area when it's -- once it is --
Yearsley: I think we can leave it like how you have it.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Just to remove the last sentence. Then 1.2.1 the same situation,
removal of that?
McCarvel: Yes.
Fitzgerald: And removal of 1.2.3. And, then, removal of 1.2.10 regards to noise
abatement. And giving the staff leeway to work with the applicant to identify two to
three lots in phase two that can be identified as open space.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 62 of 76
McCarvel: Do we have a second?
Parsons: Madam Chair, clarification.
McCarvel: Oh. Yes.
Parsons: I think the applicant got up and implied that they would lose one lot. Is that
accurate? To combine that common lot and that one buildable lot. I can't read it on this
exhibit, but is it your intent for them to lose more than the one buildable lot in
combination with that common lot?
Fitzgerald: I was thinking two. That would be my motion.
Yearsley: I will second two.
McCarvel: Okay. It has been moved and seconded to approve H-2017-0170, Oaks
West, with the aforementioned --
Fitzgerald: Laundry list.
McCarvel: -- modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed?
Perreault: Opposed.
McCarvel: Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT.
McCarvel: Sonya, I'm going to ask you before we start on this, do we need another
break?
Allen: I don't believe so, but if you think --
C. Public Hearing for Pine 43 (H-2018-0001) By Pine Development
Partners, LLC, Located North of East Pine and East of North
Locust Grove Road
1. Request: A Conditional use Permit for a Multi-Family
Development Consisting of 480 Dwelling Units in an R-40
Zoning District
McCarvel: Okay. I'm okay. I'm going to pull -- all right. We are going to power through
and let you guys talk. But if anybody needs to run real quick, go ahead. We will
continue on. Okay. So, at this time we will open the public hearing for item --- the very
first item for 2018, H-2018-0001, Pine 43.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 63 of 76
Allen: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, the next application is a request for
a conditional use permit. This site consists of 27.48 acres of land, zoned R-40, located
east of North Locust Grove Road, north of East Pine Avenue, and south of East
Fairview Avenue. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north, south, and west is
vacant land zoned C-G. To the east is industrial uses, Food Services of America and
vacant undeveloped land, zoned I-L. This property was annexed in 2007 and included
in the preliminary plat for the Pine Bridge development. However, no development
occurred on the subject portion of the site. In 2017 the conceptual development plan
was amended and a new preliminary plat was approved for Pine 43. A property
boundary adjustment is currently in process that reconfigures the existing property
boundaries to accommodate the proposed development prior to subdivision of the
property. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is mixed use
community. A conditional use permit is proposed for a multi-family residential
development consisting of a total of 480 dwelling units on 27.48 acres of land in an R-4
zoning district. There are 20 three story structures proposed to house the units. A mix
of one, two and three bedroom units are proposed . The development is intended to
provide nearby housing options for students and students with families attending the
Burrell College of Osteopathic Medicine, as well as increase the available housing stock
within the city. The project is proposed to be developed in two phases of construction.
The first phase will include half of the dwellings along -- along with the clubhouse and
management office on the southern portion of the site and the west portion north of the
Jackson Drain. And the second phase will include the remaining half of the dwellings
on the east and the north sides of the site north of the Jackson Drain. The Jackson
Drain is this little linear common area space you can see here. One access is proposed
to the site via the east-west collector street, which is East State Avenue that runs along
the south boundary the site and three accesses are proposed to the site via the north-
south collector street, which is Webb Avenue and that runs along the west boundary of
the site. Local street access is not available for this site. The applicant states that the
extension of Webb Avenue between Pine and Fairview and the extension of State
between the east boundary of the site and Locust Grove Road will take place prior to
issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for this development . Off street parking is
proposed within the development in accord with UDC standards. There are actually 24
extra spaces proposed and there are some garage spaces , as you can see along the
east boundary of the site. Qualified open space and site amenities are required to be
provided within this development in accord with UDC standards for multi-family
residential developments and residential developments . The open space exhibits
submitted with his application does need to be revised to include all quali fied areas, as
some are not included. The applicant proposes a clubhouse with the fitness facility as
shown. A plaza with a community grill area and a swimming pool with multi -use
pathway in phase one and a fitness building and a sports court and play equipment and
an open grassy area of at least 50 by 100 feet in area with a plaza and community grill
area as open space amenities in phase two in accorded UDC standards. The proposed
multi-family structures are three stories in height and consist of a mix of fiber cement
siding, board and batten, plank fiber cement siding, fiber cement siding or stucco with
control joints in earth tone colors, with an accent color. A two story clubhouse building
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 64 of 76
is proposed with the same materials a nd color schemes. Seven garages and carports
are also proposed as shown. The architectural character of the structures is required to
comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-A-19 and the architectural standards
manual. Written testimony has been received in response to the staff report from
Ronald Witherspoon. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions in Exhibit B.
