2018-11-15Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting November 15, 2018.
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of November 15, 2018, was
called to order at 6:03 p.m. by Chairman Rhonda McCarvel.
Members Present: Chairman Rhonda McCarvel, Commissioner Jessica Perreault,
Commissioner Bill Cassinelli, Commissioner Ryan Fitzgerald and Commissioner Lisa
Holland.
Members Absent: Commissioner Steven Yearsley and Commissioner Gregory Wilson,
Others Present: Chris Johnson, Andrea Pogue, Bill Parsons, Sonya Allen, Josh Beach,
Stephanie Leonard and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-call Attendance
__X____ Lisa Holland _______ 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 would like to call to order
the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission on
November 15th, 2018. Let's begin with roll call.
Item 2: Adoption of Agenda
McCarvel: Okay. The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. We have
no changes at this point, so could I get a motion to adopt the agenda as presented?
Perreault: So moved.
Fitzgerald: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All those in favor
say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT.
Item 3: Consent Agenda [Action Item]
A. Approve Minutes of November 1, 2018 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 2 of 144
B. Findings of Fact, Conclusion of Law for Del Taco (H-2018-
0106) by Tom Lennon, Located at 1617 W. Island Green Dr.
C. Findings of Fact, Conclusion of Law for Sulamita Church (H-
2018-0110) by Matthew Garner, Located at 4973 W. Cherry Ln.
McCarvel: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and I believe we have three
items on the Consent Agenda. Could I get a motion to approve the Consent Agenda?
Fitzgerald: So moved.
Cassinelli: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda. All those
in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT.
McCarvel: So, at this time I would like to briefly explain the public hearing process for
this evening. We will open each item individually and, then, start with the staff report.
The staff will report their findings 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 the applicant has finished we will open to public testimony and
there is a sign-up iPad in the back for anyone wishing to testify. Any person testifying
will come forward and be allowed three minutes. There will be a bell timer and, please,
be respectful of that. If you are speaking for a larger group, like an HOA, and there is a
show of hands to represent that group, you may be given up to ten minutes and after all
that testimony has been heard, the applicant will be given another ten minutes to have
the opportunity to come back and respond if they desire. Then 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 for Ferguson Parking Addition (H-2018-0120) by
B&A Engineers, Located at 586 N. Locust Grove Rd.
1. Request: A Conditional Use Permit Modification to reduce
the
amount of open space approved with a previous PUD (CUP-
05-016) to construct additional parking on the site adjacent
to Locust Grove Rd.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 3 of 144
McCarvel: So, at this time I would like to open the public hearing for H-2018-0120,
Ferguson Parking Addition, and we will begin with the staff report.
Leonard: Good evening -- good evening, Madam Chair, Members of Commission. The
application before you this evening is a modification to a conditional use permit. The
site consists of approximately seven acres of land. It's zoned I-L and located at 586
North Locust Grove Road. To the north there is a trucking company, zoned I-L. Let me
go to my slide, actually, so you guys can see what's going on. To the north there is a
trucking company zoned I-L. To the south is the Union Pacific Railroad and city-owned
property, zoned I-L. To the east there is North Nola Road and a construction supply
company, zoned I-L and to the west there is North Locust Grove Road and an industrial
supply company zoned I-L. In 2005 a CUP was approved to allow for two buildings to
be constructed on one lot, which was required at the time. The Comprehensive Plan
future land use map designation for this area is industrial. Previous -- previous code
required the CUP or a planned unit development to allow for two buildings to be
constructed on the same lot. At that time two amenities were required to be provided
with the CUP, one of which was a ten -- a ten percent open space. The applicant is
requesting to reduce the amount of open space from 34,550 square feet to 12,050
square feet in order to construct 58 additional parking spaces on the site adjacent to
North Locust Grove. That's in this area right here that's landscaped. They are
proposing 58 spots there. The second amendment required at the time was a seating
area for employees and customers. Current code no longer requires a CUP to
construct two buildings on one lot, however, the amenities required with the original
approval are still applicable. This is the original site plan that was approved with the
CUP back in 2005 and this is the currently proposed site and the landscape plan for the
58 parking space addition. Staff is amenable to the loss of open space, because
additional parking will help with growth experience of the applicant and will aid them in
complying with UDC parking standards. Staff does recommend that the applicant
mitigate the loss of open space by adding three trees to the existing 25 foot landscape
buffer. So, along here. And a five foot landscape buffer between the proposed parking
addition and the existing parking area and the building on the east portion of the site.
So, right in here. Additionally, staff recommends that a seating area for employees and
customers be constructed. Written testimony was received by David Crawford with B&A
Engineers, who is the applicant representative. He is in agreement with the conditions
in the staff report. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions in the staff report
and staff will stand for any -- any questions.
McCarvel: Okay. Any questions for staff? Would the applicant like to come forward?
Crawford: Chairman, Commissioners, my name is David Crawford, I'm with B&A
Engineers. My office address is 5505 West Franklin Road in Boise. I'm here
representing the applicant Ferguson Enterprises tonight and I know you got a lot on
your plate, so I will keep it brief. As you're probably aware, it's pretty busy around here
and Ferguson supplies a lot of the waterworks around the valley for a lot of the
construction projects, along with many other things. But they have experienced a lot of
growth and have need of this parking area to allow continued operations in Meridian
and while we are reducing the common area boundary and removing about 12 trees in
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 4 of 144
total, give or take, we are also adding almost 23 trees and mitigating for the ones that
we are removing. So, the planting densities are increased and while we are maintaining
the buffers along the road and what we are replacing this -- which is, essentially, a
storm water swale currently, we are replacing it with a parking lot and going subsurface
with the storm water disposal for the site. So, just wanted to let you guys know about
that and I will stand for any questions you may have.
McCarvel: Okay. Any questions for the applicant? Okay. All right. Thank you. Chris,
do we have anybody signed up for this application?
Johnson: No one indicating they wished to testify, Madam Chair.
McCarvel: Okay. That being said, is there anyone in the room who wishes to testify on
this application? Okay.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Yes.
Fitzgerald: I move we close the public hearing on H-2018-0120.
Cassinelli: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2018-
0120. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT.
McCarvel: I think this would be a great use of the space. It's not even -- the code
doesn't even exist anymore to have that much landscape in the industrial and the
commercial zone, so I think it would alleviate a lot of parking issues for the client and I'm
in favor of it.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Mr. Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: Totally agree. I know Ferguson is a great business -- local business. We
appreciate their -- their work locally and -- and I think they are a busy group of people.
So, having parking for their customers is a positive and I think it -- it works very well.
Cassinelli: I'm pretty much in agreement with those comments.
McCarvel: Okay.
Perreault: Madam Chair?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 5 of 144
McCarvel: Yes.
Perreault: As long as the applicant is an agreement with the staff report I don't have
anything additional to add. I think it's --
McCarvel: Yeah. I think -- I agree with the staff report, to go ahead and put in that
customer seating and stuff and keep it looking nice, but I would be appreciative of the
extra parking, so -- okay.
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to
recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2018-0120 as presented in the
staff report for the hearing date of November 15th, 2018, with no modifications, just their
conditions.
Johnson: Madam Chair? I just want to point out that this would be approval.
McCarvel: Yeah. Yeah. This is a CUP, so it's --
Cassinelli: Oh. Okay.
McCarvel: -- approval.
Cassinelli: Then I will amend that motion to approve the CUP.
Fitzgerald: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve H-2018-0120, Ferguson
Parking Addition. All those in favor say aye. Opposed. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT.
B. Public Hearing Continued from November 1, 2018 for Buyrite
LLC Apartments (H-2018-0096) by neUdesign Architecture,
LLC, Located at the NW corner of W. Ustick Rd. and N. Linder Rd.
1. Request: Rezone property from C-C (5.90 acres) to R-40;
and
2. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family
development consisting of 96 multi-family residential units
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 6 of 144
within 4 multi-family structures on 4.772 acres of land in a
proposed R-40 zoning district; and
3. Request: Modification of an Existing Development
Agreement to allow for R-40 zoning and to change certain other
provisions of the agreement
McCarvel: Okay. So, at this time we will move on and continue application number H-
2018-0096, which has continued from November 1st, Buyrite Apartments, and we will
begin with the staff report.
Beach: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. This evening this is a
-- an application with three separate application types. One is a rezone and one is a
conditional use permit and one is a development agreement modification. This property
-- it consists of 5.90 acres of land. It's currently zoned C-C, located on the northwest
corner of North Linder and West Ustick Roads. The property was annexed into the city
in 2009 with a C-C zoning district as JJA Land. The Comprehensive Plan future land
use map designation -- excuse me -- is mixed use community. The applicant is
requesting a rezone -- as I said, a rezone, a conditional use permit, and a development
agreement modification to develop the property with multi-family lots with 96 dwelling
units. Their overall gross density of the project is 20 dwelling units per acre. Access is
proposed via West Island Green Drive. Let me back up. Access is proposed via West
Ustick Road, North Linder Road, and what's called Crosswind to the west. Access is
designated to be right-in and right-out only on both Ustick and Linder Roads. Staff has
concerns with the majority of the traffic from the Windsong Subdivision, which is the
subdivision to the west. If we go back to my aerial here, which is actually currently just
parcels, it's -- there is no homes built in the subdivision currently, but any traffic will
likely come and go out -- funnel out to Linder through a drive aisle, instead of a public
road. Staff has concerns with the backup nature of traffic on that and the volume that
there may be with that. Per UDC 11-3-C-6 parking for commercial or in this case the
leasing office is based on a gross floor area for the office of 450 square feet. So, one
parking space is required. The site plan before you here tonight shows some -- it's
difficult to see, but they are showing some parallel parking stalls on this drive aisle. The
current development agreement that is on the property requires that the road be
extended. It currently says that it needs to be extended with a public road out to Linder
Road, as well as stubbed to the north. The proposal shown here is a drive aisle, not a
public road and ACHD has concerns with the parallel parking, as well as the parking for
the office, that would be in what they are requiring to be a drive -- excuse me -- a public
road. I did receive -- in the staff report I have indicated that after we sent the applicant
the staff report, we received a revised site plan showing that that is a public road and
they have made some other changes to the -- to the site. One specifically is the
access point moved further south closer to the intersection and neither staff, nor a
highway district has had any opportunity to review that, so we are not sure how that
does or does not comply with any UDC sections or ACHD policies and I will say that
also regarding the landscaping, a 25 foot wide landscape buffer is required to be
constructed on both the frontages of Linder and Ustick Roads, which are considered
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 7 of 144
arterial roadways. The requirement to extend west cross -- Crosswind Road, which is,
again, this -- what is shown here as a drive aisle coming from the west and going to the
north. Require the applicant to sub divide the property. Additionally, the creation of a
public street in this area will split off an area of land so the applicant is proposing to
construct a dog park. This will require the applicant to place the dog park area in the
northwest corner of the site in a common lot. The applicant currently is not proposing a
preliminary plat, but with the creation of that road it would require the property to be
subdivided. Staff finds the proposed development is not consistent with the mixed use
community land use designation for several reasons. The proposed density for the
development is above the density range supplied by the Comprehensive Plan, which is
anywhere between six and 15 dwelling units per acre. The applicant is proposing that it
be 20. The development does not provide a mix of land use types as set forth as a
requirement in the mixed use designations of the Comprehensive Plan. As I said, we
received a revised site plan that neither the city, nor the highway district, has had any
opportunity to review and provide comments. I did receive a written -- written testimony
for a large number of folks this evening. Those are on the public record, instead of me
reading off for 20 minutes all of their names. Again, staff is recommending denial of the
project for those reasons I just indicated and I will stand for any questions you have.
McCarvel: Any questions for staff?
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: Josh, we don't have a picture of the proposed new site plan. I might be able
to -- I did not put it in the public record, because we have not --
Fitzgerald: We haven't seen it.
Beach: -- used that, but I -- while you're -- excuse me. While you're deliberately I
should be able to pull that up and show you what -- what they are showing.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you.
McCarvel: Any other questions for staff? Would the applicant like to come forward?
Putman: Madam Chair, Commissioners, my name is Jeremy Putman, representing
NeUdesign Architecture. Business address is 725 East 2nd Street, Meridian, Idaho.
And I would like to address a few of the comments that were listed in the staff report
and go forward from there and, then, later maybe address some of -- some things in the
staff report that could use some clarity and, then, stand for any questions you have at
the time. Just because you build it doesn't mean that they can get there. ACHD has
limited the access to this site by right-in, right-out access only on both Ustick and
Linder. The previous development agreement was hoping for commercial use, but with
businesses you don't thrive where access is limited. Commercial use is the wrong way
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 8 of 144
for this parcel. This parcel must become a destination, a part of the community, woven
into the fabric that fits within this intersection, the school that is north of the property, the
park system that is south and east of the property and also to the neighborhood
community that is a half a -- half a mile east. With staff -- staff's recommendation we
pursued the R-40 zoning -- rezone for this parcel. You can look at the -- that's seen in
the pre-app notes. The Comprehensive Plan -- the MUC indicates that R-40 is an
appropriate zone for the -- for the Comprehensive Plan and, yes, the MUC has a density
suggestion of six to 15 units per acre. The mixed use category in the Comprehensive
Plan also allows for additional density based on providing greater than five percent of
quasi-public space, outdoor gathering, or open space on the property. Page 28. The
staff report indicates that we have 36 percent open space and so with this we are
proposing additional density to this property of 20 units per acre. If under the -- or when
under the R-40 designation, we would still be -- we were not seeking to max out this --
this designation, we are trying to provide something -- a current zoning that harmonizes
with the future Comprehensive Plan, addressing some of these comments. The
Comprehensive Plan mixed use designation allows for higher density, as previously
stated, with the staff recommended R-40 zone -- rezoning request. The current zone
and development agreement has approved a single commercial use previously. The
past has shown that this, however, will not work due to limited access. Another concern
was the extension of the Crosswind Street through to Linder. The staff report page five.
And it is at odds with the ACHD report. Page seven of their report indicates that
Crosswind should be approved connecting to the property to the north as a public
street, which is what actually the -- the current site plan that was displayed shows.
However, ACHD did make recommendations to remove parallel parking from there and
parking that would back onto that public street in the new version, which we will take a
look more at that section in a moment -- has addressed that and just remove that and
made it purely a public street. The site amenities on this lot, which include a tot lot,
barbecue areas, several of them. The dog park and the 50-by-100 grass area. One
thing that was pointed out in the staff report is we were missing a quality of life amenity
and we propose to add covered bike storage for that to make that compliant. A staff
concern about traffic from the Windsong Subdivision is understandable and this site, as
-- as they are indicating, you know, would have access through our site to Linder, yet in
the next sentence in the report on page seven indicates -- so, there is -- there is
expressive concern, but, then, it's indicated that that road must go through. So, you
know, if there is a concern about traffic flow through this property, it seems inconsistent
to make the -- you know, make it both ways and per ACHD's suggestion on page seven
of their report, they approve the direction of Crosswind going north -- going to the north
property. I'm assuming that that has to do with access back out to Linder in a more
appropriate fashion for traffic to get from Windsong, which does have the current unbuilt
properties -- is connected with the subdivision to the north, which has access to Linder.
So, it appears that ACHD is currently routing traffic back north to where it could be an
appropriate right-left exit from -- onto Linder, not on our property, which is right only.
They have said that it needs to be a right only. This is a view of -- of the north end of
that site plan showing the street as it turns north. Same configuration as before. We
have removed the parallel parking, removed the parking stalls backing onto that public
street. We have jogged, per ACHD's request, so that there is not a, quote, unquote,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 9 of 144
straight shot through the site, which would help in reducing traffic speed and traffic --
even ability -- you know, desire to go through there. ACHD also requested to limit it to a
24 foot drive aisle, which we have provided. The mix of land uses, residential dwelling,
is one of the mixes that can be provided in the future Comprehensive Plan. We are
looking at and willing to provide a different -- a couple of types of residential units --
provide rental units and five percent for purchase condo ideas. Also with this public --
or with this acknowledgement of a plat being required to separate the northeast corner,
the dog park, from the property, because of the public way, we are willing to maybe
either have that dog park open to all or remove the fence and make it public open space
with a pavilion that people could enjoy from the Windsong community when it gets
developed and be an established part of the neighborhood. Additional thoughts. The
proposed development will bring an appropriate use to this part of Meridian supporting
the neighborhood community half a mile to the east. This will be a desirable destination
for families and professionals seeking to work in the area. Close access is noted in the
staff report for the Ten Mile area, which is growing rapidly. Traffic is a concern for sure
and in previous -- in the previous ACHD approval they calculated the commercial use to
this property would generate 2,000 trips per day, which can be seen in -- in AZ 09 -- or
in the -- unfortunately, I don't have the number in front of me. The previous approved
use. This proposal, according to ACHD, will only generate 552 trips, roughly one
quarter of the commercial use. We are looking at -- and here is a colorized version of
the -- of the current site plan that -- that Mr. Beach was referring to. These apartments
are going to be at or above market rate. These are not below rate market apartments.
They are upgraded finishes, architectural design, and increased open space. Here is a
contextual shot of the neighborhoods showing that it is within the similar vocabulary of
the neighborhoods around them and showing how they will mesh in with the community
and with that I welcome any questions.
McCarvel: Any questions for the applicant?
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: The original parking figure that we had on here was 200 spaces. With the
change in the plans is that -- has that number changed?
Putman: It has not.
Perreault: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault.
Perreault: The schematic that you had -- that you just showed us about two slides back,
that -- is that what was submitted to staff on the 13th?
Putman: This -- this configuration?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 10 of 144
Perreault: Yes.
Putman: Yes, it was.
Perreault: Okay. And so that just shows the entrance from Linder slightly farther south
than it was before?
Putman: Correct.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner.
Fitzgerald: Just clarifying. So, you have amenities, the tot lot, a barbecue, dog park,
and 50 by 100 field. The dog park in the 50 by 100 field are separate; correct?
Putman: Correct.
Fitzgerald: And the 50 by 100 field is one -- is the MEW in the middle. Is that what
I'm --
Putman: Correct. Yes.
Fitzgerald: Just wanted to make sure and clarify that. Thank you.
Putman: Yeah. There is the large space here in the middle. The tot lot is north of that,
along with another barbecue pavilion here located in the southwest corner and another
at the north end.
McCarvel: Thank you. Chris, do we have anybody signed up for public testimony?
Johnson: Madam Chair, we do. The first is Steven Lloyd.
McCarvel: Okay.
Lloyd: Good evening. Can you hear me?
McCarvel: Yes. And please state your name and address for the record.
Lloyd: Steven Lloyd. We are at 1370 West Ustick, which is Llama Lane. Most of you
are probably familiar with where the pumpkin field is within the last couple of years.
That's our property. So, I appreciate the opportunity to be here, Madam Chair and
Commissioners. I'm not here to oppose just to oppose anything, but I think before I talk
about that I think it's important to go backwards a little bit. My wife and I purchased our
property, four acres, which is landlocked behind eight acres in 2005 and we have raised
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 11 of 144
our family there and they went to school and it was wonderful. The first night we were
there my wife stood on the back patio and she -- she cried, because she couldn't
believe she got to live there and it -- and it's been an awesome place to live and now
that doesn't happen anymore, because when we look at our back patio now there is a --
I don't know how tall the cell phone tower is behind Sawtooth Middle School, but that
now blocks our view to Squaw Butte. So, we missed that meeting because we were --
we were away and we didn't even -- we didn't get the paperwork that said that that
meeting was going to take place and now when we -- in the mornings when we are
looking to our east, instead of seeing a sunset, about 70 feet away from our deck we
have two story Corey Barton homes that are backed up to our property to our east and
that's what we get to look at now when we look out to our east. It's not so bad that there
are two story, but in order to create that property they had to bring in 25,000 yards of fill
dirt and raise it up approximately six feet. When I look to my east I'm eye level with the
-- with the -- with the concrete on the -- on the home's patios behind me and what they
did is they -- in thinking about us and -- and our views and our quality of life there, they
build a four foot fence behind those houses for privacy. I look over the top of the fence
and can see the patios. Now when we look -- and is what I'm concerned about is we
are being surrounded. We have -- we are landlocked and we have this property in front
of us that I know is going to sell and Planning and Zoning and the City Council is going
to have to decide what they are going to put there and where does that leave us? Do
we want a three story apartment complex on the corner? No, we don't. We don't want
that much traffic. And in closing is what I would do is welcome anybody on the
Commission or the City Council or anybody that's opposing this or for it or whatever, to
drive down our 900 foot driveway where we are landlocked and stand on my front porch
and look to the east and the west and, then, go to the back and look to the north and,
then, look to the south and, then, make your decision on what you will do with some of
these properties that are coming up and I do very much appreciate your time.
McCarvel: Thank you.
Johnson: Next we have John Walsh.
Walsh: Good evening. My name is John Walsh. I live at 1859 West Quiet Peak Street
in the Watersong Subdivision, which is just a -- oh, about a -- about a fifth of a mile
north of where this development would be. I'm also on the HOA board. I don't think any
of the other members are here tonight. We have looked at this proposal and as a board
we are opposed to it for a number of reasons. First of all, the land right now under the
Comprehensive Plan is -- is light commercial. They, obviously, had a plan when they --
they designated that eight years ago. Now, they are reviewing the plan and I think it
would be inappropriate to rezone something while that plan is still being developed.
They may decide that they still want it as commercial. If you rezone it and then -- then
you have gone against what your -- your city planners are doing. Also, it's hard to tell
from that diagram, but it looks to me like there is a drive access from the back of that
proposed apartment complex into the Windsong future subdivision, which means that a
number of those people living there are not going to wait and do right-hand turns onto
Ustick or Linder, they are going to come through Windsong, through Watersong or
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 12 of 144
through Bridgetower to get out and make a left-hand turn, which just creates a lot more
traffic in our subdivision. It takes away from our -- our quality of -- quality of life. Plus
what the gentleman said earlier, three story buildings we get to look at, have more traffic
generated -- generated by it. It's just really inappropriate from our standpoint. Thank
you.
McCarvel: Thank you.
Johnson: Next is Carl Wibel.
Wibel: Good evening, Commissioners, Madam Chairman. My name is Carl Wibel. I
live at 3045 North Springtime Way, which is in the Tumble -- Tumble Creek Subdivision,
which is due south of this proposed project across Linder and Ustick. My request this
evening is just to provide some discussion items that I have met with some of my
neighbors to discuss this proposal by Buyrite Apartments. The first thing I want to
clarify that none of our neighbors or any members of the NIMBY or BANANA tribe and I
don't know if you're familiar with that, that's not in my backyard or build absolutely
nothing anywheres near anything. We are not that type of residents in the area. We do
believe that substantial growth in our community is ongoing and healthy, provided that
everyone sees the big picture as to the benefits for the community and its residents.
Again, once we got this notice through our HOA I went and met with my neighbors just
to make sure that they had received the notice via e-mail and I met with them, but I
didn't start the discussion on a negative standpoint, I wanted to make sure that they got
the proposal and they understood what was being proposed for the apartments and we
came up with some ideas that we understood. The area is currently zoned C-C, which
is used for retail, wholesale, service and ancillary offices and government offices.
Upgrade for Linder Road, as well as Ustick by ACHD in the next two to four years is
going to go from two to five lanes in both directions. So, there are some widening
projects already planned. Ingress and egress to the property would either be from
Linder Road southbound or from Ustick westbound from Linder. Again, limited ingress
and egress again, but maybe through a subdivision and I'm not sure how those people
would feel about that. The commuter traffic on weekdays, especially between the hours
of 6:00 and 9:00 and 4:00 to 6:00 p.m., as you must know, is heavy at that intersection
due to the schools, due to businesses. Again, this could add another 500 trips per day
to that area. It may not sound right and I question the 5,000 if there was some stores
there, but I will not question, I have not read that ACHD report that the gentleman
brought up. But everyone in our subdivision would like to see something that -- we were
excited about that C-C designation. We were excited thinking maybe a hair salon,
maybe a nail salon, dry cleaner, ice cream shop, a brew pub, maybe a couple of
restaurants there, something that would fit into the existing zoning of that area.
Something that would draw families there after work and maybe on weekends. What
we believe in as positive at this corner is what they call a walkable neighborhood
concept. When I worked economic development in a small community in northern
Arizona, we worked on this, trying to make it something where the community made it
walkable, someplace they could go to without having to drive, find a parking space, and,
then, drive home. This area already has those components in the area. We have
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 13 of 144
people, mixed use, we have parks in the area, pedestrian areas. There are schools in
the area. Streets that are designated for bicycles and pedestrians. We already meet
that. So, again, I'm asking for you people to take a look at that and, please, deny this
request for these apartments. Thank you.
McCarvel: Thank you.
Johnson: Next is Robin Brooks.
Brooks: Hi. My name is Robin Brooks. 2999 North Glenfield Way in the same
subdivision as the previous gentleman. We were both at the HOA meeting last week.
My concerns are mostly the density. Not that people shouldn't live there, but it's density
and I think that this plan is too dense and inappropriate for our immediate area.
McCarvel: Could you pull the -- I'm sorry, could you pull the mic closer to you.
Brooks: Sorry. It will lead to hugely increased traffic, air pollution, which we don't need,
noise, graffiti and increased pressure on public services. The -- the road problem near
me is already leading to road rage, speeding, and frustration. Trash collection. All
these people are dumping trash. What is that going to bring with it? Mice. Excuse me.
The lack of the ability of the paved land to absorb rain runoff is a big concern. It cannot
get into the water table to replenish it and if it does it may be contaminated with oil and
gasoline. Snow abatement is going to be a problem. There is no place for kids to play.
The property tax payments will probably be offset by paying far more for public services.
There is air pollution from dryers and just people living there that is all over the place.
The increased density will lower all our individual property values and the project I feel
is way too close to the school. We have our HOA meeting in that school. The traffic
getting in and out of there -- it's terrible. That poses a danger for students. Same kind
of congestion, noise, pollution and long-term effects on young people and the other
quality of life is our view of the mountains is obscured. There is too much lighting at
night. This will cause sleep deprivation and anxiety and we will forget who we are. And
a comment I would like to make is as I talked to more people who live here, they are
beginning to feel less safe. So, that's my comment and thank you for your time.
Appreciate it.
Johnson: Next up is Steve Arnold.
Arnold: Mr. Chairman -- or Madam Chairman, I apologize, Members of the
Commission, for the record my name is Steve Arnold. I'm with A Team Land
Consultants. 1785 Whisper Cover, Boise. 83709.
McCarvel: Just a -- Steve, just a -- Dean, can you hear him? Okay. Yeah. Pull that --
okay. There you go. Thank you.
Arnold: I'm not here to talk about the specifics, you will hear me talk next on the project
just across the road. I'm here to talk about the -- the use that is being proposed and I
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 14 of 144
met with the developer and client yesterday to go over our two projects. We have
looked at this property for -- it's probably been about five to seven years to purchase
and the problem with this commercial piece and -- you know, I think people know me
more as a design consultant. I have worked for several engineering firms, but they don't
put my name as a realtor. I hunt for dirt for developers and I hunt for dirt for commercial
projects. This piece of dirt, because of its severe access restrictions, it's not something
that any commercial use will go into. The -- the traffic that comes in and out of the site
of commercial use wants to see that they have got clear and direct traffic into their
development. The only reason that you're seeing this tonight redevelop is because the
developer beforehand couldn't make it work. That's the case that's going on across the
road as well and you will hear me pitch that next, but the other thing that I think the
Commission needs to hear is that the demand for that retail or commercial in that area
is not as high as the current demand for multi-family. Multi-family vacancy rates are
about 1.85 in Ada county. A normal vacancy rate is right around the four to five percent,
which is key to steady stream that keeps the rents at a containable amount. The
demand for the multi-family far exceeds the demand for that commercial and retail and,
frankly, that retail won't ever happen at that location, because ACHD has severely
restricted the access. So, I'm here to tell you from just the real estate standpoint that
doesn't function. I mean if -- if this P&Z commission doesn't approve the multi-family,
we have got to think about probably doing something completely different in retail or
commercial. So, I will leave that and I would stand for questions and I will see you next.
Thanks.
McCarvel: Thank you.
Johnson: Next Paul Gazhenko. I apologize if the name is incorrect.
Gazhenko: My name is Paul Gazhenko. 3696 North Sky Place -- Morning Sky Place.
We moved into the area just a few months ago and I did some deep research before we
chose the area we purchased our house in and a lot went into that research and the
school was one of the major factors. We have three kids. My oldest is in elementary
school and we had a hard time getting him into the school district that we purchased the
house in, because it's already overcrowded and so they diverted our son into Willow
Creek Elementary, because they had more space than this one here. Even though it
has lower ratings, we ended up going with that. We had no other choice. Not -- not to
mention that -- that we couldn't even get him on the bus, like we have to wait for two
months before we could finally have the bus driver pick him up and that happened just
recently, just two weeks ago. So, Hunter Elementary School is already overcrowded
and if we add more residents that's just going to create even a bigger jam in that school.
The other factor is traffic. We have Sawtooth Middle School right across from our
subdivision Watersong and the traffic gets very backed up there. I mean because not
only our subdivision is using that access, but also to exit onto Linder, but also the bigger
subdivision, the Bridgetower. And so traffic just -- it literally takes about four or five
minutes, sometimes eight minutes just to pull out of the subdivision during the morning
rush hour and if we add more residents to this area it's just going to create a bigger
traffic jam than we need, not -- not to mention safety, because we have a school right
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 15 of 144
there, middle school, and so kids are walking, biking to school. I mean we want safety
for all of that. I prefer just keeping that property as it's zoned and just add a pizza place
there, yeah, just small business that we could utilize, instead of driving all the way
towards Eagle Road, which is just insane traffic there. So, I would rather just have a
few businesses here locally, so we can walk to them just like someone already
mentioned. We already have bike lanes. We already have good walkways there. So, I
mean we could just take our kids and go for a walk and just visit one of these places,
maybe a restaurant, maybe just a small business that will hold a lot of other things for
the local residents. I think that would be much more beneficial than multi-family.
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you.
Johnson: Next is Chris Williams.
Williams: Good evening, everyone. My name is Chris Williams. 1762 West Canyon
Ranch Street in Meridian. 83646. I'm in the Watersong Subdivision, which is just north
to the proposed location that we are discussing. Number one, you know, my -- myself,
my family, we are against this project for a number of different reasons. Number one,
as many people mentioned before, the current zoning. The zoning is not for R-40, it's
not for apartment complexes. When we purchased our home there about six, seven
years ago we did our due diligence, we researched the areas, we researched the
schools, knew that eventually there was going to be, you know, probably some type of
commercial there, which we are completely fine with. I'm realizing that some people are
saying, including the applicant, that commercial doesn't make sense there. Maybe that
is the case, maybe that's not the case. I respectfully disagree with that. I think it does,
but regardless. Next traffic in there. As we know it's already heavy. They are talking
about, you know, pulling out to the northbound going through our subdivision,
Watersong Subdivision. If any of you guys have been there, please, come there in the
morning, come there after school in the evening, try going north out there. It's hard
enough for me as is and, then, we want to go ahead and stack on some more people in
there? It doesn't make sense, you know, on that. That, you know, number one, the City
of Meridian, they are currently reviewing the Comprehensive Plan, you know, this is
another item, excuse me, on number one. We shouldn't be making any changes until
this new Comprehensive Plan is done. Let's see what we come up with and go from
there. You know, the schools. You know, the gentleman who spoke before me, he
lives in the same subdivision I am. It's ridiculous that we buy a home in the subdivision
and our kids are actually in that subdivision for the school and they can't even go to the
school, because of the overcrowding and, then, we want to slap some more apartments
in? It's just making the problem worse. It's ridiculous even to consider it. You know,
the apartments, especially three story apartments, it's going to give zero privacy to the
development behind it once that gets developed. You know, our HOA has been in
contact with the owner of the property. You know, we have a decent idea of what's
going on, you know, with that. It will be developed soon. Let's see what else do we
get? Oh. And also, you know, it was probably about six slides back. The applicant put
up how their proposal is going to look in the area. On all corners, for the most part, we
have single family homes. Single family homes. Single family homes. I realized there
is an application there for townhouses across the street. Single family homes in the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 16 of 144
other subdivision. To throw in an apartment complex in there it just doesn't make
sense. You know, again, so I'm just -- you know, I kindly ask that you guys do
recommend denial of this application and that's where I stand with that.
McCarvel: Thank you.
Williams: Thank you.
McCarvel: And before we move on with public testimony I would like the record to
reflect that Commissioner Holland is present.
Johnson: Thank you, Madam Chair. Next we have Miquelle Crosland.
Crosland: Madam Chair and Commissioners, my name is Miquelle Crosland. 2217
West Windchime in the Bridgetower Subdivision. You can see my house -- Windchime
is the second pod up, just left of the property in question. My kids asked me to come
tonight, to be one of those weird people, because I have brought them for years for
scout meetings -- to be one of those weird people to fight an issue and so I'm -- I'm here
on behalf of my children. I would like to contend that this is not the best use of the
property -- property that Buyrite Apartments is claiming that apartments is the best use.
Maybe multi-use isn't also best zoned for -- for this property. We could have a five acre
Papa John's and that would be the best use, because we would all support it. If we
have 96 more apartments that means 192 more cars on that intersection. That
intersection looks decent, because we have a right turn lane on -- on all four sides, but
really those roads are one lane roads. We cannot handle 200 more cars on those
roads. The accidents between -- I'm talking about Linder between Ustick and McMillan,
we have fewer car accidents than you do from McMillan to Chinden, that the amount of
car accidents you have, because of the extra townhouses, the apartments and the high
school drivers, please, don't do that to our children. Please don't make our kids a
Meridian statistic. When -- those of us who live in Watersong or Bridgetower or
Sawtooth Creek, the other communities around, we can never turn left. We always
have to go out of our neighborhood -- no, I -- no, I need to go this way, because I can
only turn right, because turning left on those one lane roads that are already
overcrowded is impossible. The only time we can turn left out of our neighborhood is if
we go out of Water -- out to Watersong and have -- if I'm blessed to have a kid in the car
with me, I have him push the pedestrian button and, then, we can turn left out of our
neighborhood. People have already mentioned overcrowded schools, that's a serious
problem and roughly we are going to have at least a hundred more kids in these 96
apartments. I would like to contend with Buyrite's point that he says that families and
professionals would be seeking to live -- to work in this area would love to live here. My
husband and I are both professionals and we would not seek to live in a three story
apartment surrounded by homes. I appreciate your time. I'm grateful for everyone who
has come here tonight, whether they are for or against. I -- because we are all here for
things that are important to us and I just ask that you each remember the children.
Thank you.
McCarvel: Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 17 of 144
Johnson: Madam Chair, the last sign in is David Manning.
McCarvel: Okay.
Manning: Good evening. My name is Dave Manning. I live in the Tumble Creek
Subdivision. 3076 North Springtime Way. My wife and I bought a house in there about
a year ago. We have lived in Meridian for the last 20 years and I'm a local Boise kid
growing up and when I was small we lived on Eagle Road. We had 20 acres where the
Papa John's is now and, yes, I'm mad at my dad for selling that, because we could have
all retired. But the reality is is Meridian was a small town. Meridian is no longer a small
town. But it has been a bedroom community where the employment is outside of
Meridian. The reason we have so much traffic is there is not a lot of local jobs, not a lot
of local businesses, and what I have seen recently is an increase in the subdivisions,
shopping malls that are being developed. There is, you know, obviously, the big stuff
down Eagle Road, but what I'm looking for is to make it a more livable environment, like
was brought up earlier. If we could have restaurants, ice cream places, dry cleaners,
we would have employment for local needs, we would have entertainment for local
needs. I do believe that would enhance our quality of life tremendously. In the
neighborhood that I live in now there is a bunch of great people, we get together on an
ongoing basis and to be able to walk across the street to go enjoy dinner would be --
that would be a blessing. I also think that the traffic -- we are going to get traffic either
way. The reality is is when these streets get turned into five lanes in the next few years,
which is going to be great for traffic flow, we will even have less ability to pull out and
turn left or right across any lanes of traffic, because right now you have to dodge traffic
in -- in one lane each way and pretty -- pretty soon it will be two lanes and it's very very
busy. I can cut it off. Today you guys have heard a lot of good reasons to deny this
project and I hope that you listen and take it into account when you make your
decisions.
McCarvel: Thank you. Okay. And with nobody else signed up to testify on this
application, is there anybody else in the room that would like to at this time? Yes, sir.
Evans: My name is Richard Evans. I live at 9560 West Pebblebrook Lane in Garden
City. I am involved in this project. I will be supervising the construction of the project
and I want you to know that I have done many projects in Meridian. Strata Bellissima,
South Stone, we have done other projects. Sagewood office. I did Riverside Village
down in Garden City. I want you to know this is going to be a quality project. You are
going to get traffic -- as soon as this ground gets used for any purpose there is going to
be more traffic. I'm a good neighbor builder. We take into consideration the neighbors.
Part of our design on these buildings were full hip roofs. We are putting the air
conditioners up in the roof where they can't be seen or heard, which reduces the roof
height to below residential standards, which will be below 35 feet. Residential is 35
feet. We are interested in doing a higher level apartment than a lower level apartment.
Our rents are going to be in excess of a thousand dollars for the smallest units and they
could be as high as 1,300 by the time the project gets finished for the larger units. We
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 18 of 144
have tried to design this so that the actual tenant is off the road and has quality of life
themselves. We have backed the buildings up to each other, so that they look on to a
park area and not out onto some highway or street somewhere. Much of the growth in
Meridian is from Meridian residents. They are not all coming from out of town. And so
our children are going to be living in apartments and that's just the way it is. So, with
that I would take any questions if you have any.
McCarvel: Thank you.
Evans: Thank you.
McCarvel: Was there anyone else that wanted to testify on this? Yeah. Hold on.
Okay. Go ahead.
