2019-11-07Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting November 7, 2019.
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of November 7, 2019, was
called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Commissioner Ryan Fitzgerald.
Members Present: Commissioner Rhonda McCarvel, Commissioner Ryan Fitzgerald,
Commissioner Lisa Holland, Commissioner Andrew Seal and Commissioner Bill
Cassinelli.
Members Absent: Chairman Jessica Perreault, Commissioner Lisa Holland and
Commissioner Reid Olsen.
Others Present: Andrienne Weatherly, Ted Baird, Bill Parsons, and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-call Attendance
_______ Lisa Holland _______ Reid Olsen
__X___ Andrew Seal ___X___ Ryan Fitzgerald
__X___ Rhonda McCarvel ___X___ Bill Cassinelli
________ Jessica Perreault - Chairman
Fitzgerald: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I would like -- at this time I would like
to call to order the regularly scheduled meeting for the Meridian Planning and Zoning
meeting for the date of November 7th, 2019, and let's start with roll call. Madam Chair --
or, Madam Clerk, would you like to call the roll, please.
Item 2: Adoption of Agenda
Fitzgerald: Thank you, ma'am. First item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda.
We don't have any changes tonight, so can I get a motion to adopt the agenda as stated?
Cassinelli: So moved.
McCarvel: Second.
Seal: Second.
Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed same. Motion passes. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT.
Item 3: Consent Agenda [Action Item]
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 4 of 68
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 2 of 45
A. Approve Minutes of October 17, 2019 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting
B. Approve Minutes of October 24, 2019 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting
C. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Adera Storage (H-
2019-0094) by Chad Olsen, Located at 1680 W. Ustick Rd.
D. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Verraso Village North
(H-2019-0105) by Chad Olsen, Located at 3543 E. Tecate Ln .
Fitzgerald: Next on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. We have four items on the
agenda. To approve the minutes for October 17th, 2019's, Planning and Zoning Meeting.
The October 24th, 2019, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. And the Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law for Adera Storage, file number H-2019-0094 and the
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Verraso Village North, H-2019-0105.
Anything that we need to pull out of the Consent Agenda? Seeing none, can I get a
motion to accept the Consent Agenda.
Seal: So moved.
McCarvel: Second.
Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to accept the Consent Agenda. All those in
favor say aye. Opposed same. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT.
Fitzgerald: And at this time I would like to give you all a -- kind of an understanding of
how we run our public meetings. We are going to open each application and we will start
with the staff report. The staff will report findings regarding how the item -- and I can't get
my notes -- excuse me -- adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and development code
with the staff's recommendations. After the staff has made their presentation the
applicant will come forward to present their case for the approval of their application and
respond to any staff comments. The applicant will have 15 minutes to make their case
and after the applicant has finished we will -- we will open the floor to public testimony.
There is a sign-up iPad in the back, so if you all would like to be heard tonight make sure
you sign up in the application -- application you would like to be heard from. If any
individual is here for an HOA and there is a group that will show their hands where they
will give up their time to this person to speak on the HOA's behalf, we will give you an
extra ten minutes to speak for that group. After all testimony has been heard, the
applicant will come back forward and we will give them ten minutes to re -- to respond to
public testimony and close the discussion and after that we will close the public hearing
and we will deliberate and determine if we can make a recommendation or approve the
application, depending on what it is.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 5 of 68
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 3 of 45
Item 4: Action Items
A. Public Hearing Continued from October 3, 2019 for Goddard
Creek Townhomes (H-2019-0068) by SI Construction, Located at
the NW Corner of W. McMillan Rd. and N. Goddard Creek Way
1. Request: Rezone of 5.03 acres of land from the R- 4 to the R-
15 zoning district, and
2. Request: Preliminary Plat for the Re-subdivision of Lot 2,
Block 1, Goddard Creek Subdivision Consisting of 4. 62
Acres of Land into 44 Building Lots and 8 Common Lots.
Fitzgerald: So, with that we have a -- first on the agenda we have Goddard Creek
Townhomes, which is H-2019-0068 and we -- this is a continued public hearing, Bill, and
I want to make sure, because Commissioner Cassinelli, wasn't here previously to give a
rundown and for everybody in the audience this is an application that was continued for
-- to ensure we had adequate public comments and there were some folks who couldn't
be here, so, Bill, if you can give a -- kind of a brief overview, so make sure that
Commissioner Cassinelli is up to speed and, then, we will -- if anyone has already spoken
we would ask that you don't come up, because we already have that on the record and
everybody was here, except Commissioner Cassinelli, so I want to make sure we get
everybody -- public comment that wants to talk tonight, but, Bill, if you can start this off
with a brief staff report and we will go from there for this application.
Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. As you stated, this
was continued from the previous Planning and Zoning Commission for the purpose of
additional public testimony. I will run through the specifics of this application for you once
again and remind you of what I brought up at that hearing and, then, also share with you
some of the revisions that the applicant has made to the plan based on those conditions
in the staff report. So, if you recall this property is located on McMillan Road and Goddard
Creek Way. So, it's the northwest corner. This property was annexed and zoned in 2002
as part of the Lochsa Falls development. As part of that approval there was a
development agreement that allowed for a use exception for office uses on this property
in the R-4 zoning district. In 2017 this property came back before this body with a
Comprehensive Plan map amendment to change it from high density residential and
office to mixed use community. At that time there was also a concurrent conditional use
permit for a multi-family development on this particular site. As this property -- or as the
project moved through the public hearing process the applicant was concerned that
Council would not approve the request for multi-family on the site and he subsequently
withdrew that request for the multi-family component of this particular project. So,
currently the comp plan amendment did move forward with approval and there is currently
a storage facility being constructed along the west boundary of this property. Council
approved the DA amendment to allow the storage facility, but wanted the site to remain
R-4 with the use exception for offices. So, the applicant is here this evening, again, to
discuss developing this site with 41 townhome units. Again, this is not multi-family, it is
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 6 of 68
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 4 of 45
townhomes, which is by definition single family. The site consists of 20 percent of open
space and three amenities, which consists of a dog park, a tot lot and a covered picnic
area. What makes this project unique is that there -- it's served by public -- or private
streets, because both ACHD and city staff do not want access to McMillan Road and
there is an existing common lot along the east boundary that was platted with the Lochsa
Falls development that prevents access to Goddard Creek, other than West Selway
Rapids Lane to the north, which was -- provided cross-access to this property and that is
also a private street. So, ACHD doesn't allow public streets off of private streets -- to
have private streets going back into the public streets, so that's why the applicant is
proposing private streets at this time and in order to meet the requirements of code for
private streets, he had to have -- provide an MU development and that's why you see that
central open space in between the units in the middle of the development. So, one of our
conditions was to have those fronting on the MU, rather than having the rear of the units
on that in order to meet UDC standards and support this private street application. So,
again, there is also alternative compliance for that. Our director's approved for alternative
compliance to allow the common drives off the private streets and, then, also approve the
private street application as well. So, it does not take -- require any action of this particular
body. If you recall in my testimony last week or two weeks ago I also mentioned to you
that the public record -- there was nine residents that testified in opposition. Primary
concerns were traffic and parking in the area. In order to address that and based on
staff's recommendation, the applicant did provide guest parking within this facility, which
isn't necessarily required by code, because the townhome units that you see here actually
meet the code requirements for the parking pad and a two -- two car garages for each
unit. So, again, they heard staff's concerns, they were informed of some of the
neighborhood opposition that we dealt with on that project back in '17 and now, again,
was addressed with this application. So, again, staff is recommending approval with
those changes and I just -- before I conclude my presentation, one of our other
recommended changes was to relocate the common open space along McMillan Road.
So, you can see here the applicant provided a revised exhibit. The open space shifted to
the east and the two units that were on the east side have moved over next to these two
units. So, before the open space was central in this location with two units on either side.
Based on our recommendation currently the water and sewer stubs for this property are
located in this area, so in order to facilitate the extension of those facilities it was easier
to have the applicant redesign their plan, relocate the open space, increase and connect
two larger open spaces to make it more usable and move this over here. Again,
applicant's obliged staff in doing so. We believe that this plan is better suited this way
and, again, staff is recommending approval with the conditions in the staff report and I will
stand for any questions.
Fitzgerald: Thanks, sir. Commissioner Cassinelli, do you have questions?
Cassinelli: Yes, Mr. Chair. Bill, can you just explain to me, even though these -- you
mentioned that as townhomes these are -- these are single family residences. So, can
you explain to me how we are getting that versus a multi-family with the --
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 7 of 68
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 5 of 45
Parsons: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, it's very simple. In our code there is
certain definitions for each of the housing styles in our community. The multi-family
development is three or more units on a single parcel. In this particular case the
applicant's platting the lot underneath each one of the dwelling units and having shared
walls. So, in this development when you got three or more units attached it's a townhome.