Staff will stand for any questions.
McCarvel: Any questions for staff?
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: So -- okay. Sorry. I heard 2.7 acres and I was like, wow, that's a lot of units,
but it's 27 acres, so -- I was like holy cow.
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: Sonya, with regards to the parking, would parking be allowed on Webb
Avenue or is that a collector?
Allen: It is a collector and no parking will be allowed, no.
Cassinelli: Thank you.
McCarvel: Any other questions for staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to come
forward.
Witherspoon: Good evening, Madam Chair, Commissioners. My name is Ron
Witherspoon and I'm an architect with Dekker Perich Sabatini Architects in
Albuquerque, New Mexico, and our business address as 760 Jefferson. And with me
tonight are Wendy Shrief and Lori Reynoldson and we represent the developer of this
project, which is actually the same developer that developed the ICOM project. It's the
Burrell Group and the intent of this project is to serve the students of that osteopathic
medicine college. So, we have developed this project on this 27 plus acre piece of land.
It does have 480 units. It's on a site that's already zoned R-40. Maybe. Is it smaller?
Okay. So, the zoning is already in place, so what we have done is really a conditional
use permit. We are not really asking for any variances, we are going in with what we
feel is a compliant project. We have placed the buildings on the site in a manner that
we feel provides a lot of streetscaping, a lot of facades along streetscapes for visual
interest. We tried to kind of hide the parking behind the project. We have utilized curb
cuts that are in the existing development that has already been approved in terms of the
roadway and so we have really tried to work in open space elements that exist now,
such as Jackson Drain, although it kind of bifurcates the property, we have kind of used
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 65 of 76
that to our advantage and located community spaces there , as well as a future space
for a workout facility in phase two and -- I don't know if this works here, but we have
also tried to work in a -- a nice open space element. You will see here as part of the
second phase. Really the only thing that we have -- we have read through the staff
report. We concur with their findings. We have a few comments to make along those
lines towards the end of my presentation, but we have -- really, then, the majority, which
is really -- there was a road that used to cross Jackson Drain in this location and we are
proposing not to build a road across there or a pathway and the reason is simply
because our amenity items are up toward Webb and we are having to develop a ten
foot pathway along Webb and we feel that the connectivity of that pathway, along with
the open space connecting these community facilities, works quite nicely as it is. So,
that's really the only main concession that we would ask . We have held a -- Wendy has
held a neighborhood meeting with -- as required before our CUP submittal and we have
heard commentary. The initial site plan that we submitted was considerably different
than the one that you see before you now, so we have adjusted this current site plan
based on comments that we received during that neighborhood meeting and primarily --
and I think there are a few people here that will speak to this later, there is a food
services industrial area right in here and our previous site plan had buildings that
aligned the property in this location and there was some concern expressed about truck
noise and headlight noise and so forth associated with that business. So, we have
purposefully come back and modified our site plan to move buildings further away from
that property line and also to align single car garages along that property as a buffer.