Neal: Good evening, Commission. My name is Jack Neal. I live at 3101 North
Marburg in Tumble Creek Subdivision. I am the president -- the HOA president there in
that subdivision. I have been on the board for eight years. Lived in the subdivision for
ten years. Didn't come equipped with a lot of research and a lot of facts. Came
equipped with some history and also some observation that if that is a commercial use
property, traffic flow on Linder and Ustick will not increase from that. Now, there may be
traffic flow into that commercial property, but there won't be any increase in traffic. No
one will be living there. So, I disagree with the fact that a commercial use will increase
traffic. But what I really want to say is that our subdivision there on the corner of Tumblr
Creek -- I'm familiar with the Bridgetower Subdivision and know the folks on the board
there. I love my subdivision. Absolutely love my subdivision. It is a diamond in the
rough. You drive through that subdivision, they are not extremely expensive homes,
they are probably middle range homes, but they all look wonderful. I think people love
living in that subdivision. I can tell you about the financials of the HOA and that is that
we have very, very few people that don't pay their dues. We have very few rentals,
although there are rentals allowed in there, but I personally can't think of anything good
about putting apartments on either one of those corners, particularly on that corner right
across from our subdivision. I hate to be, again, one of those people that opposes to
just to oppose, but I love my subdivision, hate to see that happening. Thanks for your
time.
McCarvel: Thank you.
Reynolds: Madam Chair, Commissioners, my name is Greg Reynolds. 1166 West
Bacall Street in Meridian. I appreciate you letting me come up. I didn't intend to speak
on this tonight, but as I was sitting there a couple thoughts came. If you will forgive me
if I can grab the mouse here. Let's take a little road trip up here and if you notice this
corner right here looks a lot like the other corner. There is a small business there.
There is some other businesses that are coming -- coming in. They have proven very
successful. They get traffic. They get traffic from the neighborhood. They get traffic
from the school. They get traffic -- traffic from people going by. So, I don't know that I
agree with the statements. I think when the developer says that it won't work, what they
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 19 of 144
mean is they can't get as much money for this as they could for a big set of apartments
and at this time I'm definitely opposed to any step ups at this time. You will hear I think
all night the common theme that people are opposed to these large apartment
complexes popping up. I think it's going to go on and on tonight as you hear all these
different applications and especially as we are reworking the Comprehensive Plan step
ups at this time are inappropriate I feel. So, I hope you will take that in consideration
and I hope you look here at this corner and notice that the same situation applies and it
can work. Thank you. I will stand for any questions. Thank you.
McCarvel: Thank you. Okay. If there is no more public testimony, would the applicant
like to come back.
Putman: Madam Chair and Commissioners, do want to just speak to some of the things
that have been said and looking at this in -- would it be possible to bring up my
PowerPoint again? Sorry. Looking at this development, there is a lot of single family
residents in the area, specifically around that corner. Thank you very much. The -- the
proposed development would help bring a mix of uses into this area that desperately
needs it. It's either, you know, agricultural land, vacant, derelict land or single family
residences. We are trying to bring some more density into the area, which ACHD's
traffic trip generation shows would be less than commercial. It would also, with that
increased density, these two roads are slated for public transit, but public transit isn't
triggered until the density is there to support it and so with the development that's going
along Ustick, looking a half a mile to the east with that neighborhood community that
started there, there are some small shops, a gas station, restaurant, coffee shop that is
near this and business and development need to go -- or residences need to go hand in
hand. If we are trying to make these walkable areas, then, we need the density of
people and -- and a good mix of business for showing -- this development is fairly close
to the -- the commercial neighborhood community that's -- that's close to there. Also a
couple of comments. The commercial zone that this property is currently also allows for
multi-family. It was a staff recommendation that we pursue R-40 and showing that it -- it
goes hand in hand well with the density that's allowed in mixed use. So, whether in the
commercial zone, multi-family is a possibility on this property and both multi -- C-C and
R-40 are acceptable zones for the mixed use community Comprehensive Plan as well.
So, I don't want to stand up and firmly say it's inevitable, but the city's long-term plan for
these -- these parcels around this intersection have been there and the possibilities for
multi-family for commercial development have always existed. So, it's -- we are not
asking for something new, we are just asking for a -- a zone that more humanizes with
the mixed use community. Also regarding the types of persons that are looking to live --
live in apartment uses. These are the people that can't purchase single family
residences. It gives them an opportunity to be in and a part of a community and if so
desired we can talk about having some of these available for -- for -- for purchase, to
get someone into something that they own and can start to build investment in and work
on that nest egg for the future. Young professionals are the ones that are in the
apartments. The young professionals don't typically have children. If they do they are
young, they are not, you know, a strain on the current school situation. So, just kind of
looking at the demographic that -- that would be in this area, they are more mobile, they
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 20 of 144
would be, you know, taking a run down to the coffee shop. Hopping on their bike, going
to the park down at Settlers Park, get on the tennis court or the ball fields and run back.
So, this development -- this -- this destination would address some of those needs to
bring life and vibrancy to this corner and to this part of the community. Also looking at
this aerial, density of the proposed lot has more open space than single family residents
around. Looking at those areas also we see is -- is just house, house, house. Here
we have got onsite public park, public open space for the people, the children of the
area. Looking at the -- the site plan, the tot lot for the children is on the interior of the
property. We want to make sure that the kids don't -- all of the kids don't have to cross
the street to get to a public green space, so a majority of those will be in here. So, we
are trying to create a small community, a tighter knit community, that fits within this
fabric of Meridian. With that I can stand for any questions.
McCarvel: Okay. Any questions for the applicant?
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: Jeremy, I have got a question for one -- one of the -- I guess point number
one on the staff report for their -- with their concerns was that the density range, even
though it's -- the zoning says R-40 is acceptable. The density range of that is actually
six to 15 units per acre. So, when -- when that conversation was going on that's my
question for you is did -- do you have an alternative to this project for a lower density
based on those numbers?
Putman: And Madam Chair and Commissioner Cassinelli, the density range, you are
correct, in -- in -- in the MUC zone is -- is a suggestion of six to 15. There are ways for
-- what is it? For increase of density with that open space, which is what we have
provided here and what we are asking for and we are not asking to max out the density
that we could possibly go with the R-40, we are asking for an R-20. Does that -- so, we
are trying to work within the rules and the give and take that is a part of this process
with the Planning and Zoning Department and the community.
Perreault: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault.
Perreault: You had mentioned on your slides that in the past this has shown that it
won't work as single use commercial. Can you -- is there a specific instance that you're
referring to? Are you --
Putman: Sure.
Perreault: Can you clarify that?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 21 of 144
Putman: I can provide -- I don't have it with me. There was a plan put forth a couple of
years back -- soon after the approved proposal of the single use commercial for -- that
showed a 45,000 square foot single box store type idea and, then, also another
development that had gas station, coffee shop, totaling, again, about to 45,000 square
feet, which is where ACHD came up with the trips generated of 2,000 trips per day for
commercial use. Since then, since the approval and since that plan has gone out to
market, this property has since -- sat vacant for eight, nine years. When eligible
purchasers are taking a look at this and they see the restrictions that are placed on it,
they realize that it -- it's a burden for any small business, you know, that -- the mantra of
business is location, location, location. If you can't get people to your store and they
have a hard time getting out, then, they are not going to want to go back.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: So, I guess -- this is probably not directly to you, but the challenge I have is
a mile down the street at Ten Mile and Ustick the same -- you have a right-in, right-out
and a very difficult intersection with a Maverick on the corner. So, I'm confused on why
there can't be commercial use there, because it -- it seems to me that there is a similar
corner with a similar difficult setup with a right-in, right-out access and you're saying that
it's not -- I -- maybe this is not the right time for that corner, I'm just --
Putman: Yeah.
Fitzgerald: -- I don't think the access thing -- to me doesn't jive. So, I'm just -- any
feedback you want to -- because that's where my mind goes.
Putman: Yeah. I appreciate that and that's a good -- that is a good comparable and
potentially the issue with why that corner developed and this one did not is because that
corner has a lot more trips than Linder and Ustick does. ACHD, excuse me, in their
report shows, you know, generally how many trips are actually on that -- on those roads
in that area and so from a commercial standpoint, sure, if I have got, for example, a
thousand trips on this corner of Ustick and Linder, but I have got 2,500 at the corner of
Ustick and Ten Mile, where am I going to put my dollars? I'm going to put it to where
the more traffic is. So, that would -- could be a reason why that developed over this
particular corner.
Fitzgerald: I think you would agree that they are similar in right-in, right-out access
point --
Putman: Yeah. I completely agree.
Fitzgerald: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 22 of 144
Putman: And also just for the record, I'm a president of my HOA, the one that I live in
and we do have apartments in -- in our area. It is a challenge. We recognize that. It's -
- it's hard, but we need to -- if we want to be a vibrant community we need to be one
that welcomes people in in a -- in a very controlled manner and I think that this and the
development -- proposed development to the east would bring a mix of uses into this
area that would spark more interest and more, you know, ability to bring in those small
businesses and coffee shops.
McCarvel: Okay. Anybody else? Okay. Thank you.
Putman: Thank you.
McCarvel: So, at this time could I get a motion to close the public hearing on H-2018-
0096?
Cassinelli: So moved.
Perreault: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2018-
0096. All those in favor say aye. Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT.
McCarvel: Okay. I just got to start with, number one, we are not even looking at the
plan of this. Staff hasn't even had a chance to look at the final plan of what's just been
proposed, but even with that being said, I guess I'm not real inclined to change the zone
up to an R-40 on this corner. I just -- I mean a project that comes in and asks for that
kind of density I would want to see I guess more amenities than just some open space
and I -- I just -- I'm not seeing it for this. It needs a conditional use permit. Granted, it
could be higher density in the mixed use, but it needs a conditional use permit for a
reason. It needs to take a look at each individual situation and I just don't see this
corner being an R-40 and I agree -- I was thinking the exact same thing on the right-out,
I was thinking -- I mean there is several gas stations on right-in, right-out corners. I can
think of all over the place that make it just fine and I think we hear from the residents
around there -- I mean they are begging for some sort of restaurant or, you know, some
gathering place to be there and I think that zone on this corner is a good zone.
Perreault: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault.
Perreault: I completely agree and Commissioner Fitzgerald had stated -- or had talked
about Maverick. You know, Linder is going to widen next year -- not next year -- in a
few years that section is going to widen and it's going to be five lanes and we don't
know how the traffic counts are going to change then. They may be more comparable
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 23 of 144
to Ten Mile and in that case, you know, we want to take that into consideration as to
what's going to go there. It's not all that far out. So, I don't think that putting -- I mean
it's not a large piece and I don't think that putting commercial in there is going to
increase the traffic more than a 96 unit development, so at this time I don't -- I don't see
that as the best use for that location.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Mr. Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: Well, there is a couple things at play. One I -- not having the staff fully have
all the facts in front of them in regards to what the traffic access is going to look like,
how we evaluate them from a city perspective, it's hard for us to make a decision that
we can recommend either way to the city -- or the City Council, but I -- I tend to agree
with both of your -- my chair and Commissioner Perreault's comments. I -- and there is
-- where -- I live in north Meridian and I want -- I want a PF Chang's or I want a -- I want
a bigger restaurant. I want something out there that -- I'm tired of eating pizza. So, I'm
looking for other places where we can put commercial and -- and we talk about, you
know, lack of commercial, lack of industrial -- obviously, we aren't going to put industrial
there, but as we take away our fields that were -- used to be there and turn it into
houses and those kinds of things, we have to have services for folks that are living out
there and so -- and I -- I'm a fan of density on hard corners, but I'm not sure this density
works there. So, that's my initial take.
Cassinelli: On to me?
McCarvel: Moving on down the road.
Cassinelli: Well, I'm -- I -- I'm in agreement with -- with what -- where staff is at and one
of the -- in looking at the -- if you look at MUC, it is clear that it's six to 15 units per acre
and we are not -- we are not there. Now, could we look at something that's -- that is in
line with those numbers? Possibly, but we are -- you know, we are -- we are blowing
those out of the water. There are so many issues -- I mean all over the city right now,
but I think in this -- in this part of town in particular, the school situation, even though,
you know, we are -- essentially we are removed from -- from West Ada and we are not
making decisions based on that, but we want a livable city, not just today, but in ten and
20 and 30 years we want a city that's livable and if -- if the schools are overcrowded and
-- and schools suffer it's not going to be a livable community anymore. High density --
apartments, high density, are necessary and we have approved a lot over the last 18
plus months in particular areas where they fit. I can think just up the road we actually
denied a potential high density development just to the north of Rocky. The applicant
came back with -- with a perfect commercial fit that everybody was happy with. The
developer was happy with it. The -- the -- the residents around it -- everybody was
happy with it and it worked. I think that -- that something can be designed in that -- and
developed in that corner that can work for everybody and make everybody happy. So,
at this point I'm definitely on board with -- with staff's recommendation and -- and, again,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 24 of 144
the fact that we haven't even seen the -- the adjusted plan, I can't -- personally I can't go
forward with any other but -- other than a denial.
Holland: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Holland.
Holland: Last, but not least, I tend to agree with one of the other comments that were
made on the Commission tonight. I -- I'm not opposed to multi-family projects where
they make sense. I think it's -- it's good to have a variety of housing types. Everybody's
got different situations of kind of where they are at and what their housing needs are.
This corner is a tough piece. Six acres is not a lot to work with to put in a multi-family
project and I certainly understand where -- where they were coming from on -- on some
of the ideas here. I like that they put kind of the green space in the middle of -- of the
apartment complex, but I just think for some of the same reasons you all mentioned, as
well as what staff's mentioned, I see enough concerns that -- specifically number three
of what the staff mentioned that they received a revised site plan on November 13th,
that hasn't given enough time for understanding some of those changes and there is not
a great mix of land type -- land use types and proposed density being above what's
recommended in the Comprehensive Plan that I think there is enough reasons. I don't
know that this is a perfect fit for that site.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: To -- to expand upon what Commissioner Holland said, I think, you know, if
you look at the broader sense of that area on Ustick, there is a real -- again, for mixed
use community from the comp plan -- and that corner does not have anything as of right
now. There is nothing there. There is a mile to the east and a mile to the west, but
there are a lot of houses -- rooftops in that area that might -- as many of the neighbors
have talked about this evening that have somewhere to walk, to go get ice cream or go
get -- and so that mixed use community for that corner was the reason for that zone
there and so -- and I know we were in the middle of a Comprehensive Plan change, but,
still, we have -- our job is to stay within the Comprehensive Plan. We have -- or try to
adhere to that and so that -- for that reason -- I mean I think we have to take a little
closer look at this.
Perreault: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault.
Perreault: I do want to say, though, I think that -- I don't think this is a great fit for that
location, but I think it is a well designed --
Fitzgerald: Absolutely.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 25 of 144
Perreault: The renderings are really very, very nice. And I think that at least from what
we have seen that it -- it looks like it's well designed within itself and the buildings are,
you know, have a great look to them. So, I just want to put that out there, because it's
-- for me it is not the actual design of -- of that development, it's the location concern.
McCarvel: Yeah.
Fitzgerald: Absolutely agree. Because I think the -- there has been a lot of thought to
them not living to the street and those kind of -- and having space in the middle where
kids can play. I think that it's great. It's -- it's just a tough -- tough corner.
McCarvel: Okay. With that would somebody like to make a motion?
Perreault: Madam Chair. So, with the other Commissioners stating that the staff hasn't
had an opportunity to -- to review those changes in detail, are you suggesting that we
continue it until they do that or --
McCarvel: I -- I think, honestly, we have -- we are all kind of in agreement that the R-40
isn't going to work anyway. I mean we are not inclined to make that, so I think we just
move forward with the other one.
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
recommend denial of file number H-2018-0096 as presented on the hearing date of
November -- November -- what date are we? It says the 1st.
McCarvel: 15th.
Cassinelli: 15th today. In 2018. For the following reasons that I will give. That staff
has declared that it doesn't meet the density range of 60-15 units. Does not provide a
mix -- a proper mix of land use types as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and also
that we have not seen that they -- there -- there have been adjustments that have not
been brought forth at this time.
Perreault: Second that motion.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to recommend denial of H-2018-0096. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion to deny passes.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 26 of 144
C. Public Hearing for Alpina Townhouse Subdivision (H-2018-
0090) by A Team Consultants, Located NE of W. Ustick Rd. and
N. Linder Rd.
1. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 15 multi-family
building lots and 7 common lots on 3.99 acres; and
2. Request: Conditional Use Permit For a multi-family
development consisting of 60 multi-family residential units
within 15 multi-family structures on 3.99 acres of land in an
existing C-C zoning district; and
3. Request: Modification of an Existing Development
Agreement to change an existing development agreement to
change the
previously approved concept plan with a new concept plan
McCarvel: Moving on. We will open the public hearing for H-2018-0090, Alpina
Townhouse Subdivision and we will begin with the staff report.
Beach: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, we didn't move far. This is an
application for a preliminary plat, a conditional use permit for multi-family and for a
development agreement modification. This site is approximately 3.99 acres of land. As
the corner next door, it's also zoned C-C. It's located on the northeast corner of north
Linder and West Ustick Roads. This property was annexed in 2014 as the Sugarman
Subdivision. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for this one is,
again, mixed use community. The applicant is requesting as a preliminary plat,
development agreement modification and a conditional use permit, in this case for 60
dwelling units. Overall gross density of this project is 15 gross dwelling units per acre
and 20 net. So, it's a little bit lighter density than the corner that we just spoke about.
Are similar concerns. Access to this site proposed from, again, from Ustick and from
Linder Road. ACHD has limited the access to right-in, right-out only. Staff has
concerns that the applicant is not providing cross-access to either the parcel to the north
or to the east and which is a requirement of the mixed use community Comprehensive
Plan designation. Per 11-3-C-6 of the UDC, parking for multi-family uses is based on
the number of bedrooms. In this case each unit contains two to three bedrooms, which
requires two parking spaces per unit. One in a covered space. Based on the number of
units, which is 60, the applicant is required to provide 120 parking spaces with 60
covered. The applicant is exceeding that. The applicant is proposing 143 parking
spaces. Landscape buffers are required along Linder and Ustick Road of a -- 25 foot
wide with trees, shrubs, and ground cover. Going back to kind of some of the similar
reasons why the -- the northwest corner -- staff is recommending approval of that. We
are similarly recommending denial of this project. The proposal does not comply with
requirements of the mixed use community designation, because the property -- the
density is between that range and the applicant's got some more specific numbers they
can provide with us as to what the actual density is. The proposal does not provide a
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 27 of 144
mix of land use types. In order to comply with the mixed use community designation --
the project doesn't integrate with the surrounding area. There is no pedestrian or
vehicle connect -- connectivity proposed between this corner property and the
properties to the north -- or to the east. Staff feels that the current proposal for the
property is superior than the one being shown this evening. Did receive written
testimony from Dave Manning and, again, the landscape plan -- the applicant is actually
showing some innovative amenities. A dog park shown here on the east side, as well
as a putting green in the center. The landscape planning provided here. This is the
previous concept plan that was approved back in 2014. Again, this -- this plan is
actually showing cross-access to at least the north, but it was commercial in nature with
a drive-thru in the center and a gas station on the hard corner that would provide some
neighborhood businesses for the -- the surrounding area. With that I will stand for any
questions you have.
Perreault: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault.
Perreault: Josh, do we know why that commercial subdivision didn't continue in 2014?
Beach: So, I guess to clarify my question. I don't know why it wasn't built, but this is --
this is from the existing development agreement, the concept plan that was approved
and this is the one that we have on the books right now as to what should be
constructed there.
Perreault: Thank you.
Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I can -- I can let you know the
developer at the time just speculated as to what he wanted to develop the property. He
was from California doing some land speculation and nothing came to fruition. We did
several time extensions on this particular subdivision to keep the plat going. In
conversations with the previous owner he did not wish to do the improvements in order
to record that subdivision. So, he's let that expire, but the development agreement still
remains in place and as Josh informed you, this is the concept plan that is attached to
that contract between the previous developer and the city.
McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions?
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: Josh, in regards to cross-access -- or does that not -- if we were to move
forward with the conditional use permit -- with development agreement modification, is
there -- just to clarify it, are we requiring cross-access to the north and to the east?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 28 of 144
Beach: Mixed use community designation should require that, so that -- that's one of
the reasons why we are not in favor of it. Obviously, as I said, this concept plan here --
again, it's a -- it's a concept plan so something can change a little bit, but they are
showing at least a cross-access to the north. Staff's -- staff's feeling is that, you know,
even though this is actually the only parcel that is showing the mixed use community
designation, the idea is to provide that connectivity and get folks from the surrounding
neighborhoods to that proposed commercial development neighborhood serving
commercial, so that you don't have to drive out onto the arterial roads and get back in
through a drive access, you can get there through the -- through a street accessible for -
- for -- for a cross access. We have met with -- this isn't super applicable to this
application, but there is interest in developing in the area. We have met with the
developer on this piece and they are wanting to do some multi-family and single family
development there, too. So, we need some commercial in the area to -- and it functions
a lot better if you don't have to increase the traffic on the arterial roads to get -- to get to
those neighborhood serving businesses.
Fitzgerald: Thank you.
McCarvel: Any other questions for staff? Would the applicant like to come forward?
Arnold: Madam Chairman, Members of the Commission, for the record, it's Steve
Arnold with A Team Land Consultants, 1785 Whisper Cove, Boise. 83709. Can I just
click on one of these? Can you pull up the color one?
Beach: Which one, Steve?
Arnold: The color rendering. So, to give you an idea of a little bit of history on the site,
as you know, it was approved as Sugarman Subdivision. It was approved with over I
think five, six thousand square foot of commercial type use. This is in the MUC mixed
use zoning district. The applicant -- or we are not asking for a rezone, the use that is
proposed in this zone is an allowed use within that zone. We did -- we did hold a
neighborhood meeting and since that neighborhood meeting we didn't meet with the
property owner -- or the representative for the property owner to the north and it was
always our intention -- and maybe I'm just not clear, but we were always granting cross-
access to the north and cross-access to the east. We have got a drive aisle there up at
the front right off of Linder that we are showing a cross-access to and, then, we have
got another cross-access to -- off of the east at the end of our other drive aisle. So, the
intent is to do the cross-access. We did submit this originally with either an office or a
commercial use right off of Linder as you enter the site. Right now we -- we have met
with staff at that time and they suggested they didn't like the way it integrated at that
point, so they suggested that we try to provide three different types of multi-family units.
So, we came back and you have this drawing in front of you. What we have got is a
duplex, six-plex, and the other units are all a pinwheel type four-plex, similar to what we
did at Timber Grove, at Shallow Creek, and Stone's Throw. Those are all the City of
Meridian projects. It's the building type that we will be putting in this project. I will go
into those buildings here in a little bit. To go into some of the site design and the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 29 of 144
consideration, you know, we did provide the required landscape buffers along both
Ustick and Linder, with an excess. Total landscape common area is about .96 or .97
acres. Our density calculation is exactly at 15 units per acre. This pinwheel type design
-- again, we will get into building type, but it doesn't yield high density. It's kind of a
medium density type product type. Like I said, we have it behind Dick's and Kohl's.
Ironically that project was also in the MUC -- or M -- mixed used zoning district. In that
product type we just did the single type of product. If it's the direction of the Planning
Commission tonight, I can blow out that duplex -- it looks like we blew it out. And the
duplex can become our commercial use there. I did reserved parking for it. This
parking right off -- not sure if you can see it, but the parking right up here was reserved
for commercial use. Like I said, it was the direction. We kind of were here nor there
with the commercial or not, so we took staff's direction and we did three different
residential types, but we can take -- change that and put that as commercial. We also
are opposed to -- we could take our six-plex or even these four-plexes and plat them
individually on their own land and those can be used to sell and that would be
something that we would consider if that's the direction of the Commission to try to get
more diversity in here. As staff brought up we did provide additional parking. A lot of
that was for the commercial building, so we had additional there, but if it -- for the duplex
we don't need as much, but I think it would be adequate still if we did that commercial
use. Again, cross-access we are providing to the north and east. We have got
pathways and we got pathways along Linder and Ustick. We have done micropaths to
the north of this -- the development. Since we have read through staff's comments and
they had some concerns with the type of amenities that we proposed, I -- in this color
rendering I added a community garden here in the center area and, then, we still have
the putting green and, then, I added a couple of plazas here, one of which I was
considering adding some art -- you know, the public art as an amenity. I'm not very
artistic, so I would have to defer that, but I would reserve a space and, then, figure it out
later. There has been -- well, the -- going to the buildings. This building we have done
and I have got pictures of those that I could show the Commission if they would like to
see those. We have done a lot of these building types. They are 28 foot high pinwheel
design, where each of the sides of the buildings is an entrance into the site where the
tenant actually feels kind of a private use and in these type of buildings I can also plat
them right down the common lot lines and I could sell off the individual units and we are
considering that and if the Commission gives us that direction, we can add that as a
condition as well. The buildings have multiple texture types, a lot of hips and valleys.
They are very architectural pleasing. In the past both Commission and Council has
been very receiving of our buildings that we have done. The -- again, if it's the direction
of the Council -- or Commission tonight, I can blow out the duplex there at the east, kind
of the way we originally planned, and we could put the commercial use there. One
discussion tonight has been a lot about the traffic. One of my previous jobs was a traffic
planner at ACHD. ACHD has written a report for this site for the Sugarman Sub. It was
4,000 trips a day based on those commercial uses. Whether it developed commercial
or not, they have generated a trip generation for ours and they have approved our site
plan at over -- we are at like 439 trips per day. So, the generation -- you know, there
has been a lot of concern tonight about trip generation, but the actual trip generation of
what was previously approved is greatly lessoned by what we are proposing. The
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 30 of 144
recommendation tonight for the denial is basically based on, one, that the MUC
designation requires that we come in with three land use types and as -- as the -- your
MU -- within your comp plan it talks to the fact that a mixed use project should include at
least three types of uses, except maybe grant -- exceptions may be granted for smaller
sites on a case-by-case basis. I'm assuming that was done on Sugarman, because
also in the Comprehensive Plan it calls for a minimum within the MU designation, a
minimum of 20 percent residential use. In the previous Sugarman Subdivision there
was no residential uses. What the staff report said is that we assume that there is going
to be residential uses outside of that particular development, but the way the code reads
is that the mixed use designation for that parcel has to provide a minimum of 20
percent. So, I'm assuming that the Commission and the Council granted that exception
for this parcel based on the previous action and no residential uses on this
development. One of the other things that the staff has recommended denial is
because that the density was too high and as you can see tonight we are at 15 units per
acre. You take the 3.99, you divide it by 60. That's exactly 15 units per acre. I think
part of that confusion was me giving them information on taking things out and moving
around, but if I do the commercial as suggested, I will even be lower density overall for
the entire site. So, the other was that we were not providing the correct mixed use.
Based on the comp plan we are asking that if you do not envision that we are providing
those mixed uses tonight, that for this small of a parcel that you grant that exception and
recommend approval to the Council, because I'm assuming that's what was done
previously on this site when there was no residential uses proposed. Another reason
that it was recommended for denial was that we were not -- the project didn't integrate
with surrounding areas. There was no pedestrian connection, there was no cross-
access, and that must have been a confusion on my part, relaying that to staff, because
we are providing it to the north right off of our drive aisle on Linder. We have met with
the developer or the representative, the person of the property north of us and that was
acceptable to them. They are here tonight to discuss that as well. We are providing a
center micro path that can be extended to the development when that develops to the
north. We are also providing the cross-access to the east off of our drive aisle. So, I
believe that with those that means that condition of being integrated. The other was
that staff felt that this project had -- was not as high of a quality as the previous one and
if you can, Josh, can you pull up the comparison slide that I had. So, as you can see
when you compare the two developments, just with what we are proposing in our
amenities, you know, we are providing a significant amount of amenities for the property
that wasn't provided by the previous site plan. We believe that the previous site plan,
although it -- it functioned as commercial, it was basically mainly asphalt. What we are
proposing is several amenities for the development that will actually aid and enhance
the area. If we blow out that duplex over here, you know, this would be a nice transition
and -- in between the four-plexes and the six-plex and that can be integrated well with
the development. Going back to the real estate side -- and I know, Commissioner
Fitzgerald, you brought up the Ten Mile and the right-in, right-out there. What's likely
happening there -- it was developed as a -- as a larger project. So, a lot of this they get
better circulation through the site and they have got access to a full access driveway. I
think what we are going to see now with ACHD and the city -- and all cities is that we
are going to be moving commercial away from intersections where they have more
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 31 of 144
direct access to a full access driveway. I have worked for ACHD for some time and,
you know, they always told us that we were killing business. So, I have seen what
happens when we restrict driveways and it -- it really does affect a commercial
business. They like to have direct access to a full access driveway. If a commercial
use has to drive through someone else's commercial use that there is no control, the
value of the drive -- the property that you are ended up driving through increases and
the destination decreases. So, we are going to be seeing -- and it's something that the
cities should start coordinating with ACHD in their land use decisions, because we are
no -- with -- with how restrictive ACHD is getting, we are going to start seeing more and
more of these uses move away. As an example would be just a half mile down the road
from this site we have got a neighborhood commercial center that's doing very well.
They have got exposure to Ustick and they have got a half mile local road that they can
get full access to. So, there is commercial components that are going on and they work
very well where you get that access. Any -- any commercial folks will tell you -- I mean
it's -- it is -- key is access and if it wasn't access, this property would have developed a
long time ago. It -- it had all of its entitlements, it had the zoning in place, alls it would
take is a tenant to move in and they could have built pretty quickly, but I'm representing
our buyer tonight, based on this use. The seller couldn't make that retail and
commercial happen, it just didn't work for that -- that site. There is multiple areas in
here in the comp plan that support our proposal that talk directly to multi-family and
arterial roadways. I have got a list of those if you would like to hear them. I think there
is more support for this type of a use than there is a negative and in -- in closing, I
guess, the MUC district specifically states that you have three uses and that there are
exceptions for small pieces. This is a small piece. I think that exception granted prior --
to the prior uses and that's what we are asking tonight. With that I will stand for any
questions.
McCarvel: Okay. I do have -- okay. So, the commercial buildings are, obviously,
coming right in. So, they are right there. Correct?
Arnold: The --
McCarvel: From -- from Linder. If you come in up there to the right and, then, where
you -- yeah, those two.
Arnold: Well, this one -- I'm sorry, Madam Chair.
McCarvel: Yeah.
Arnold: This one is -- was proposed as a duplex.
McCarvel: Uh-huh.
Arnold: We originally had it shown as office commercial, but we can certainly if that's
the direction of the Commission tonight, we can blow that out and make that back end
an office and commercial. I would like, though, a reversionary clause that if we can't
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 32 of 144
make it work in the next, you know, five to seven years, that we can come back and,
you know, have the conversation to take it back to duplex ideas.
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: Steve, I had some questions here. We didn't see any elevations. So, if you
have got them I would like to see them. And, then, also, Josh, can you pull that back up
real quick.
Beach: I apologize.
Cassinelli: The plat. In the -- in the lower right -- kind of the southeast corner, I guess,
there is a -- in -- we will call in pink. Oh, that's a dog park there. Okay. I was going to
say is that a -- is that a future four-plex, but that's not.
Arnold: No.
Cassinelli: Because that is -- that's common area. Okay.
Arnold: I have got elevations of actual building elevations and, then, we did submit as
part of our application elevations for the buildings, but I will -- I can show you the --
Cassinelli: And, then, also covered parking. You didn't -- you mentioned it -- it says
covered parking. What are we looking at for covered parking?
Arnold: We will do -- Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli, we will do a minimum of
60.
Cassinelli: Okay.
Arnold: We -- at least half of the units are covered.
Cassinelli: Garages or a carport?
Arnold: Carport. We have thought about garages, but at minimum a carport. We have
done garages in other cases. If you would like I can go through the buildings and
pictures.
McCarvel: Yeah. Please.
Cassinelli: We will be here for a while tonight, we may as well.
Arnold: These -- like I said, this is what you have seen behind Kohl's and, then, let's
see, Shallow Creek would be Franklin and Locust Grove. You know, we -- we had a lot
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 33 of 144
of character to the buildings. They tend to yield the higher rent, because of that and,
then, we did this at Stone's Throw and there is a different -- we got several types at
Stone's Throw as we will here, too. We do screening on all the patios and mechanical
units. This one we actually did garages, but I'm not sure if that's going to be the case
on this, so I would say at least a minimum -- right now we are proposing the carports.
McCarvel: Yeah. Because how many spaces does that usually take out of -- if you do
garages?
Arnold: Madam Chair, they don't take up too much additional space. You make them
pretty tight.
McCarvel: Right. A couple.
Arnold: If you go back to this picture. I mean that -- that's a tight garage. I mean it --
it's a -- there is room up front for storage and your vehicle and that's about it. So, it's --
they are -- this is the six-plex. This was the building right next to what could have been
the -- the commercial unit and this would be the one that I most likely plat. We did this
off of Five Mile and -- and Fairview and they have got a great street frontage and you
just -- you plat them right down the party walls and that way we have got the dirt that we
own underneath them and you can sell them with conventional financing type. If you
condo it that makes it a little bit more difficult.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: Steve, is this -- in regards to pointing this, is this pointing at the road
towards --
Arnold: Yes. This would -- this would be facing --
Fitzgerald: Facing Ustick?
Arnold: -- out in a green -- no. No. This was facing the -- probably the drive aisle. We
could certainly flip that and make it face the commercial, too, would -- it works either
way.
Fitzgerald: Okay.
McCarvel: Okay. So, that's --
Arnold: That's pretty much --
McCarvel: Go back to the -- the backside of that, Josh. So, that's what would -- right
now as the plan sits that's what would be facing the commercial right there?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 34 of 144
Arnold: Yes.
McCarvel: Okay.
Arnold: I think that's -- the other elevations that you may be -- they should be in your
packet. I can try to pull those up if you need.
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: Steve, follow up. Were you also thinking as a possibility not just that duplex,
making that commercial, but also that six-plex? Is that up for negotiation?
Arnold: I think -- Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli, I think that would be probably
more than what we would want to do, because of the demand. I'm a little skeptical of
making the other work, but the -- the duplex -- that footprint, I can get about -- about a
4,000 square foot, maybe larger, commercial building in there, which -- you know, that
makes for a nice -- a fairly decent sized restaurant for the area, something that -- and
then -- but -- you know, I don't -- I don't think we would want to do much more than that.
Cassinelli: Okay. Thank you.
McCarvel: And I guess the only other issues that -- if that goes commercial, would we
have about eight parking spots up there? Was that all? In that little corner.
Arnold: About ten.
McCarvel: Okay.
Arnold: But I have additional room where that six-plex is, if I go bigger on that I can
slide that six-plex down and, then, if you -- if you notice along this area here, I don't --
I'm not showing any parking.
McCarvel: Uh-huh.
Arnold: So, I would slide this building down if need be and add parking here.
McCarvel: Okay.
Arnold: So, we have definitely the capability of doing that.
McCarvel: Josh, can you push that up? How much open space would you be taking
out? And that's just kind of --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 35 of 144
Arnold: Yeah.
McCarvel: -- open for the sake of being open down there right now.
Arnold: Correct.
McCarvel: Okay.
Holland: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Uh-huh.
Holland: Is there a difference on the four-plex buildings? There are some that have
kind of a white hash on, some that have the darker black. Is there any difference
between those types of buildings? You see what I'm talking about?
Arnold: Yes. Madam Chair, Commissioner Holland, there -- yeah. There is several
different types. There is a -- we have the pinwheel design and, then, we have got, the
more traditional design that we did at Stone's Throw, so those -- there is two different
type of pinwheel types that are in there. So, yeah, you can see this one, it -- oh, that
looks like it's the -- this one is different from this one and it's just -- they are roughly the
same size. It's basically throwing out different facades, so that we get different
massing, so you don't get, you know, this block that sits there and you look at it five
different times in a row. So, the idea is to try to break up a lot of facades, so that you do
get kind of a unique quality type of four-plex project.
McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant?
Perreault: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault.
Perreault: I'm curious about the putting green and how that came to be an amenity, if
you would shed light on that, please.
Arnold: Madam Chair, Commissioner Perreault, we -- so, we did this right off of Bird
and Overland in Boise. So, we put a dog park in, we kind of put a gazebo and a plaza
area and we -- we added a putting green and I have been starting to put those in more
of these four-plex projects. They have -- it's amazing how much use they get. I used to
do Bocce balls and the Bocce ball ends up being a place for, you know, people just
hanging out and they are not used, but it was amazing when we put in the putting green
how much use that we got out of it. So, I'm trying to incorporate that into more of our --
our four-plex projects. I hate putting in a use that never gets used and that is something
that gets a lot of activity. The highest use of an amenity is a simple pathway. So, I like
to connect -- as you see we have got a pathway at the north, it connects down to the
sides and, then, along Ustick and Linder. A pathway is the highest used amenity within
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 36 of 144
any kind of residential use, but we are getting a lot of use out of the putting greens and
they look neat.
McCarvel: Okay. Yes.
Perreault: So, are you familiar with the development on the corner of Ten Mile and Pine
across from the Chevron to the north? Those are three story apartment units that are
all platted separately and have different ownership and they have had consistent issues
with different owners not keeping the buildings in compliance with the -- the CC&Rs and
in good repair. So, do you have a way to address that if you end up deciding you want
to plat every lot and sell them separately?
Arnold: Madam Chair, Commissioner Perreault, yes. So, the way we manage it -- and
this is how we are doing Timber Grove, Shallow Creek and the last one -- Stone's
Throw. So, what we do is when we -- when we plat -- so, there is -- there is a couple
ways to do it. I can plat the building off and the building can be owned separately
throughout different -- what I haven't done in Meridian and what I'm trying to convince
my client to do is actually plat the building into four lots, so that I create a lot for each of
the units and, then, I sell those fee simple. The way he manages it is you put
everything under an HOA and you have that HOA maintain it. You have within your
CC&Rs the dues and everything that accounts for the maintenance, the responsibilities
for the building, the painting and you just -- you put that into your dues and you have it
managed. I'm not -- I'm familiar with the area at Ten Mile. I'm not familiar with what
happened. My guess is they didn't have it managed correctly and all of ours we make
sure that we have an HOA that runs it.