When you have two units attached it's single family attached homes. So, essentially,
where you are -- the central units in the middle of development, those would be
considered townhomes, because it's more than three units. Each unit is on its individual
lot. On the perimeter we have the single family attached and, then, there is a -- there is
another townhome of three units here in the southeast corner. So, that's really the
definition. And, then, when we apply the parking standards for single family dwellings,
you have to have the two car garage and the 20 by 20 parking pad in front of that and
that's the distinction here where in a multi-family development you will have covered
parking or surface parking. You don't necessarily need a garage spot. But when we were
looking at townhome developments, single family detached, single family detached
homes, duplexes, all of those types of housing require the garage requirement and the
parking pad in front of them and that's why they are more like a single family than a multi-
family development.
Cassinelli: Thank you.
Fitzgerald: Any additional questions for staff? Thanks, Bill. Would the applicant like to
come forward? Scott, do you want to come --
Noriyuki: Thank you, Commission. Scott Noriyuki. Northside Management. 6810 Fairhill
Place, Boise, Idaho. 83714. First of all, I want to thank Bill and staff, as well as the
Commission and your comments, as well as the neighborhood. We have -- we have held
three neighborhood meetings and gleaned information from them, as well as you, as well
as my client and staff. With that said, I have just got a couple of things I'm going to go
over, so we are not being redundant. The distinction with townhouses, which is very very
critical, is these are not apartments. They are owner occupied. They are parceled with
literal soil, dirt, underneath them, which allows the underwriters, banks, to approve
mortgage loans more easier than say a condo, if you will. So, the product, which is very
necessary in Meridian, is residential opportunities. We currently have here a lot of rentals
and we have a lot of single family detached, but that jump for a lot of kids or young families
or single families to transition from the rental ultimately to the single family is the step.
So, it's a step-up product and it's verified, only -- only five percent of product in the City
of Meridian currently fits within this need. It's a demand. With that the only other thing I
want you to key into that I asked Bill -- and I don't know if you had a chance to put it
forward within your staff report, I presented an update today to go into your staff report
that addresses all of the traffic, as well as the school concerns. With that I will stand with
-- or for any questions.
Fitzgerald: Questions for the applicant?
Cassinelli: Mr. Chairman?
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 8 of 68
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 6 of 45
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: Scott, you just mentioned -- and I was going to ask you if you -- if you knew
numbers and, then, you threw out the five percent that meet this criteria in the city. Where
-- where did you get that from?
Noriyuki: I am citing that from an article that was printed by the Idaho Statesman that --
bear with me here. I want to highlight it. That was dated late last year that cited Caleb
Hood, as well as another staff member. Bear with me here. I will submit this to you.
Cassinelli: Thank you.
Fitzgerald: Commissioner, do you have additional questions?
Cassinelli: No.
Fitzgerald: Additional questions for the applicant? Thank you, Mr. Noriyuki.
Noriyuki: Thank you.
Fitzgerald: We appreciate it. At this time, Madam Clerk, do you have folks that are signed
up to testify?
Weatherly: Mr. Chair, I show one. Janie Pollman signed in, but did not indicate a wish
to testify.
Fitzgerald: Is there anyone additional in the audience that would like to testify? Sir, do
you want to come forward. The gentleman in the blue shirt.
Bellamy: And I did sign in, so --
Fitzgerald: And, please, state your name and address for the record, please, sir.
Bellamy: Good evening. My name is John Bellamy. I live at 2464 Wapoot Drive in
Meridian, Idaho. Okay. So, I want to testify I attended these meetings back when the
discussion was about the Selway apartments. You had all of us sign in at that point in
time on paper. Everyone signed in against with one exception. That one exception
happened to be an out-of-state developer from Spokane, Washington. Yet this project
was approved. It was approved on the little known high density housing to be developed
in the Lochsa development at some point in time to be determined in the future. That was
the catchphrase that got that product approved. Okay. That time has come and that time
has gone. The ten acres that Selway sits on was zoned R-4 and, then, we now have 170
apartments there. Crime has gone through the roof. Our house values have tanked.
Traffic has become a disaster. But yet now you want to do the same thing on 5.3 acres
by putting in 40 townhomes. Okay. By definition they are not high density. Common
sense tells me it's very high density. The intersection of Goddard Creek and McMillan, if
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 9 of 68
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 7 of 45
you look on your map that you guys have up on the boards up here, you can see that the
traffic coming from the east, that is virtually a blind intersection. ACHD has the big white
line that you are supposed to stop behind until you can pull out into clear traffic. You can't
see the traffic with the structures that are further to the east. No one stops short of that
white line. I have seen as many as two cars in front of it and it's going to cause a major
problem. In parking right now with Selway, they can't park in the Selway apartments.