So, they are a rentable amenity and I think they will be a nice buffer between that
industrial property and this residential property. So, we are providing covered carport
spaces kind of in the middle of the parking lot areas as required by code , but also to
kind of break -- break up those areas and these buildings are all three story wood frame
and I believe staff had kind of commented on the community building being two stories ,
but it's actually one story in height. It does have a large pool and as part of the second
phase the Burrell Group anticipates the high level of fitness activity for the residents
here, since they are students and faculty largely at the ICOM facility. So, they are
planning a future fitness facility as part of phase two. There is a trail connection that
runs along Jackson Drain that we are developing as part of this development and I
would like to point out that all the perimeter streets, East State Avenue and Webb
Avenue, are currently either constructed or in for permit and they are not being
developed by the developer we represent, but they are being developed by the
landowner. Having said that, I would like to just kind of mention the conditions that we -
- I would say take exception to, but would like to provide a little comment on in the staff
report and the first being 1.1.2. That is talking about a future -- the connection of Webb
all the way to the north and that is work not under our purview , it's being done by the
land seller, but it will be -- we accept the condition of that work being completed prior to
certificate of occupancy, it just doesn't fall under our development. The second is
1.1.3A. It mentions multiple project directories as the way finding element throughout
the project and we would prefer to just have one map that is a way finding element at
our primary community building and the rationale behind that is we have a lot of
different curb cut entries to this development, especially because it is bifurcated by the
Jackson Drain and we felt it would be confusing. So, the main clubhouse will have a
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 66 of 76
monument sign in front and that is the primary entrance for the facility . So, we would
like to direct visitors to that location. Thirdly, we would propose 1.1.2D. This is the
element I talked to earlier, the previous approved submittal for this development had a
roadway that connected across Jackson Drain and a pedestrian path associated with it
and the current developer would propose not to construct that and the rationale is they
just don't feel it's -- the cost benefit is there to justify it and they would prefer to leave
that as a nice open -- open space element that's easily maintained and it has an access
road that -- to maintain it and we feel that would kind of break that up . 1.1.4A. We
agree to comply with the standards and to further work with city staff to select fencing
materials in appropriate locations, especially -- and I will point out on phase two we are
looking at more of a hard -- hard materials may be connecting between garages as an
opaque security fence to separate the industrial property from our property and to help
mitigate some of the headlight noise and other kind of diesel engine noise, so we would
connect between garage buildings -- excuse me, I'm trying to find my mouse here.
There might be a hard CMU wall kind of connecting these buildings here. For other
parts of the back of house, it probably would be more of a less expensive opaque
fencing, such as a vinyl fence or something that's opaque that's less expensive and,
then, we would like to put in a nice -- an ornamental steel picket fence along both sides
of Jackson Drain as needed for security to keep pedestrians from falling into the drain ,
basically, and, then, we would propose a nice steel picket fence around the pool
common area and kind of expand the money where it makes sense on the development
itself. The other point we would like to make is 1.1.4C. There is a comment staff made
about hiding infrastructure within the site, so it's not visible from the public way, and we
will do that to the extent possible. We don't have a lot of control over utility service
providers and where their entries come, but we will try to internalize those and screen
those to the extent possible. And 2.2.18 it mentions a crawl space, which we feel is not
really applicable to our project, because these are all slab on grade buildings. Oh, I
skipped one. There was 1.1.4B, staff comment about a low hedge in front of patios and
windows to prevent headlights from shining into windows and we would like to do that
with a combination of low patio walls off patios and shrubbery placed in appropriate
locations, instead of a hedge. And other than that we pretty much agree to comply. We
can kind of go through the elevations briefly and the community building if -- does this
just forward with -- okay. So, this shows the elevations. Although the buildings are all
identical to each other in terms of the floor plans, there is -- they are all the same except
for the external elevations. We are proposing a variety of materials in different
combinations and it's -- it's based on the local vernacular in terms of hardy plank, hardy
siding, board and batten, some stucco. There will be some stone -- cultured stone in
limited areas on the commons building, but the different color palette would provide
visual variety kind of down the streetscape along the public ways . There is an elevation
down here that shows the garages. We recently added that to the submittal -- I'm
having a hard time finding my cursor here. You know, this shows that there will be
about 12 feet high and that will help screen some of the best real properties from the
residential properties. We tried to break those up with some materials as well. These
are breezeway buildings. They are all three story in height. The apartment buildings.