Perreault: So, they would, essentially, become condominiums?
Arnold: If -- if I plat the individual units. I'm trying to convince our client to do -- I think
they are worth a lot of money and I think you could sell them at a price point that you
can -- you attract a lot of people moving into it. The type of people that we are seeing
moving into these are ones that are not my generation, they don't have dogs and boats,
they are mobile. So, it's a lot of a younger crowd that they don't have a lot of kids. So,
it -- if I sell them. I think I would do great. If I don't, they would be held by, you know,
one ownership for the four units and we would just have them maintained.
Perreault: There is -- I have not seen a lot of those types of product in this area, the
condo type product, that's -- that's available for purchase, so I was curious about that,
because that's a type of residential use that we are not seeing a lot of out in this -- in
this area, so --
Arnold: Madam Chair. So, a condo -- don't think a condo, think a townhouse.
Perreault: Okay.
Arnold: Because I'm in -- these would be owned -- the dirt underneath them --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 37 of 144
Perreault: Oh. Okay.
Arnold: -- and the key with that is the financing. We do conventional financing for that
type of unit and that -- that I can sell all day. The condo -- I have condo'ed these and
they are a little bit trickier.
Perreault: The ground's owned by the HOA -- or managed by the HOA with the
condos?
Arnold: A condo --
Perreault: It's a share -- yeah.
Arnold: A condo is just the airspace.
Perreault: Right.
Arnold: So, they don't own the ground.
Perreault: Right.
Arnold: The town they would actually own the ground --
Perreault: Right.
Arnold: -- and, then, the common areas around would be maintained by the HOA.
McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions? Thank you.
Arnold: Thanks. Before we move on to public testimony, do you guys need a break or
do you want to power through and finish this one? You're good?
Beach: Madam Chair, quickly before we do that I want to -- I want to say that I pulled
up the staff report for the Sugarman Subdivision back when this property was annexed
in and Sonya wrote the staff report and she did require them to provide three uses and
so the uses there that are shown on that concept plan are the three required under the
mixed use designation. So, just wanted to clarify that.
McCarvel: The previous one?
Beach: So, she did not receive -- as Steve mentioned, he was hypothesizing that she
received -- so somehow they were granted an exception from the mixture of three use --
land use types. They -- they were --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 38 of 144
McCarvel: Okay. So, we will move on to public testimony. Do we have anybody
signed up, Chris?
Johnson: Yes, Madam Chair. We have six sign-ins. First is Cindy Fritz.
Fritz: Good evening, Madam Chair and Commissioners. My name is Cindy Fritz and I
reside at 4400 West Pasadena Drive, No. 41, in Boise, Idaho. I am testifying tonight on
behalf of my mother Betty Vogel, who resides at 3610 North Linder Road in Meridian.
This is the property that is adjacent and just directly north of the parcel on the northeast
corner of Ustick and Linder that we are talking about tonight. So, I'm from Meridian. In
fact, I went to kindergarten that's just across the road before this building was built and I
have seen the growth in Boise and Meridian. So, I know what you're up against and I
appreciate the challenge you're under. So, whatever development goes on the land
that's being discussed on the northeast corner, we want to make sure that our land to
the north has access to Ustick Road and there is connectivity to our property. Our
realtor Norm Brown of Mark Bottles Real Estate met with Steve Arnold and he's willing
to -- willing to give us that access as you have seen tonight and to the east and so I just
wanted to confirm that and I thank you for your time tonight.
McCarvel: So, the access that he's showing you guys have agreed on? It is going to
gel well.
Fritz: He's agreed to have access.
McCarvel: Okay. But just that one little spot in there is the only access, so -- and that's
acceptable to what you guys have planned?
Fritz: We have not had a comprehensive plan, we just have that -- we have had
agreement to have access.
McCarvel: To have access. Okay.
Fritz: Thank you.
McCarvel: Okay.
Johnson: Next you have of Steven Lloyd.
Lloyd: Hi, again. Madam Commissioners -- or other commissioner, I'm going to go at
this a little bit different here. So, I like what everybody's been saying about having
commercial on the corners. Like the barbecue place down at Franklin and Linder. It's
good barbecue. You will find a way in there if you good to barbecue, so -- but let's just
go to our little property right back here. If you go down Ustick and turn on Llama Lane,
it's a dusty dirt road and, then, we get back to us again. I'm not necessarily -- I'm not
opposed to any development in this area, but why I'm here is because it's -- I should
have been here many times before this and I -- I just should have been and I haven't
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 39 of 144
and I am now and I'm looking for P&Z to help protect us. We have a lot of our
retirement income and everything else wrapped up in this property, right, and I heard
the previous gentleman talk about how they have talked with neighbors and talked to --
but nobody's knocked on our door. If this -- I don't know what's going to happen to the
north of this product -- project, if this one goes in and they have the access connectivity.
Is it a bunch more -- is it a lot more townhomes? Is -- are we going to be approved for
more apartment complexes? It's a pretty big -- it's 15 acres. And, then, there is nine
acres in front of me and, then, I have my private driveway, which is a dead end of these
and a path that goes right down the middle. I'm -- I'm concerned about now and in five
years if we decide to sell our property, does it suddenly become worth less money five
years from now, because we have all these multi-family homes around here? Now, if
there is -- if there is commercial property on this corner and nice commercial property
here and something here that doesn't have a negative effect on my property right over
here and in front of me, if we can manage to get a single family, single level or maybe
an assisted living thing, something that doesn't have a negative effect on this property,
then, maybe the property -- our values go up with everybody else's. I know this ground
over here's property values went to the roof in the last five years. So, has the corner.
That nine acres in front of me is skyrocketing. It's all for sale. If they want to do these
kinds of things, then, fine, buy the whole corner and go for it, but there is just one of us.
Okay? And that's why I'm here. Unfortunately, recently Les passed away and this little
house right here is going to be gone soon and, then, it's going to be one big 25 or 30
acre corner with a little house here in the back and that's our house and we want some
protection and I don't know how else to put that. But nobody's knocked on our door. If
they offered us market value for it right now, we can't replace what we have anywhere
else in this valley and I guarantee you in -- if all those -- what is up -- what I think is
about to happen around us, five years from now we are not going to -- we may not be
able to afford a house in this subdivision over here based on what we can get for our
little -- our little piece of heaven that's quickly becoming not a piece of heaven anymore.
So, I looked to all you all to help us out.
McCarvel: Okay.
Lloyd: And anything you could do and when we are thinking about what's going to be
and not be approved. I have my wife and family and future generations that plan to be
here would greatly appreciate it. Thank you.
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you.
Johnson: Next you have Carl Wieble.
Wieble: Madam Chair, Commissioners. Carl Wieble. 3045 North Springtime Way,
Meridian. I just want to say that Mr. Arnold gave an excellent presentation on this,
because what I saw on paper from the city's was totally different than what he just
proposed. Can I say I'm against it? I can't. Can I say I'm for this? I can't. My only
thing is that I do wish that if he's going to look at this -- I know this is for a preliminary
plan, not a final plan -- is look at the idea if they can downsize the number of units,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 40 of 144
because right now they are at the max. They are at the zone maximum for units for the
townhouses. If something could be done here in this small four acre parcel -- again, he
was talking about possibility of -- of gutting some or changing some to commercial, I
think that would be positive. The neighborhood -- I think we want to work with the
developers. We really do. But, again, we talked about a walkable neighborhood or a
sustainable neighborhood for the rest of the residents in the subdivisions. If we could
mix that in, again, with these developers, like Mr. Arnold, it would be great, because
right now it is at the max. But, again, we are looking at more commercial does mean
some jobs. It does mean jobs for people in Meridian. It means tax revenue, which is a
good thing for the city and the county. So, again, with this project I'm just hoping that
when he comes in for his plat, his final plat, which we would like to see as residents,
and to see what he really is proposing for you to approve or deny, because right now it's
kind of in limbo. But, again, I don't envy your job. I know what this is like. We are
growing so fast -- I think you're doing a great job, but you are under a lot of pressure,
so, please, take your time on this and, again, I hope Mr. Arnold will work with the city
and the Planning and Zoning Commission, downside maybe -- downsize the density
possibly and converting some of that to some more commercial use. Thank you.
McCarvel: Thank you.
Johnson: Shon Parks.
Parks: Madam Chair and Commissioners, Good evening. Shon Parks. I'm with TO
Engineers. It's 2710 Titanium Place and I'm just here real quickly to speak on behalf of
Mrs. Vogel at 3610 just to the north of this property. We are just in very early planning
stages and also looking at partnering with the city in its Comprehensive Plan and
annexation of this property. I just want to make sure that we have really great cross-
connection. Our initial conversations on the planning of this we are considering some
excuses and we want good cross-connection, vehicular and pedestrian, you know, from
the parcel that we are talking about, because of the issues that we have talked about
and difficulty in accessing the parcel off of -- off of Linder and, really, that's really the
primary access into the piece that we are talking about that's owned by Mrs. Vogel. So,
we just wanted to reiterate that and I'm open for questions if there are any.
McCarvel: Thank you.
Parks: Thank you.
Johnson: Paul Gazhenko.
Gazhenko: I'm here again. I'm Paul Gazhenko. 39 -- 3696 North Morningstar Place.
Just looking at -- at this from a -- as a bigger picture, I'm in the same reasons, it would
be on my -- just getting overcrowded, but I'm looking at it a little further down the road
just a few more years. If Linder is going to get widened we won't have the traffic jam
that we are having now, which is -- eventually is going to get even worse, because there
are more houses that are being built, but also on this developed the land here
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 41 of 144
eventually they will have houses here as well I would imagine, as well as this property
that's going to get developed and -- and some more homes are going to be built and I
would rather have residential homes, they just make more sense, because the
residential home owners have same values -- similar values versus apartment or
townhome residents, and I just prefer keeping it in that same range. But as far as this
land here I think it would just serve better use as commercial, just like the other piece of
land across and once that Linder Road is going to get widened, it will generate enough
traffic flow to make sense out of commercial use and that will bring investors into
purchasing that land for -- for that particular use, which we just got to wait long enough
for that intersection to develop into that type of model and so I would say that it's better
for -- for like a pizza or a gas station or some other small commercial use and that's the
way intersections work and they have worked great and I think this one here is a little
different. Thank you.
McCarvel: Thank you.
Johnson: Your last person wishing to speak as Chris Williams.
Williams: Long time no see. Chris Williams. 1762 West Canyon Ranch Street in
Meridian. 83646. I don't live too far from the proposed applicant here. I'm right here on
this corner lot over here, so -- anyways, with the spot here, again, I'm not anti-
development. I'm fine having it being developed. I don't think that the current
suggested development of the -- whatever you want to call them -- duplexes,
townhomes, I mean I kind of heard a lot from the applicant. Me personally, I realized
that this is very preliminary, so, you know, the final hasn't been worked out, but from the
pictures, you know, that he showed, a potential of what it looks like, didn't really make
sense to me for the area, to be honest. You know, the other areas that I referenced to
back behind Kohl's, me personally, I don't think it looks very good there. It is what it is.
Traffic. Even from those areas they may or may not have enough parking spaces if you
go out there. They park out on that street as well. But with that said, you know, on that
one -- I want -- I want commercial there and this area of north Meridian, I want
commercial. I do. You know, whether that's small restaurants, give me more variety,
you know, gas station -- I don't know whether it's warranted or not. That's not for me to
decide, but, you know, my opinion I would like to see commercial in this area on that
corner. If we can't do commercial, even single family homes -- I know, you know, it
sounds like here, it looks like down the road where potentially maybe have some, I'm
even fine with single family homes. I realized that this area of Meridian is desirable to
live in. Again, I just think single family -- my preference is commercial, but if we have to
have more residential I prefer single family, so that's where I am at on this. Thank you.
McCarvel: Thank you. Is that the last sign in, Chris?
Johnson: Yes, Madam Chair.
McCarvel: Okay. With nobody else signed in, was there anybody else in the room that
wish to speak on this application? Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 42 of 144
Putman: Madam Chair, Commissioners, Jeremy Putman. 1878 East Blue Tick Street,
Meridian, Idaho. One thing that I was curious about in this proposed parcel -- Steve has
proposed to do a mix of uses. I did kind of have a question about the previous
approval, if there was a gas station and a coffee shop and things like that, all of those
are commercial uses, so really there is only one use. The offering to be able to bring in
a very -- a variety of uses on this parcel would be -- would be closer in line with the
MUC -- the MUC district. And, again, you know, seeing the opportunity for
connectivity with the adjacent parcels to the north and to the -- to the east. I think would
be a good addition to this area to -- to make the area more walkable, especially with the
plan that's laid out with paths around the current property and micropaths to adjacent.
Thank you.
McCarvel: Thank you. With no one else wishing to testify, would the applicant like to
come forward?
Arnold: Madam Chair, again, Members of the Commission, for the record Steve Arnold.
A Team Land Consultants. Just address a couple of the statements that were made
tonight. You know, I -- the Sugarman Sub that was previously approved, you know, it's
-- it is under the MUC zoning district. I tend to agree that I think most of those uses
were commercial, but, you know, we could agree to disagree, but we are trying to make
ours, you know, meet the several use types by multiple types of buildings. We have
agreed to blow out the duplex, if that's the direction of the Commission. I hope I'm not
back here in five years asking for another DA mod, but we will give that building a shot
and I think there could be some use there. As we have worked with the neighbor we
are granting the Vogel property a cross-access. We will work with them as we develop
our -- pardon me, I'm fighting a cold. The -- the density -- you know, we are going to be
below that once -- the 15 units per acre once we blow out the -- the duplex, if that's the
direction or if the Commission feels fine with the proposal, that's great. One of the
discussions was cross-connections and we are definitely providing those. We can work
with the engineer at Toothman Orton, they are already doing a fairly big project for me
in Cascade. I would be happy to work with them additionally on this site. Single family.
One of the discussions was doing single family. I don't think that's the highest and best
for this site, but we would agree to do the commercial as suggested. And the traffic --
this is one of the lowest traffic generating uses that you could put on a site. You know,
having worked for ACHD for way too long, I know what -- what developments generate
traffic and what does not and this is a very friendly traffic generating use. It is all right-
in, right-out, which means it's going to be destination trips, so people will plan their trips
around how they are getting here. Unlike the commercial, most of it is pass by, so I
don't see our commercial really taking off until we get access further to the north to a full
access driveway, which will be a minimum of 600 feet, which the Vogel property has got
and we -- we have a very high interest to work with them if we are doing commercial
there. So, that's definitely something that would be fixed. Again, within the MUC
designation -- and as we did on Timber Grove that was behind Kohl's, there is the
option for the Commission and Council to grant exceptions based on the size of the
property. So, as it stands we believe that it meets those codes required underneath the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 43 of 144
MUC designation and it was speculation that a variance was discussed, but in that
report for Sugarman it assumed that there was going to be residential growth around
the site and that's why it was not required for the Sugarman Subdivision. By code that
property should have granted about 20 percent residential uses. It did not. We are
trying to provide those residential uses. We are not trying to exceed the 15 units per
acre, we are providing numerous amenities that we think that if you compared the two
projects I think we have got a far better project than what was previously proposed
through a speculative development and that's why that development failed. With that
being said, I will stand for any questions.
McCarvel: Okay. Any further questions for the applicant?
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: Just real quickly, as far as the -- the four-plexes on the property are -- are
concerned, how many -- how many are planned in that -- in that drawing? In your -- we
had that listed on the site plan. The four-plexes -- it looks like we got seven, eight, nine,
ten, 11, 12 -- 13 four-plexes.
Cassinelli: Okay.
Arnold: One six-plex and one duplex and there is two different styles of the four-plexes.
That, again, was done to try to break up the facades and provide a mixed housing type
in there. They are all -- not two stories, they are all single level. So, each four-plex you
don't have anyone living above you, you have a downstairs with a kitchen and a living
area and, then, the two bedrooms are above. That's what makes these so popular is
you don't have basically people living above you and making a bunch of noise and that's
why they, basically, function as a townhouse and if we subdivide them -- and I would be
happy if the Commission were to make a requirement, at least with the six-plex and
maybe several four-plexes, we would definitely be happy to subdivide those.
Holland: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Holland.
Holland: One more thought for you. I'm just curious what your thoughts would be. If
you were to replace the duplex with commercial of some sort, any thought about that
six-plex becoming a potential commercial, too, if you had that whole kind of area be a
little bit of a commercial use?
Arnold: Madam Chair, Commissioner Holland, I just don't believe there is that much
demand for the commercial there. I would be very skeptical that we could get that to
take and, then, I would be back here before the Commission asking for another DA
modification, because I couldn't get the uses to work. We potentially could with the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 44 of 144
duplex, you know, that -- it's roughly 4,000 square feet, move it -- a couple of small
commercial uses, the boutique that people are asking for, but I don't think with that
amount that we could get it today.
McCarvel: Any other questions? Thank you.
Arnold: Thanks.
McCarvel: So, at this time could I get a motion to close the public hearing on H-2018-
0090?
Cassinelli: So moved.
Fitzgerald: Second.
Holland: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2018-
0090. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
McCarvel: This has been an interesting one. I kind of like the townhomes in general,
but I think -- as much as the other one was all commercial, this is pretty much all
residential, so I do think it needs to be a mixed use and I'm really hesitant on the
connectivity and where it's located and how that's going to integrate with those other
two parts. I think this has a potential to be a really fabulous corner if it's all connected
right and I just don't know that -- I mean I'm just having a hard time -- that's the only
connection point that it's going to come together quite as nice as it could.
Perreault: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault.
Perreault: A question for staff. So, with that requirement for connection, it's okay that
that is just a -- a private drive area, it doesn't have to be a public street?
Beach: So, our code requires cross-access connection. That doesn't necessarily mean
that a public street doesn't make sense somewhere. I just don't know based on parcel
lines whether a public street would meet any of the ACHD separation requirements from
the intersection, either off of West Ustick or North Linder. I think they are too close to
the intersection to -- to have a public street there. We need some sort of a public street.
I can pull up -- we are going to need a public street. Likely it will line up with -- in my
opinion somewhere over here and provide -- and you will have another access point off
of Linder somewhere north of that 3610 property.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 45 of 144
Perreault: Okay. Thank you.
Beach: But having said that, I don't know that the way that they have got it lined up is
-- it functions really well.
Perreault: That -- that means the -- the owner of that property would be required to
maintain that, yet you would have a lot of use, potentially, from the northern property.
McCarvel: Any other thoughts?
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: You guys toss a coin.
Fitzgerald: Yeah. No kidding. I don't -- to start I don't think get rid -- or removing the
duplex and making it commercial makes any sense without taking the six-plex down,
too, and so that's -- that -- it just doesn't flow. I wouldn't understand what that little dinky
-- so, that -- that piece of the puzzle would -- would equate to. So, that -- it goes back to
it's all residential and if that's the right use for that corner. The challenge I think I have
is we have a big chunk of land that not -- it doesn't include the earth -- it includes this
and, then, surrounding property, how are we going to plan that whole area and make it
function and benefit the community and --
McCarvel: Yeah. I'm just afraid if we wall that off with those six towns -- six sets of
townhomes there -- I mean you're stuck with it.
Fitzgerald: Yeah. And that's the challenge. I think access -- like if you're talking about
behind Kohl's and behind Dick's Sporting Goods, that's a street that is -- I would say it's
kind of a buffer between commercial -- a very heavy commercial use and residential use
in Champion Park, which kind of makes that density makes sense right there.
Perreault: And also it has a light right there.
Fitzgerald: Yeah. And this being a hard corner and -- I don't know. I -- it's challenging,
especially based on the conversation we just had pretty in the previous application. I
think it's -- it's very -- very hard.
Holland: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Holland.
Holland: I have a few thoughts. First of all, I will start with the -- the positives. I really
like some of the amenities that the applicant's brought forward. I think it's --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 46 of 144
Fitzgerald: Agreed.
McCarvel: Absolutely.
Holland: -- very innovative, something that's missing in our community. I really like the
-- the -- you know, the putting course in the middle of the complex. I think it's creative
and I think he was absolutely spot on that's something that would actually get utilized,
which --
Fitzgerald: Is rare.
Holland: -- is always appreciated and rare. They kind of went outside of their way of
just trying to make sure they had some unique amenities to make a nice product. So, I
really appreciate that. I would agree with your comment that if you were going to take
the duplex and turn it into commercial I think you would need a bigger pad there for
something more to draw to that -- that piece and so I would rather see -- even more
than having the two separate buildings, maybe even having one really nice commercial
building of some sort, whether it's a restaurant or something, some sort of commercial
use that makes more sense, whether it's two buildings or one building. The only other
issue I have with the way that the site plan is is I worry about where that cross-access is
to the north with that corner coming in. There is a lot of angles on that corner and I
worry that you have got traffic backing up and anyone that's parking on the west side of
those four-plexes will have difficulty getting in and out of those parking spaces. You
may have some potential collisions there in the future just with the way the angles are.
So, I would almost want to see that cross-access potentially in a different spot to help
mitigate getting people in and out of the complex. Otherwise, I like the design of the
four-plexes. I think it's a unique way to look at a four-plex where they have all got
different entries, they are not stacked stairs, kind of awkward. Those are some
thoughts for now.
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: The -- the part that's frustrating I think to everybody is that this is such a --
it's such a small piece on that -- on that corner when you -- especially when you look at
everything. Right now we are -- we are going to be looking at -- at three, maybe four
different developments in here and trying to fit different pieces of the puzzle in, getting a
cross-access -- if there was a nice concept for all of that. Right now that doesn't exist.
If you go a mile to the east on the intersection of Meridian and Ustick there is a
commercial development on there that -- that definitely works and it's -- with the change
in that intersection it's right-in, right-out both those. So, commercial will work on that.
Just to the north of that if you're looking at a map on the north of Settlers Park there is a
group -- it's Settlers Village, there is a group of -- the reason why I was curious on the
number there, there is nine four-plexes in there. I don't think it's overbearing for the
neighborhood. It fits in there. So, both applicants --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 47 of 144
Fitzgerald: With the park that's right there, too?
Cassinelli: What's that?
Fitzgerald: The park that's --
Cassinelli: With the park that's in the backyard. You know, I think both applications
could work in there. I think commercial would work and maybe not retail, but -- but light
office and -- correct me if I'm wrong, Bill, Josh, is that -- that fits in MUC, too. Light
office? Okay. So, I mean there is -- I think there is demand for that, not just -- it doesn't
have to be a gas station, it doesn't have to be a coffee shop or -- or a restaurant, but
there is -- there is different applications there, too. What concerns me is that cross-
access. It's -- it's almost a -- without a total redesign of this I think that -- that cross-
access is -- is kind of a killer.
McCarvel: Okay.
Fitzgerald: And Madam Chair? I mean, Josh and Bill, we have -- in the past -- and
correct me if I'm wrong -- we have asked applicants to, you know, work with your
surrounding community neighbors to master plan this out, so we understand what is
being proposed across three properties or across four properties. I know that's not very
-- it's not easy to ask the applicant to do that, but when we are talking about a --
correlate this -- I think it's hard not to ask that. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Beach: So, we have them do -- there is always a neighborhood meeting involved and
we don't -- I think we have in the past asked them to coordinate with a specific
landowner, sometimes we want them to -- when we know there is going to be a property
developed -- in this case the Vogels who own 3610, hopefully, they are getting some
input from those folks as to where they would like a cross-access to be located. I think
a lot of -- a lot of times that -- that goes a long way with the surrounding neighbors
working with what you have got going on. I can't think of an instance -- maybe Bill can -
- where we required that they do so.
Fitzgerald: Maybe not required, but to get moving forward we need to understand -- this
is a pretty important corner in the future.
Beach: We do -- we have required -- typically with annexation or there is a situation like
this where we -- we don't know how it's going to develop. This is one of those situations
where we don't -- we don't know where roads are going to go and so maybe -- maybe
that was something we should have asked them is to say how do you envision your
property developing in conjunction with all the properties around you as far as a road
network is concerned and what that might look like. The use has been mentioned by
one of the -- the residents testified we -- we have a site plan from the applicant. The
one we have on our -- on our website does not show the location of the cross-access,
which is why we have that in our staff report as to them not providing that. I don't know
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 48 of 144
that -- don't know what my analysis is on the -- the location of those right now, because I
haven't had time to sit and think about that and compare what the code requires, but
some of the points have been valid as far as the location of those and maybe potentially
being problematic as far as traffic goes in circulation to the north and especially to the
east. I'm just not sure how it would all function right offhand, so --
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Yeah. I think --
Cassinelli: Oh. Sorry.
McCarvel: Go ahead.
Cassinelli: Josh, can you address a couple things on -- on -- number one being the
density. Is -- is it in that -- is it or isn't it in that -- in that range. Are we at 15 or are we at
20? I know there is a difference between net and gross and I have yet to figure those
out when it comes to density. The other one is for -- that was -- that's the main one right
now. If you could address that one.
Beach: As far as density goes. You want to know the difference between net density?
Cassinelli: Well, not necessarily. We won't get into that, but does it fit with the -- with
the parameters. Because you're saying it doesn't and you are --
Beach: The top -- the top end. So, Steve -- there is -- there is -- there is gross and net.
Net would be 20, but we typically go off of gross and so there was some -- there was
some confusion about which number to look at. So, 15 gross is at the very top of the
threshold that is set forward in the -- in the Comprehensive Plan.
Cassinelli: Okay.
Beach: So -- so, I was incorrect on that. That -- it appears that his density is -- is the
very top of what would be allowed in the Comprehensive Plan for mixed use community.
Cassinelli: So, as far as your recommendations and your reasons, that actually -- it
does actually slide in to that? Okay.
McCarvel: Yeah. I just don't know that we want it to slide in when -- especially when
there is no other use going on there for the mixed use, you know.
Cassinelli: Yeah.
McCarvel: Why leave it that dense if --
Cassinelli: Again, we could always -- I mean we -- we could approve based on --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 49 of 144
McCarvel: Right.
Cassinelli: -- making that duplex, which, then, would bring it down if we had that duplex
commercial.
McCarvel: I just -- yeah. I just think we are asking -- it's not like we are in a down
economy. Like he said, those properties are for sale, it's -- I think it's close to being able
to be worked on a little bit more with the adjoining property owners as far as making the
connectivity better, because I just think to have connectivity, you say, okay, we can
check that box, we -- we gave, you know, a cross path there, I just -- I see that as a
problem spot to have it.
Holland: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Holland.
Holland: I'm wondering what the Commission would feel about possibly looking at
continuing the application, so that we give staff enough time to kind of look at the other
potential application that's in suit north of the property to see where the cross-access
may make most sense.
McCarvel: Are they -- are they ready for that yet or are we better --
Holland: I thought there might be an application in --
McCarvel: Okay.
Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, certainly what I think we should
do it -- again, it's your purview, but what we could do and entertain for you is continue
this out -- I have already given the contact information to the Vogels, so that's why
Steve and that property owner has had conversations, because we -- we told them -- we
informed them what -- what was happening along their boundary and they needed to
know that and take that into account into integrating. What we should probably do is
check with ACHD to see if they would entertain a public street connection for this
particular property, as far to the east as possible away from the intersection and at least
we can get some better separation along that east boundary and provide better access
for the Vogel piece if it were to stay a residential project. I would also mention -- I think
there is some confusion tonight at the hearing here. So, keep in mind that comp plan
designation is not parcel specific, that -- that area can flow. We have flexibility there
and that's some of the things that we talked about with the Vogels is that, you know, that
mixed use could float a little bit and, then, if we kept this commercial, then, you could
float that higher density and, then, transition into either a townhome or a single family
residential product or you could have some commercial along Linder Road and, then,
further away with some higher density to the east. Again, I think you're spot on. From
staff's perspective we don't feel this -- this application feels a little premature for us. We
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 50 of 144
have too many vacant pieces around it and it doesn't fit in with the way it's currently
designed and that's why we bring those issues to you this evening. We need to see
how this is going to truly integrate with those pieces before we can give you a
recommendation for approval.
McCarvel: So, I guess if we were to continue it, though, we need to put a date on it.
So, are we -- we are probably just better off -- if we deny it, though, they -- how soon
can they bring it back?
Fitzgerald: A year.
McCarvel: It's a whole year?
Fitzgerald: That's --
McCarvel: That's what I thought.
Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the -- we should ask the applicant to see what his
desire is. I mean he's here, it's his application, is he willing to continue it out a month,
two months -- I don't know.
McCarvel: Okay.
Parsons: Ten months. In order to go forward with denial and take his chances with the
-- the Council.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: And I think for us that, Commissioners wise, we got to decide whether
residential right there and four-plexes on that hard corner makes sense before we send
him off to go work with the applicant potentially to the north, if that's really giving
direction. Is that what we want in that corner? I mean that's the --
McCarvel: I think -- personally I would rather see a true mixed use -- the 20, 30 -- you
know, the recommended residential versus commercial. So, that's my two cents.
Fitzgerald: I would tend to agree with you.
McCarvel: Instead of 90 percent residential and a little corner of commercial.
Cassinelli: Unfortunately, it's -- it's tough to do one on that small of a --
McCarvel: Right.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 51 of 144
Cassinelli: I mean it could be done, but it's tough on that small of a -- on a parcel.
Madam Chair, question for -- for Josh. The proposed cross-access to the east is -- is
essentially through the parking lot right now the way it stands. Is that -- is that -- I mean
there is -- the applicant said I have got cross-access. It's right out here right down the
drive aisle, but is that acceptable to have it through a -- what is it, a parking lot for a
residential parking lot?
Beach: Sure. So -- so, we do require cross-access and that's really the way you would
do it through a -- through a parking lot is -- is the way that he's showing it. Going back
to what -- what Bill's comments were and the comment you just made, though, yes, this
is a relatively small mixed use parcel, but that mixed use designation can flow. So, if
this gentleman to the north -- that family who owns that wants to work with the city, as I
mentioned that they are, potentially that mixed use community designation gets a lot
larger and you may be able to get some additional uses in there and have an actual true
mixture on the mixed use, as well as transitioning from some additional multi-family to
single family as it gets closer to the school up to the north. But -- but, yeah, I mean
through -- through a parking lot that's -- that's why it's hard in this case, because we --
we don't know how the rest of the area is going to develop and it's not -- it's not ideal to
do it that way, because it feels like you're going to be funneling a lot of traffic through --
Fitzgerald: Residential.
Beach: -- parking --
Fitzgerald: Yeah.
McCarvel: Uh-huh.
Beach: -- out to the access that are going to be on Ustick and Linder Road and it --
similar to the -- the project across the street, staff had concerns with what's coming from
that Windsong Subdivision out to Linder and cutting through the parking lot for the -- for
the multi-family project. It's a similar situation on this and going back to -- we didn't --
we didn't actually know until tonight where those cross-access locations were going to
be, but -- but I don't see any other way to do it the way that they have their project
designed. It doesn't mean they can't change that and --
McCarvel: Right.
Beach: -- and improve that somewhat, I just don't -- don't have the -- I don't -- I don't
even know what they are going to propose tonight to show you. But, yeah, that -- that's
really the only way they would be able to do it with their current design.
McCarvel: So, I mean there could be townhomes just arranged a little bit differently and
better -- better access points and, then, maybe some commercial floated up farther and
that would make that whole corner make sense. Yeah.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 52 of 144
Perreault: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: I think we need to wait and see that. Yeah, Commissioner Perreault.
Perreault: We usually -- we usually have the opposite scenario where we -- we are
trying to fit something like this around other existing, you know, structures and so I think
it's great that we could potentially have the opportunity to -- to see that designed well if -
- if the neighbors are willing to -- to work with each other and, you know, we are always
talking about making sure that we are finding the highest and best use, especially in that
critical location.
Fitzgerald: Yeah.
Perreault: These corners have become really really important for us and so -- while I
think the design -- they just put some great thought into it, I really like how they have
designed it. I do like the -- the pinwheel design. I'm not sure that that's the best
location for that either and I would -- I would propose that we see if it's possible to wait
and continue it.
McCarvel: Okay. So, would we like to make a motion to open the public hearing for the
purpose of asking the applicant a desired date or if he would like to take his chances
and move through?
Fitzgerald: Yes. So moved, Madam Chair.
Cassinelli: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to open the public hearing. Would the
applicant like to come forward.
Arnold: Madam Chairman, Members of the Commission, again, Steve Arnold. What is
the direction of the Commission tonight? Is it the direction of the Commission that we
just work with the property owner to the north and relocate the drive aisle or see how
the drive aisle functions with -- with a proposed development to the north?
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? I will take a shot. I -- my -- my desire -- and I don't want to
speak for everybody, but my desire would be the drive aisle is definitely extremely
important. I think having it further away from the -- from Locust Grove -- I mean from
Linder, excuse me -- because I'm looking at Locust Grove -- where that lines up and
how that matches up with your guys's design would be important, but I also think how it
flows into their -- their project would also help us understand what that -- that whole
area is going to look like and I know that it's not easy, but how it flows is going to be
important for that area. I mean at least for me.
Cassinelli: Well -- and, too, the -- the cross-access to the east as well.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 53 of 144
Fitzgerald: Yeah. I think all those are needed. We need to understand what that looks
like.
Perreault: And per staff's recommendation discussing with ACHD how they might want
to put a collector street -- potential collector street in that location.
Arnold: So, one of my immediate thoughts is maybe what we do is we get rid of that
driveway on Linder completely and, then, show just a cross-access to the north and we
work with the property -- because that -- that driveway is way too close to the
intersection.
McCarvel: Uh-huh.
Fitzgerald: Absolutely.
McCarvel: Yeah.
Arnold: You know, it's not the most ideal situation and if we can work with the owner to
the north to get that cross-access, then, I have got some flexibility where I can move
things around.
McCarvel: Right. And maybe they want to put some commercial right there and that
would float your mixed use, you know --
Fitzgerald: That works.
McCarvel: -- where you could have, you know, your six-plex and your four-plex and if
the commercial was floated it -- you know, depending on what they want to do, you
know -- like you said before, where the commercial is floated up to where the better
access point to Linder was.
Arnold: Exactly. If -- if I'm hearing the Commission right --
McCarvel: But we want to see that in this area somewhere. Yeah.
Arnold Right. If we can -- so -- oh, I want to come back to you guys with a plan that you
think is acceptable. What I would propose, then, is if we can work with them we can
kind of master plan the area maybe for ours, because I don't have good access.
McCarvel: Right.
Arnold: I'm still pushing that. Then maybe I stick with all of the --
McCarvel: Right.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 54 of 144
Arnold: -- residential units and I work with them to the north and get -- we work on an
access -- a right-in, right-out driveway is what I see and, then, eventually they will have
full access. So, I'm going to abandon mine on Linder, which is not good and then --
McCarvel: Make it all work.
Arnold: -- make it that I can keep it --
McCarvel: Yeah.
Arnold: -- and if that -- if I'm hearing and then --
McCarvel: Right. And so that's I guess --
Arnold: -- I can do that --
McCarvel: -- where -- our question to you is if -- so, at this point if we recommend
denial, like Commissioner Fitzgerald said, it's another year for you to come back on this,
so --
Arnold: Assuming the Council does, too.
McCarvel: Right. Yeah. So -- but if we give you a continuance how long do you -- I
mean do you think this is workable --
Arnold: The next available P&Z meeting.
McCarvel: Uh?
Arnold: Next available P&Z meeting.
McCarvel: Okay. So, you think you can get this all worked out --
Arnold: Yes.
McCarvel: Okay.
Arnold: We will be meeting with Toothman Orton tomorrow.
McCarvel: Okay. But, staff, how many days -- well, you got the holiday in there and
staff needs at least ten days -- am I correct?
Perreault: I'm sorry, can I get clarification on something?
McCarvel: Uh-huh.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 55 of 144
Perreault: So, what I'm hearing from the applicant is that we are talking about
redesigning access, but -- but leaving this all residential with these --
McCarvel: Maybe. Depending on what the --
Perreault: What the Commission's intending for him to work on? Because I got the
impression that we -- that -- that we are wanting him to have discussions with the
neighbor to the north about -- about redesigning this entire area as mixed use and
potentially putting commercial closer to the intersection and residential further north.
Cassinelli: Or his -- or remaining -- keeping it residential and having some commercial
flowing to the north.
McCarvel: Where the better access would be on Linder.
Perreault: Okay.
McCarvel: Yeah. Just -- just a little bit there.
Perreault: Just to clarify --
McCarvel: But it's all still there.
Perreault: Okay.
McCarvel: Just --
Fitzgerald: And, Steve, I think you understand that we are trying to balance it with the
north -- the property of the north of what makes sense. Is it commercial down low and it
floats up into a single family residential closer or further north closer to the school or is it
reverse, as you talked about with having it off the hard corner and having commercial
kind of in a -- in its own little space. I think the staff understands where we are trying to
go, so if you could work with the other applicant and talk to Josh and Bill, I think we can
-- if they understand what we are trying to accomplish.
McCarvel: Yeah. So, staff reports done by -- for the next available P&Z meeting would
be December 6th. So, that would mean staff reports would need to be done by the 3rd
to give us a chance to look at it. Is that doable with the holiday or do we need to go to
the 20th?
Beach: So, we need -- typically we need ten business days --
McCarvel: Ten business days.
Beach: -- to review the staff -- to update a staff report, essentially, as it's going to be an
entirely new staff report --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 56 of 144
McCarvel: Right.
Beach: -- than what he is proposing to change and there is -- like you said, there is a
holiday in there with at least a couple of days where we are not in the office.
McCarvel: Yes. So, that's -- that's only eight days. So, I'm thinking --
Cassinelli: The 20th.
McCarvel: -- it would probably need to go to the 20th.
Arnold: Of December?
McCarvel: Yeah. Merry Christmas.