They are parking on all of the access streets. Apgar Creek for one. Those people that
get frustrated with trying to get out of Goddard Creek onto McMillan are now using Apgar
Creek and north on Goddard Creek as alternative routes. Unfortunately, they are doing
it at excessive speed and excessive traffic. Those streets were not built to handle that.
We have already had one child killed on Goddard Creek. We don't need additional. Talk
about the schools. My wife is a teacher in the Meridian district. Has been for over 30
years. And I will tell you that the schools in north Meridian are overcrowded. I have a
daughter attending the high school at Rocky Mountain. We have a fairly new high school
and within, what, a year and a half, two years they had portables, because they don't --
can't handle the student population. We have shoved so much in north Meridian. We
can't handle anymore. It's bad enough that our quality of housing has gone down and
our home values, but now we are getting Costco, we are getting Winco. We got the super
Walmart. North Meridian cannot take much more. And this 5.03 acres was zoned R-4,
four residents per acre, and there were a lot of us that looked at that when we purchased
our homes there. This is governance by the people, for the people, by the people. Listen
to your people. You didn't do it on the Selway. The people didn't want it. You all approved
it. Please listen to your people on this project. Thank you for your time.
Fitzgerald: Thanks, sir.
Weatherly: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Yes, ma'am.
Weatherly: I resolved our technical issues. I can give the list now.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you.
Weatherly: Thank you for your patience, everyone. The next person I show signed in is
Danner Patchell.
Patchell: Good evening. Thank you for your time. Appreciate it. My name is Danner
Patchell. I live on 2371 West Apgar Creek Drive there in Meridian. So, two houses right
there from Goddard. I just wanted to take this time and I appreciate the time, seeings as
I wasn't here last time, to kind of state my case. I have a six year old and I have another
child that is due any day now and we already, as he -- as he talked -- you know, the last
gentleman talked about, we have already had one kid killed on Goddard Creek. I am -- I
fear for my child because of the parking and the traffic issues, especially the speed. Like
he said, they no longer go out Goddard Creek, they come across Apgar and go out further
-- go out further east. So, I would just like to take this time to ask you to, please, not
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 10 of 68
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 8 of 45
change this to an R-15 and keep it as an R-4, to not exacerbate our parking problems,
our traffic problems, our speed problems and that's all I have to say.
Fitzgerald: Thank you, sir. We appreciate it.
Weatherly: Mr. Chair, the next person signed in is -- or are Rod and Angie Ludlow. Okay.
The next person is Penny Fisher.
Fitzgerald: Ma'am, thanks for being here today. Yeah. Please state your name and your
address for the record, please.
Fisher: My name is Penny Fisher. My address is 2382 West Apgar Creek. I reside in
the home that is kitty corner directly from the proposed project. With that said I am going
to be affected by this directly. As it is right now there is not a single day that goes by that
I don't have parking of different people in front of my home, which means when I have
friends that want to come and visit they cannot even park in front of my own home. That's
one of the reasons why I do oppose this. They are saying it's 5.03 acres of land, but
when you look at it they are actually only able to build on 4.62 acres of the land. So, you
are trying to shove 44 -- 42 units on 4.62 acres. One of the things I'm -- when we bought
and purchased our home we did look at the townhomes -- or not the townhomes, we
looked at the area. We did look at the planning and zoning and we looked at the master
plan and on the master plan it had commercial high density, the Selway apartments, and
homes. So, our subdivision did allow for high density and Selway with their 121 units, did
completely comply and take that. What they are asking us to do is once again change
the zoning, because, again, as they -- without being able to change it from an R-4 to an
R-15, this is not feasible or pliable or -- and without putting 41 units on it, it comes down
to money. It would not be -- if they didn't put the 41 units on there it wouldn't be -- it
wouldn't make them any money. So, I feel like for the developer they don't care about
the livability of the land. They don't care about the master plan of -- of Meridian that has
been created for the livability of it. They don't care about the traffic. They are not in
charge of the traffic. They don't care about the home values. They are not in charge of
the home values. They don't care about the schools. They are not in charge of the home
values. What they care about is purchasing and developing the plan for money and so
with me being right there I have talked to many many people who are concerned about
the traffic. They are concerned about crime. They are concerned about the livability
going down. So, what I ask for you guys to consider is -- I know that you guys are not in
charge of all of that, but you are in charge of the livability and sustaining and keeping our
master plan. So, I'm asking you to once again stick to the master plan and do not change
it, keep it up at the R-4 and do not change it to the R-15. Thank you.