There is three light wells, one at each end and one in the middle to let natural light down
the breezeway. All the patios are 80 square feet minimum, so all the -- all the required
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 67 of 76
private open space required by code for a unit is made up adjacent to each unit with a
private patio or balcony. There are windows, patio slider doors, metal railings that are
painted and that is the majority of the architecture. If we could go to the community
building. The community building has higher ceiling heights. It uses similar materials.
We may elect to incorporate some stone, although I don't really see it on here, but
mostly hardy material, stucco down low, more commercial storefront on the community
building itself, as opposed to residential windows. There is a community building with a
community room, nice conference area. This is the leasing center. There is three study
areas as requested by our client for students. Large fitness facilities. Large pool, spa,
pool equipment outside and separate restrooms for the -- to serve the pool. And really
that's the majority of my presentation today. You know, we love the site, love the
community, love working with the client. Real excited. The College of Osteopathic
Medicine is going to open up in August of this year and our target is to open the first
buildings in August of next year for this first phase of apartments, so --
McCarvel: Okay.
Witherspoon: With that, unless Wendy or anyone wants to add to my presentation, I will
try to keep it brief and stand for any questions that you may have .
McCarvel: Any questions for the applicant? All right. You're free to go for now.
Witherspoon: Okay.
McCarvel: Okay. At this time we will open public testimony. I have a couple of people
who have signed up that wish to testify. We will start with Mike Ruffner.
Ruffner: Thank you. Mike Ruffner. Business address is 1495 North Hickory Avenue in
Meridian. I'm the president -- Madam Chair and Commissioners, I'm the president of
Food Services of America. We have owned and operated the facility on 1495 North
Hickory for the last 22 -- roughly 22 years. The facility sits on roughly 15 acres. We are
a broad line food distributor. We have approximately 50 diesel tractors and trailers that
run 24/6. We also receive product during the days and we ship products -- product
during the night. Those diesel trucks aren't necessarily the most quiet, as much as we
abide by all emissions and noise ordinances as best we can . We have purchased the
property behind our facility, it's roughly five acres that abuts the proposed property, for a
future expansion. We just did a five year plan and we are probably within the next two
to three years looking at expanding out the back of our facility. Most of our expansions
typically are 45'ish feet in height and we are probably going to double the space of our
existing facility out the back of our facility abutting up against the -- the property. The
concerns that we have, obviously, are from a noise standpoint running 24/7 being that
close to the facility. We also -- when we do expand our current refrigeration is Freon,
which Freon is kind of a -- will become an extinct product, so we will have to switch our
refrigeration system to ammonia. I don't know if you have been around ammonia
generating facilities, but they don't always have a very pleasant aroma. So, we are
concerned -- we want to be a good neighbor. We appreciate the growth. We are in the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 68 of 76
restaurant industry. There is a lot of benefits that we can see with that many people in
the area, but we are concerned about the noise levels, expansion capabilities, the
ammonia addition at some point in the future. And, then, as we expand there is a
potential that we would be adding -- receiving and shipping doors on the back of the
facility as well. That's all I had.
McCarvel: Thank you.
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: You talked about you bought the five acres. Is that just to the south -- or to
the north of this property?
Witherspoon: It is to the direct west.
Yearsley: Oh. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. I was just trying to get an idea of -- of
where your property was, where you were talking about, so -- thanks.
Witherspoon: Anybody else?
McCarvel: I don't think so.
Witherspoon: Thank you.
McCarvel: Thank you. Wendy Shrief. Did I say that right? No? Okay. Anybody else
in the room who would like to testify? Don't have anybody else signed up. All right. So,
would the applicant like to come back? Have anything to add? Okay.
Reynoldson: Lori Reynoldson. 250 South 5th Street in Boise. Madam Chair,
Commissioners, we were involved with the property search for the developer, trying to
find some property that was close by to the new ICOM school that would be a perfect fit
for housing. This site was particularly attractive, because the zoning is already in place.