Cassinelli: May.
Arnold: Boy. Well, we will have to work with what we got. But as long as I'm -- I'm
hearing from the Commission tonight -- like I said, I have talked with the representative
of the property owners to the north and I think the property owner to north wants to see
the highest and best for theirs.
McCarvel: Right.
Arnold: I think if we can get more of the commercial push towards the full access
driveway that works best -- best for both and that's the direction that I'm hearing, that if
we can do something like that, that that would be something that this Commission would
consider. If that's the case, then, yeah, I will -- I will definitely take deferral --
McCarvel: Okay.
Arnold: -- and I will work with the owner --
McCarvel: Okay.
Arnold: -- and staff and --
McCarvel: Do you want to do the 20th right before Christmas or do you want to go
January 3rd?
Arnold: The 20th. I would like to go to the earlier one, but --
McCarvel: I just don't think it's going to be enough time for staff to rework -- I mean to
have them -- I mean -- I know you will be ready, but, then, they have got to do their due
diligence as well, so -- okay. Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 57 of 144
Arnold: Thanks.
McCarvel: All right. Could I get a motion to close the public hearing?
Holland: So moved.
Fitzgerald: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2018-
0090. All those in favor say aye. Opposed. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Pogue: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Yes.
Pogue: You need to keep the public hearing open, because you're continuing.
McCarvel: Oh. Sorry. Close the --
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, I would move we reopen the public hearing for --
McCarvel: Thank you.
Holland: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to open the public hearing. Now go for a
motion.
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: I move to continue file H-2018-0090 to the date of December 20th, 2018.
Fitzgerald: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to move continue H-2018-0090 to
December 20th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Perreault: Madam Chair, may we take a short break, please?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 58 of 144
McCarvel: Yes. Five minutes.
(Recess: 8:50 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.)
D. Public Hearing for Alicia Court Subdivision (H-2018-0107) by
Riley Planning Services, Located 4036 E. Granger Ave.
1. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 6 building lots and 2
common lots on 3.084 acres of land in an R-4 zoning district
McCarvel: I think we are ready to begin, if everybody would have a seat. Okay. So, at
this time I would like to open the public hearing for Item H-2018-0107, Alicia Court
Subdivision and we will begin with the staff report.
Beach: Turn my microphone on. Good evening, Madam Chair, Members of the
Commission. This is a -- this is not an apartment complex on the corner Linder and
Ustick. This is a single family subdivision, a preliminary plat. This site consists of a little
over three acres of land. It's currently zoned R-4 -- I'm not on the right slide. There we
go. At 4036 East Granger Avenue. This property was annexed in 2014 and CUP was
approved for a church that has since expired. The Comprehensive Plan future land use
map designation is medium density residential. The applicant proposes to develop a
site with six single family residential lots and two common lots. Before I go any further
with that though -- and the applicant this evening before the hearing came up to me and
is requesting that the project be continued. She would like to address some of the --
some of the conditions in the staff report a little further with her team and I will let -- I will
let the applicant come up and kind of explain a little bit further what she's -- what she's
requesting, but I wanted to give you a heads up and kind of a brief overview of what
they are looking for. So, that's all I have got for you.
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward?
Constantikes: Madam Chairman, Commissioners, Penelope Constantikes, Riley
Planning Services, Post Office Box 405, Boise, Idaho. 83701. Just to start with, we are
not proposing any changes to the central characteristics of the subdivision. The
developer wanted to make it pretty low density -- is a nice transition between the higher
density Red Feather and Dawson Meadows and all the open space that is along
Granger and Grenadier. So, we are not changing anything in terms of its layout, but
there are some -- there are some elements in the staff report that -- that need some
specific review, so that we can make sure we understand all the implications that are
embedded in these. We need to have a conversation with Public Works. I always like
to come to these meetings with as much consensus as possible with staff and get
everything sorted out, so we just -- we need time to truly evaluate some of the
implications of staff's recommendations.
McCarvel: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 59 of 144
Constantikes: It would give us time to -- to get the staff report from ACHD for our waiver
request to keep a private shared driveway, as opposed to a public street, and it gives us
time to meet again with Planning staff and Public Works and just so you know, there is
no objections from the neighborhood. We did have a neighbor meeting, they all seem
to be excited. I have got two neighbors here and I got their e-mail addresses again.
So, they are excited about the lower density. We are going to try and keep it real quiet.
One of the purposes of a shared private driveway is to keep the -- keep the new
subdivision really quiet and low key. So, if you would be kind enough to continue our
hearing until December 6th, we would be most appreciative.
McCarvel: I think we would, too.
Constantikes: Thank you, ma'am.
McCarvel: All right. Thank you. With that --
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, are you going to open the public hearing for anybody who is
here to speak on this or are we going to -- just clarifying. I'm just making sure we are --
McCarvel: I think it -- I would prefer to take public comments after we -- after they are
for sure they have everything ironed out.
Fitzgerald: Okay.
McCarvel: So -- oh. Sure.
Constantikes: I'm going to reach out to the neighborhood and make sure they know --
McCarvel: Sure.
Constantikes: They -- they network amongst themselves pretty well, especially within
their individual subdivision, so one of the reasons I got e-mails is so we can let them
know and -- so that they know it's going to move to the 6th.
McCarvel: Okay.
Constantikes: So, I don't anticipate any negative testimony. So -- thank you.
Fitzgerald: Thank you, ma'am.
McCarvel: Thank you.
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 60 of 144
Cassinelli: Josh, is the 6th -- that's what -- that's what you are planning on, too, is the
6th of December?
Beach: That's just fine by staff, so --
Cassinelli: Okay.
Beach: So, assuming we get the -- the materials within the days to review. Yeah.
Cassinelli: Okay.
Fitzgerald: It doesn't sound like there is any changes. They are just --
McCarvel: Yeah.
Fitzgerald: -- want to understand -- they are responding to your staff report.
McCarvel: Okay.
Cassinelli: In that case, I would move to continue file H-2018-0107 to the hearing date
of December 6th, 2018.
Fitzgerald: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to continue H-2018-0107 to December
6th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
E. Public Hearing for Shelburne East (H-2018-0112) by Shelburne
Properties, LLC, Located at 4080, 4115, 4205, 4301 and 4330
Bott Ln.
1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 35.09 acres of land with
R-4 23.58 acres) and R-8 (11.52 acres) zoning districts; and
2. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 101 building lots and
21 common lots on 34.62 acres of land in the proposed R-4
and R-8 zoning districts
McCarvel: With that we would like to open H-2018-0112, Shelburne East, and we will
begin with the staff report.
Allen: Thank you, Chairman, Members of the Commission. The next application before
you is a request for annexation and zoning and a preliminary plat. This site consists of
34.62 acres of land. It's zoned RUT in Ada county and located at 4080, 4115, 4205,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 61 of 144
4301 and 4330 East Bott Lane. Adjacent land use. This site is surrounded mostly by
rural residential and agricultural land, with some existing and future urban density
residential. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is medium
density residential, which is three to eight units per acre. The applicant has submitted
an application for annexation and zoning of 35.09 acres of land, with R-4 zoning, which
is 23.58 acres of the site and R-8 zoning, which is 11.52 acres of the site and a
preliminary plat consisting of 101 building lots and 21 common lots on 34.62 acres of
land in the proposed R-4 and R-8 zoning districts. The proposed density of the
development is 3.1 units per acre and that is consistent with the medium density
residential future land use map designation. There are -- go to the aerial map real quick
here. This is the overall property we are looking at here. There are four existing homes
and accessory structures on this site. All are proposed to be removed, except for one
home on proposed Lot 9, Block 9, and a garage on Lot 6, Block 7, which will remain on
lots in the proposed subdivision. A new home will be constructed on the lot with the
existing garage. The existing home will be required to hook up to city water and sewer
service within 60 days of it becoming available. Access is proposed from the west via
the future South Hillsdale Avenue and from the east via East Bott Lane and that is from
Eagle and Cloverdale Roads further to the west and east. Both of these streets are
designated collector streets. Stub streets for future extension and interconnectivity are
proposed to the west to the Marsh and Rasmussen properties and to the south to the
Williams property. ACHD is requiring Bott Lane to be improved off site from the east
property line east to Cloverdale Road. A new bridge is proposed on Bott Lane over the
Ten Mile feeder canal to replace the existing single lane bridge. A structural engineer is
reviewing the existing bridge over the Ten Mile feeder canal to ensure it's capable of
supporting a fire truck, 80,000 pounds, so that a secondary access is available to the
site for emergency purposes until such time as the bridge is reconstructed. The Ten
Mile feeder canal and the Nine Mile Creek cross this site. The canal is proposed to
remain open and the creek is required to remain open and be improved as a natural
amenity. The canal, if you can see my pointer here, runs right through the site here
and, then, the creek runs right along the southwest corner of the site here. A 15 foot
wide irrigation easement is depicted along the southern boundary of Lots 2 through 9,
Block 4, and along the north boundary of Lot 9, Block 3. The UDC requires easements
wider than ten feet to be placed in a common lot that is a minimum 20 feet in width,
unless otherwise modified by City Council. The applicant is requesting Council approval
for the easement to be located on the adjacent building lots, rather than be placed in a
common lot. A total of 16 percent or 5.25 acres of qualified open space is proposed as
shown there on the exhibit on your left, which is six percent or 1.85 acres of land over
the minimum required of ten percent. Ten percent would be 3.4 acres of land. It
consists of a community orchard, a pond, collector street buffers, parkways along
collector and some local streets, stormwater detention facilities and open grassy areas
at least 50 feet by 100 feet in area. A minimum of two site amenities are required based
on the size of the development. Several amenities above the minimum required are
proposed from each of the three categories, which are quality of life, recreation and
pedestrian or bicycle circulation systems. They consist of the following: Three picnic
areas with shelters and tables, kind of spread out through the development. A sports
court, which is -- they are proposing a pickleball court as shown there. A segment of
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 62 of 144
the city's multi-use pathway system along the Ten Mile feeder canal, internal pathways
and micro paths. A pond with a bench. A tot lot with children's play equipment. A
community orchard with picnic tables. And an additional 20,000 square feet of common
open space area. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for future homes
within the development as shown that are consistent with those being constructed in
Shelburne Subdivision to the west. Building materials consist of stucco and board and
batten siding, with some stone veneer accents. Most of the homes will be single story
in height with some two story. They will range in size from 1,800 to 3,000 square feet,
containing three to four bedrooms and have two and three car garages. The rear and
the side of homes visible from the Hillsdale Avenue and Bott Lane, collector streets, are
required to provide articulation in those elevations. Written testimony has been
received from John Carpenter, TO Engineers, the applicant's representative. He did
include a response to the staff report. I will let the applicant go over that with you and
from Tim and Lisa Petsky. They are requesting a six foot tall privacy fence and either a
restriction for a single story home on the lot against their southeast corner or no second
story windows facing north due to the location of their outdoor kitchen and pool area
where they would like to retain their privacy. Staff is recommending approval of the
proposed project with a development agreement. Staff feels the proposed density is at
the low end, but is consistent with that desired in the medium density designated areas
and does provide a little larger lot type which is desired. Common open space and site
amenities are dispersed throughout the development and are substantially above the
minimum required standards. Pathways provide pedestrian connections to internal
common areas throughout the development and to adjacent properties. Staff will stand
for any questions.
McCarvel: Any questions for staff? Would the applicant like to come forward?
Bower: Madam Chair, Commissioners, my name is Jeff Bower. Business address 601
West Bannock in Boise and I am here on behalf of the applicant Shelburne Properties.
Sonya, we did send a PowerPoint over, if you would pull it up for me. Thank you.
Allen: If I can find it I will.
Bower: It is highlighted there in that window.
Allen: Oh, this one right here. Sorry. I was looking at the desktop.
Bower: Thank you, Sonya. Okay. Again, Jeff Bower here on behalf of Shelburne
Properties and we have before you tonight Shelburne East. This is the third Shelburne
project that you guys have seen. We have Shelburne number one and number two
already approved and under construction and those are to the -- to the west of the site
we are talking about tonight. So, to get you oriented, we are north of Amity Road and
west of Cloverdale. Here is a vicinity map and the project site. Here is the future land
use -- land use map, just kind of showing you, again, the -- the project location. As
Sonya mentioned, we are in medium density residential designated area with three to
eight dwelling units being appropriate. Again, we are here tonight on an annexation and
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 63 of 144
along with that annexation we are asking for zoning -- 23 acres of R-4 and 11.5 of R-8
and as Sonya mentioned, the -- the Ten Mile feeder canal does run through the property
diagonally there and that's sort of the natural break we are taking there on our zoning.
So, as to annexation, again, there is a -- we meet the land use map. We are 3.1 units
per acre gross overall, so we comport with the map. We are contiguous to the city. All
the utilities are readily available and so I believe annexation is proper at this time. Next
turn into the preliminary plat. Again, we are asking -- that's the second portion of our
application tonight. Happy to be single family here tonight. Single family, 100 lots and
21 common lots. Sonya did mention there are within the plat two current owners that
are retaining property. I just want to point those out to you. Right here, lot and block --
sorry -- Lot 6, Block 7. These are -- this is the lot with just a garage. So, an accessory
use. These folks have plans to construct a single family home in the future. I'm going
to talk about that a little more at the end of my presentation. And, then, the -- the
existing home is down here. That's Lot 9 and Block 9. A little bit about access. We are
in the -- in the center of the mile block here. So, Bott Lane will be our access out to
East Cloverdale and Peaceful Pond, which connects to a street called Zelda -- Zielda
connects -- Zaldia. Zaldia. Thank you. Connects to Eagle. And as Sonya mentioned,
those are both collector streets. As part of the project in -- right in the middle of the plat
you see East Bott Lane. Currently a local street. The developer is proposing to
increase the capacity there and build that out as a -- as a collector street. In connection
with that, all of the ACHD standards will be met. Bike lanes, detached sidewalks, and
along with a 20 foot landscape buffer on both sides. ACHD has looked at this
preliminary plat. Our hearing before them is December 12th. But their staff report is
recommending approval with proper mitigation. They have blessed the street layout
and our plans for Bott Lane. Turning to open space. Sonya, again, did a really good
job. She stole all my thunder. We are going over and above in all the categories here.
We have 16 percent open space where ten is required. You know, I can't really count
them, because there is so many, but we are only required to have two amenities. You
know, I think we have somewhere between seven and eight, depending. Over here is
our -- is our tot lot and one of the picnic areas. Down here is the pond, as Sonya
mentioned, that is part of the Nine Mile Creek. Here in the center open area, sports
field, and this is the pickleball court. Also here you have a picnic area with a shelter.
This side of the subdivision another open lawn area with a picnic shelter and up here to
the north this is what we are calling the community orchard. A little bit of a different
amenity. Going to have meeting space for our neighbors, hopefully, to have, you know,
HOA meetings and gatherings and, then, one thing that's not on the list here or
highlighted is the pathway along the Ten Mile feeder that is a ten foot wide path with
landscaping and it is part of the city's master parks pathways plan. So, it provides
connectivity there. All these green areas you see without any designation, those are
five foot micropaths to increase connectivity. We sort of viewed this subdivision as, you
know, kind of naturally divided into four quadrants. So, we tried to put an amenity in
each quadrant, so that people living close could enjoy those. Sonya, again, already
showed -- showed these and stole my thunder, but, again, pickleball -- I think an
unusual great amenity. We are building homes hopefully to target an empty nester
crowd. I know pickleball is really -- really popular with my parents and, then, a little
picture of what we anticipate the orchard looking like. Housing product. So, again, this
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 64 of 144
is a continuation of Shelburne one and two. The product is going to be very consistent.
The architectural style is modern farmhouse or contemporary. These are the two styles
we -- we foresee going forward. Predominantly single family with some -- I'm sorry --
predominantly single story with some two story and square footage in the 1,800 to 3,000
-- 3,000 square foot range. One thing in the staff report I did want to clarify -- it said all
homes would have a three car garage. That is not the case. Some will be two, some
will be three, but in any event they will all meet the city's off-street parking requirements.
All right. As to the staff report, we agree with 99.9 percent of it. Sonya did a great job
and on really short notice. I'm going to take you back to the Fulcher's lot. We have one
issue there. Staff has recommended -- she's even mousing for me. Staff has
recommended kicking this common lot down all the way to the south across the
Fulcher's lot. As I mentioned, the Fulchers have plans to construct a single family
home. They want to take access off Trenton and a 20 foot common lot there would
prevent that. So, what we would propose is that the Commission tonight recommends
approval with a landscape easement in lieu of the buffer lot. We are happy to take
direction from you on that, but we need at least one curb cut to serve the Fulcher's
future single family home. All right. This is in some sense a redevelopment. It's
certainly a consolidation project and as you all well know with that comes some
headaches of working around neighbors, making sure everyone's happy. We think we
have gone above and beyond in this case to deal -- to deal with those issues. A few
specific items I want to point out to you. Neighbors to the east, Holly and Kendall
Rasmussen, they own this parcel right here. We have held three neighborhood
meetings. I believe they participated in -- in all of them and they have communicated
with the developer directly. They have asked for privacy fencing surrounding the
southern portion of their lot, as well as the eastern portion. We are in agreement with
that and we want to accommodate the privacy fencing there. The Rasmussens have
also raised concerns about the Bott Lane curvature there and traffic, you know, directed
towards the lot there. We have tried to address that with some additional landscaping.
So, here's a revised fencing plan we put together to address the Rasmussen's concern.
You see the fencing, the privacy fencing to the south and the east, and in addition to the
-- to the standard berm that meets ACHD and city standards, we are willing to put in
some large boulders and rocks to increase safety and provide more of a buffer to the
Rasmussen's lot. Another couple of examples I want to point out before I -- before I rest
here. Up to the north here right above our orchard lot -- originally we had single family
homes planned there. We heard from Tim and Lisa Pitch -- I'm sorry if I mispronounced
their last name -- but they own the lot just to the north. They wanted to reduce the
number of single family units behind them, so we accommodated them there. Now,
they are only having one -- one -- one lot bordering them. There is a privacy fence
planned there. I think Sonya pointed out they wrote in and asked for a privacy fence
that's planned and we will -- we will be built. Second -- or, I'm sorry, third -- the third
issue we have dealt with to try to accommodate neighbors, in the center of the
development here you have Jared and Jennifer Marsh, they have a home towards the
southern edge of their property. In fact, the -- the folks they purchased it from built it in
the ACHD right of way. So, again, to work around that the best we can, we have -- we
have moved Bott Lane south to provide them some distance. Again, we have the 20
foot buffer, bike lane, everything. ACHD is on board with the alignment. Even
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 65 of 144
preliminarily liked some of the -- some of the curvature as a traffic calming measure and
jumping back to the Rasmussens real quick, I'm sorry, the fence -- the privacy fence, we
are trying to build that as quickly as possible. Contractors coming out at the end of the
month to get that up, so that whatever construction is going on won't bother them. So,
in conclusion, again, we think we have a great -- a great product. We meet the comp
plan. We have given great amenities, quality housing product, and we know it's a need.
So, with that I will stand with any -- stand for any questions.
Holland: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Holland.
Holland: One question in the staff report under waterways, it talks about the Ten Mile
feeder canal and Nine Mile Creek crossing the site. The canal is proposing to remain
open and not piped. The creek is proposed to be piped. But the staff made her a note
that says the UDC requires creeks to remain open and be improved as a natural
amenity in all residential designs. Do you have any comments about the creek and the
UDC requirements about keeping that open?
Bower: We are in agreement with all of staff's comments, unless I call them out
otherwise.
Holland: Great. Thanks.
Bower: Yeah.
Perreault: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault.
Perreault: Well, this the first time I have seen an orchard as an amenity. I'm curious
how that will operate, who is responsible for planting, harvesting, how is that going to
work.
Bower: Absolutely. Madam Chair, Commissioner --
Perreault: Perreault.
Bower: I'm sorry?
Perreault: Perreault.
Bower: No L. No L at all. You just take it off. Okay. The -- the orchard will be a
common area, owned and operated, maintained by an HOA. So, again, similar to what
you heard earlier. All the folks in the neighborhood will pay their -- pay their dues and
that money will be used to maintain the common areas, including the orchard. Ideally in
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 66 of 144
a perfect world what we would like to see is, you know, some community involvement
and ownership and every fall, you know, that be some sort of event where they have
their neighborhood potluck BBQ sort of thing and they pick the apples and distribute
them accordingly.
McCarvel: I have a question. On the lot with the garage or shed or whatever it is, how
soon -- obviously, you have -- there is somebody in mind that wants that to build a
house there. How soon is that house -- is that one of the first ones to go up or what's
the plan on that?
Bower: Madam Chair -- I'm sorry, I can't answer that. I have a feeling -- the Fulchers
are here tonight and they could probably answer that. That is not a part of -- yeah. I'm
going to leave it there.
McCarvel: Okay.
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: Perhaps the name is wrong here, but did you mention the -- you mentioned
several of the -- the neighbors and what you're doing to accommodate them. On our --
in the written testimony there is the Petchies. Did you address -- is that -- that's a lot?
Fitzgerald: Yeah. That's the one with the orchard.
Cassinelli: That's the one to the north of the orchard?
Bower: Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli, yes.
Cassinelli: Okay. Thank you.
Bower: And just to clarify, we reduced the number of lots bordering their property by
two, so now it's just one. I -- I'm not in a position tonight to address -- so, there were
two things in their written testimony, privacy fence, single family home. Can't commit to
the single family home tonight, but I can tell you our development is going to be
predominantly single family homes, so --
McCarvel: Single story.
Bower: I'm sorry. Single story. Predominantly single story. So, a very good chance
that that will -- that will be the case.
Perreault: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 67 of 144
Perreault: I noticed in one of the renderings that there was an RV garage. Are some of
the homes going to have RV garages and, if so, is there a certain amount of lots that will
allow for that or -- how will that work?
Bower: Madam Chair, Commissioner Perreault, I do not believe we have any RV style
garages, like oversized. In some cases we will have a three car garage, but all
standard size bays.
Perreault: Okay. Thank you.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: And this may be a Sonya question or maybe to the applicant. In regards to
building on Lot 6 -- or lot -- yes, Block 7, Lot 6, or lot -- whatever that -- that accessory
dwelling that's on there, by code how long can they leave an accessory dwelling without
building upon it?
Allen: Madam Chair, Commissioners, code really doesn't allow accessory buildings on
a site, so it's -- it's -- as it's written it's in the development agreement as a provision to
allow that. If you don't want to allow that you need to strike that at this point in time. I
have -- I would love to hear from the Fulchers. I'm sure they will come and chat. I think
there is a -- reasonable -- for the applicant, just from our point of view, probably that
that's within a reasonable time frame.
Allen: Yeah.
Fitzgerald: We can't have accessory buildings just sitting there for -- it's just not a good
-- good thing and as we are annexing this in and zoning it right now, it's the time when
we get to have to make that decision, so we can control it. So, I'm not sure -- we will
hear from the Fulchers, but I think we got to put a time frame on that sometime.
McCarvel: And, then, Bott Lane going to the east, is that road -- that goes into
technically Boise; right? Okay. Yeah. And so is that road done yet or is that --
Bower: Madam Chair --
McCarvel: What does that lead to or by the time you get there it will be --
Bower: Madam Chair, Bott Lane does connect to Cloverdale.
McCarvel: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 68 of 144
Bower: It is currently a county road. No -- you know, no shoulder, no -- no bike lane, no
nothing like that. Currently we are working with ACHD to discuss improvements to Bott
Lane out to Cloverdale.
McCarvel: Okay.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: Bott Lane from your guys's project to Cloverdale, half mile? Is that --
quarter mile? What -- what's the length of that street?
Bower: Madam Chair, Commissioner Fitzgerald, I can't give you a precise length. We
are right in the center of the mile -- you know, the mile block. So, you know,
guestimating somewhere between a quarter mile and a half mile.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Because there is sidewalk it looks like on portions of it that have
been approved, but not the whole thing out there.
Bower: Madam Chair, Commissioner Fitzgerald, are you looking at a map I'm not?
Fitzgerald: Yeah. I'm just looking at the -- the overview -- because you have a church
there, there is a neighborhood and, then, it goes into kind of county residents, some --
Bower: Yeah. Commissioner Fitzgerald, there are portions of Bott Lane further east
towards Cloverdale that have been improved in connection with developments adjacent.
Fitzgerald: Thank you. Yeah.
McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant?
Bower: Thank you.
McCarvel: Thank you.
Fitzgerald: Thank you, sir.
McCarvel: Do we have any public testimony, Chris?
Johnson: Yes, Madam Chair. First is Lisa Esson.
McCarvel: Okay.
Esson: Hi. My name is Lisa Esson. I live at 4430 East Bott Lane, Meridian. As a 27
year resident of this home that we are in on Bott Lane, I would like to encourage the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 69 of 144
Planning and Zoning Commission to consider a few suggestions from a homeowner
who has been and will be impacted by development and infrastructure decisions. My
family and I live on a five acre parcel. We farm hay. We are not opposed to
development, but we would like a well thought out development plan and to not deter
from our neighborhood's quality of life. In fact, two of the parcels that have been talked
about, one has a garage on it and the other has a home and those people have lived in
our neighborhood -- some longer than us. We like where we live and can understand
why people would want to live in the area. It's close to the freeway, St. Luke's
Meridian, stores and more and we have already talked about it being a dead end road
and over the years Cloverdale has become more difficult to get onto and quite
dangerous. Traffic in the morning between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. in the morning and
around 4:30 to 6:30 p.m. in the evening is a real cluster. Adding a hundred plus homes
to that area, even with access onto Eagle and Amity, is still going to be gridlock. There
was a traffic study when Hayden Homes Subdivision was put in several years ago, they
did their traffic study in July when there were no school buses or people traveling to
school. Traffic can back up over a mile in both directions and I took a video yesterday
and had to wait to get onto Cloverdale. It's not just vehicle traffic that I'm concerned
about either. Children walk and wait at the bus stop at Bott Lane and Cloverdale. They
wait in the dark half the year and in the afternoons they have to cross Cloverdale to get
onto Bott Lane. There is also a little league ball field that's used for about three-
quarters of the year in the southeast corner of Bott Lane and Cloverdale. Car and trip
pedestrian traffic clogs Bott Lane on days of events and we are asking you to take care
of the road infrastructure prior to granting plats on -- for the Shelburne Sub. When we
talked to TO Engineering several months ago they said they weren't going to conduct a
traffic study and, then, they said they would. With the recent addition of the 135 homes
to the east of me -- and it's called Antler Ridge, we would like you to consider how that
is going to impact our quality of life and the speed and traffic that comes down our
street.
McCarvel: Okay.
Esson: Thanks.
Johnson: Next is Earl Esson.
E.Esson: Hi, I'm Earl Esson. You know, I had a great opportunity --
McCarvel: Please give your address for the record.
E.Esson: Oh. 4430 Bott Lane. If you look at the maps up there, nothing shows my
property, but there is 660 linear foot of my property line abutting the Fulcher's property
that are going to be developed. Okay? So, my fence line that goes north-south is the
annexation zone. So, I'm still in Ada county. That's where it turns into potentially Boise.
Okay. But currently -- and for the last 28 years it's been Meridian -- Meridian zip code.
So, what I would like to say is we have lived there -- there has been 80 people living
there and currently with the addition of a hundred new homes, that's changed our street
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 70 of 144
from eight homes to now over 250 homes, if you count the subdivision that straddles
Meridian and Boise. I was really hoping that they would show what ACHD is going to
do to get all the way out to Cloverdale. To put this type of subdivision in and, then, trust
five years later that someone's going to take that quarter mile street that will already
have half of it with sidewalks and appropriately done and not finish it is a travesty in
planning. You know, currently we have very few cars up and down that street and we
are running right now typically maybe a quarter of them drive 25 miles an hour, okay?
Most of them are speeding. It would be nice where the Fulchers and the Kingsleys
property enters out into Bott Lane is if in the planning, since you haven't approved
anything yet, to put a rotary in there, because people drive at 45 miles an hour and slam
on their brakes to get over that bridge by the Marsh's property and currently, until
somebody from ACHD comes out and shows what's going to happen to that road, I
think that it ought of be suspended or put off changing the zoning until someone decides
what they are going to do with that road, because to leave it as it is and expect people
to use that as a corridor type road is I think irresponsible at this time. So, you know, go
ahead and approve it, but do so with the thought that currently in talking to Dave, the
deputy director, it appears that everybody's expecting tax paying people to provide the
money to build that road, whereas right now I think that's something that should be
taken care of by the developers and ACHD now, not five years from now.
McCarvel: Thank you.
Johnson: Michael Kingsley.
Kingsley: Good evening. I'm Michael Kingsley. I live at 4301 East Bott Lane. I'm going
to retain my house. I have been telling my -- my -- my friends that I don't have to move
into a nice neighbor. One is going to move into me. So, my wife and I are really looking
forward to this. It's been something -- we have lived there for 32 years. All right? My
wife was born in this cabin in the front corner here. Her grandmother homesteaded this
land 70 some odd years ago. So, we have been here forever and we have watched all
these other people move in around us and make up the rules and stuff. So, it just
seems, you know, pertinent to me that, you know, we ought to have a little bit of a say
on what's going to happen around our property and we have turned down Hayden
Homes, told them, no, we didn't want to deal with them, because they are just -- it's just
a nasty little development. It really is. And you look over here on the other side of this
and you see what the Shelburne Division -- Subdivision is. These -- these lots are close
to a third of an acre. They are nice lots. We got six acres. They are going to put, what,
16 houses on it, that's not very many houses for an R-4 development, so -- and as for
Bott Lane I gave my 25 feet to ACHD when we paid off the county for -- from Arlene's
grandmother. What they did over here at -- at Hayden Homes is incredibly ignorant, but
the rest of it could be really nice if they would just go ahead and finish that out. There is
not much there. It's only a quarter of a mile. We have people walking dogs up and
down the road constantly. W e really need some barrels for dog doo and I think that
that's what's going to happen when they start doing their road development here. So,
thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 71 of 144
McCarvel: Thank you.
Johnson: Next you have Jennifer Marsh.
Marsh: Good evening. My name is Jennifer Marsh and I live on 4270 Bott Lane. We
have been living here about going on 15 years and we have five acres. We are the
acreage in between that is getting all surrounded by the new development that they are
proposing tonight. I am against the annexation and the high density in this area. We
have enjoyed raising four children -- still raising our family in the space that has allowed
them to dirt bike, ride horses, grow hay, bale our hay, have a nice view of Bogus Basin
and now that will be blocked by houses. I'm disappointed that the City of Meridian has
not come by to consider and see all the acreage that is on Bott Lane, Zaldia, Selatir,
Terri Lane and off of Victory Road and that has -- would have been a perfect opportunity
to have an open neighborhood to fit into the surrounding acreage. Even Kingsbridge
Subdivision has more space and lower density. And at this point, like we have all been
saying, the roads can't handle the traffic and the schools are overcrowded. I would also
like to express that we are not trying to make the rules. We did not find out that our
house was granted to ACHD until this was all being proposed. This was not disclosed
to us when we bought the house. Right now the ACHD has that little triangle that they
are giving the right of way to ACHD and I would like that right of way that we did not
know about originally deeded back to our property and back to us. So, then, we can be
free and clear to sell our house and acreage down the road. I'm concerned about the
road Bott Lane driving right in front of our house. Our house sits off of -- off of Bott Lane
about seven to eight feet of the existing lane. I would hope that they would give us the
courtesy they are giving the Rasmussens for safety and security and to build some sort
of barrier, so that we do not have cars and all running into our son's bedroom. I would
also like them to give us fencing along the Fulchers line on -- I guess that's east of us on
our east property line. So, having this little oasis in the middle of the city has been nice
and it's sad to see all the homes coming in and especially R-8 being proposed across
from us and I would hope that we would have single level homes that would be adjacent
to us on our -- on our land and that we could still enjoy our farm life and enjoy our
horses and have the -- the life that we have been enjoying for the past 15 years. Thank
you.
McCarvel: Thank you.
Johnson: Jared Marsh.
J.Marsh: Jared Marsh. 4270 Bott Lane again with my wife getting surrounded by the
development. I think if there is one thing I want to say I'm consistent. We have met with
the developer multiple times and expressed concern over the density being proposed, in
which they have responded in every case that it is this Council that is insisting on that
density. So, I come before the Council today to ask and urge you to reconsider the
density being proposed. I believe an R-4 designation is more consistent with the
existing development already underway. It provides a buffer. As my wife has noted
there are multiple -- multi-acre homes still in the area and, quite frankly, services that
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 72 of 144
are under -- provided already as has been mentioned by several of my other neighbors.
I want to clarify I'm not against the development, but I do feel like it can be done in a
manner that does not overwhelm all the infrastructure. We have had four kids go
through the Meridian school district and have dealt for 14 years with chronic over -- over
subscription on those schools that has not relieved -- the new elementary already is at
capacity. Adding more homes will only exaggerate this problem for years, if not
decades to come. I would also like to address the fallacy that development pays for
itself. We have seen bond resolution after bond resolution to keep up with the
infrastructure requirements driven by the dense profiteering that's going on in the cities
right now. I guess to reiterate what my wife said, we are not anti-development, but what
we really want to see are the serenity, security and safety of our family preserved and
we look to this Council to do that for us. We do want privacy. We want fencing along
both the east, as well as the south. I mean I have heard it referred to as a collector road
multiple times. It is not. It is a county road at this point and it's not being proposed to
continue on as a -- as a collector. Absent that level of service and access, I don't think
the R-8 designation is more warranted. I vote and urge the Council to again extend
some of the same considerations to other neighbors in our area to ensure that our -- our
home is protected from -- you know, I'm concerned about a jog in the road right -- eight
feet from for my son's bedroom, honestly, and we have asked for retaining walls and
other mechanisms to prevent cars from being able to collide with that house and our
son's bedroom, but I don't see anything in the plat today or preliminary plat that
indicates that's been considered or is being offered. I would also like to say, you know,
the speed that was mentioned, we do see that quite frequently and my concern with that
jog there and high speed is -- and slick roads when it snows, is, yes, we will -- it's not --
maybe not a question of if, but when it's going to happen. So, again, not anti-
development, but, please, consider the density. Leave R-4. Thank you.
McCarvel: Thank you.
Johnson: Kevin Rasmussen.
Rasmussen: Good evening. My name is Kevin Rasmussen. I live at 3868 East Zaldia
Lane, which borders actually Shelburne -- two developments to the south of me and the
new development that's going in. I was wondering if you could pull up the actual plat of
the subdivision here to kind of look at it. It seems to me that Bott Lane as it connects
over Cloverdale, it's going to be a straight shot that comes down and as it comes across
that bridge it will come down around the corner and that's where all the traffic is going to
exit, because Cloverdale is so congested that nobody can get out onto Cloverdale. In
fact, when they are going from Cloverdale they will have an access to come across and
hook them over to Eagle Road. So, they will come down Bott Lane and come and clip
right on the corner of my property and with that banked curb -- or it should be banked I
guess, but with that radius right there and, then, they -- they can just take on Peaceful
Pond out to Eagle Road. So, that's going to be a thoroughfare for a lot of people,
because Cloverdale is going to use that as a cut through. When they get off the
freeway of Eagle they are going to come down, hit Peaceful Pond and use that to go
over to access that. So, all that traffic is going to be coming along Bott Lane. It also
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 73 of 144
goes out to Amity, which is an egress for Century Farms, the YMCA, that's a straight
shot from that corner all the way out to Amity. So, when Amity gets backed up, which it
does constantly, and Legacy Farms, when they don't want to go over and fight Eagle
Road, they are going to be coming straight down into there. There was one picture on
here that showed yellow lines where Bott Lane and Peaceful Pond and Hillsdale
Avenue -- where they all were connected. This is not going to be a collector road, it's
going to be an arterial road. It's going to have lots and lots of traffic on it and so while
I'm not really opposed to the development, I'm opposed to the development as it's
designed and that I think there should be some T intersections or stop signs or
something going on to try and limit the flow of traffic through these subdivisions. Thank
you.
Johnson: There are no additionals.
McCarvel: With nobody else being signed up, was there anybody else in the room that
wished to testify tonight? Okay.
Stiles: My name is Bonnie Stiles and I live at 3822 East Zaldia Lane. Can you pull up
the plat of the entire subdivision, please?
Allen: Ma'am, this is the entire subdivision that's proposed. Did you want the --
Stiles: No, it's --
Allen: Did you want that?
Stiles: Yeah. That one. Okay. So, we are one of these five acre lots here and you can
see the -- the rural lots on this map. My question is where is the transition between all
of these rural lots, Kingsbridge and Shelburne, even these lots down at the corner of
Eagle and Amity, I don't see a transition. I don't know about you guys, but I see a lot of
rural lots, five acre lots and some larger -- I don't see a transition. Why isn't there more
of a transition. For those of us that bought these beautiful five acre lots in this beautiful
part of Meridian, to have that feeling of -- of the country, to have horses, to have large
gardens, to have pasture and now there -- we are just surrounded by these subdivisions
with -- with small lots. There is no transition and I'm so disappointed that this has
happened and it continues to happen. You have an opportunity now to have some
transition, but it's -- again, it's just these little tiny lots. I even think R-4 is too small. I
mean there are no half acre lots. There might be a couple in Kingsbridge, but really not.
So, I would really like to see more of a transition with this part of Shelburne and one
thing, you know, this gentleman says that the -- representing Shelburne, has said that
they have tried so hard to work with the -- the neighbors. Well, I just have to say we live
right next door to Rasmussens and we have had a beautiful line of pine trees lining our
road right out in front of our home. A beautiful line in the one actual picture you can see
them, because they are still there. Last December -- and -- and I have to say in the
meeting that we came to like this for that first phase of Shelburne, it was agreed that
those pine trees were all going to stay. Well, last December, the pine trees right in front
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 74 of 144
of our -- our home, these big beautiful, you know, 30, 40 foot pine trees that have been
there for -- for years it was -- I'm hoping -- I was hoping that they would provide a buffer
between us and Shelburne. Most of them came down across from our home. They cut
all of those trees down. All of those beautiful trees.