You just recently passed a development agreement modification , which, actually, puts
multi-family in this area. We have changed the plan from 504 units that were approved
to 480, so we are actually going the right way. It provides the students with great
walking ability to the school. The ability to bicycle to school. It's in the core, which
focuses on health sciences and providing housing for those types of uses . So, when we
were looking for a housing component it was hard to find a piece of property that fit
better than this. So, we -- we think that we have -- we have created a great project. We
think it's a great site and we -- we hope that it gets approved.
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Yeah. Commissioner Yearsley.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 69 of 76
Yearsley: I guess based on Food Services comments, do you see a problem with them
operating like they do adjacent to your site?
Reynoldson: Mr. Commissioner, we -- they are there. We understand we are coming to
be a neighbor, so we are not trying to change any of the uses that are going on around
us, we are just simply trying to house the students that we have that will be coming to
the school.
Yearsley: Okay. Thank you.
McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant? Thank you. At this time could I get a
motion to close a public hearing for Item H-2018-0001, Pine 43?
Fitzgerald: Are we going to let the applicant come back and --
Yearsley: Let the applicant come back and testify.
McCarvel: That was --
Yearsley: She wasn't testifying as the applicant. She just wanted to testify as a -- as a
person. My understanding. Is that correct?
Fitzgerald: Yeah. That was what she said when she --
Yearsley: Do we want to have the applicant come back?
McCarvel: Oh, I thought she was -- yeah. Did you want to come back or was that your
response? Okay. Any questions that we want him to come up for?
Yearsley: Actually, why don't we --
McCarvel: Come on up. Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: So, Madam Chair, I -- so, the only struggle that I really have with this site is
we have all the amenities to the south and really nothing to the north . So, we are going
to have to have a lot of people either walk or to travel down to the amenities to the
south. Can you address that?
Witherspoon: Yeah. We -- we originally had two clubhouses and the reason being --
and I will show you the phase line. It doesn't really show it. It's kind of hard for me to
see this, but the actual phase line is this dash ed line. So, it kind of cuts through and
connects all the way here. So, we would actually have this entry as part of our phase
one site. So, these buildings back here are all part of phase two. We originally had a
clubhouse at this intersection and the Burrell Group really wants to develop this under
one financial package. It's really never -- and the reason being because usually when
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 70 of 76
you have two lenders they want two separate properties in case there is an exit strategy
of some kind they kind of standalone , but it's the developer's intent that the financial
investors in this property would remain for both phases and they really wanted to have
the benefit of having staff and amenities in one common location for oversight , if you
will, and, you know, so the management staff is one -- in one area and their perception
and the perception of our team was that most people coming up would be coming up
from Pine and so we really wanted the clubhouse kind of on that end of the property and
not have it split into two pieces. We did develop a large open space amenity right in this
area. It's rather large. It's like 100 and -- 150 feet by 75 feet wide. So, it would be a
large grassy area and a grill. So, there would be kind of a space to hang out in that
area, more of a passive space, so the space down here is more intended for active
recreation and so there really are two open space amenity elements that are quite
sizable and quite different from each other.
Yearsley: Okay.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: So, I know you all are not looking at doing a road across the Jackson Drain,
but is there a discussion about connecting it by a pathway, because I do think there is
some value there. Not forcing everybody to have to go to the sidewalk on Webb.
Witherspoon: Yeah. It was just -- the original approved development plan kind of had a
roadway and -- and based on the placement of where we wanted to put buildings and
everything, we just felt it would be used as well. We have -- all these curb cuts where
they are shown were part of the original development plan . We didn't propose to
relocate any of those and since they were already in play , we already had good
vehicular circulation coming through here, I think it would have been -- you know,
originally we had a plan that had a community building more in the center of things, but
they really wanted kind of the marketability of having it along street scape in terms of
this overall amenity here. I mean there could be a pedestrian path. The way this was
originally shown was really as an earthen berm with a culvert underneath it and a full
road section going across it. You know, we could discuss a pedestrian bridge or
something.
Fitzgerald: Yeah.
Witherspoon: Our experience is if you ever try to maintain a drain and you're bringing a
hoe down there or something to get the weeds out of it , that's just a barrier that
becomes an obstacle for the maintenance crews. So, in discussions with the developer
they preferred to just keep it as one clean open space element. I mean we could
discuss that or -- you know, I mean a possible condition of approval I suppose. I don't
think their interests are to have anything that's vehicular.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 71 of 76
Fitzgerald: Okay. And, then, when was the fitness building on the north side planned?
Witherspoon: This would be planned as one phase to as built.
Fitzgerald: Okay.
Witherspoon: So, this one right here would be -- and we haven't really determined what
that amenity is yet. It could be open sports courts or, you know, a grill area yet to be
determined by demand really.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Sonya, do we have that in the conditions in regards to what that's
going to be or -- I assume some kind of a tie to something?
Allen: It's just what the applicant proposed.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you.
McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant? Thank you.
Witherspoon: Thank you.
McCarvel: Since I jumped the gun earlier, now --
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, I move that we close the public hearing on H-2018-0001.
Cassinelli: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H -2018-
0001. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT.
McCarvel: I think -- I mean, obviously, the school is going to need -- there is going to be
students that need to be housed . I think it's a decent looking project. I do want to
address the signage. I think the more signage the better on the -- on something like
this. You have got, obviously, food deliveries and emergency personnel and everything
else that it would be nice to have one -- I mean it doesn't have to be, you know, near as
big and grand presented as it would be at the main entrance, but something at almost
every entrance I would think to help people figure out where to go.
Cassinelli: Which one is that?
McCarvel: Which one what?
Cassinelli: Which --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 72 of 76
Fitzgerald: 1.1.3A. I agree with your assessment, Madam Chair.
McCarvel: But in general -- I mean I understand the -- you know, with the food service
building there and what their plans are, you know, that may not be the most ideal for
residents next to it, but I don't see anybody being there more than a couple of years and
they understand they are there temporarily and I think if this is going to be students,
then, I think they understand where they are moving to and that it's temporary.
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: I agree. Whoever moves in there are going to know that they are there, so
don't -- you know, they may complain and stuff , but my guess is -- is they may -- they
are probably going to complain to the property owners, instead of food service. So, I --
I'm not sure if I see it as a huge issue and if it becomes too big of a problem for them
they just move out and, you know, harder to rent those areas. So, the applicant actually
said it correct is they were there first, so, you know, people will know what they are
getting to when they move in -- when they move in, so -- I also agree that I think we
need to at least have some sort of a, you know, project directory on all the entrances. I
don't know if we need to construct -- you know, I'm kind of torn back and forth on a
connection across the drain. Part of me thinks we ought to at least consider a
pedestrian connection, but, then, there is really not a great area -- I don't know.
McCarvel: I just -- I look at it -- I think the only thing -- people from that north side are
going to want to come across that area to get to the clubhouse and the sidewalk is out
there.
Yearsley: Yeah.
McCarvel: I mean there is really no reason for them to want to get -- I mean unless --
you know, just visiting a friend or something.
Yearsley: And that's what I -- I keep coming back to as well as is most of your
amenities are out towards the front, so that's where they are going to be heading
anyways.
Holland: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Holland.
Holland: I think the only other comment I would make on the footbridge is I like the
ability of kind of having a loop, because the way that it is now with only the one entrance
down to the pool house in the club area, I think it's a little bit challenging if people are on
the eastern side of the complex to get down there. I mean they can walk on that path
and get down there, but I always like having more than one path to get down to
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 73 of 76
something if you can, so I'm on the fence about that, too. But there is, obviously, plenty
of adequate parking there. I always hate to see a sea of asphalt, but I know you will
need to have a lot of parking with a big structure like this and lots of apartments.
McCarvel: And I kind of like it that the parking is all in the interior.
Yearsley: Yeah.
McCarvel: Any other comments?
Yearsley: Yeah. I did notice that the building height is 40 feet, by the way.
McCarvel: This is the place for it.
Perreault: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault.
Perreault: I really like the look of the buildings. I think it goes really well with what's in
that area already with -- to the south within Scentsy and the industrial park. It seems
from, you know, the pictures that it's going to be a similar feel to that . I know this isn't
directly right up next to that, but, generally, for that area I think it fits in well.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: I total agree. I think this provides housing for the students, but also Scentsy
and other things and we love FSA, I think they do an amazing job, but I think -- and I
appreciate your guys' comments. I think this is a situation where it's --
McCarvel: Renter beware.