McCarvel: Okay.
Stiles: I'm almost done. But, you know, I would like to say what are you going to do for
us? All those beautiful trees were just -- were cut down. What are you going to do for
us to help us have a buffer between us and -- and the first phase of Shelburne.
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you.
Stiles: Thank you.
McCarvel: If there is no more public testimony, would the applicant like to come back?
Bower: Madam Chair, Commissioners, thank you. I will be brief. I will address Ms.
Esson's comments first on traffic. First as to the traffic study comment, ACHD did not
require a traffic study for this development. We are below the threshold one hundred
lots and ACHD has also studied this area extensively and said they did not need any
more information. What we did do was a traffic count analysis and provided that to
ACHD. To reiterate, Bott Lane is currently in the county and it is a county road.
However, ACHD has designated it as a collector road and we are building it to collector
road standards. Conferred with the engineers from the edge of our property to the east
to Cloverdale is approximately one quarter mile. As to density, I just want to reiterate
we are in a medium density zone -- not zone, I'm sorry, designation under the -- under
the future land use map and the project we are bringing is 3.1 units per acre, which is at
the very bottom end of what the city has decided it would like there. So, we are at the --
at the bottom end of density. We don't believe this is a dense development and it is
consistent with the future land use plan. A little bit more on -- on the Marsh's property
and -- and the easement issue there. We hope -- and we are working with ACHD to
return that land to the Marshes. ACHD has committed to vacating that portion of their
easement. It's just a question of time and recording the correct instruments and I
believe it will be returned to the Marshes. To address the -- the adjacency of the
Marsh's home to Bott Lane, I have to reiterate this is going to be built as a collector
street, so we have a minimum 20 foot buffer with landscaping. According to the
engineers in that area we are looking at more like 25 feet of a buffer to -- to the right of
way. On the Cloverdale traffic issues, again, we are working with ACHD to make
improvements to Bott Lane that includes the intersection of Bott Lane and Cloverdale.
Cloverdale is also on ACHD's short list for major improvement. They are expecting it
widened and improved within the next five years. And unless the Commission has any
more questions, I think I am -- I have given you all I have got.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 75 of 144
McCarvel: So, does that -- you said you're working with ACHD to improve the
intersection out Bott to Cloverdale. Does that include Bott all the way into your
subdivision then?
Bower: Currently that is what is anticipated.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: To talk through the Marsh's request, whether retaining walls or rocks or
some kind of a buffer for that street, is that something you guys would be willing to do,
work with them on landscaping or something that would give them some -- some -- I
guess -- thank you -- security for their -- that someone won't hit their house if there is an
icy road and somebody takes the jog in that road and does not make the turn?
Bower: Madam Chair, Commissioner Fitzgerald, absolutely. We -- in my main
presentation I showed you what we had kind of designed for the Rasmussens on that
corner. We can do the same thing, you know, as long as ACHD is okay with, you know,
obstructions along the collector road. We would set them back further, but assuming it's
all up to speed with ACHD, we would be happy to work with the Marshes to put in some
additional landscaping there as a buffer.
McCarvel: I think a few boulders might do it.
Fitzgerald: Yeah. That's --
McCarvel: Okay.
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: In regards to that Marsh -- Marsh home, currently their access is off Bott
Road. Is that -- is that being relocated?
Bower: Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli, I'm not sure where their access is
currently. Might have to ask Shon, the engineer.
Parks: Madam chair and Commissioners -- I don't know if you can --
McCarvel: Please state your name and address for the record.
Parks: Shon Parks. TO Engineers. 2471 Titanium Place in Meridian. It's my work
address.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 76 of 144
McCarvel: Thank you.
Park: Here on the mouse you can see approximately -- and the Marshes can -- can
correct me if I'm -- if I'm wrong, but I believe their access is about in this location and it
would be proposed to be extended through -- and remain in the location where it is and
extended into -- into Bott and so that their access would remain, but in an extended
format through this -- through this new portion, which we are hoping to be vacated back
to them.
McCarvel: Any other questions? Did we get a timeline on the house to be built with
the --
Fitzgerald: No. We can hear from the Fulchers.
Bower: Madam Chair, the Fulchers were not here. Okay.
Fulcher: Good evening. My name is Jeff Fulcher. 4330 East Bott Lane. And we own
the property there with the auxiliary structure and we currently have a home in design.
It's been designed for several months. We have been waiting for it to be platted,
because we can't build until it is platted. So, once it's platted our intention is to build a
home as soon as possible on that property.
McCarvel: Thank you.
Fitzgerald: Appreciate it.
McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? Thank you.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: Move we close the public hearing an H-2018-0112.
Holland: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2018-
0112. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
McCarvel: I think they have gone through great lengths to make this fit and make
accommodations and I think a lot of developers we see would not have done, so -- I do
have concern about Bott Lane out there, but I guess -- I mean they don't have control
over it, but I think ACHD would -- I mean it sounds like they are all in the process of
getting that cleaned up, so --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 77 of 144
Perreault: Madam Chair, I thought I had heard on earlier application that they don't
prefer to have driveways off a collector street, so I don't know if that's going to become
a concern. I mean -- I don't know if we need to request ACHD clarify that or --
McCarvel: I think -- I mean --
Fitzgerald: It's still in the county, so it's one of those -- it's not being annexed in, still in
the county.
McCarvel: Yeah. I think that -- that little issue would have to be up to ACHD and leave
that.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: So, to the neighbors who live out there, especially on the larger five acre
parcels, I understand your -- the dilemma. The challenge I think is that you have had
neighbors that decided they want to work together to bring a project and they have the
right to do that and development is coming that direction and it's -- this is tough,
because I understand you want to have your kind of solace area and that -- and that's
the way it's been built, but the problem is that your neighbors have the right to do what
they want to do as well that, hopefully, doesn't impact your life's too -- too much and I
think densitywise it could be more -- significantly more. It could be the Hubble -- are not
Hubble, that -- Hayden Home thing that's next door, which is not what they would like.
McCarvel: Yeah. So, I guess thank your neighbors for choosing a developer that has
put this together. I think as far as amenities and open space and the lot size is definitely
one of the more favorable things we have seen for a while.
Holland: Madam Chair, I would -- I would just echo some of the same comments you
have made. Certainly it's a challenge when you have got to a -- a large acreage and
when neighbors come together to kind of put together a plan. I think they have tried to
do what they could to phase it by putting some of the R-4 on the west side and some of
the R-8 on the east side to try and transition a little bit better. I think they did a nice job
of giving more amenities than -- than code requires and a lot of green space and a lot of
connectivity for people who are biking or walking, some unique amenities, too. I don't
think I have ever seen an orchard as part of an amenity either, so a creative concept
and interested to see how that works in the future. The only other thing I wanted to talk
about as a Commission was there was the question of the applicant about the Fulcher's
lot and making that a landscape easement, rather than a buffered common lot. I don't
see any big concerns with that. I don't know if there is any other opinions on that.
Fitzgerald: That makes sense.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 78 of 144
McCarvel: Yeah. No, I had made that note, too. I think the landscape easement is just
fine and that the building can stay, especially since they are wanting a year to start the
house, so --
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli, what do you have to say?
Cassinelli: It's tough, too, because I feel for the -- the neighbors that have the large
parcels out there, like you -- like you say, and, you know, I think when -- when most of
them bought they never envisioned -- they never envisioned this growth happening
down. But it is. You know, this is in keeping with the -- with the land use map and --
Sonya, I have got a question for you. The -- I know that -- this is on the low end of the
density; is that correct --
Allen: Yes, it is.
Cassinelli: -- that you -- did -- did the applicant come with the R-4 and R-8 or was it in
conversation with staff to bring that density up a little bit to put the R-8 in there?
Allen: As -- as I'm sure you remember, density isn't necessarily tied to zoning districts
now, that simply governs the dimensional standards --
Cassinelli: Yeah.
Allen: -- but the density is proposed at 3.1 units per acre. Medium density is three to
eight units per acre. We did encourage the -- the lower density. I think it is a good mix.
Obviously, it's not -- it's low enough for the large rural residential parcels.
McCarvel: I think overall I'm in -- I would be supportive of it.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, I give the applicant a ton of credit for working with neighbors
that are -- that are surrounding this, because it's a tough one, it's -- working with them to
make sure you're trying to buffer as much as possible and give them security and safety
concerns, I appreciate that, and I -- I think it will be a very nice subdivision and
neighborhood in regards to the Ten Mile Creek running through it and using that as an
amenity. So, I -- I would lean to be in favor as well.
Parsons: Madam Chair --
McCarvel: Uh-huh.
Parsons: -- I'm going to chime in on a couple things that you should probably take
under consideration that -- that I didn't hear quite addressed by the applicant, but one of
the homeowners had concerns about Bott Lane and the traffic cutting through there.
Currently as proposed, looking at ACHD's staff report and our staff report, Bott Lane
isn't proposed to be extended until phase three or least they will extend their portions as
they go through their phasing, but the off site portion we don't know when that's going to
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 79 of 144
happen and that's not really -- that's addressed in ACHD's conditions, but I don't see
where it's addressed in our development agreement and that's something that you --
with annexation that's certainly something that you could request as part of the
annexation request is that the off site improvement for Bott Lane be done at a certain
time frame, whether it's first phase, second phase, or third phase I will leave that under
your purview tonight, but the other thing in looking at ACHD's condition is the applicant
is not required to provide any curb, gutter, sidewalk along that roadway either and if you
look farther out to Cloverdale, there is a church and ball fields that -- there is community
gathering places there that we want to get people to, so from a planning perspective it
makes sense to have sidewalk or at least on one side of the road to get people to those
services and those facilities. Again, not addressed by ACHD. Their commission is
going to take action on this application on December 5th based on their staff report and
going back to the other comment about the curb cut, it looks like ACHD is requiring the
applicant to reconstruct that -- that curb cut to that collector roadway. So, again, yes,
it's not consistent with our code, but, again, given the circumstances that -- that they are
dealing with, again, that -- that works for us, we don't really have any concerns as far as
them continuing to use their existing driveway. But I just wanted you guys to take that
under consideration as you deliberate on this application as well.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: Bill, you're talking about off site curb, gutter, and sidewalk --
Parsons: Yes.
Fitzgerald: -- not on site, because that's --
Parsons: Correct.
Fitzgerald: -- there.
Parsons: That off-site portion --
Fitzgerald: Okay.
Parsons: -- needs to be part of your purview I believe. It's important. That's -- that's
the critical piece, because right now if it's not improved, it will just remain as an
emergency access and, then, we have all of these homes funneling back out --
McCarvel: Yeah.
Parsons: -- through Zaldia.
McCarvel: Yeah. I think that's a deal breaker is to have Bott Lane --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 80 of 144
Allen: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: I mean I don't think -- uh-huh.
Allen: Sorry. If I may clarify a couple additional items when you're done.
McCarvel: Sure. Go ahead.
Allen: To Commissioner Cassinelli's point on the density, the zoning districts don't
govern the density. However, if -- if you're not wanting to approve the R-8 zoning
district, which -- which does, essentially -- if you want just R-4 zoning they are going to
have to drop a few lots to get there. So, it -- it does have something to do with density,
although the zoning districts -- you know, that's not the purpose anymore. However, if
you do that it's going to drop their gross density down below that desired in the medium
density designated areas, which they can do if Council approves a step down in density.
So, I just wanted to just clarify that a little further for you, if that's your desire and, then,
also I heard a comment about doing a landscape easement on the Fulcher property.
Our code doesn't allow for landscape easements on residential property, so if -- if you
don't want to require the buffer, then, just don't require it. If -- if it's a buffer it's got to be
in a common lot.
McCarvel: You know, really, the only smaller lots I'm seeing is that northeast corner. I
mean just glancing over it -- I mean even though that whole right side of the canal I think
is requested R-8 --
Fitzgerald: Yeah.
Allen: R-4 is a minimum 8,000 square foot lots and everything -- everything --
Fitzgerald: But that one side.
McCarvel: Yeah.
Allen: -- but several lots east of the canal are -- are a little below that.
McCarvel: Yeah. And they are just slightly -- it's just that northeast corner that's a little
bit smaller. So, I think I'm -- I'm okay with the number of lots that are on there. Okay.
Fitzgerald: Thoughts on off site?
McCarvel: I think since we are annexing it in, I think it should require that that be done
with the completion of phase three. Is that when Bott Lane itself is supposed to be
done; right?
Perreault: Madam Chair?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 81 of 144
McCarvel: Uh-huh.
Perreault: What specifically are you recommending be done? I missed that. I'm sorry.
McCarvel: Oh. The -- the off site Bott Lane. So, the Bott Lane that's to the east of
where their sub -- it's not finished. It's a gravel road. So, as part of the annexation
requirement that before completion of phase three that they definitely work with ACHD
to pave -- and I mean, yeah, get that street --
Perreault: Curb and gutter.
McCarvel: -- curb, gutter, sidewalk.
Perreault: On both sides?
McCarvel: I think how -- the sidewalk at least on one side.
Perreault: Okay.
McCarvel: Yeah. All the way through to --
Perreault: I was under the impression it's currently --
McCarvel: It's just a rural lane. Yeah, it's no gutter, no -- I would be okay with that and
just making sure that's done before phase three before both of the houses. Anymore
thoughts? Are we ready for a motion?
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Yes.
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland, I think that having a buffer there is not necessary, if
that's something you're -- I don't -- I don't think there is a need -- they are going to
landscape it has required by HOA.
McCarvel: Yeah.
Holland: I'm fine removing that condition as well.
Cassinelli: I'm fine with removing that. I'm just going to say for the record where I
stand. I would like to see the whole thing at -- at an R-4, instead of splitting to an R-4
and R-8, but I don't think I'm in the -- in the majority there. But I just want -- I want to put
that out, because it's -- it's -- it's still such a rural area that would help and I think that -- I
don't think there would be a problem with -- with selling those lots. I mean two-thirds of
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 82 of 144
it is -- is R-4 already. I think they can come back and do that and -- and everybody
would be happy with that. So, I would like to see that.
McCarvel: Okay. I could go either way on that, because I think it's just a couple of lots
that will do it, but --
Fitzgerald: Just some having to request it from -- from Council.
Holland: Madam Chair, Commissioners, I don't know that I -- I see a need to change
the designation from R-8 down to R-4. I think it would be just a matter of a couple of --
of lots really in change. I think they have done a pretty nice job of making a good flow
there. The most dense part, again, is kind of that northeast corner of the development
and as you're kind of transitioning over to the east side, I mean while there is certainly
some nice rural lots still available in this kind of area, if you look at the kind of
surrounding picture, it's not really a rural area as much anymore either, it's -- it's
become more of a suburban area, unfortunately. There is just a lot of development on
the east side of it and I think it -- it makes an okay transition to the east.
McCarvel: Yeah. In the big picture I don't know that it's going to make that much
difference.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, I would -- my thing would be just to maintain the -- the way
the application is --
McCarvel: Yeah.
Fitzgerald: -- currently.
McCarvel: Okay. Would you like to do the honors?
Fitzgerald: Sure. Any other thoughts? Madam Chair, after considering all staff,
applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file
number H-2018-0011 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November
15th, 2018, with the following modifications: That we remove the requirement for the
landscape buffer on the Fulcher lot and the applicant work with -- I'm blank on the
name. The Marshes to ensure they have appropriate I guess landscaping and security
protection for their house as they look to vacate that right of way and that the Bott Lane
improvements go along with phase three --
McCarvel: All the way out to Cloverdale.
Fitzgerald: All the way out to Cloverdale.
McCarvel: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 83 of 144
Holland: Did you mention removing the common lot or did we want to talk about that for
that --
Fitzgerald: Yeah. I said that.
Holland: Okay.
McCarvel: Oh, yeah, I think he said landscape buffer.
Fitzgerald: Oh, sorry. I mean the common lot on the Fulcher lot. Yeah.
McCarvel: Yeah.
Fitzgerald: That be removed.
McCarvel: Do I hear a second?
Allen: Madam Chair, may I clarify the motion before it's voted on?
McCarvel: Yes.
Allen: By improvements out on Bott Lane to the east to Cloverdale with the third phase,
does that include sidewalk or no?
McCarvel: Sidewalks on one side is what we had decided.
Allen: Okay. I just wanted to clarify on the record your intention.
McCarvel: Yeah.
Allen: ACHD is only requiring 30 feet of pavement and gravel shoulders, so --
McCarvel: Yeah. I think sidewalk, curb and gutter -- sidewalk on one side I think is
what we had discussed.
Holland: I will second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to recommend approval on H-2018-0112
with modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed?
Cassinelli: Nay.
McCarvel: Motion carries and do we want roll call or did you get that, Chris?
Johnson: I got that.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 84 of 144
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY. TWO ABSENT.
F. Public Hearing for Linder Village (H-2017-0088) by Lynx/DMG
Real Estate, Located at the SE corner of N. Linder Rd. and W.
Chinden Blvd.
1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 81.51 acres of land from
the RUT zoning district in Ada County to the C-C zoning
district (63.796 acres) and the R-8 zoning district (17.713
acres) in the city; and
2. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 16 commercial
building lots, 1 residential building lot, 2 common lots, and 2
other lots for future right-of-way dedication on 78.13 acres of
land in the proposed C-C and R8 zoning districts; and
3. Request: Variance to the UDC 11-3H-4B.2 for 2 accesses
via W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26
McCarvel: Okay. Thanks. All right. Would anybody like to -- be happy about opening
H-2017-0088, Linder Village, and we will begin with the staff report.
Allen: Give me just a moment here, Chairman. All righty. The next application before
you is a request for annexation and zoning and a preliminary plat. This site consists of
78 acres of land. It's zoned RUT in Ada county and it's located at the southeast corner
of North Linder Road and West Chinden Boulevard, State Highway 20-26. Adjacent
land use and zoning. To the north are commercial uses. It's the Fred Meyer Center,
retail, restaurant, carwash, fuel facility uses and single family residential uses in
Reinhard Subdivision. To the east and south are single family residential properties in
Paramount Subdivision, zoned R-8, and vacant, undeveloped properties zones C-C. To
the west is North Linder Road and commercial properties, zoned C-G and single family
residential uses and Lochsa Falls Subdivision, zoned R-4. A little history on this project.
The Commission previously heard this application last year. The Commission voted to
recommend denial of the project to the City Council based on the design of the
previous concept plan. The Council heard the application and voted to remand the
application back to the Commission for review of a revised concept plan and that is
what is before you tonight. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation
is mixed use community, 54 acres of the site, as shown there on the map on the right,
the brown area and the yellow area is medium density residential, which consists of
approximately 24 acres of land. Annexation and zoning of 81.51 acres of land from the
RUT zoning district in Ada county to the C-C zoning district, which is 63.8 acres and the
R-8 zoning district, which is 17.71 acres in the city. The proposed zoning and
development is consistent with the future land use map designations for this property. A
conceptual -- a revised conceptual development plan was submitted as shown that
depicts a mix of retail, office, civic and residential uses consisting of nine commercial
pads, two restaurant pads and fuel station along the periphery of the development
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 85 of 144
adjacent to Chinden and Linder Roads. Four two story live-work residential office
buildings. A library and two market buildings along the central north-south entry corridor
by via Chinden, within a plaza area. Two multi-story office residential retail buildings
along the collector street. One anchor, Winco, and a mid anchor to the west of the
central north-south corridor, three mid anchors to the east of the north-south central
corridor. Future office retail development planned at the northeast corner the site. A
park and future single family residential development on the south side of the collector
street and pedestrian walkways throughout the development providing interconnectivity
between the residential and commercial portions of the site. Staff recommends traffic
calming, for example, chokers, bulb outs, speed humps, et cetera, is provided in front of
the plaza area in an effort to slow traffic for pedestrian safety. And this is the area we
are talking about right here, if you can see my pointer. The conceptual plan accounts
for ITD's CFI, continuous flow intersection, right of way needs, with a white dashed line
at the southeast corner of Linder and Chinden and that is -- you can just kind of see it
real lightly right there. However, improvements -- the multiple parking spaces and drive
aisles around the front of building two are shown within that area that will be eliminated
eventually with the construction of the CFI. Staff is recommending that the concept plan
is revised prior to the Council hearing to remove the improvements from that area. The
truck receiving area for the Winco store has been relocated from the rear of the building
to the west side of the building facing Linder Road, with the loading docks facing north
towards Chinden Boulevard away from the residential uses to the south and are
proposed to be screened by a masonry wall and that is this area right here. The future
medium density residential development which is this area right here, the green area, is
planned for attached and detached single family homes on the south side of the
collector street. They will assist in providing a transition to larger single family
residential lots to the south and east in Paramount Subdivision and the collector street
will provide a separation and boundary between the future residential and the
commercial development and this is just a use area plan showing the uses that I
mentioned previously. And this is the preliminary plat. They are requesting 16
commercial building lots, one residential building lot, two common lots and two other
lots for future right of way dedication on 78.13 acres of land in the proposed C-C and R-
8 zoning districts. A variance to UDC 11-3H-4B2 for two accesses via West Chinden
Boulevard, State Highway 20-26, is also requested, which requires Council approval.
No action is needed from the Commission. The residential lot on the south side of the
collector street is included in the plat as one large lot and will be developed in the future
under a subsequent preliminary plat, as well a future office and retail development on
the eastern portion of the site and that is this area right here and this area here. A
phasing plan was submitted for the proposed development as shown here. Staff
recommends the following improvements are completed with the first phase and that is
North Bergman Avenue, which is this blue line here, is extended to the east-west
collector street, install the -- the entire 20 foot wide street buffer on both sides of the
east-west collector street and complete the extension of the east-west collector street to
North Fox Run Way and if you remember Fox Run Way is located just to the east of this
project off site. So, staff is recommending the phasing plan be revised accordingly.
The traffic impact study was updated based on the revised concept plan and submitted
to ITD and ACHD and was taken into consideration in their revised report. Staff did just
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 86 of 144
receive the draft ACHD report today and the revised ITD report as well today. Access is
proposed for the development via West Chinden Boulevard and State Highway 20-26
as follows: One right-in, right-out access is proposed nearest the Linder and Chinden
Boulevard intersections and that is this one right here. One full access is proposed in
alignment with Bergman Way on the north side of Chinden and that's this one right here.
ITD has jurisdiction of access from State Highway 20-26. The UDC does prohibit new
approaches directly accessing a state highway, State Highway 20-26. The applicant is
requesting Council approval of a variance for these accesses. ITD submitted comments
stating that they accept the right of way -- excuse me -- the right-in, right-out access
with an eastbound right turn decel lane and the right-in, right-out, left-in approach via
the state highway with right turn decel lanes for eastbound and westbound State
Highway 20-26. Final approval will be determined once all documentation has been
provided and the permit is signed. Improvements are required at the State Highway 20-
20 -- excuse me -- 20-26, Fox Run, Linder Road and Meridian Road intersections as
identified in the TIS and State Highway 20-26 will be widened to a five lane section
between Linder and Meridian Roads. The applicant has requested consideration to
enter into a STAR agreement with ITD and ACHD to implement the aforementioned
improvements, along with additional improvements required by ACHD, which are
required to be complete prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancies within the
development. Access is proposed via Linder Road as follows: A right-in, right-out
access, which is right here nearest the Linder-Chinden intersection and two full
accesses further to the south and that is one right here and one right here where the
collector street is. The southernmost access via Linder is a collector street, as I
mentioned, that stubs to the east property boundary that will eventually provide access
from Linder to Fox Run Way and the signal at the Chinden-Fox Run intersection. A
signal is proposed at the Linder collector street intersection, which is not supported by
the fire department due to the belief that a signal will cause too much congestion with
the operations of the engine company trying to leave the station and respond to calls.
ACHD is trying to determine a solution to that. Haven't heard anything back yet, but it's
something that maybe can help that. Three stub streets, North Arliss Avenue, North
Bergman Avenue, and West Director Street, exist at the south and east boundaries of
the site to the future residential area that will be extended with development and those -
- if you can see my pointer right here, that's Arliss, Bergman, and Director here. Two
accesses are proposed from the residential area to the collector street, which will
provide internal access to the mixed use development from the adjacent residential area
without residents having to go out onto Linder and Chinden to access the site. Staff
recommends Bergman Avenue is extended to the collector street with the first phase of
development, so that adjacent residences, like I said, can access the site. A cross-
access ingress-egress easement is required to be provided to the commercial property
to the south on Linder Road and that is this area right down here. A segment of the
city's multi-use pathway is required along Linder Road per the pathways master plan. A
ten foot wide pathway is also required within the street buffer along the highway. The
concept plan also depicts a ten foot wide multi-use pathway along the east and south
perimeter boundaries of the site, with the internal sidewalks and pathways proposed
throughout the development with connections to the multi-use pathways. Conceptual
building elevations were submitted as shown for the main anchor Winco, the mid
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 87 of 144
anchors, and the retail shops and the residential units. Building materials consist
primarily of stucco, with smooth and split faced CMU, metal panel siding and stone and
brick veneer accents. Nonresidential building should be proportional to and blend in
with adjacent residential buildings. All structures, except single family detached, are
required to comply with the design standards listed in the UDC and the architectural
standards manual. Written testimony has been received from many of the area
residents. Please see the public record for a complete list of those. Staff is
recommending approval. Staff feels the revised concept plan addresses the items that
were previously noted as issues at the Commission and Council hearings and believes
this will provide a nice mixed use development in the northern portion of the city. Staff
will stand for any questions.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: Sonya, can you go back to the traffic plan? So, on the -- with the CFI -- it's
not only impacting the building two on that, how -- but how close in proximity is it to that
right-in, right-out.
Allen: This -- Commissioner Fitzgerald, if you --
Fitzgerald: Yeah, I can see it.
Allen: -- see that line there, it's -- it's up a ways.
Fitzgerald: And there is a decel lane in there, too? I mean is that the concept?
Allen: Yeah. I believe so. The applicant's traffic engineer is here and can speak to
that.
Fitzgerald: Okay.
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: Sonya, where that proposed signal -- now the collector road there -- how
close is it to the signal down there at Paramount and -- and Lochsa Falls? And has
ACHD -- what were their comments on -- on the proximity to -- I mean we are talking a
couple hundred feet.
Allen: Yeah. I'm not sure. I don't have that in front of me, Commissioner Cassinelli.
It's in the public record if you would like to pull it up.
Fitzgerald: It's a quarter mile.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 88 of 144
Cassinelli: Quarter mile.
McCarvel: Any other questions for staff? Would the applicant like to come forward?
Howell: Good evening, Chairman McCarvel, Members of the Commission. My name is
Ken Howell. I represent the applicant tonight. Lynx/DMG Development. My business
address is 877 West Main, Suite 1000, in Boise, Idaho, and I'm a partner with the law
firm Hawley, Troxell, Ennis and Hawley. As with prior presentations tonight, staff has
done a fine job. Ms. Allen I think pretty fairly indicated some of the features that we are
proposing in this redesign. I wanted to spend just a minute first before I get into the
details talking kind of about what really tripped us back here from the City Council on
remand. The access to the parcel from Chinden Boulevard previously we believe that
access through the eastern portion of the site to Fox Run was unavailable to us. We
had had previous discussions with Brighton Corporation and understood that that was
not an option for this development, which is why when we were here before we were
really addressing the access on Bergman as the primary access to the site. During the
public hearing before the City Council it was revealed that Brighton Corporation had
submitted a letter to the City Council at about -- sometime between 5:00 and 6:00
o'clock that evening that wasn't either discovered or certainly wasn't brought to the
attention of everyone that was in attendance that night until about 11:00 or 11:30 that
evening when we were really getting down to the issue of what's going to push this over
the top or push it under the sod and the access issue was whether we could have
access to Fox Run and the upshot of the letter from Brighton Corporation was, well,
yeah, we can talk about having access on that side, I never intended to foreclose that
access and that kind of brought everything to a screeching halt that night, because this
was a significant component of where we were and that was the primary factor that
brought us back to you on remand, because we said, well, if we have access through
Fox Run we have got to totally redesign what we are doing with the site, with the
collector road and the things that you see before you. So, that's how we -- we got back
in front of you and what's that -- what that has done has allowed a fairly significant and
fairly material redesign of the site and I -- before -- before I turn to some comparisons
with what you saw before and what you saw here, what you see in front of you -- I want
to point out a few features and I think my -- will my mouse -- yeah, there we go. I want
to start here with the Winco store, because that's what really has attracted more
comments than anything else on this development. The Winco store has been moved
further to the north, further to the west. The loading dock in a previous version we will
show you in a second and the whole store was canted at an angle facing kind of
northeast, rather than this more parallel alignment. But what this redesign has done
has allowed the loading docks for the Winco store to be moved entirely to face Linder
and face north and the sound wall be constructed -- the sound wall that I'm circling with
the pointer right now is actually a full height masonry wall that goes the full height of that
building. It acts as a complete barrier between the loading docks and the adjacent
residential uses to the southeast. There is a sound study which was prepared as a
result of these changes. That sound study is in the record before you and what that
sound study found is that with this change in the building location of Winco and the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 89 of 144
installation of the sound barriers and the masonry walls, is that the noise -- the -- the
sound impact to the residences in the southwest and Paramount is actually less than
current ambient. It drops the decibel rating from about a 45 decimal rating at 4:00 a.m.
in the morning, there is some transients, of course, but on average of 45 decibel rating
to about a 28 decimal rating. So, it substantially reduces existing ambient noise to
those -- to those parcels and that's -- that's in the record before you on that sound
study. So, if, Sonya, we could load up the pdf that I provided to you, I just want to
switch back and forth between a couple things here. That's not mine. We will get to
that one I'm sure. Is this it? So, let me -- let me page -- nope, that's not it.
Allen: I'm not sure I know where yours is at.
Howell: Oh. Well, I think it got moved to the desktop. Nope. Looking at your desktop
and I don't -- nope. Combined. Down here in the lower right, combine pdfs, the -- no.
One below that. One below that. It's -- there you go. Right there. Okay. So, what we
start off here is the site plan that was before you last and you can see the orientation of
Winco, you can see the loading dock being more exposed and not covered by the
masonry wall. The current concept plan, which I have now toggled to, you can see the
reorientation of Winco, what we were looking at before, but I also want to point out
some other things that change here. If you look straight below Winco you will see a
grassy area that I'm circling with the pointer, this is about a -- it's 1.87 -- roughly a two
acre park which has been added. This collector road has been added going all the way
through to Fox Run and is an additional change from the former -- you can see here
where the stub outs did have access here into the development. Now, we have
changed that so from Arliss it goes clear over here to Bergman and connects up, which
we think substantially reduces wild and wanton drive through for that -- that site and
these are connections that ACHD is asking that we install. You will note there is a
library building as one of the amenities to this project. We have had lengthy discussions
with the Meridian Library District, they are very extremely interested in this site.
Obviously, they have a few funding issues to take through for approval, but they are
very, very interested in having this library site. So, the circulation plan we have also
talked about -- and I've already addressed this -- this issue. Let's go back and talk
about -- oops, why am I not -- there we go. Let's go back and talk about Winco and
Winco's hour of -- hours of operation, because there are a number of things that -- that
come up constantly. So, this -- this gets to the issue of 24 operate -- 24 hour per day
operation of Winco and we have talked about this before and this has been a major
issue, which is before -- has been before you. This is an allowed use in the C-C zone.
This parcel will not be abutting any residential uses. So, with the collector roads it is a
necessary feature of Winco stores. All stores -- all Winco operate 24/7. It's, of course,
a locally owned company, started in 1967, six stores here in the Treasure Valley.
Operates very successfully and you think, well, why is there a need to have 24 hour
operation at this site or -- or any site for one of these stores and 24 hour operation these
days is really the lifestyle that we have in this valley. We aren't dealing with a situation
where we are extremely rural in nature anymore, we have diversified economy and
what Winco finds is that during the evening and early morning hours, bless you, they
serve many first responders who are otherwise occupied. They serve healthcare
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 90 of 144
workers. They serve police. They serve shift workers. So, there are many people that
are out shopping at those hours that aren't working 9:00 to 5:00 jobs and I suspect that
a lot of times when you have your Commission meetings you aren't working 9:00 --
you're not working 9:00 to 5:00 jobs either. Another important consideration is that this
is a full feature grocery store and it has many supplies that are often required at off
hours. Baby needs. Medicines. Things that you can't just go to the local convenience
store and pick up, but you need a full service store that has the breadth of materials and
the breadth of product that meets those needs for people that either need them on an
emergency basis or need to acquire them during shopping hours, which are not from
9:00 to 5:00. The features of Winco are -- are very popular. We find, based on look this
morning and, again, this afternoon of comments on the city's website for this project, 89
percent of the comments were favorable. There were 11 percent that were not. So, this
is a very popular project. We ran some social media opportunities as well and we
discovered that we had over 1,800 likes on social media for this project. So, there are
certainly people that are opposed to the project and I think most of them live in fairly
close proximity to it and have expressed concerns about this development for a variety
of reasons. I think our application -- our changes that we have made have removed all
of those considerations that were addressed before, such as the sound concern and
with the evidence we have in the record before you sound is not a concern for this site
based on the sound study. We have changed the access to the -- Arliss and Bergman
in a manner that reduces wild drive through traffic, that mitigates that traffic and so what
we have tried to do with this redesign and this opportunity, which was given to us by
reason of having access to Fox Run, is make a substantially better project than even
what it was before. The staff report, of course, recommends approval. We generally
agree with that. There is some nits we could pick with it and I imagine some of those
will come up in my time after the conclusion of other testimony. There is, though, a
condition in Section 1.10 that the ITD has withdrawn and Sonya referenced it, but some
of the ITD changes have come in fairly late and so this probably got dropped earlier.
The ITD recommended that we do an additional traffic study when we go to the next
phase. ITD has withdrawn that requirement for us and so we think that that staff
condition here, which similar requires that, ought to be withdrawn. So, there are a
couple other minor -- minor issues that I think we can address in further development
going forward, but for the conditions of approval we are fine with those generally.
ACHD we have the staff report in the record. ACHD staff report recommends to the
ACHD staff approval. We have a hearing at ACHD on either December 5 or December
6, it now escapes me which day, but coming up very soon and ITD, of course, approves
the development. They do have -- we do have some issues with ITD, which I think are
going to get resolved in the STARS agreement, which include the continuous flow
intersection, which include the width of the required easement from center line -- or
dedication of right of way from Chinden Boulevard and, then, adjusting some easement.
In the very last minute that I have before I conclude my opening comments, we do have
a small video that I would like to show. It's about a minute long that shows kind of a
walkthrough, fly through, which I hope will give you a little better idea of what we are
hoping to accomplish with this development. So, Sonya, thank you. Maybe. There we
go. If you go up to the upper right here, Sonya, and click the shrink button here. Let's
try that. There we go. Technology. It's great when it works. Unmute -- you have got
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 91 of 144
unmute. Well, you won't get to hear the upbeat music that goes with this. This is
coming into the central plaza. The library is directly to the right. There is the library
ahead.
(Video played.)
Howell: Thank you. Stand for any questions now or --
McCarvel: Any questions for the applicant?
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: Sir, what -- if the Library District can't take that library down what's your
guys' backup plan?
Howell: Well, we are -- we are looking for some additional public space and additional
public uses, so we would prefer it to be the library, but, in all honesty, I don't know that
we have a definite backup plan. They are -- they are very interested in this site and so
we are just hoping that -- that that's what works out. Of course, if -- if that drops out and
we can't find some other use, I -- I don't know ultimately what we will try, but that's --
that's the preferred option.
Fitzgerald: Okay.
Perreault: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault.
Perreault: If by some chance the City Council does not approve the variance for access
to Chinden, what are your thoughts on that?
Howell: Madam Chair, Commissioner Perreault, I -- I think the application for the
variance is unlikely to not be approved by city -- did I have enough double negatives in
that? I think it will be likely that they will approve it if we don't have access through Fox
Run. So, I'm not really concerned about that. We -- we can have -- we do have the
right-in, right-out, which I don't think is an issue as far as the City Council is concerned
and I think just as we have the issues with ACHD controlling our roads on the county
roads, we have ITD controlling the decisions on access through the state highway. So,
I'm -- I'm not concerned about that.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 92 of 144
Fitzgerald: In regard to the CFI if -- what is that going to look like if that has to be taken
out of that section up front in your guys' mind?
Howell: Yeah. Madam Chair, Commissioner Fitzgerald, we -- we kind of had planned
for a CFI intersection in through there. I think what we are really talking about now is
more an issue of some of the relatively minor details. If that means that that building -- I
think it's building one has to get slid down slightly in order to accommodate that, that we
can make that work. But, really, the -- the issue of the CFI and how much space it's
going to take and -- and even if it is required, is -- is not a certainty from ITD at this
point.
Fitzgerald: Okay.
McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions for the applicant?
Howell: Madam Chair, thank you.
McCarvel: Thank you. At this point we will take public testimony. Chris, who do you
have signed up?
Johnson: We do, Madam Chair. In the interest of time I'm going to call in multiple in
order, so we can have them ready.
McCarvel: Okay.
Johnson: So, we have David Eastman, followed by Ben Larue, followed by Sally
Reynolds.
McCarvel: Okay.
Eastman: Good evening, Madam Chair, Commissioners. My name is David Eastman.
I reside at 1192 West Bacall Street, Meridian. I would like to address some of the
discussion that was had in City Council and Mr. Howell touched on that and why this
was remanded back. Throughout the applicant's testimony to Planning and Zoning and
City Council applicant was consistent in their position that Brighton was unwilling to
discuss access off Fox Run. Unfortunately, as Mr. Howell clarified and as Brighton
clarified in the City Council meeting -- Brighton actually was willing to discuss access off
of Fox Run and that letter is in the record and applicant's position was -- was incorrect
to that point. What we have is we have a revised concept plan that has access in a
backage road access off Fox Run in a backage road. However, in the nine months
since City Council and since this was remanded back to P&Z, applicant -- I had spoke
with him at a meeting some months ago -- as of last month applicant had not reached
out to Brighton and so in the time that applicant had testified for P&Z and testified to
City Council and the nine months following applicant had not reached out to Brighton
and come to a consensus on access off Fox Run. So, in essence, there is some work
to be done here. City Council remanded this back to P&Z for this specific work to be
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 93 of 144
done and it hasn't been done. There is no agreement between applicant and Brighton
to get access off of Fox Run and in light of prior developments and prior -- prior
asymmetry in testimony between Brighton and their letter and the applicant and its
testimony before P&Z and City Council, I would respectfully advise P&Z to obtain a
letter from Brighton to make sure that they are in agreement with the applicant on this
issue. There are a couple other issues that came forth in the City Council meeting
where City Council was specific in remanding this back to P&Z. One of them they were
very, very specific in advising applicant to work with the community in developing this
plan and to date, in the nine months since applicant had the City Council meeting, they
have not. They have not reached out to the community. One of the primary issues was
touched on by Mr. Howell, which is the 24/7 issue and what we have as a primary
concern is the operations and the square footage -- 80,000 square feet -- are consistent
with Winco's operations when they are next to the freeway and it's not really conducive
to operations within a community structure. This development is surrounded on three
sides by residents and it's not next to the freeway, it's in a community, and so I think
what would be prudent before sending this back to City Council would be to address the
issues that caused this to be remanded back to P&Z to begin with and so at least we
should, I think, respectfully request that a continuance be put in place until they can
address these issues. Any questions?
McCarvel: No. Thank you.
Eastman: It's late and I'm tired.
Johnson: Ben Larue. Sally Reynolds.
Reynold: Before I begin I would like to state I am representing Smart Growth For
Meridian. It was -- we started working on this over a year ago and there were over 500
people who signed the petition. So, I would respectfully ask for ten minutes, although I
will only use about six.
McCarvel: So, you have no show of hands here?
Reynolds: Okay. Yeah.
McCarvel: So -- and those people will not speak then? Okay.
Reynolds: Yep.
McCarvel: Okay.
Reynolds: Okay. And so just to begin, I'm going to keep this really brief here. The
modifications that we have requested that Winco limit their operating slash delivery
hours. The staff report states that business hours are in the C-C zone are restricted
from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. when abutting a residential district. This continuous piece
of land does abut a residential district before it is annexed. When it subdivided the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 94 of 144
Winco parcel will still abut a live-work parcel. Therefore, it should not be allowed to
operate 24/7. Even if you -- if you don't subscribe to either one of those, the city staff is
very clear that because annexation provisions above and beyond the UDC standards
may be implemented through the development agreement if deemed appropriate by
City Council, this was strongly emphasized and highlighted in the report. Other
companies, Walmart on Ten Mile, Walgreens and Costco, all changed their models to
be good neighbors to the surrounding community. We would expect no less from an
Idaho based company. The building shown behind Winco on Lot 16, which are these
right here, which are the live-work, will not be constructed in phase one development,
so noise will travel to nearby residents for 24/7. I hope you're able to review the
submitted video with the Winco truck noises. Number two. Begin the collector road
discussions, which you have already heard some about. This application was returned
to P&Z after Mayor Tommy read a letter from Brighton stating they are willing to grant
way for the collector road of Linder Village. Personally I'm going to say I was really
surprised that that was a surprise to City Council or to anyone. If you go back and look
in the very first staff report -- the very first one in the middle, it says that staff and
Brighton and the applicant had a meeting where that was discussed and they were
already aware that Brighton was going to give them that access. So, the fact that we
were debating that for eight or nine months and it's in public testimony by residents, too,
but it's there. So, I am surprised that that was a shock to them. As of this evening it is
unclear if those talks have begun. Per the ITD report ACHD has offered to facilitate the
right-of-way acquisition conversation. ITD and ACHD have offered to do this, because
the collector road is the preferred scenario. The fact that Kittelson & Associates still
included the two scenarios in their traffic report, even after Brighton has gone on record
twice as being willing to grant access, shows that the applicant still wants that variance
at Bergman. These talks should at the very minimum be started and a progress report -
- a progress report given to the City Council at the time of the hearing. Three. Alter the
connections with Paramount. So, here you have a greater overview of this area. If
Bergman is required to connect before Chinden is improved from Meridian to Fox Run
and from McMillan up to Cayuse Creek, which right now they are only requiring this little
corner to be done with phase one, we would ask that Bergman at the very minimum be
given traffic calming measures, whether that's a different road design or a traffic circle,
something that will not create this to be a thoroughfare for not only the high school
students who already speed through on their lunch break, but for the residents from the
south who are looking to get a shortcut to avoid all of the construction that will be on
Linder, Meridian and Chinden, the road, and that's including 375 apartments right here.
So, with that what we would like is a very clear timeline of what road improvements are
going to be done and when with the opening a Winco and I know that's a lot to ask,
because it's ITD and ACHD and the city and it's a lot of people, but we need to get
those moving parts worked out before we go to City Council. Four. Break up the mid
anchor stores. So, this area is mixed use community. A huge exception has been
given for Winco already. The staff report does not address the large retail store
adjoining Winco or the large footprint of the mid anchor stores in phase two. We would
like to have staff comments on that before the City Council meeting. Staff strongly
encouraged that a development agreement be in place with this annexation ordinance.
Their first item on that was, quote, future development of this site shall substantially
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 95 of 144
comply with a concept site plan, phasing plan, preliminary plan, et cetera. So, this
conceptual plan should be as accurate as possible and right now those footprints violate
mixed use community. Fifth. So, that will necessitate a redraft of the conceptual plan,
which is already needed for the CFI to reflect the staff comments and also we are
hoping the public input here tonight, as you've heard Mr. Eastman say, the only time
that the residents have been able to have any changes made with the developer is
when we come before the Commission or the Council and puts them on public record
and the only time that they have been changed is when it's been remanded back.
Lastly -- and these are just too small ones. The masonry wall behind Winco, we would
like that really well described and included in the DA agreement and if the -- we would
like a letter from the library stating where they are, if -- I mean I know that they are
interested, but the last library bond didn't go so well, so we don't really know what would
end up being there and if City Council is going to fall back on that to approve this we
would like to make sure that that is in place. With that I will -- and actually -- oh. And --
oh, I would like to address just two things the applicant said. All the Wincos are not
24/7. There is one in California that does operate on limited hours and there are
Waremarts in Oregon that are smaller footprints and also operate on different hours and
also the amount of testimony they received, we just -- we felt like there wasn't a reason
to get everybody together and do it this time, because the people who are sending in
letters for this Linder Village, they are for Winco, they were for development and we are
for that, too. We just want it to be a really good plan that Meridian can be proud of and
we think that Winco can anchor a great mixed use community if it's done right. I will
stand for any questions.
McCarvel: Thank you.
Reynold: Oh. Sorry. So, we request a continuance until the 13th.
Johnson: Next you -- next you have Andrea Carroll, followed by Nick Eller.
Carroll: Good evening, Madam Chair, Commissioners. Trying to fit a large scale, high
footprint, big box commercial development like Winco into a mixed use community
designation is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. It could be done
potentially, but the -- the types of concessions that would need to be made on Winco's
part are concessions that so far even now they have not done and I do commend Winco
for making the adjustments to the plan with regard to the loading dock, the masonry
wall, they have really addressed the sound issue. That could have been addressed
after the first neighborhood meeting and this could have been the -- the plan that you
were looking at the very first time and we could have been making the additional
improvements during the -- the subsequent process. This is the result of a developer
that does not listen to the surrounding community and so there -- while I think there is a
tendency potentially to say this is just so much better than the first plan, I would
encourage you to really take a step back and ask is this what mixed use development
looks like? Because if you look at the -- the middle of that development, that -- that is
what mixed use should look like. There is some -- some pedestrian -- there is some
pedestrian connections, but if -- as you look throughout the rest of the development, it
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 96 of 144
looks a little bit like battleship, the old fashioned game board, with all of these individual
buildings that don't really connect very well with each other. So, is this commercial or is
this mixed use? Yes, there is residential, but how is that residential integrated into the
rest of the development? It's not. It's not integrated. This is not mixed use, it's mixed --
it's use adjacent and the -- the Comprehensive Plan spends a lot of time talking about
what really good -- what really good, innovative mixed use looks like and that's not what
this is. There are parts of it that were certainly featured in the video that look great, but
as you look throughout the entire development that's not what you're -- what you're --
what you're going to be receiving from this developer. Winco was given a chance to
really go back to the drawing board and create something that epitomized what the City
of Meridian should expect from an important location like this one and what they did is
they -- they made some improvements, but, once again, we see the -- the direct access
to Chinden, that's a traffic safety issue. Even -- the entire point of creating that access
with Fox Run is to eliminate the slow down on Chinden. They are not listening to their
community or city leaders. Thank you.
McCarvel: Thank you.
Johnson: Nick Eller, followed by Jim -- Jim Alexander.
Eller: Good evening. Almost midnight. My name is Nick Eller and I live at 851 West
Honker Drive in Meridian and, for the record, I just want to say that I support this
development and I want to commend the developers, architects, civil engineers and
everybody who has been involved with this project. I like to sit back and listen to the
other party and -- and I have been going to these meetings for the past year or so and
listening to both sides and a lot of the boxes that were of concern I believe have been
checked off. They have -- they have been discussed, but one of the items that I wanted
to reiterate being in the industry is the concept of -- or the truth of Rome wasn't built in a
day. If we can go to -- if we have got Google Maps and we look at items such as The
Village, The Village still isn't complete. It's still under -- it's still under development and
it's going to take time. Chinden is going to take time. Linder is going to take time.
Winco -- that's a definite. But it's not going to pop up in one day. There is -- there is still
a lot of -- whether you pass this -- if you pass this on today you all know that it's going to
take some additional review. Every building that's out there is going to take a permit
and those big box stores that are of concern -- some of the -- some of the projects you
reviewed today they were planned for commercial and now you're looking at doing
multi-family housing. Things change over the years and those big box stores -- if big
box does continue to die, maybe there will be smaller developments and shops. This
isn't a -- the way I take this and my understanding is this is not a one and done, we
accept it and everything pops up as planned. Nothing ever really goes to plan, but I
believe the concept is there and I believe that, you know, that this would benefit the City
of Meridian. In the past I have expressed that I see Meridian as having three different
corridors. You have got the Eagle and -- North Eagle and Meridian corridor that we are
in discussion with. W e have got Ten Mile, that that's a necessity, and you have got The
Village. It's kind of the trifecta of how Meridian is being developed and currently
everything is so focused on Eagle Road and those past concerns have too much traffic
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 97 of 144
on Chinden. All the traffic is already there going to The Village, because you don't have
that trifecta and that -- that disbursement of traffic throughout the city. So, that's my
thoughts about it. It's not one and done. It -- it's not going to be built in a day, but I
highly support this project. Thank you.
Johnson: Jim Alexander.
Alexander: Good evening, everyone. My name is Jim Alexander and I work for Datum
Construction in Meridian. I'm also a resident of Meridian. I can give an address if you
would like.
McCarvel: Please. For the record.
Alexander: It's 1060 West State Street in Meridian is my residence and 280 East
Corporate Drive is our business. I'm in favor of this development. I have been to a few
meetings here and I -- I don't think anybody's ever mentioned -- and I believe the
developer is planning on widening Chinden to five lanes. Is that still -- yeah. The
reduction in traffic has been a huge issue and I see that that is a huge benefit. Earlier
people trying to get zoning for residential have talked about the traffic being so difficult.
This developer is stepping up to the plate and going to pay for the widening of Chinden.
I think that's huge. They have also worked with the Paramount Subdivision to reduce
the traffic through that neighborhood. I think that's really great. And with Winco, the
way they turned the building and put up the full height brick wall to reduce decimal
rating down to 28 from 45 I think it was, I think that's really big and I think it's a good
project. So, thank you very much.
McCarvel: Thank you.
Johnson: Mike McCreary, followed by Chris Williams.
McCreary: Good evening. My name is Mike McCreary. I resided at 5744 North
Bergman Avenue with my wife Ruth Shane, who is in the audience this evening.
Madam Chair and Commissioners and staff, I want to thank you for the hard work you
do trying to square the circle in terms of these real thorny development issues. I'm not
opposed to the development, nor am I necessarily in favor of the development. I would
like to -- and part of that is because right across Chinden from this proposed
development site we have Eagle Island and that's a pretty commercial rich space, but
immediately adjacent to that development at Eagle Island is a great deal of residential
housing. So, I'm looking at what's being proposed here. It's a similar setup. My wife
and I shop at Winco. We go to the Meridian library, but for us it's traveling across town
to get to Cherry Lane. If the library is an honest to goodness given, that would be
super. I also saw a little building that had healthcare on it and I would hope that there
would be some other civic space. I am concerned because I live on Bergman Way, I'm
glad to see some changes in that. We don't have kids, we have grandkids, one of them
works for NASA, but I would be concerned for the people in -- in my development who
do have children. If there is an uptick in through traffic there are a lot of kids and they
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 98 of 144
are on bicycles and scooters and -- and the rest and people -- and people running. So,
if those safety concerns have been addressed and there are mitigating measures that
have been put in place, that would be a very good thing. Once again I want to thank
you for the work that you do. It's too bad we don't have an AI program, like modeled
after Sim City, so you can put all the variables in, the traffic factors and find out in
realtime what the knock on effects are going to be for these proposals. It seems to me
that the only way you can do this is incrementally, but it's trying to do a mosaic and
every time you get a piece in place somebody says, but, wait, we have got another
piece to put in place and a couple of Commissioners talk about earlier projects where
they were talking about separate parcels and the need to develop a comprehensive
proposal. That would be nice. You're working with private developers. Thank you for
your time.
McCarvel: Thank you.
Williams: Chris Williams. 1762 Canyon Ranch here in Meridian. I have been coming to
these meetings since the very beginning, since -- excuse me -- the applicant started
with this. You know, I have been a supporter all along. I will say that during the last
meeting, the previous site concept it was an eye opener. I believe it might have been
Ryan himself who said previously it looked like a big parking lot. That really stuck out
with me. I could be wrong, so don't hold me to that, but I know somebody did up there.
Could have been City Council as well. But, anyways, on that one, you know -- and I --
and I really think that they have done a good job of redesigning this and trying to
address all the concerns. You know, I know there is some concerns about the hours of
Winco being a 24/7 operation. I realize that and, you know, I will say I'm not super
educated with Meridian as a whole, but I know in this area how Walmart, Walgreens
have limited their hours, typically. Really, previous complaints of that, at least from what
I have heard is, again, the noise. I think they have done a good job addressing that --
you know, addressing that. They have, you know, tried to change the loading dock
around. I feel that they done a really, really good job of trying to address everybody's
concerns on that. You know, I can't say as far as, you know, the neighborhood
meetings, whether that happened or not. I know there is always some
miscommunication in there it seems like. People say there is, other people say there
hasn't, but, regardless, I have personally reached out to the developer, you know, their
company I should say, kind of with questions and they have been very responsive
through this process on that one through the redesign and even prior. So, really, where
I stand -- I'm sure it's probably given that I am in support of this project and I asked you
guys to recommend approval to City Council. So, thank you.
McCarvel: Thank you.
Johnson: Next you have Joe Marshall, followed by Justin Carpenter and Keith Jones.
Marshall: Chair, Commissioners, I will make this as quick as I can. I have little time. I
first want to give them props -- the applicant props. They have come a long way with
this. I have been working on this since 2007 when Fred Meyer wanted to go in there.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 99 of 144
So, yeah, it's been through a lot of variations and a lot of -- nobody believed me when I
tried to tell you about Brighton and allowing that, but, fortunately, David Turnbull wrote
that letter. There are a couple things -- I taught land planning for 15 years. I have a
leather bound copy of the Comprehensive Plan. You are to be reviewing this based on
the Comprehensive Plan. I'd like to point a couple things out that I think are a little
inconsistent. Walkability, strip malls, and access to Chinden. Walkability. What does it
mean? You're going to have to answer that yourself, because I don't have time. Places
to walk where pedestrians feel safe, minimize conflict with vehicles. How do you do it?
They took the snow, watched where everybody walked and took photos of it and, then,
put all their sidewalks in. Typically they were straight line, shortest distance from here
to there. That is not what you're going to find in this. Typically you're going to see most
of the residents down below trying to walk up through here. You're going to see them
walking across parking lots. Kids -- junior high kids, grade school kids, sixth graders,
fifth graders walking across here to get to these other places. It's not that walkable.
Strip malls. What is a strip mall? Well, typically, they are buildings put together, several
of them in a row. The Comprehensive Plan mentions 30, 40 times, we don't want them.
Avoid them. So, what do we have here? Right here? Buildings stuck together.
Buildings here stuck together. Now, the whole project as a whole is not a strip mall, but
those buildings setup like that give a strip mall feel and that's exactly what our
Comprehensive Plan says avoid that. Access to Chinden. I think it's been mentioned
several times they could have a full signalized access at Fox Run Way. It will need to
be widened. David Turnbull is willing to work with them. He has stated so. And I stated
on the record over a year ago right here. Thank God he wrote a letter to the City
Council. Nobody believed me. Number of accidents going into Fred Meyer. That's why
ITD has come back and -- and tried to limit the access. Eagle approved it and it was
asinine. Eagle, Meridian, COMPASS, ITD, everybody agreed access only at the half
mile and Meridian is on record agreeing to that. Those access points should not be
there. I surveyed in Eagle Road, the control survey, to go from a two lane to a five lane,
I can tell you exactly why it doesn't work and we can't do the same thing to Chinden,
because Chinden is supposed to be a higher level road than what Eagle Road is and
every time I come here somebody says, well, how would you do it different? So, I took
an hour and just threw something together. Right there. That's how I would do it
different. Oh, sorry. There is how I would do it different. I actually give you more
square footage, I just broke up the buildings and tried to add some walkability. I did not
address the access points.
McCarvel: Thank you.
Johnson: Justin Carpenter.
Carpenter: Hi. Hi, Justin Carpenter. 5991 North Arliss, Meridian, Idaho. I will try and
be quick, because I know we are all tired and I don't have much of a voice. Madam
Chair, Commissioners, you know, I also commend the developer. They addressed
most of the concerns I had. The new one that I have pop up is, you know, that traffic
light that they are putting in front of the -- the -- the fire station, you know, with my house
positioned where it's at, you know, I see several accidents a week right there at Chinden
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 100 of 144
and Linder, you know, I just worry about what a light could do there to them trying to get
out. My big concern is this 24 hour access. It was stated in earlier testimony that
Winco is 24 hours always everywhere. Keizer, Oregon, Portland, Oregon, you have
probably heard of at least Portland. They have limited hours of operations there, so I'm
not going to beat that dead horse. I moved to Meridian for the community values, you
know, that's what I hope to -- to maintain here. So, the other thing is -- I want to touch
on is the library. I would like to see something more concrete. We really love the City
of Meridian, the Library District here. Would love to see something more concrete in
this agreement before something like this goes through any further. That's all I got.
McCarvel: Thank you.
Carpenter: Thank you.
Johnson: Madam Chair, your last sign in is Keith Jones.
McCarvel: Okay.
Jones: Hello. My name is Keith Jones. 280 East Corporate Drive. I also live a couple
blocks over off Locust Grove north of Chinden. I have been watching this project for
ten years, actually, and it's a developer and a family -- and a family that's owned that
property for many years. I hope it gets done, because I live there. It makes sense in
my business. I am in construction. So, Datum -- I'm with Datum Construction as well.
Now, some people have the wrong idea about why we are here. They think that maybe
we have been promised a job or something like that and that's why we are here, but
that's not the case. Going on four years ago -- four years ago we put in an irrigation line
along this property line and they allowed us to put our signs up there and we know that
it's a highly trafficked corridor due to the number of calls we get because our signs --
signs are up there. Now, they have given us advertising. Four years later our signs are
still there. We appreciate it, frankly. We think it makes sense, though, that we do see
the movement -- you know, I heard a lot of smart people again pushing against it of
varying levels of whether or not the issues were even issues. For example, the dock
doesn't even face a residential area, it faces the street. I heard that the fire department
might have issue with that light right there. Well, the light won't be right there, there will
be stop bars on every side and when the department signals emergency, all the other
lights will be red and they will get access. As it moves forward you know it will go to
design review or I mean City Council and -- and it will go through permitting process and
it will evolve. Since I'm here is Joe Citizen, I mean I didn't coordinate with the owners,
with the developers at any time before we have come, but -- so, since I'm here as Joe
Citizen, I will say that it's gone a long way towards the mixed use and a small thing in
this area -- I think it's a cool area. If you have seen the 3D rendering, you know the
video of it, it's an excellent area, but possibly add a second story and put condos on
there and, then, it literally checks every single box on the live-work-play with the park -- I
mean this thing has been pulled left, pulled right, it can't be designed by committee and
I don't think it's right to shame a developer into working with a competitor or whatever. I
hope it goes through for Meridian. That's -- thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 101 of 144
McCarvel: Thank you. That being the last person signed up, was there anybody else in
the room that wished to testify? Okay. Let's start with --
Arnold: I'm Michael Arnold. I live at 972 West Bacall Street here in Meridian. I'm not
going to talk about the development itself. I think a lot has been said by everybody else
around here. My biggest concern is ACHD's insistence on access to this development
through the neighborhood. They are hell bent on making sure that people are able to
go through the neighborhood to get there. I think putting this extension of Bergman
where it is is a mistake. If you go from Cayuse Creek up to this connector road, it's a
straight line. There is no curves, there is no bands, there is nothing to keep people from
taking that road 30 or 40 or 50 miles an hour, except for one little stoplight on the first
intersection as you turn north. Now, if you were to take that extension from this connect
-- from this proposed new development, which happens to be right next to their
clubhouse and their pool and move it west on their proposed neighborhood, so that the
cars have to go up, take a left-hand turn and, then, go right again, you're going to cut
down on the ability for people to travel at high -- high rates of speed through that
neighborhood. Secondly, ACHD has said that this intersection is going to increase cars
about 200 a day going into that area. You have got a road going with 200 cars a day
right next to a clubhouse and community pool where kids in that proposed new
neighborhood on the east are going to be coming that way and crossing that road.
You're putting those kids right in harm's way and it's a trouble -- it's a trouble asking to
happen. Now, moving that little connector that far west is not doing anything, except
that the developer may have to add more of a proposed road for the future to move that
over. It still gives the connectivity. It still allows the traffic to go through. It cuts down
on the potential of injury to kids next to a pool and although we don't know the way that
that development is a residential area is actually going to be developed in future, it
makes sense if you have got that neighborhood and you're going to put a pool and a
clubhouse that you put the clubhouse and pool towards the center where it's accessible
by everybody. It doesn't make sense to put a high traffic road addition within 50 feet of
a swimming pool. I think that, as a minimum, needs to get moved over. Thank you very
much.
McCarvel: Thank you.
F.Reynolds: Frank Reynolds. 1166 West Bacall Street. Had a bit of a marital
miscommunication today, so I apologize that I didn't get signed up. Sally signed herself
up and we didn't agree on who was signing who up. All right. So, I will just echo -- and
we will just leave this slide here, I'm not going to address much else. Just echo the
reasons for continuance here. There is still some work that needs to be done here. I
will just, for instance, in the interest of time, highlight the three areas that are of most
concerned to me. The first one is the -- the big areas -- and let's see if I can get back --
I lied, I'm going to go back up here. This is close enough. The big areas here that are
all marked future development, future development, future development, we have been
hearing all night, you know, just trust me, it will be okay, that everything will be done just
fine. But history tells us a different story. The fact that as has been mentioned by many
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 102 of 144
residents, their unwillingness to work with anyone who has concerns, the lateness of all
information that's been given to the city, all of these things just lead us to not be able to
trust that everything will just turn out okay and I would hope that before this goes before
the City Council there is a very specific, very detailed, very firm development agreement
in place that does not allow for wiggle room in the future for suddenly those single family
homes to be apartments, for suddenly that medical building to be another big box store,
things like that. So, I would hope that that would be taken into consideration before this
moves any further. My second area of concern is the roadway connectivity and I take a
little bit stronger stance than maybe some of the other residents in the fact that I don't
believe that that residential areas should connect directly to that collector road into the
commercial area. The reason for that is that there is so much other access in this area.
The most often quoted reason for having that access -- because nobody wants to say
it's convenient, because that's not a good enough argument. They always cite safety
concerns. But if you look at the plan, you know, for that road -- for Bergman to be the
one place where emergency vehicles make it into the commercial area, you would have
to have this entrance, this entrance, this entrance, this entrance, this entrance and this
entrance all blocked. That's the only time that Bergman would make more sense than
any of those others and have to be the only one. Now, that doesn't seem reasonable.
The only way that would seem reasonable is if this development has such a huge
impact on the traffic in the area that all those other roads are constantly blocked. So,
we can't have it both ways; right? We can't say this isn't going to be a big impact to the
area and we can't say that, you know, at the same time say, well, but we need all the
emergency access in case things are all blocked. So, I take a little bit stronger stance
on the connectivity in the neighborhood. All they did was take the connection they had
last time and shoved it a little bit farther down. Still straight shot, still comes right off
Cayuse Creek, still going to be rush hour madness from the high school every day at
lunch. The final issue I have has been mentioned many times. Delivery hours for
Winco. I don't -- I'm not going to try to fight business hours here, but I hate to bring it to
the gentleman who spoke earlier, but 45 decibels does not come anywhere near the
backup beeper for a truck. They are around a hundred decibels and remind you that
decibels is a logarithmic scale, so we are talking about exponentially loud noises. So,
limiting the delivery hours including unloading, because of forklifts and pallet jacks are
noisy, I know from personal experience. Limiting those hours will go a long way in
making our neighborhood better. Thank you. I will stand for any questions.
McCarvel: Thank you.
F.Reynolds: Thank you.
McCarvel: And, ma'am, did you want -- did you have your hand up before? Okay. All
right. Okay.
Shane: My name is Ruth Shane and I reside at 5744 North Bergman and my husband
had some comments a little earlier for you today. I was surprised listening to the
presenters earlier or the comments to hear that they felt that the builders had been
unresponsive and there was no comment about the presentation that was made outside
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 103 of 144
to -- in the room that you have outside the main entry here where we were invited to
come and I listened to many of the questions that were raised and issues that were
raised and, then, a revised version of the plan came out and I was so pleased to note
that they were responsive to the types of things that I was hearing that evening. So, I
really had to -- I hope correct the fact that they have been somewhat responsive as far
as I have been able to see and that they haven't totally ignored the residents in
Paramount. So, I want to thank you very much for the opportunity to express my
feelings as well.
McCarvel: Thank you.
McCarvel: And one more?
McKinney: My name is Wendy McKinney. I live at 1225 West Bacall Street and I'm on
the HOA advisory board meeting for Paramount. The board. I have been with the HOA
advisory board for over four years and have worked with Anne Marie and Brighton in
that area and we appreciate all the work and time that you have put into it. If you would
pull up this slide that actually shows the FLUM with the proposal side by side. I saw
that earlier. So, I have a couple of concerns. I'm grateful that the applicant has made
some adjustments. I know that we have been working -- I have met with residents at
beginning of January 2016. We have met in different size groups and no one has like a
complete agreement about this is what should happen, this is -- you can imagine with
such a large neighborhood there is lots of opinions. I am not against Winco. I shop at
Winco, but I am concerned that they have not taken any of your advice from when we
were here last. I remember one of the comments that she said was that if you just take
this plan and flip it 180 degrees, so that the large stores are out on Chinden that would
be great and we were like, wonderful, maybe they will do that. Well, they didn't. They
addressed ten percent of our concerns and we are grateful for the ten percent, but if you
look at this plan here you will notice this yellow space right there. That whole yellow
space should be a hundred percent residential. I would propose that this plan include
that entire space as an R-8. This is not annexed into Meridian. You know that. There
is no law until you make the law. The zoning law is up to you. If you require that to be
R-8 right there and, then, you require that the rest of that brown is a C-C, then, if a
proportion of that C-C also needs to be residential, up to 20 percent if I understand this
correctly -- I almost appreciate them for helping me be bold enough to stand up in front
of a body like this and learn all this law. I have been educated. But if you do that and
you flip back to their plan, you will see you would pretty much just wipe out all of that
strip mall and all you would have is residential all the way across there and, then, you
would have a C-C exactly the way we wanted it. But however you decide I appreciate it.
I respect your decisions. And I really appreciate the fact that you are not a political body
and that you know the law. Thank you for your time.
McCarvel: Thank you. Okay. With -- oh. Sorry.
D.McKinney: Sorry about that. I'm David McKinney. 1225 West Bacall Street. I have a
handout. Sorry for the low tech approach. I just want to make a couple of points and
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 104 of 144
my wife was sort of alluding to this. I have six points here. I will be really quick.
Number one, I tried to make this point to the City Council and it was -- it was kind of
hard for them to grasp. The -- the Comprehensive Plan as it now stands shows 54
acres of MUC and 24 acres as residential. If we are to develop this land in accordance
with the Comprehensive Plan as it now stands, that would suggest, then, that we should
have at least 24 acres of residential property. The current proposal calls for only 18.
But that also ignores the fact that the development code requires a C-C zone to have 20
percent residential. That's another 11 acres. So, my point one here is saying that the
code requires about 35 acres of this property to be residential if it's developed in
accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. They are only showing 18. That's only
about half of what's required. Item No. 2. The 20 -- the 24/7 operation of Winco has
been addressed by others and I'm primarily in agreement with what they have said. I
just have an option number C that we ought to consider. If none of the other options are
acceptable to this body, at least the live-work units should be built in phase one to
provide additional buffering between the south side of the Winco store and the adjacent
residences. Number three. The site circulation -- I have attached a -- a sort of proposal
of what I think could be an improvement to the site circulation. My biggest concern isn't
the current site circulation plan doesn't adequately draw traffic off of that collector street
into the development and instead is more -- because of the fact that the collector routes
through the development are narrower and more difficult to traverse, drivers are I think
more likely to stay on the collector road, which will be wider and cut through those back
entrances. That would be a detriment not only to the residential area adjacent, but
would also lessen the ability of the development itself to draw more traffic and -- and
more business. Item number four, the signal on Chinden, that's already been
addressed to a very large extent. Let me just say that the -- the access to Fox Run,
that issue is still unclear it appears to me. That issue needs to be addressed and
settled before this goes on and since the ACHD report only came out today, at the very
least this item should be continued to give everyone a chance to review the findings of
the Ada County Highway District before this is approved. Item number five. I don't
understand why the fire department is concerned about a signal on Linder. They
already have one that stops traffic. This will be another signal that will stop traffic for
them. Their analysis and their -- their -- their statements that they don't like it just gives
a conclusion, it doesn't really give reasons why, because I can't understand why a
signal in place of a current signal would make a problem. And, finally, Joe Marshall
addressed this, but, basically, there is a lot of just plain strip mall aspects to this. It's not
really a Village. I wish it could be. That would make it a whole lot better. Thank you
very much.
McCarvel: Thank you. Okay. With no further public testimony, would the applicant like
to come back.
Howell: Madam Chair -- Chairman, Members of the Commission, I calculated based on
the Alpina hearing of the number of -- amount of time per acre I think we have probably
only got about another eight or ten hours to go here tonight, so -- I'm kidding of course.
So, I want to address some of the comments that were raised and I think they all -- all
boil down to a few categories and, first, they boil down to the category of those that
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 105 of 144
would like to try their hand at their own design of the site and there is plenty of different
options and plenty of different ways to go about developing a site and everybody's got
their own opinion of what's right and what works. The developer and the owners, of
course, have the interest and knowledge and understanding of all of the things that
goes into the site, including not only those that impact the public, but those that impact
the owners and the future owners of the parcels within the subdivision, the financing,
what makes the project work and they are trying to do the best job they can to meet the
business needs for the development and balance that against the entitlement
requirements and, frankly, the -- the public need and public necessity and what the
public wants for the site, because, ultimately, that's what it's going to involve, how the
site performs is public adoption of what the site is doing. So, while we very much
appreciate everybody's own idea of what maybe is the right way to do a particular
component of the project or another, I think reasonable minds will certainly differ -- differ
on what those are. The second is this minor issue of the signal on Linden -- Linder for
the fire station. Frankly, we think the -- the fire department was a little confused about
what we meant when we said a signal there. ACHD flagged it in their report and said we
don't think it's an issue either. The signal is going to be timed to what the fire
department currently has for their light there, they are going to be able to get in and out.
Safety is very important to us, to our tenants, for the community. So, I just don't think
that's -- that's an issue. David McKinney's comment on the connector -- the collector
road -- the collector road serves multiple purposes. It's not just to funnel traffic into the
site for access. That's one of its purposes, but it also functions as a way for residents to
exit from the residential components of the development without having to go through
the commercial site to make it over to Fox Run, to make the connection to Chinden
without having to wind their way through a parking lot and that, of course, increases
safety. One of the comments -- and I'm not going to -- I don't think I got the name down
correctly on it -- was about the traffic that would be added, the 200 cars a day. The
ACHD report tells you that existing traffic at that location is 467 cars a day. So, if we
are worried about 200 cars a day causing problems for children accessing a site, well,
we are already far, far above that. So, I just don't think that's much of a realistic
concern. The -- the biggest component, frankly, is this concept of 24/7 operation of
Winco and there have been a number of comments by individuals saying, well, I -- I
know of a Winco in some other location that doesn't operate 24/7. There are six Winco
stores in the entire system and there are 117 that do operate 24/7. The six that don't
are very limited, specialized stores that are typically smaller community -- community
stores, less than half the size of this facility. They were built for a very specific purpose
in a very specific location and the limited hours of operation makes sense in those
operations. It does not make sense for Winco in this facility at this size. And, again, the
whole issue of the 24/7 operation and delivery and access gets down to the issue of
well, what's the impact? If there is no impact on the neighbors of that 24 hour operation,
what difference does it make if they are open or if they are closed or if they are
accepting deliveries or not accepting deliveries and, again, the sound study that we
have provided and it's in the record shows that this facility will actually reduce -- and I --
you know, even if you say, okay, well, how can that possibly be, does that make any
sense, even -- even if you -- if you discard and say that it's going to reduce the ambient
noise, certainly it has no adverse impact and that's the standard. It has no adverse
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 106 of 144
impact, no additional noise beyond ambient and we think that the sound study very
clearly shows that it's less. Just a couple other comments. Strip mall. And so we have
this concept that we don't want strip malls and -- and I certainly agree with that. I think
my client certainly agrees with that. That's not what this project is. I think we know that.
Unfortunately, I don't think we have a clear, nice definition of strip malls that kind of gets
down to that, well, you know it when you see it and when you look at this project, sure,
there is a couple of buildings that have adjacent walls. There is no definition that says a
strip mall means anytime you have a building sharing an adjacent wall. This is
distributed throughout the entire development that is proposed to be zoned C-C. I
would point out also that if you look at -- and I don't know what color this is, because I'm
colorblind, but the color right below this blue oval, how is that? These buildings are live-
work buildings. There are residences on the second level of those buildings, so we do
have residences scattered throughout the site. It is truly live-work. You know, whether -
- whether someone's opinion is that you could do a better or different job of how you
have walkability and access, when you look at the -- the video that we have provided
you and the walk through and this beautiful plaza down the center, there is certainly,
walkability not only through the site, but around the site and along the connector road
and through the parks and the like. Anytime you have a parking lot, yeah, that's not
going to be a great place to walk, but we have parking lots for all of our facilities and so I
think that's probably more personal opinion and preference than anything else. The
ACHD and this issue of Fox Run access, I want to make sure that's -- that's very clear
and very plain and I thought that Mr. Eastman said that perhaps that's the nicest way
that anyone has -- has ever said we don't believe that you were telling us the truth and
the reality is we were telling you the absolute truth. We did have meetings with Mr.
Turnbull and with Brighton and we very much wanted access to Fox Run and our -- my
comments throughout the record are consistent with that. We want access at Fox Run,
that's our preferred access to this parcel and we did not believe we could get it. I think
it's probably immaterial to go into an analysis, which I couldn't even do on a item-by-
item basis, of who said this and who said that, that caused us to come to that
conclusion, but I will tell you from our side, it was very clear. We did not have access to
Fox Run and, frankly, going Bergman -- or going the variance and the different access --
not at the half mile on Chinden is a pain and it's an expensive pain and it's not
something we would want to do. We would prefer the access at Fox Run and to say
that we were lying about that I think is -- well, I know it's not true and it's simply
disingenuous. It's the best solution for this site. It looks like that's the site. We have
had discussions with Brighton. We have had discussions with multiple people at
Brighton and we are very, very confident that we will get that put together. Do we have
that agreement signed today? No, we don't. Is that a requirement? No, it is not and it
should not be. We think it will happen. That's -- if you look at the ITD comments, they
indicate that the decision between Bergman full access -- full access at Bergman, right-
in, right-out and -- and left turn is an option versus the Fox Run and what they are
saying is if you get the Fox Run you aren't going to get the full access at Bergman, so --
but if you don't get Fox Run, then, the full access at Bergman is needed for this site and
so that's why we are saying we still want to have that option. It's not because we are
playing caddy and we want to have both, ITD is going to give us one or the other and I
think that's what we really want. But -- but Fox Run is really the primary access. So, I
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 107 of 144
think, really, what this boils down to are two or three main things. First, could you, might
you design it differently? Sure, there is a bunch of different ways to design it. I think
this design works well, it complies with all the requirements, it addresses most of the
concerns that have been identified previously. 24/7 access, I think we have addressed
that repeatedly. 24/7 operation without an impact what difference does it make whether
it's 24/7 and the reality is that for this facility, for Winco, it needs to be 24/7. And, then,
finally the access to Chinden I have talked about as much about that as I think I need to.
So, thank you very much and I would stand for any questions.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: Mr. Howell, just for the record, is a light at Bergman in your -- being
requested, just to make sure I'm clear.