Fitzgerald: -- it's renter beware and I think --
McCarvel: You're there first.
Fitzgerald: Yeah. Bill?
McCarvel: Bill Parsons asked --
Fitzgerald: No. I think we are excited for the school to be there. I know it's a long time
coming and we have got a shortage of docs and so I think it's a positive that we are
moving that forward and be happy to have somewhere for them to live.
McCarvel: All right. So, have we gotten through all of our details here?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 74 of 76
Fitzgerald: Yeah.
McCarvel: Yeah. Okay. So, I think on 1.1.3A we have decided that we want to keep
that in there. We want stuff at all the -- we want a directory at all the locations.
Fitzgerald: Yeah. I --
Cassinelli: I agree with that.
Yearsley: I think 1.1.3D we can strike, because that was the pathway; correct?
McCarvel: Yeah. I think we are talking either way on that. Okay.
Fitzgerald: And the 1.1.2, that's being handled by the developer and they can get
occupancy with that --
McCarvel: Yeah.
Fitzgerald: -- so I think -- does it need to be there or do we --
McCarvel: Does that need to stay there, Sonya?
Allen: W hich?
McCarvel: 1.1.2. Extension of Webb Avenue between Pine and Fairview and the
extension of State between the -- or you want me to -- or did you find it? Okay.
Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission --
Allen: I don't see it as being an issue from the applicant. Am I -- am I not seeing
something?
Parsons: Madam Chair, Commissioners, that -- that has to stay in there, because that
provides access to the development and it's going to be required of t he building
department for them even before vertical construction. They got to have some kind of
access for the fire department so they can get in there just -- as things are under
construction.
McCarvel: Okay.
Parsons: I will let you know that the city is reviewing the plans already for the extension
of those roadways. We did confirm that as we were reviewing this project, so those
plans are in place for extension of services to this site , along with all the collector
roadways and it's also been submitted to ACHD as well.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 75 of 76
Yearsley: So, it sounds like that condition is really a non-issue then. We can leave it in.
Fitzgerald: Yeah.
McCarvel: It stays. Yeah. Okay.
Allen: Can I just add a -- maybe a clarification to that? The applicant wanted it to just
simply state that the roads would be extended . They didn't necessarily want to imply
that they would be paying for them to be extended . As far as the city is concerned, we
just really care about them being extended. We don't care who does it, so --
McCarvel: Okay. 1.1.4A -- I think the details need to be included.
Fitzgerald: Sonya, are those -- some of that stuff alternative compliance? I mean do
they have an option to work with you on meeting some of those standards?
Allen: Are we -- are taking about 1.1.4A?
Fitzgerald: Yes, ma'am.
Allen: A lot of these comments from the applicant are just simply code requirements.
We can't change them.
McCarvel: Okay.
Allen: And that was just to provide details for the fencing. It wasn't --
Fitzgerald: Yes. Okay.
Allen: It wasn't saying they weren't in compliance with anything.
McCarvel: Okay. So, I think the only one we are taking out, then, is 1.1.2 -- or 1.1.3D.
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I moved to
recommended approval to City Council -- or is this just approval?
Fitzgerald: It's approval.
Yearsley: Just approve file number H-2018-0001 as presented in the staff report for the
hearing date of February 15th, 2008, with the following modification that Item No. 1.1.3D
be removed.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 76 of 76
Fitzgerald: Second.
Cassinelli: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve file H-2018-0001, Pine 43. All
-- with one modification. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT.
McCarvel: And since we have outlived the circulation in the room, can I get one more
motion?
Cassinelli: Madam Chair, I move to dismiss -- to --
McCarvel: To adjourn.
Cassinelli: Adjourn.
McCarvel: Would you like to adjourn? Would you like to go home?
Fitzgerald: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:01 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
_____________________________________ _____|_____|_____
RHONDA McCARVEL - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
C. JAY COLES - CITY CLERK