Howell: Madam Chair --
Fitzgerald: Full access versus a light being there, because I do have a challenge with
that.
Howell: Yeah. Madam Chair, Commissioner Fitzgerald, if Bergman is to be full access,
yes, it would be signalized.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Okay.
Howell: And, again, option two, but if -- yes.
Fitzgerald: In my opinion option two is a nonstarter, but that's just me, because I think
there is two lights -- there are too many lights there already.
Howell: Yeah.
Fitzgerald: So --
Howell: And I -- I would say what -- what we all know is, you know, that -- that is an ITD
issue and -- but, you know, Fox Run is where we want to be.
McCarvel: Okay.
Perreault: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault.
Perreault: Can you address the question or concern regarding constructing the
buildings that are directly behind when Winco in phase one and, then, also there was a
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 108 of 144
mention that maybe some of the mid anchor stores are larger than what would be
acceptable in MUC designation. I don't know whether that's actually the case but those
are a couple of concerns that were brought up I heard in testimony and I didn't -- I would
like to know your thoughts on that.
Howell: Madam Chair, Commissioner Perreault, on the first issue it is certainly possible
to build those buildings as part of phase one. Since the conditions of approval indicate
that there is to be no condition of occupancy until quite a ways down the road, I don't
know how much sense that really makes. There is going to be construction going on for
a fair amount of time, probably not open until 2020, and so we would be a lot further
down the road on other construction in any event. So, is it possible? Sure. It's
possible. And your second question was on the size of the buildings and whether they
exceed the zoning for that area. No, we don't think they exceed and we think that
based on the requirements as outlined by Meridian, that with the additional space that
we are putting in for open space and for other mixed use, that we are allowed additional
space sizing on some of those buildings and they all fall within that requirement.
Perreault: One more question. What -- I mean help us understand from the developer's
perspective, the -- the benefit of having the buildings attached versus -- is it purely a
construction benefit or does it have to do with how -- how people use the structures? I
mean help us -- help me understand that.
Howell: Yeah. Commissioner -- Chairman -- Madam Chairman and Commissioner
Perreault, I think that -- as I said, there -- there is a bunch of different ways you can
design a project. Certainly the -- the cost of constructing a building with common walls
is potentially less than constructing stand alone buildings. I think the biggest reason
why we are proposing this configuration exactly is because of the overall design of the
center core of this project, with the walkability that we have, the adjacency to the plaza
and, frankly, moving those buildings apart I don't think adds much overall to the usability
of the project, to the use of the building, so the walkability of the site, any of the decision
factors that really make a difference. So, can we do it? Could you move them apart?
Sure, there is a lot of different ways you can design the site, but -- but this is the way we
put it together that we think makes the most sense for the project and makes the most
sense to meet the requirements.
McCarvel: In the video you had one building that you kept showing as health. Are you
envisioning that as being a mid anchor three there?
Howell: I can't --
McCarvel: I know you can't say who, but it would be some sort of health facility?
Howell: I -- I honestly can't tell you as a commitment that it's going to be a health
facility.
McCarvel: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 109 of 144
Howell: That's -- that's a desirable feature. It's -- it, obviously, is of interest to the
community and anything that would be of interest to the community, excuse me, is likely
to make a successful development, but in terms of making a commitment to you that
would be a condition of approval that one of them be health related, no.
McCarvel: No. And that -- okay.
Howell: Sorry, can't do it.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Mr. Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: And I know there is not -- this is just bubble -- bubbling out future residential
development, but would there be a consideration to take your straight shot road and
jogging it with a -- in the future residential development piece where -- I think -- it would
probably end up with a stop sign I would guess onto the collector, but instead of having
a straight shot into Paramount off that collector, would you be willing or have a
possibility of putting a jog in that road?
Howell: Chairman McCarvel, Commissioner Fitzgerald, I can't tell you that you would
be -- we would be willing to put a jog in that road, but certainly, to the extent that traffic
calming devices of some type would be appropriate and that ACHD would require as a
condition of approval, sure.
McCarvel: And you did -- it's been a long night, sorry. But this future residential, it's all
-- it's single family, some attached and detached.
Howell: Correct.
McCarvel: But not huge three story, high density.
Howell: No. No. No. They are single family. So, that -- that's correct. Single family.
And we -- we did -- Madam Chair, we did address that. I, frankly, can't remember
whether here at City Council on one of the meetings, but, yeah, they will -- they will look
very residential, even the ones that are attached, you know, common wall.
McCarvel: I thought -- I remember reading that or hearing that, so I just wanted to clear
that --
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? And, Sonya, is that in the DA or will that be in the DA?
Allen: I'm sorry, what was the question?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 110 of 144
Fitzgerald: Yes, ma'am. Single family attached or detached, but no -- we are not
talking about multi-family.
Allen: The development agreement requires the property to develop consistent with the
conceptual development plan, which is attached and detached units.
Fitzgerald: Thank you.
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Do you have a question for Sonya?
Cassinelli: No. One for the applicant.
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: Can you identify the other residential lot -- buildings I should say in the -- in
the plan?
Howell: Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli, yeah. First, obviously, you know, the
-- the -- what's marked as future residential development of course. The buildings that
are -- I'm circling here, these are residential and, you know, live-work -- work -- work
below, residential above. These four here in the center -- and I think that's at least in --
in this area that's the commercial -- more commercial area than the -- the primary --
combination. Yeah. Yeah. So, those would be -- be the ones in the -- in the
commercial area.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: Just -- I don't know if this is going to be a question, but I think -- why not
limit deliveries to a certain time frame that is not at night? And I know -- and in addition
to that, backup alarms, can you speak to that? Because that was an issue that I think
got brought up tonight. Was that part of your decimal sounds study?
Howell: Yeah. Excuse me, Chairman and Commissioner Fitzgerald, the 24/7 delivery
is an integral part of the Winco operation. They are -- that's the time that they have
scheduled for their deliveries from their warehouses. It's the way their whole system is
set up. It's the time in the store when you have got fewer individuals shopping. It
makes restocking, it makes stocking the store work a lot better, so you need that
incoming flow from the exterior at the same time that you have fewer people inside to be
able to stock the stores. It's really just an integral part of the operation. Restricting
delivery to a certain daytime number of hours just doesn't work for their operation. It
just doesn't work for a store of this size to be able to stock it with the number of things
that they need to be able to do. The -- the sound study and the backup alarms, the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 111 of 144
sound study itself actually references that and talks about it. Those backup alarms are
excluded by the requirements by the -- for sound impacts. Anytime you have got sound
for backup alarms and other safety features, those are excluded from the requirements.
So, I don't think he particularly modeled those, but, again, if you look at the overall
concept site plan, any backup alarms -- you know, the trucks backup to the loading
dock, they are connected to the loading dock. For the most part the -- any forklift
operation is going to be within the loading dock, within the building and so there is very,
very little external operation in any event and, then, if there is some you have got a full
height masonry wall bouncing that sound a different direction, so -- but the precise
answer to your question is addressed in the sound study that those are excluded.
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: Question for the applicant. Target at Chinden and Eagle, if you are -- if you
have ever seen their loading dock, it's almost completely enclosed. Was that ever
something that was looked at?
Howell: Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli, no, we did not explore a concept
where you have got a completely enclosed loading dock, but, frankly, as I mentioned to
Commissioner Fitzgerald, this is about as close to that as you could possibly get given
the configuration and the trucks backing directly up to the loading bay doors.
Holland: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Holland.
Holland: Can you give any indication of what the phasing of the development would be
for the major complex of phase one here? I don't know if you can help -- one of the
questions was if some of those live-work units would be built before the Winco? Can
you give any indication of how that complex would develop out and timeline?
Howell: Yeah. Madam Chair, Commissioner Holland, I think the comment was that if --
and this is all, again -- nobody seems to be concerned about anything on this site other
than Winco, right, for sound, the 24 hour operation, and I think that concept was for
these facilities, the buildings directly behind Winco and so we discussed whether those
could be built in phase one and I think the answer is certainly, yes, those could be built
in phase one. In terms of phasing of the rest of the site, I think it's our expectation that
Winco would be constructed earlier in the process before some of the other buildings,
but at some point in that process we would begin to see other construction get built out,
you know, more or less at the same time, but Winco is probably going to be -- in our
current planning would be planning the first.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 112 of 144
Holland: One more follow-up question about the Fox Run potential connection. How
long do you think it would be before you would have a conversation about kind of
finalizing how that pathway could connect in?
Howell: Chairman McCarvel, Commissioner Holland, those discussions are ongoing.
So, if you're asking me when the ink will be signed on -- on the paper -- sooner than
later, but in terms of a date I can't give you a date.
Holland: Thank you.
McCarvel: I had one more question. I don't know if it's one more, but -- so with ITD
wanting more of an easement up there for future widening on the corner of Linder and
Chinden, I'm really thinking -- I mean we want to build that out in anticipation of that I
would say. I mean so how do you see that affecting the project overall up in that
corner? And they said moving that one -- that one building back --
Howell: Yeah. Sure. Chairman McCarvel, no, I --
McCarvel: Or just making it smaller I would guess.
Howell: Yeah. No. I think that's a relatively minor adjustment or change required as far
as we are concerned.
McCarvel: Yeah.
Howell: It just addresses that -- that one corner and -- and, again, I would emphasize
that -- that that's not a sure thing that ITD is going to absolutely require at this point in
any event.
McCarvel: I was trying to save a little money down the road if you can go ahead and
apply for it.
Howell: We understand -- yeah, we understand that. It's our money.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: I swear it's -- I'm close to being done. Time frames for widening of Chinden
and the -- where -- from what roads -- what road are we widening, just so we have it on
the record, make sure we all understand that.
Howell: The STARS agreement, we -- we are -- have exchanged multiple drafts of the
STAR agreement to allow that work to proceed. It would -- now I'm going to forget. Is
John -- do you want to come up and talk about the specific -- I'm going to defer these
questions so you get good information.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 113 of 144
Fitzgerald: Thanks, Ken.
Ringert: I will try. John Ringert with Kittelson & Associates. 101 South Capital
Boulevard, Boise, Idaho. 83702. Madam Chair Person, Commissioner Fitzgerald, the -
- the timing right now that's being -- that's part of the STAR agreement is -- essentially it
will be two phase -- two phase construction and, essentially, from Linder through
Meridian Road would be phase one and the -- that is set for 2020. Essentially that
would match in with some other projects ITD is doing and, then, there is a connection
that will be, essentially, between where this ends and their Eagle to Locust Grove
project, there will be -- there will be less than a mile -- you know, half mile to -- to three-
quarters of a mile in there and that will be 2021. So, essentially, there is also some
phasing also to the west to -- from the Linder all the way to 16 that are on those same
time frames. So, it's kind of a -- it's kind of an organized 20 -- 2020, 2021 shot all the
way from Eagle essentially Highway 16.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, follow up real quick. So -- and I know there is Costco and
other things --
Kittelson: Yeah.
Fitzgerald: -- that STARS is also negotiating with. I think the original agreement from
16 to Linder is before opening of doors for Costco, if I'm understanding. Is that your
intention, too, or is --
Kittelson: Everything is before -- well, right now that's how ITD has done it, yes.
Fitzgerald: Okay.
Kittelson: So, essentially, the -- the main section -- most of our STAR improvements,
Meridian Road through Fox Run, Fox Run through Linder, all the intersection
improvements, the collector road connections, all that would be -- 2020 would match in
with -- with -- with when Winco opens and everything. And, then, while that's being
constructed you would design the rest and the -- and the area between Locust Grove
and Meridian is a little tighter when it comes to right of way, drainage issues. There is --
there is some complexities, so that's -- that's shifted out a year. So, you will -- when
you're constructing one, you will be finishing up the complexities of that one -- of that
little section where you have to tie in, which, you know, they also know that's pretty
complex.
Fitzgerald: Thank you very much.
Kittelson: Okay.
McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. You're excused.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 114 of 144
Howell: Thank you. And -- and I would add my voice to all of those who have
mentioned before, our thanks as citizens for how hard you all work. You know, I know
you all get the very large paycheck for all of the hours that you're putting in here and,
frankly, our system -- our system of government doesn't work without people like you.
Thank you very much for your service.
Holland: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Holland.
Holland: I move we close the public hearing of this application.
Cassinelli: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2017-
0088. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
McCarvel: Well, welcome to the November 16th meeting --
Fitzgerald: Yeah. No kidding.
McCarvel: -- of Planning and Zoning.
Fitzgerald: Are we restarting? Thanks, Madam Chair.
McCarvel: I actually -- I mean I literally kept my copy of last year's version for this
moment. I think it's night and day difference. I think for the most part they really
listened to a lot of things we as a Commission, the Council, and the public had to say. I
definitely like the loading being in the front part of the building and even having that
development to the south that was supposed to be residential is no longer residential
and I think a comment -- he said it well, you -- a strip mall, you know it when you see it
and -- I mean all the buildings -- the buildings in The Village are all connected. I mean -
- but they don't look -- I mean you can make stuff look really nice and still be
connected. I think this keeps people from trying to go between the buildings and I just --
I like the overall appearance of it. I think there is some -- definitely some things to still
work out. I think the Fox Run access is number one. I think it -- it doesn't -- it's a huge
difference if that's not available, so --
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: I absolutely agree with you. I -- I give the applicant a ton of credit for
working with -- we have a much less full room than we did the first time that this thing
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 115 of 144
came through and I think that's giving credit to them for, hopefully, working through a lot
of those issues and I'm -- I'm still waiting -- waiting for someone to put buildings up on
the front of -- of a major street, but I also wait for those. I do think the Fox Run issue is
paramount in this thing and that no pun intended or unintended. I don't -- the light at
Bergman doesn't make any sense to me. We have enough traffic on Chinden right now
-- I live right near there and that is a -- Locust Grove is the one bottleneck and you have
three lights in a row -- that is crazy and so I don't understand how we -- I mean I -- I
don't want to ask for continuance, but I don't understand how -- either impress upon
them the need to do this -- to get that agreement signed before they go to Council I
think is a -- has got to be some part of this conversation, because I -- I don't see how
they take this and have the light at Bergman and make it -- make it make sense. I do
appreciate the -- the live-work. I do think that adds to The Village component of it. I
hope we include the fly through video as part of their DA. I'm not sure how you do that
electronically, Sonya, but -- because I think that looked good and I think it -- it does go
to the -- the livability and the walkability of the community. I hope as we develop this
thing out a little bit more there is some discussion about how to deal with that future
residential development, so there is not a -- a straight run into Paramount, but I don't
want it to be cut off from the development, because I don't want people to have to go
out onto the main arterials to get to the -- to the actual community or the services that
are there for them, so they don't have to go out onto the roads. That's the whole point
of having connection and I think there is a balance here that -- they have struck, so I
appreciate the effort.
Palmer: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault.
Perreault: One of the things that I had heard a couple of the other neighbors mention
was -- was installing calming measures on Bergman as they are coming out of the
subdivision and there being a straight shot. Is there -- I don't know how we begin that
conversation. I was wondering if staff had a thought on that, because I don't know --
since that's an existing development how that works.
Allen: Madam Chair, Commissioners, Commissioner Perreault, we can definitely
discuss that with ACHD.
Perreault: Okay. Yeah, I definitely --
McCarvel: I think being a little proactive on that --
Perreault: Absolutely.
McCarvel: -- instead of waiting for the accidents to happen is --
Perreault: I understand their concerns and I think they are very valid.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 116 of 144
Fitzgerald: Absolutely.
Holland: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Holland.
Holland: My comments overall I think -- you know, I didn't sit on this commission when
they came before us the first time, but I have gone back and reviewed the previous
materials and -- and some of the minutes from the last meeting and it's -- it's night and
day difference from what the initial application looked like and I think the developer has
done a good job of listening to a lot of the concerns and trying to mitigate those. Again,
whenever you get a developer that wants to help enhance the roadways I think that's
very generous and really important to help encourage a highway that's getting busier
and busier every day. I think, you know, Winco is a great company, it's -- it's probably
the most conversational of this meeting, because it's one of the only named tenants
that's on the site map, so people are focusing on that, but they typically are very good --
good neighbors, they are good -- a good Idaho company. They treat their employees
well. As far as having the limited hours of operation, I think they have tried to do what
they could to mitigate where its location was in proximity to residential so it wouldn't be
as big of a concern. I think having the big retaining wall, helping reduce the noise and
traffic. I don't have a huge concern with needing to limit their hours, because it --
certainly they have got their business model that is set up the way that they do. So, I
don't have any concerns with needing to -- to limit those hours because of how they
have kind of set up that site plan. I agree that I think the signal and the connection into
Fox Run would be critical for the project and something that probably should be agreed
upon before it goes to City Council. I also agree about the note about having some sort
of calming measure in Bergman and that the ACHD would work closely with the
applicant on that. We have talked about a lot of the other things, but in -- in general I'm,
I'm -- I'm pretty supportive of the development. I agree that, you know, when you look
at the -- the buildings that are kind of lumped together, I think they actually did it to have
more walkability between the site. They have got that nice plaza in the middle.
Because of the proximity of those other buildings, even though they are kind of set
back, if you look at the way that you can kind of walk through -- they have got a couple
of extra sidewalks, one in the middle of the parking lot that goes straight out from the
Winco towards Pad A and they have got another kind of sidewalk in that future office
retail, too. I think they were trying to do what they could to make sure they have got
some -- some good walkability on that corridor.
Perreault: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Mrs. Perreault.
Perreault: Just a couple more thoughts. I have some significant concerns about the
library getting the funding to go there. I would really like to see something there that is
civically related. I think that's -- I think it's necessary, in my opinion, to balance out the
different uses and so how do we go about acquiring -- that's -- that's something -- you
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 117 of 144
know, that there is a civic use there without having any -- they don't have any specific
commitments at the moment.
McCarvel: I would say just the word you just used, tie it to -- I mean I don't think we -- I
wouldn't want to have to tie it to the library per se, but definitely a civic use instead of
retail.
Perreault: And do we -- do we give a requirement for when that needs to happen in
relationship to the other --
McCarvel: No, I don't --
Fitzgerald: So, just clarification. What are we defining as a civic use? Because that -- I
mean --
Perreault: That includes a lot of things. I know.
Fitzgerald: Yeah. I mean if they -- and living out there I -- if they were -- I would love to
have a library there, but I would also take a theater or -- you know. I mean -- so, there
-- how we define that a little bit -- I don't want to put handcuffs on the developer to find a
good tenant, even though I think the library is awesome, but there could be another
anchor that would be cool that would go there. So, I -- I understand like that would be
our -- we would highly recommend or what -- I don't -- I don't want to put a requirement
there that would be significantly stifling for that development to be successful.
Perreault: And one more comment I wanted to make is most of our conversation
surrounded this specific development, but as a commission we are also looking at the
community and the valley as a whole and one -- one gentleman mentioned something
that's -- that's been on my mind the entire time is that we have -- we have to move some
of -- of the traffic to different areas of Meridian. We have got to -- we have got to get it
off of Eagle Road. We have got -- you know. So, that being said, if we are going to
develop a commercial area, it's got to be somewhere where people are -- are doing their
daily living. The Village is great and I love to go there on Friday night for dinner and go
to a movie, but it's not where I'm going to go to do my -- my necessities, my shopping,
you know, my -- you know, go to the dentist or whatever. So, just thinking about that
city wide, what kind of development are we creating? Are we going to create another
mixed use that is more about entertainment or we can create one that's more about
functionality and I think that that whole area needs a development that is more
functional, as much as I would like to -- like to see it be more aesthetically pleasing, like
The Village, because that was something that's been brought up and mentioned is -- is
the comparisons between the two. So, I just wanted to comment on that.
McCarvel: Yeah. I just think this whole area of town needs -- I mean it's good that it's
getting some sort of anchor type hold for things. Just with the size of the city it needs --
I would say this development looks -- I do think it's night and day from what was
proposed last year, so -- although similar.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 118 of 144
Cassinelli: I'm going to jump in now if I can.
McCarvel: You bet. Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: To kind of dovetail off what Commissioner Perreault was just talking about,
there is -- I think the -- the functionality, it's an Eagle, but across the street you have
Fred Meyer. A mile down the road we are to have Costco. So, we are going to have a
functionality there. This is an opportunity to have much more in this -- in this area. I
want this to go through. I still think it's a long way off is my personal opinion. I think if
you look around -- look around the country, you can look, there is probably hundreds of
developments that have the wow factor, have the cool factor. This is a lot more than
what we first saw, I will give it that, but I look at it, there is still a whole lot of pavement
smack dab in the middle of this. I think where Winco is at now is -- I think it's good. I
think with that park down there I think it's far enough away from the residences that I
don't think it's going to be an issue with -- with -- with the moving of the -- of the loading
docks, the plaza, and all that. I think -- I think that's a good add, but it -- it's a good step,
but to me it -- I look at this and it looks like -- it looks like something on Eagle Road and
it looks like where -- where Dick's and Kohl's is with a little plaza in the middle. That is
my opinion of it. That's -- that's -- that's -- you know, when I look at it, I see still a strip
mall and, again, there is -- it doesn't have to be The Village. But there is some other
cool lifestyle centers where you get a lot more walkability in them than what you have
here and I'm not just talking walkability being -- going from point A to point B, but you're
walking through the stores, you're walking through the areas with the -- with the shops.
I think -- I just think probably the last -- this is one of the last few large parcels like this.
It's a gateway into Meridian and I think a lot more can be done with it. It is different, but
when I look at it I just don't see it's that much different than what we saw the first time
around. So, I would like to see, in addition to the other comments -- I mean the -- the --
the collector road going out to Fox Run, that's a -- that's a half, too, I think and we have
to do -- there has got to be some mitigation on the traffic going down into Paramount,
but I think that -- I think this project could -- can be great and we are sitting at good and
why settle for good when we can have great.
McCarvel: Any additional thoughts? Yes.
Cassinelli: Based on that -- and some of the ACHD findings, I think -- I think we need to
continue this. We have got -- we have got to get a solution on -- on a couple of these
issues, Fox Run being one of them.
Perreault: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault.
Perreault: And I always appreciate Commissioner Cassinelli's comments, because they
are usually -- they usually make us all think; right? I wanted to address just a couple
things that you had mentioned and that is that I appreciate where you're coming from
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 119 of 144
completely and I would like to see -- I would like to see it be as absolutely beautiful as
possible and so I wanted to -- well, I guess I want to get some clarification, too. Are you
suggesting that we wait until we can both marry tenants that are willing to go in that
location and something that is more aesthetically pleasing or -- I mean because we can
-- the truth is is that we could wait for years until we get tenants that are willing to go in
there and I'm not -- I'm not -- I'm not arguing for it one way or the other, I'm just talking
this out loud. We can wait for years until we can get tenants that are willing to go in that
location, because that -- that's -- that's a factor, too, is -- and I have some reservations
about this plan still, so I'm not saying I completely don't, but we can wait for a very long
time until we get tenants that are willing to go in there. Some of this has come because
of the -- or the way they have done the design is because of what the tenants need or
want and so I don't know how much of that has gone into play with the -- with the
development and what the tenants had to say about locations versus what we have said
and how that balances, because I don't -- I'm not intimately involved in that side of it.
But I just wanted to understand are you saying that -- that as a community we wait to
put something there until we can make it more aesthetically pleasing or more -- I
understand what you're saying about it can be made more walkable, it can be made
more functional, livable, but I just wanted to understand what you -- what -- if --
understand what you're not seeing and what you would like to see in more detail.
Because we can send this applicant away and say we are not seeing what we want to
see, but I feel like we need to give them more understanding what that means. Or we
can ask them to continue, but let's give them some more clarification.
Holland: Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli, I think -- to rephrase what Perreault is
asking, if -- and not to put words in your mouth, but --
Perreault: If you can say it better -- it's 12:30.
Holland: I think one thing that would be helpful to understand is what specific elements
do you think we are missing that makes it go from good to great? Is there something
specific you're looking at that could be done better on the site plan or something specific
that they could go back and bring us a revised concept on? Obviously, the -- the Fox
Run element is something that's critical to all of us and we could certainly continue it
until they have that conversation if we felt like we needed to have that done before it
went to Council or we could put a condition that they need to have that conversation
taken care of before it goes to Council and we may or may not need to have that come
back to us. But is there anything else specific that we need to condition for a
continuance?
Cassinelli: I don't know that there is anything specific to -- I think that's critical, the Fox
Run piece. I mean I could throw out names of -- of a few places that I have seen
around the country that to me would be awesome right there. You know, I'm not the
architect, I'm not the designer, I'm not -- I think if you -- if you had something that was --
like I said, great, you would have tenants knocking down the door to be in there and that
wouldn't be an issue. Whether or not the library would make it or not. I don't -- I would -
- I have doubts as much as they want to be there -- to go in there, it's going to require a
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 120 of 144
bond and -- and a -- and an election for that to happen. I know there was -- there was
talk early on about -- I think there was talk in the original one about a -- about a theater,
if I'm -- if I'm not mistaken, but just the -- the overall design it's -- I'm still seeing -- other
than the plaza in the middle, I'm still seeing big parking lots. Looking at it from Chinden
it's still going to have a feel of -- of -- of something that's on Eagle Road. I don't think it's
going to look that different than if you're looking north into Fred Meyer.
Perreault: So, explain some elements of what would look different. More -- more green
space? Less asphalt? I mean give some -- help us have a vision here.
Cassinelli: More -- what -- what is going on in that plaza, more of that. Bringing things
more into the center.
McCarvel: I -- you know, sitting here looking at this and we are arguing about -- not
arguing, but discussing, okay, we don't want this big parking lot. Quite honestly when I
pull into a Winco I want a parking spot. I mean let's -- let's remember what this is. This
is -- I want to go get my groceries and I want to get out. I mean some of this is going to
be -- yes, you're drawn into other things for -- but we still I think -- you still want the
effectiveness of going to get your groceries, because you go to get your groceries, you
don't -- you got a car load of groceries, you got to go home or you come and do a few
other things and, then, you still -- you got to get your car over there. I mean there has
got to be some element of not -- but, honestly, I wouldn't -- if this was all Village like I
don't think the Winco part of it works.
Perreault: That's -- that's basically what I was trying to say earlier. I'm just so tired.
McCarvel: We want all these people walking around and I'm like -- I want a parking
spot. Yes.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair.
McCarvel: Yes.
Fitzgerald: So, I -- I love what you're saying and I understand where you're going,
because it's a lifestyle center and it's -- it's -- you know, stores on the front with parking
hidden behind you -- and I like that idea. I don't know if we are ready for it, to be totally
frank and honest. I think the plaza is a great center point. We need more services out
there right now. I don't know -- I mean I think Winco, Fred Meyer, whatever, but I -- I'm
cool with either one, but I -- I know that we need services out there. I love the live-work
above, which is going to be a center focal point and that is the lifestyle center piece of
this. I think it's trying to strike a balance between the two, of having a giant -- and you
and I always disagree on parking, so I think it's funny that this is coming up now, but --
because I am the anti -- I am the anti-asphalt guy, but in this situation I think that focal
point and the -- the planter strips that are throughout the area, I think you're -- you're
going to have a nice curb appeal. It's the balance. I don't know if a lifestyle center in
that location works yet or -- or at all. So, I understand that the possibility of it, but I don't
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 121 of 144
know if you have enough rooftops -- or they -- it isn't Virginia and it isn't California.
Even, then, that's where those places are. So, I think we are -- it's tough.
Holland: Madam Chair and Commissioners, I -- I think I agree that, you know, if -- if this
was a -- if you didn't have the -- the big parking lot it probably wouldn't -- if you had it be
more of a lifestyle center, like The Village, Winco probably wouldn't be the right fit. I
agree with that comment.
Fitzgerald: Yes.
Holland: Having the fly over I think helped visualize what it would look like and I don't
think it does look like an Eagle Road from the way that they showed it. I think having
the -- the live-work units, add some of those residential components, it really does make
it more of a mixed use product and that's something that we are missing in Meridian.
We don't have a lot of those live-work units and I think it's really valuable to have that --
that mix where people can live above where they work and go get groceries and you
really do have a nice -- nice plaza there. Certainly we could continue going back and
forth, but the -- the one benefit I think this development brings us -- the roadway
improvements as well is something huge to consider, because if we continue delaying it
and, you know, they decide to change some things majorly and it ends up not working
for certain tenants, then, we have got to go back to the drawing board again and I -- I
think they have done a pretty good job of putting together a mixed use product that
certainly may not be The Village model, but I think it's definitely incorporating elements
of The Village type model into a complex that has services.
Perreault: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault.
Perreault: The truth is is that it's just going to continue to -- to grow out that western
way and, you know, it is a huge benefit I feel to our community to be able to go to the
grocery store and the bank and your child's school and be able to do that within two
miles of your home or three of your home. I just really feel like we are almost at a place
of -- I mean we are really at a place of necessity.
McCarvel: Yeah.
Perreault: We are really there.
McCarvel: Yeah.
Perreault: So -- in my opinion. That doesn't necessarily mean I -- again, that I'm in total
agreement with how -- with exactly how every small piece of this looks, but -- yeah.
McCarvel: I think we are all in agreement on the Fox Run access --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 122 of 144
Perreault: Absolutely.
McCarvel: -- is --
Fitzgerald: It's got to be --
Perreault: Absolutely.
McCarvel: -- an absolute necessity as part of this, so -- I don't know if you're ready to
move it forward pending that or if you want to hold it up until we get ink on paper for it.
Holland: Okay. I'm going to attempt to throw out a motion and see where it goes.
Madam Chair, Commissioners, after considering all staff, applicant, and public
testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2017-0088
as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 15th slash 16th, 2018,
with the following modifications: That the applicant would work closely with Brighton on
that Fox Run exit onto Chinden and, then, that would be established and understood
before it goes to City Council and the applicant would also work closely with ACHD on
the intersection that connects with the fire department where that signal is presented, as
well as the Bergman and traffic measures that would slow and calm traffic.
Fitzgerald: I'm going to second it, I think, but let me ask you a question. Are you going
to require the agreement be signed and done before that goes to Council or -- I just
want to understand where you're going, because I -- and maybe that's a qualification
from Sonya. Can we require that be done before it goes to Council?
Allen: Madam Chair, Commissioners, you can require anything you would like.
Fitzgerald: Sweet.
Allen: But I don't know that it will happen or how long it will happen or --
McCarvel: Our recommendation of approval is based on that they will have the issue of
Fox Run worked out --
Fitzgerald: Worked out before it goes to City Council. That -- if that's where you're
going -- if that's where your motion is, then, I --
Allen: What does work out --
McCarvel: Be approved.
Fitzgerald: Finalized and signed.
McCarvel: And that if the second alternative happens.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 123 of 144
Holland: So -- oh. And, then, the motion to just say that Brighton, the developer, and
ACHD would come to some sort of agreement prior to City Council, whether that's a
formalized document or at least a letter of intent to indicate that that will be something
that moves forward. That's -- now hold on.
Fitzgerald: Can we say that Bergman is not an option in that motion? Because I --
because that's -- that's my thought is I -- it's either Fox Run is there or we need to go
back to the drawing board. In my opinion. But that's --
McCarvel: Yes.
Fitzgerald: That's my thought.
Holland: I agree.
McCarvel: I agree.
Fitzgerald: So, I would -- whatever your motion is -- if you want to revise that I would
revise my second.
Holland: I'm making this really messy now for you.
Perreault: Lisa, before you start that motion again, does anyone feel the need to
discuss what of the -- the buildings on the south side of Winco -- when those are built?
What phase they should be in? Do we need to address that? The applicant didn't seem
to think it was necessary for us to address that, because of requirements by ITD to have
everything complete before the certificate of occupancy, but -- if we don't address it it
stays in phase three. This is a recommendation to City Council.
Holland: We could add the recommendation that the applicant would consider building
some of the live-work units south of Winco prior to --
Fitzgerald: In phase one?
Holland: Phase one.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Are you revising your motion?
Holland: I'm revising the motion. Okay. Do I need to restate the whole thing?
Fitzgerald: Sure. That would be awesome.
Cassinelli: Consider it or make a -- make it a condition.
Holland: That we would strongly encourage or do I need to make it conditional?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 124 of 144
Fitzgerald: I think you need to make it a requirement.
McCarvel: Make it a condition. They can do it if they --
Holland: All right. So, revising my modifications -- I'm not going to read the whole thing
again. Modifying that the applicant would work closely with Brighton, ACHD, to
establish an agreement before this goes to City Council about the Fox Run access and
if that Fox Run access is not available, it would need to come back to Planning and
Zoning for further review. And, second, that ACHD would work closely with the
applicant on the firehouse access, that they would add traffic calming measures to
Bergman, that we would put a request that the applicant -- or a condition that the
applicant would include some of this multi-story office live-work space as part of phase
one in the development process. What else am I missing?
Fitzgerald: I second your motion. That's all you're missing. I think.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to recommend approval of H-2017-0088
with modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed?
Cassinelli: Nay.
McCarvel: Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY. TWO ABSENT.
McCarvel: And, believe it or not, we are not done yet. Anybody want to stand up and
move around?
Fitzgerald: Stretch.
(Recess: 12:49 p.m. to 12:52 p.m.)
G. Public Hearing Continued from September 6, October 18, 2018
for Residential District Naming Convention Text Amendment
(H- 2018- 0059) by DevCo Development LLC
1. Request: A Text Amendment to Change the Naming
Convention of the Residential Districts of R-2, R-4, R-8, R-15
and R-40 to R-A, R-B, R-C, R-D, R-D and R-E, and Modify
Other Related Sections in Chapters 1 - 3 of the Unified
Development Code (UDC) to Coincide with the Proposed
Naming Convention
McCarvel: All right. At this time I would like to open Public Hearing Item H-2018-0059
and we will begin with the staff report.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 125 of 144
Parsons: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. Good morning. So,
this item was continued from the November hearing and the main reason for it is you
gave the applicant and myself some homework to come back and bring forward to you.
The applicant did provide an update to you and that is included as part of your
application packet. But I did want to mention that the applicant has withdrawn their
request to go forward with the residential naming convention change at this time. So,
really, the only thing that he wants you to take under advisement this evening -- or this
morning is the changes to the R-15 zoning district. So, what I will do is -- as part of my
presentation the Commission wanted me to look at other jurisdictions in the valley and
through the country to see are there other places that are -- that use these types of
setbacks in their jurisdictions and so I had a new planner that came to us, thought it was
a good exercise for him to go through some of the zoning codes, so I thought I would
share some of that information with you. What I can tell you is a lot of it is -- there --
what we are doing as part of this change isn't what I found in other areas. What I have
found is similar lot sizes, similar setbacks, like zero setbacks and five foot setbacks, but
nothing specifically to having setbacks off a private street and/or a common driveway.
So, I will quickly go through these. I won't spend too much time, but you asked for it, so
what we did is we looked at the valley in general and, then, we went to -- out to Portland
and those areas to see what some -- some of the larger cities, more progressive cities
are doing out there as far as setbacks. So, this is the city of Boise here before you.
You can see they have an R-1M zone. You can see their -- what their lot sizes are.
Pretty typical. And, then, again, side yard setbacks, zero to five feet. I mean that's --
that's pretty typical in most of these scenarios. Eagle. Similar. For the head lot
coverage. So, minimum lot sizes here you can see and, then, we went to Caldwell.
Some of their zones are a little bit different than ours, but you get the gist of it. There is
heights, setbacks, minimum lot sizes. They don't even go down to the lot sizes that we
go in some of our zones, which you get an R-15 zone the minimum lot sizes is 2,000
square feet, but you can see their setbacks here. They have six and 15. It's not a good
example for you there. Kuna is a little different, too. So, here they have an R-12 and an
R-20. The minimum street frontage is here. Some setbacks. Garden City. Again, R-
20. As your interior setback zero. Five feet from the side and, then, five and five for the
front and rear. So, there is probably the best example that I could find in the valley for
you as far as getting down to that zero and three foot setbacks and you can see here it's
an R-20 zone. So, it would be quite dense. And that's explained here, you know, they
are looking at a minimum density in those zones. That is a multi-family zone. Nampa
the same thing. Five foot setback, but nothing down toward the lot sizes that we
currently have. So, then, we went out to Portland to see what they did. You can see
there are 2.5 zone -- they have a different -- I think 2.5 you're actually probably going up
less dense, but in their case it's -- it's more dance. So, you can see here -- here there is
maximal heights of 35 feet setbacks or ten feet from the front. The side is five or zero to
five. The rear and, then, garage 18 feet. And then same -- same situation here. I don't
think anything that the applicant -- here is kind of their RM zone, 2,500 square feet here.
Their lot lines. Pretty typical. Kind of explains what -- what it is, what you can do. I
know that was -- that was a concern. You wanted to kind of see that in practice. You
can see here many other jurisdictions are using a zero or five foot setback. Again, none
of them explain what the setbacks are off a common drive and/or a private street and I
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 126 of 144
will -- I will go ahead and just stand there for any questions and, then, maybe have the
applicant come in and discuss some of their changes. I did want to point out to the
Commission, as a side note or one -- one other -- an agreement. The applicant is in
agreement with one of staff's recommended changes I think, if you remember right, they
were proposing a one and a half foot setback from the common driveway for 50 percent
of the facade or 40 percent of facade. In the applicant's narrative to you -- letter they
indicated that they are fine with staff's recommended three foot change along -- along
the common driveway. So, with that I will stand for questions and turn it over to the
applicant.
McCarvel: Any questions for staff? Okay. Would the applicant like -- oh, sorry.
Commissioner Perreault.
Perreault: So, for clarification for this evening, are we making a decision on this, but we
are not addressing the name change? Is that right?
Parsons: Madam Chair, Members -- that's accurate. They have withdrawn -- they want
you to act on their request to withdraw that -- the name change and, then, move forward
the R-15 dimensional standard change. But it's still one application.
Perreault: So, they want -- they want to add a section to the code that specifies the
common driveways and the --
Parsons: They want to add a section. They have that already. That was part of what
we discussed at the previous hearing. All they are doing is -- you asked for further
clarification where that -- where other jurisdictions are --
Perreault: Okay.
Parsons: -- using those setbacks. That's what I'm reporting to you now and, then, you
wanted some additional information from the applicant on the drainage and how that
would be addressed with these setbacks.
Perreault: Uh-huh. Okay.
McCarvel: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward.
Bailey: Do you have our presentation, Bill?
Parsons: I can see if I have it here.
Bailey: Okay.
Parsons: See if we got it open. Did you give it to anyone, Laren?
Bailey: What was that?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 127 of 144
Parsons: I said did you give it to anyone to upload for you?
Bailey: Yes, I did.
Parsons: All right. Is that UDC text changes? Is that yours?
Bailey: Yes.
Parsons: There you go.
Bailey: Okay. Thank you. Good evening, Madam Chair. My name is Laren Bailey. My
address is 4024 West Fairview Avenue and as -- as Bill stated, we are back in front of
you because there were a few questions that were asked last time. I apologize that --
and I don't mean this negatively, but a few of you weren't here then, so if you have
questions, if I'm not answering the whole thing, let me -- let me know and we can go
back and start over on some of it. As Bill indicated, we decided to pull the portion of the
application that had to do with the renaming of the residential zoning districts. After
hearing, you know, questions from the Commission, also testimony from the public, it
became apparent that there was -- there was even more confusion than we had
anticipated in what we were trying to do and so in our trying to fix some confusion, we
were just making it worse. So, we are not going to move forward with that at this time.
The second part of our request, though, for the additional setback requirements to the
R-15 zone for properties on private streets and, more specifically, within -- you know,
these private streets are usually within a gated area and so -- so, the issue is that the
current code does not address some of the dimensional standards and so it became
difficult for staff to review plans and say that if it met the standard or not, because there
weren't any standards for them to -- to focus on. So, at the last meeting there were a
couple of concerns and questions that came up. The first one had to do with drainage
and how it's handled within developments of this type in and around the individual
buildings. I will cover that in a moment. And the second one was, you know, how
would the city be able to control the outcome of future developments using -- using the
code and so I will talk about those issues. First, I would like to reiterate that we are in
complete agreement with staff and the staff report and the recommendations for
approval. I also want to state again for the record that we are not proposing to change
the existing setbacks, we are adding new requirements here and these -- these are
items that were just not addressed in your current code. So, now we will discuss the
drainage. So, there is -- there is a three step approach to drainage in -- in the City of
Meridian. First we have got the International Building Code, which lays out the
requirements for -- for the residential structures. It talks about, you know, sloping away
from foundations and that -- that all the residents need to have positive drainage away
from the foundation. The second one is you have got the city engineering review, which
this is a little different on a private street than it would be on an ACHD street. ACHD
would review the drainage in a -- in an ACHD roadway, whereas on a private street the
city is reviewing that, we get comments back from them on our drainage design and
they have standards that we need to meet and, then, the third portion of it is going to be
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 128 of 144
your building permit and inspection process. The city inspects every home as part of
the building permit inspection process, including drainage, to ensure that water flows
away from the homes and is disposed of properly. Through this process the city already
has all of the processes and procedures in place to require review and inspect projects
that utilize private streets. Where did my -- here we go. So, as you can see in this
illustration, this shows how a lot drainage works in a typical lot in a subdivision. You
have got water flowing -- see the blue water here, it's flowing away from the home down
property lines. It comes out to the street and down here and hits -- hits a storage
drainage facility. As you can see, all the -- the lot is graded away from the building and
water is directed to the street. The typical R-15 project is designed in the same way. In
-- let's see. We need to go to my next slide. In this illustration you can see the arrows
here are -- are how the water is all directed away from the buildings. Hits these
common drives or areas in between buildings and it comes out to this -- to the private
street and, again, then, it is disposed of properly. It goes to seepage bed, a pond, or a
swale, whatever the -- the system might be to -- to deal with the storm drainage. So,
with that being said on the -- on the drainage, I just also wanted to emphasize that the
three foot setbacks are already approved setback in the R-15 zone. Staff has reviewed
and recommended approval of these additional setbacks that we are discussing tonight.
The one last thing is you're going to hear from some residents tonight that feel that
where -- how the city's currently moving through a comp plan amendment and update
that -- that this might be putting the cart before the horse or ahead of -- ahead of the
game. These are really requirements that have not been there in the past. We are not
changing anything, you know, huge in the code, these are detailed portions of the code
that wouldn't be updated in a comp plan amendment or a comp plan change. You
know, the comp plan may direct things in the future, but -- but these are fairly detail
oriented issues that are strictly in the code. So with that I will stand for any questions.
McCarvel: Any questions for the applicant?
Bailey: Thank you.
McCarvel: Thank you. Do we have any public testimony, Chris?
Johnson: We do. First we have Susan Karnes.
Karnes: Good morning. My name is Susan Karnes and I live at 5556 South Graphite
Way and I'm very sensitive to wildfire smoke, so I apologize for my voice. I haven't had
it since July. Yes, the Meridian Southern Rim is concerned about the optics of, you
know, code changes being made when we are in the midst of a new Comprehensive
Plan review, because the comp plans drives the code. That's one concern. But there
are other things that we think are a little problematic and this is feedback we are getting
from our members, this would be citywide and there are so many distinct scenarios with
each and every development and application -- I don't need to tell you. We feel that in
some cases these kinds of changes are best reviewed on a case-by-case basis and we
-- it's our understanding that this would affect R-15 applications that have already been
approved. We have one by the applicant, Eastridge Estates, that was bitterly opposed
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 129 of 144
by nearly every single neighbor and City Council approved one thing and this applicant
would have the ability to come in with these new code dimensions under R-15 and --
and so our concern is the appearance of that to residents when they have understood
one thing was approved and another gets built. I have to say that I'm going to just wax
philosophical about this and I guess this evening's proceedings. I have lived in a lot of
communities and I have been involved in a lot of development and -- and one thing that
has always been prominent in those discussions and deliberations is what compelling
reason do we have to approve something? What kind of value does it bring to the
community and to the future homeowners and, in general, I think the city is trying to
discourage private streets and developments with private streets. This evening we had
an application where there was the possibility of a private street connecting with a public
street leaving a burden on, you know, those future property owners and so one of the
concerns that was expressed to -- to us at the Meridian Southern Rim Coalition is that
they didn't want to see more code changes that might encourage more private street
developments, that they wanted to see these types of dimensions carefully evaluated on
a case-by-case basis, because there is a process for that and where it might be a good
fit in one area of the city in terms of, you know, fit, transition, appropriate use, it may not
be appropriate elsewhere in an R-15 setting.
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you.
Karnes: Thank you.
McCarvel: Any others, Chris?
Johnson: Yes. More than are in the room I believe. Wendy McKinney.
McCarvel: Okay. Who is here that wants to testify?
LaFever: Hello. Denise LaFever. 6706 North Salvia Way, Meridian, Idaho. And, first,
before we even start, I really like the changes in the staff report, Bill. It's looking really
good. So, back to business here. Yes, we are in the middle of a comp plan change
and, yes, I realized this is not a comp plan change, but we are also in the middle of a
UDC change and I -- I submitted my changes that I would like to see in the UDC plan to
Cameron, who I'm sure has passed it on to Bill. To me this is not necessary. We are
already dealing with two of the biggest things going on right now, the comp plan change
and the UDC change or smack dab in the middle of reviewing those. This to me feels
like an end run around these two processes that are going on right now. I think we
should deny this process and refund Jim Conger's money and take his ideas and
address them through the UDC. As far as modeling that we have brought up, our best
example is Garden City. We don't want to model ourselves after Garden City. I think
we -- I think we deserve better than that. Not the Garden City is bad, but I think we are -
- I think we should have approach it more like an Eagle or other areas. As far as many,
as Bill stated in there, that was not many. You know, we can go back through and look
at other areas as far as examples and -- and what brought -- was brought up in the
testimonies that three feet setbacks already exist in the code. Then why are we even
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 130 of 144
here? I just think this is really unnecessary. The citizens -- I'm on -- on part of the
steering committee and I'm out talking to people and listening to people and what they
want to see. One of the -- some of the driving factors when you set aside
infrastructure, one of the things they don't like seeing is they feel that places are being
built too close together and there is a lack of open space. The too close together, this
gives that illusion that we are not listening. I would really like us to see this be denied
now, have it addressed in a UDC change and have our comp plan go forward. That's all
I have to say.
McCarvel: Good morning.
Reynolds: Good morning. Sally Reynolds. 1166 West Bacall Street. So, I was here
the first time that this came before the Commission and I guess I'm just mostly confused
as to why we are allowing one applicant to redefine setbacks for the entire city. So, one
of the concerns that I heard voiced by this Commission was that -- that they have the
product and they know how to do the drainage and how to build these facilities with
zero, you know, setbacks very well, but if we implement it city wide, then, what's going
to be the implication for other builders who don't have that product or know how to use
those drainage systems. So, I think that we are kind of putting the cart before the horse
to implement this city wide. There is already a process in place, as you know, for this
developer to ask for an exception if they need zero percent setbacks, but to do that for
everyone has far reaching implications and I don't believe that this should be enacted
and go retroactively, because that does give a signal to the citizens that things are
allowed to come in through -- through other areas and just be -- as one resident put it
last time -- sneaky. A time to change -- a time to ask for a change in the code is not
now when we are in the middle of the comp plan process, which that does drive the
code and I completely agree with Denise that she submitted her changes in a way that
would be considered and the developers should do the same. So, please, consider the
comp plan process right now and the signal that this would send to the citizens,
especially when they are asking for more open space and more green space and less
density in Meridian. I think it's great you're looking at other areas for inspiration, but,
ultimately, I think that we need to decide how we really want Meridian to look. Thank
you.
McCarvel: Thank you. Would the applicant like come back forward? Oh, did you want
to speak? Okay. There being no one else left in the room, we will take the applicant.
Bailey: Thank you, Chairman. Again, Laren Bailey. Just wanted to comment on two
items there. One, this is not changing any plans that have been approved, at least that
that we are working on. This is not a change that's going to change the lot layout or the
number of units or the density or the open space or any of those items. What this is is
as we got the project approved and -- and started to build buildings and staff started to
review the building permits, it became difficult under the current code, even though
everybody felt like we were on the same page when it was approved, it became difficult
for staff to make the current pieces of the code fit and so it became confusing and so we
have worked with staff for months trying to figure out how do we make this work, so staff
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 131 of 144
has a game plan, they know what they are supposed to do, we know what we are
supposed to do and everybody gets what was approved at the end of the day. It's not
changing anything. And this was -- this is what was come up with, us working alongside
staff and that's why -- that's why you have a staff report that recommends approval. So
-- so, again, yeah, that's -- that's why we are here. We are -- we are not changing
anything that's happened before. We are not changing the density, we are not changing
the buildings. None of that's happening. We are just trying to clarify some areas of
code and provide some detail that wasn't there previously. So, with that I will stand for
any questions.
McCarvel: Any questions for the applicant?
Perreault: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault.
Perreault: I apologize, my memory isn't -- I was at the meeting, but -- but my memory is
pretty poor at the moment. What process have you had to go through in the past to get
approval for that? Can you specifically tell me the process that you -- isn't there a
specific special process that you have to apply for? I don't know why that's sitting in my
brain. Do you know what I'm referring to?
Parsons: Madam Chair, Members -- yeah. Process for what? The UDC change or
their entitlement?
Perreault: The entitlement.
Parsons: You mean what process that we go through when they went through
Movado?
Perreault: So, I guess what I'm asking here is when -- when you have made the request
in the past -- or what exactly is it -- is it -- what exactly is it that you have to request,
outside of -- okay. So -- so, like Movado, for example, you just came in and, basically,
requested the three foot setbacks as -- and since those are not in the UDC code -- do
you understand what I'm asking? I guess I -- it's so late.
Parsons: Madam Chair, Members -- if I'm -- if I'm understanding you correctly, Movado
-- sorry. The Movado development was mixed residential community. It had multi-
family. It had single family.
Perreault: I'm talking about the one we just heard.
Parsons: You're talking about the --
Perreault: Verado.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 132 of 144
Parsons: -- Movado Village.
Perreault: On the corner of Locust Grove and Ustick.
Parsons: Oh, that was Verado. That's -- that's not the same product.
Perreault: But we had that discussion. No. No. We had that discussion --
Parsons: Yes.
Perreault: -- about the --
Parsons: No. Yeah. When they come in with an R-15 zone their minimum setbacks
are what we have on code, so they can take advantage of the three foot setbacks.
That's already been established and we went through this exercise with this same
developer five years ago.
Perreault: Those kind of developments are the reason that you're bringing this request
forward; is that right?
Parsons: Not necessarily, no.
Perreault: Okay.
Parsons: What -- what's driving this request is the 55 and older component that they
have gotten approved with Eastridge and Movado Village and in those particular cases
those are gated communities, they are common drives off of private streets and when
the applicant wants a certain product type and it's not fitting on the lots that they just --
they have platted, that's what's driving this and so our typical R-15 setbacks don't fit in
with that product type and so the applicant is trying to work with staff to say we -- we
encourage diversity in our city, but we need to have a game plan and we need to have a
code that can support that. If you -- the last time that I brought this forward I said there
is -- there is different ways you can skin this cat. If you don't want to do a code change,
you can go to a PUD --
Perreault: PUD.
Parsons: -- and do something -- you can do -- do something different than change the
code. Those were options that were presented to the applicant. It was their opinion
that this was the process they wanted to go through, because it -- for them it seemed to
be a less cumbersome process to do and work with staff to try to find a solution. What
we didn't count on was the amount of public comment we would receive on this because
a UDC -- a text amendment is processed different than a PUD process. A PUD process
is parcel specific. So, the applicant would have to go through that neighborhood --
neighborhood meeting process, notify the property owners within 300 foot radius. When
a person goes through a code change it's city wide, you can't notify all those parcel
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 133 of 144
owners. So, code doesn't require them to have a neighborhood meeting or -- but we
have to still put it in the paper and notify the public, but we don't send out notices that
way. So, it's a different process and that's why it worked well for them five years ago
and we said, well, if that's the way you want to go -- they already had the name change
in process, so they said they wanted to amend their application, so that's why we are
here. Now, there is a -- there is a couple of distinctions here that I -- I don't want the
neighbors or those in the audience thinking that this is -- yes, it's city wide, it is still case
by case basis. Not every project has private streets. I don't think staff is going to
support every privacy project that comes through. It's going to depend. There is a lot of
variable -- private streets aren't a given; right? There is an application, there is a
process you have to -- the director has to approve a private street. But what's unique
about this product is that common driveways aren't even supposed to be off private
streets and code prohibits it, unless you get an alternative compliance request. Again,
another director's approval. So, the instance of this -- they receive director's approval of
the private street and they received alternative compliance approval. So, they are doing
-- it is a case-by-case basis. It's not an ongoing -- it's not someone could come in --
now, I don't totally disagree with the homeowners. If someone had a common driveway
-- if -- if this gets approved and a Brighton comes in and they have a common driveway
with a plat, yeah, they could take advantage of these setbacks. They could go
retroactive and use these setbacks. But in their particular cases we have got certain
easements already approved for that development that would restrict them from taking
advantage of that. So, there is a couple things that we look at when we approve house
plans. One we look at setbacks, but we also have to look at platted easements to see if
they are structured -- the structure can encourage an easement and typically on an R-8
and an R-4 lot that takes advantage of a common driveway, they are bigger lots and
there is typically a five foot public utility easement along the interior lot line, a 15 foot on
the front in a ten or 12 on the rear, so even if these setbacks were in place it would be
prohibited from encroaching that setback -- or in those easements and can't take
advantage of those setbacks because of the easement. So, by default the easements
would control the placement of that building on that lot. So, again, yes, it's city wide, but
at the same time there is -- there is a whole bunch of variables that go into applying the
setbacks. They are not just -- someone could come in tomorrow and say I have
common driveways, I want to take advantage of a three foot setback all the way around.
Yeah, but you could vacate the easement and change that, but there is a process to do
that. So, it is -- it is -- it is difficult, it does get messy for us and if you recall when I
presented to you about a month ago, I told you this would require more staff time to
review these things, because as part of this -- as part of this amendment we are trading
open space, yard area, for patio space or some other yard space on the lot. So, the
developer is trying to get a hybrid, kind of -- just some of the multi-family standards,
require a porch or a patio, a certain square footage -- 120 square feet is what they
propose and we -- we think that's a good number. A ten by 12 patio on the front of the
home. But we have to verify that during the building permit review. Building isn't going
to do that. Planning is going to have to do that. So, yes, there is risk and reward here I
guess is what I'm getting here and there are different processes you can go through to
obtain these setbacks. But this is what the applicant proposes.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 134 of 144
Holland: Madam Chair, a couple follow up questions for Bill. So, just to kind of
rephrase what -- what you have said and what Commissioner Perreault asked, if this
change doesn't go through, the process an applicant would have to go through, if they
wanted to have a private street or a common driveway as part of their development,
would be to go through a PUD process if they -- this is so they wouldn't have to do the
PUD?
Parsons: No. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, the question is entitled with
their subdivision. They could go back through a PUD process, but not to get approval
for the private street and a common drive. That's already done. A PUD process would
be to -- again, this is what I kind of alluded to about a month ago is -- we are too far
down the road to really go through a PUD, because there is so many findings you have
to make and we have already approved a project and to unravel that -- it gets pretty
messy for us sometimes. But typically to approve a PUD you have to make findings
that meet certain criteria. You have to have a minimum two different product types.
They didn't have that. You got to have a certain amount of open space. They have
that. It's not -- a PUD process isn't to primarily get you out of dimensional standards.
That's one option, but we would have to make sure if we went through that process that
the project as approved would still meet all the criteria in order to -- for staff to support a
PUD for the site. That's where it gets in that -- that's -- that's the risk to the applicant
and the time and money that, you know, would be well spent for them, because a PUD
process is more expensive than a text amendment.
Holland: So, one follow-up question then. In the research that you did and you
presented to us, I didn't see a lot of language in there about private streets and common
driveways. Is it fair to say that many other cities don't have that specific language in
there -- in the UDC?
Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I didn't do that. Again, I didn't do
the research, I had one of the assistant planners do that for me, but I asked him
specifically to look for that, just a random sample. We didn't go through every
community out there, but we didn't have any -- I didn't see anything from what he
presented to me and what I shared with you tonight that showed setbacks off of private
streets. But in my experience a street is a street; right? Whether it's private or public
it's a street. So, those setbacks are going to apply regardless. What we are trying to do
here is to be very specific that when you have a private street these setbacks apply.
When you have a common driveway these setbacks apply. I think the cities interpret
their code -- codes differently and that's where we kind of got sideways with the
applicant. They were seeing our code one way, we were seeing it the other, and, again,
they proposed some of these changes to try to make -- get rid of that gray and provide
some black and white.
McCarvel: So, is -- the staff report I know it was written with all the other verbiage in
there and so, in general, then, what's before us tonight wanting to be considered -- is
staff in agreement with that?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 135 of 144
Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, yeah, that's my understanding.
The applicant's in agreement. We are in agreement. We can strike the rest out or
remove it as we go to Council. Or we can strike it all out if you don't approve it and,
then, Council can make a decision.
McCarvel: I'm just thinking forward to a motion one way or the other. I don't know
where it's going, but is the staff report written in a manner that it could be approved or
not as is? Okay. Any other questions for the applicant or staff? Thank you.
Bailey: Thank you.
McCarvel: Can I get a motion to close the hearing on H-2018-0059?
Holland: So moved.
Perreault: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to closed the public hearing on H-2018-
0059. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
McCarvel: I think I'm going to defer comments to the people who were involved in this
in the first place. They seem to have a little more teeth in the game in this one.
Holland: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Holland.
Holland: I will go first. I wasn't sure if you were ready or not. You know, first of all, I
want to thank all of those of you that have stayed with the early morning hour here with
us. We appreciate your -- your commitment to -- to being here and being involved. I
also want to thank the applicant for trying to go through and make the process easier for
-- for development. I do have a couple of concerns with the way that this application is
coming through. You know, a couple of comments that came through from the last
hearing and also from this hearing is, one, that we are going through a public comp plan
process right now and that these conversations really should be part of that
conversation and since this specific change outside of a text amendment request that
was originally put forward, should be something that technically could go through UDC
process and be submitted to staff separately. So, there is -- there has been some
concerns voiced about having a developer bring that change -- or staff bring that
change. Having it come from a private sector development versus coming from staff
and a committee and having multiple thoughts that kind of look -- look through it. The
only other concern I have is that, you know, if -- if this is -- the setbacks are already
pretty much -- sorry, words are escaping me this early in the morning. It's already
allowed to have the zero or three foot setbacks or the 12 foot setbacks, they just want to
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 136 of 144
have more specific language that adds private streets and common driveways. The
concern with adding that language is that it might encourage future developments to
include more options of private driveways and common -- or private streets and
common driveways, which was my understanding that the city doesn't tend to like as
much. Hopefully that will make sense. But those are a few thoughts to start.
McCarvel: I think -- I mean that -- they just said that those two issues have to get
special approval in the first place. It's not like every developer is going to be knocking
down the door to -- okay, I won't -- I'm guessing.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: I appreciate your comments. I think the challenge is that you're trying to
build a product that's already been approved and there is no functional way to go
forward without having a change and so that's -- I think you have -- and that's why you
have text amendments, that's why -- you're dealing with an issue that's out in the field,
they don't have a specific standard that they -- the developer can work with, so instead
of cobbling together a solution that doesn't -- isn't in coded, they are bringing something
to us to allow them to find a solution and so I tend to -- I mean I don't think there is going
to be a massive like line at their counter to go see -- I'm going to go build private streets
and common driveways. I mean we see common driveways and projects all the time. I
think it's -- it's a tool that's used by -- by planners. I don't think they are that common,
but I think they have to get approved on a case-by-case basis by the staff and I mean if
-- Bill is sitting here saying, hey, we are -- I want -- I don't think this is a good idea. I'd
be a little bit more concerned in who was bringing. But I think it -- trying to find a
solution for a project that's already been approved, I -- I'm not sure how -- why that's a
problem or if there is going be a process to go through after a project has already been
approved. Again, I find the solution that -- that doesn't have to send them back through
a complete approval process.
Perreault: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault.
Perreault: I have a question for Bill. So, if staff -- you have chose this, what does that
look like for you to get approval? Is it just bringing it to us and Council or is there a
public process that you go through as well?
Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, it would be the same process,
whether the city does it or -- but what we typically deal with are larger text amendments
is we meet with our UDC focus group, so we do roll it out to the design professionals
and developers and see if they are on board. So, it does get scrutinized a little bit more
from that standpoint. But, yes, the citizens still don't have the level of input, unless they
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 137 of 144
know what -- they are aware of what's going on. There isn't that level of transparency
with -- with this process, unfortunately. Probably something we should work on.
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: Question for Bill. If -- if we were to approve this with upcoming changes to --
and review the UDC and whatnot, could that be stripped out and refined at a later -- so,
that the problems that they are having now can be addressed in -- in that. Does that
make sense at this hour? What I'm trying to say -- so, I mean we could -- if we were to
approve it as it is now, but, then, to discourage a rush on private driveways or private --
private streets with -- with common driveways, could that be stripped out later, but yet
the -- yet what the problem is -- and I think specifically is the drainage, is that what --
what really is the issue here is how to deal with drainage?
Fitzgerald: My understanding is --
Parsons: That was one of the concerns that -- there is -- there is multiple concerns that
I raised in the staff report. One was more staff time to review it -- drainage and how that
would be handled.
Cassinelli: But as far as the -- as far as the applicant, is that their -- is that their issue
with getting --
Fitzgerald: Envelope and drainage --
Cassinelli: -- is -- is the drainage issue of them getting --
Parsons: No. Their issue is setbacks, but --
Cassinelli: Okay.
Parsons: Anything can be solved with money, but their issues are setbacks. They --
what they are -- they are struggling with is our 12 foot rear setback specifically. They --
their -- their product can meet our parking standards or driveway widths. Our street
setbacks. It's just when you have a cluster of internal -- a cluster of lots that are
surrounded by other lots that have street frontage, but the interior lots don't have street
frontage, then, you don't really have a front or side yard. So, how do you apply rear
yard and it gets a little convoluted. I don't want to get into the weeds with you, but we
have gone -- like the applicant said, we have been back and forth I don't know how
many staff has been part of this. We waste a lot of manpower on this trying to get it
right for everyone. It's like anything, we don't -- it's -- it's -- code can be changed. I
mean if it doesn't work, yes, we can change the code.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 138 of 144
Fitzgerald: Well, it helps to be put in the review process that's going on right now. Find
a solution and, then, if it needs to be changed we can change it.
Cassinelli: Yeah.
Perreault: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault.
Perreault: Bill will love this one. It also creates parking issues and I can -- I mean I'm
only going based off of examples of -- of applications we have -- we have done. So, I
can get it in visually in my mind, but if they are allowing for private a street to only have
a ten foot setback instead of a 20 foot, so now the structure is a lot closer to the -- to the
street and, then, the structures are a lot closer to each other, now all of a sudden we
have got driveway, driveway, driveway, driveway, driveway and, then, that -- but -- but
because it's a private street they are not required to have parking on either side. So --
so, it's -- it's more -- it's not just -- at least in our conversations with -- on one of the last
applications it's not just a drainage issue, there is a spacing issue, too.
Parsons: Yeah. Homes -- homes will certainly be closer. Private streets are typically
24 or 26 feet wide and don't -- are supposed to be striped no parking. So, you know, we
try to encourage the applicants to provide that overflow parking. I think we had that
townhome development that came through recently and we added -- had them add
some more overflow parking for guests parking. So, those are -- those are the types of
projects that need to be scrutinized more that come through our department and before
you, because those are the ones that we have to make sure we get right, because we
don't want to get in the situation where we are in front of you now trying to solve the
problem with a code change. If we do that exercise up front, we recognize that issue,
we can get it resolved before we get to this point is the goal.
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: I will try and make this quick, Bill. This applies to private streets with
common driveways or -- common driveways can be separate from the -- okay.
Parsons: Right.
Cassinelli: The other -- the other question is with -- with properties -- homes closer
together, has this -- does this need to be reviewed by police or fire? Is that an issue
with them?
Parsons: We have discussed all this with them. They don't -- they don't have any
concerns with it.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 139 of 144
Cassinelli: Okay.
Parsons: Yeah. They were part of the conversation, along with the building
department, just to make sure we were all on the same page as we go forward. I don't -
- if the applicant didn't have support from city departments, they wouldn't even have
gone forward.
Holland: Madam Chair. Bill, one more question for you. The UDC committee that you
mentioned, how often does that meet and who sits on that committee? Is that an
internal staff committee?
Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. So, they meet -- we typically -- I
keep a running tab of UDC changes throughout the year and, then, sometime in the
spring we convene the committee and say hey -- the applicant is part of that committee.
We have a representative for Brighton Corporation. We have architects sit on it. Staff
members, of course. Legal. It's about 20 people or so giving feedback and input on the
process.
Holland: One follow-up question. Once something comes through to that committee
and you review changes, is that something that staff, then, would bring back to a
Council -- Commission meeting first and, then, go to Council or does it just get changed
through -- through that Commission meeting or that committee?
Parsons: No. That -- that's just to go over some changes in proposed language and,
then, at that point we go to BCA as well, which is the Building Association of Southwest
Idaho and, then, we put together an application and submit and, then, come before you
-- you and -- and City Council for --
Perreault: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault.
Perreault: You know, with a -- with a city wide change I really -- I really feel like that that
would be beneficial for it to -- I mean I don't want to delay the applicant. I know you
guys have been doing this for a long time. I don't know how many people you have
talked to that are members of the -- of that committee already, but I would like to see -- I
would like to have it reviewed by -- by that committee. Say the name of it again.
Parsons: UDC focus group.
Perreault: Focus group. Okay.
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 140 of 144
Cassinelli: Maybe this is a legal question. Can we approve it with a sunset clause so it,
essentially, expires after this is approved -- after their projects?
Fitzgerald: This isn't legislation, man.
Cassinelli: Hey, I am trying.
Holland: Madam Chair. Bill, one more question for you. So, if we decided to go the
route where we would prefer that this goes through the UDC focus -- or UDC focus
group, would we make a motion to continue it or would we make a motion to deny it and
have it go -- with a note that it would go through UDC focus group instead? Does it
make sense what I'm asking?
Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of -- interesting question. I'm tasked to putting
together the next changes, which I have -- I have done that, I just haven't finalized that
process to recirculate that back to the UDC focus group. So, what would have to
happen is you would have to deny the application. The applicant could go before City
Council. If it gets denied, then, certainly we can take that under -- under advisement.
But you can't move it forward -- I guess you can move it forward to City Council with a
denial saying that you think it should be further vetted with staff and the UDC focus
group before Council approves it, but at this point -- at this point you got to make a
decision tonight. I think that's what the applicant is looking forward to. And if it gets
denied -- I guess that's my question for Legal. If it gets denied can we take it under
advisement again, because -- or do we hold ourselves to the same standard of what --
that one year sunset clause.
Holland: That's what I was asking really.
Parsons: There won't be anything different.
Fitzgerald: Is that something they can make modifications?
Perreault: Sorry, I missed that. What was that?
Fitzgerald: It's a test.
Pogue: It was a test. Yeah. I was tracking with what Bill was advising, which is
recommend denial, if that's what you want to do, with the recommendation that it go that
-- that it be directed by Council to the UDC committee. So, they would deny as well.
But at least you would be giving them direction as to what the concern is here.
Fitzgerald: Isn't it a year -- that puts a year clock on it or would that -- I mean it's a
project. They are not a project, but do you have a clock after a denial of this type of
application?
Pogue: Oh. Got you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 141 of 144
McCarvel: Well, didn't -- I mean Bill can bring it back through the regular text
amendments; right?
Pogue: He would -- yeah.
Fitzgerald: It's not like a normal project.
Pogue: No. Correct.
Holland: So, one more follow-up question. So, if we decided to -- just thinking about
how we can make this motion. If we decided to continue the application with a note that
we would prefer that this goes through the UDC focus group to a point in time after that
UDC focus group meets and, then, we carry it forward, that could be a way we do it?
Perreault: That would be bringing it back to us. Is that what you want to do?
Holland: I think it would ultimately come back to us anyway if it was to go through the
UDC commission -- or committee.
Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, if I'm understanding you
correctly, you would table this application until it caught up with staff's UDC changes
and, then, hear it at that same night and, then, we could add it as a side discussion with
the UDC focus group with the changes that I'm preparing to bring forward to you with a
future application.
Holland: I'm not sure which -- which way would be better, but whether we recommend
denial and recommend that they go through the UDC process or recommend
continuance and -- until the point where it's been heard by that UDC focus group.
Perreault: Before we make a motion, I'm still struggling with this idea that -- that
developers may use this as a way to bring more dense applications. Does staff really
anticipate that? I'm getting the impression that -- that staff's in agreement with this and
that this would be helpful to you and so I want to very much keep that in mind.
Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, staff is supportive -- supportive
of the changes, but there -- there is risk.
Perreault: Okay.
Parsons: And that's what I stated in my staff report. It's going to take more review time
for staff. Going to have to look and scrutinize drainage a little bit more.
Perreault: So, what is the best way for us to mitigate that risk? Is it to just get this
looked at further with the focus group and the BCA?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 142 of 144
Parsons: There is no way to mitigate it, just requires more work, so --
Perreault: To educate --
Parsons: Let me -- let me -- let me explain the process to you. So, whenever there is a
common driveway our code requires the applicant to provide us an exhibit. On that
exhibit they are supposed to show us the building footprint and show us how the home
sits on the lot, so we can verify all of those setbacks. That typically happens -- that can
happen into two -- two stages. It can happen at the preliminary plat or it can happen at
final plat. Most of the time it happens at -- at final plat. That's when we start scrutinizing
that a little bit more, make sure that they can comply with those standards. That -- that
exhibit we attach to a building restriction form so that when building permits come in we
verify the setbacks meet what we have approved with the final plat. Well, in this
particular proposal we still have to verify that. They will give us that exhibit, but, then,
we have to look at the floor plan to verify that it -- and scale out the patio that it's -- there
is 120 square foot patio on there and that takes time. I mean I'm not opposed to doing
the work, I'm just letting you know there is a level of work there. Do we have a lot of
common driveways? No. I can tell you a handful. A majority of our permits aren't off of
common driveways, but we -- you see them on a regular basis. If someone wants to get
three lots and the common driveway you don't need street frontage, so someone throws
in a 20 foot wide common driveway and now they can get two more lots on there, rather
than having 30 feet of frontage on the street. So, I mean it's -- it's becoming more and
more of a common practice. Again, this particular instance we have got common
driveways off a private street that were -- was -- was approved on a case-by-case basis.
And when I say someone wouldn't take advantage of these setbacks if they had
common driveways? I can't say that with certainty that someone wouldn't do that. But
what I can tell you is we go through the subdivision process, there is requirement for
them to establish easements along those property boundaries and so 99 percent of the
time you can have a bigger easement than the setback requirements that you see
before you and that's why we are -- we are confident -- that's why we can support the
application and don't -- don't see it being an issue, but there is always going to be
somebody out there that tries -- tries to test you. It's just the way it is.
Pogue: Madam Chair? Could I ask a question to Bill. I'm still wondering what other
options the applicant may have with regard to the -- to approve -- is it to approve
projects?
Parsons: The other options are a variance.
Pogue: A variance.
Parsons: Yeah.
Pogue: And were they tied to DA's? Could they come back with an MDA?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 143 of 144
Parsons: The developments are tied to -- their density is tied to a -- to a DA. Setbacks,
again --
Pogue: It wouldn't have come into that, but --
Parsons: You got to change setbacks.
Pogue: A variance is a possibility?
Parsons: Variance is -- yeah. We talked about three options. PUD, a variance, or this
process.
Pogue: Uh-huh.
Parsons: Pros and cons; right? You do an analysis, what's the pros and cons for each
process. A variance goes straight to City Council. Then, you know, how do you make
the findings that it's a hardship when it's a vacant piece of ground and it's bare dirt. It --
it's like anything, we are sitting here -- it's semantics and we can't support a variance
because there is no hardship to prove. There is -- there is no reason why we have to
support a variance. We already gave them two. We gave them -- we gave them the
alternative compliance for the common driveway. So, basically, that's a staff level
variance. So, they have already gotten that. So, that's not the preferred way to go
through that process. But it is an option. And that, again, parcel specific. Your
neighborhood meeting. Get -- get input from your neighbors within 300 feet of your -- of
your project boundary. Certainly that's the other option, you know. Now, you can go
through a variance. I mean there is -- we could spend this -- many different ways for
you -- you just have to decide what's best for the community.
Pogue: And I have one more question. When would you be convening the UDC
committee with your -- with your list --
Parsons: It's done -- yeah. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, we -- we have
met once already and kind of talked about what we were going to bring forth with our
next changes. What I have done is I have prepared a table with some strikeout,
underlying changes. We realize we don't have this -- the resources at this time to cover
all of those items, so we are going to pair back that table a little bit more, so I would like
to get something in the near future, at least have something before this body at least
January I would probably guess. So, get something to the UDC focus group for
comments December and an application for January is where I'm targeting at this point,
but no guarantees.
McCarvel: It's not that far out and if that makes everybody feel comfortable let's do it. I
don't know that we would have this much reservation if this was brought forth by staff,
but there is --
Perreault: Sorry, I have one more question.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 144 of 144
McCarvel: Yeah.
Perreault: So, do you -- is -- are all -- is everything that goes through the focus group
also ran by the BCA or is it just specific things as needed? Or how does that process
work?
Parsons: Yeah. Once the UDC focus group as -- have the changes and they -- no, we
don't always get a hundred percent consensus on the changes.
Perreault: Sure.
Parsons: We agree to disagree on some of those changes. But, then, I schedule a
meeting with BCA and just let them know, hey, this is scheduled for the hearing. I
welcome your comments on it and then --
Perreault: Okay. So, you don't meet with them and --
Parsons: I take all the tables to them and share everything.
Perreault: Okay. Great.
Parsons: I don't go over every item, but just the ones that affect the building
community.
Perreault: Right. Okay.
Parsons: Typically they have been supportive of setback changes.
Perreault: Okay. Thank you.
Holland: Madam Chair, Commissioners.
McCarvel: Yes.
Holland: I -- if -- unless anybody else has more comments to make on -- and I would
make a motion that we reopen the public hearing, so that we could make a motion to
continue the application.
McCarvel: Okay.
Holland: Unless anyone else has anything else they would like to add to that.
McCarvel: Okay. Do we have a second to open the public --
Cassinelli: Second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 145 of 144
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to open the public hearing. All those in
favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Holland: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Holland.
Holland: I would like to make a motion that we continue the public hearing for H-2018-
0059 by DevCo Development for the change in the UDC code, that we would continue
that application to a point in time after the UDC focus group has had the opportunity to
review the text changes and come back with a recommendation to the Planning and
Zoning Commission with the other UDC code changes at the same time.
McCarvel: And do we leave it at that or do we need a date?
Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I would say leave it open for
now.
McCarvel: Okay.
Parsons: Because that way I will make sure to coordinate that when we get -- when I
get my stuff in.
McCarvel: I just thought the -- I thought we had tried to do something like that before
and we had to have a date on it, so -- okay. Perfect.
Cassinelli: Second.
McCarvel: Second? It has been moved and seconded to continue H-2018-0059. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: I move we call it a night and adjourn.
Holland: Second.
McCarvel: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor
say aye. Opposed?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 15, 2018
Page 146 of 144
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 1:53 A.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
RHO DA McCARVEL - CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
— A,"-- -
- CITY CLERK
2 i 1 i 1 �-3
DATE APPROVED
Gp�PpRATEO �'L ..
� I
W
m SE DIANA