Fitzgerald: Thank you, ma'am.
Weatherly: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Daniel Fisher. Seth Patchell. You can yield your turn.
That's fine. Noah Patchell. Same? That's it for testimony.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 11 of 68
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 9 of 45
Fitzgerald: Is there anyone else who would like to testify on this application in the
audience? Any questions for staff before I get a motion to close the public hearing? Oh,
and the application -- yeah. Sorry, Scott. You want to come back up and talk. Yes. The
applicant would like to come forward and close the discussion. Sir, thank you.
Thank you. Our good chair isn't here, because she won an election yesterday, so we are
very happy for her, but I'm trying to take over.
Noriyuki: Fair enough. Scott Noriyuki. Northside Management. 6810 Fairhill Place,
Boise, Idaho. 83714. Thank you. First of all, I want to thank the testimony from the
neighbors. I understand the concerns. I want to go over a couple of things. I wrote them
down. So, I will try to be concise and quick. Number one, this area has changed from
the original development at the onset years and years ago, the master plan, and, of
course, this entire portion of the city has morphed and it's changed. So, I want to point
that out. And over the years there have been multiple zone changes and development
agreement modifications. What we are doing is we are adjusting to market demand, the
needs of the city, and what's appropriate. That said I want to make clarification that I'm
not from Spokane. I'm not the original developer. I have nothing to do with all the original
applications. We are coming forward with what we believe is a good idea. We are born
and raised Idaho. Period. Just saying that. Property values are not at risk. In fact, we
are coming in with a very high end product from our standpoint. It's going to be quality
built. It's not derogatory. It's not rental. It's not cheap. Traffic studies. I hope each of
you had a chance to see what I submitted today as far as -- as far as the calculations that
prove out, per ACHD and national standards and studies and experts, that prove out
these 41 -- the staff report is incorrect stating 44. There is actually 41 townhouses
proposed. It proves out the trip capture on a daily basis would be significantly lower than
light office. So, from a traffic standpoint we are actually less of an impact. Furthermore,
I hope you -- and you can see the links and the research points that we have that prove
this out. Furthermore, from a school standpoint I'm a parent and I get that. I mean
growing pains in the City of Meridian, what are we, one of the fastest growing areas in the
United States. I have spoke with the vice-president of the school district. I have an
understanding and I gave you links of the school -- the new schools that are approved to
be built. The schools that are going to be expanded by 2020, which is at or about the
same time that we would actually complete construction and per their calculations and
census data, we are going to add 34, 35 kids to the school age. Very small. With that
said I will stand for questions.
Fitzgerald: Any additional questions for the applicant? And thank you for reminding me.
I appreciate it greatly. Make sure you got to close.
Noriyuki: Thank you.
Fitzgerald: With that can I get a motion to close the public hearing on H-2019-0068.
Cassinelli: So moved.
Seal: Second.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 12 of 68
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 10 of 45
Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All those in favor
say aye. Opposed same.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT.
Fitzgerald: My fellow commissioners, the application is presently before you.
Commissioner Cassinelli, go right ahead.
Cassinelli: I never reviewed the minutes from the last one. Did you guys have any
debate?
Fitzgerald: We talked about it a little bit on certain components of it, moving some
components around and kind of where the staff had gone and talking about the product
mix in the city. We talked about that, too. But there wasn't a great deal of that. I think
we had -- had a conversation about continuing this before that and so we didn't get deep
into it.
McCarvel: Yeah.
Cassinelli: I have a -- Bill, I have a question for you. I don't know -- going back to -- I
know when we reviewed the last the -- the multi-family back in 2017, we talked about the
Selway apartments a lot. Was that -- and I don't know if you recall from that. Was the
Selway apartments -- were those originally supposed to be on this land and they got
pushed to where they -- they got pushed back to where they are now? Do you recall?
Parsons: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, no, this was always the
location slated for the Selway apartments and it was the -- this entire front edge was
always -- was going to be office --
Cassinelli: Okay.
Parsons: -- is what the original plan was and that's -- that's why when they came through
with their comp plan amendment two years ago and we wanted to try to -- you know, as
-- as this commission knows with mixed use community we try to at least get two distinct
land use -- we want three distinct land uses on the particular property. In this particular
case just to the west of this site is BridgeTower development that has some vacant office
lots and some vacant commercial at the corner of Ten Mile and McMillan and so we used
that as a barometer, say here is the commercial component, we are going to have
storage. This is the other component. And, then, the multi-family was the third
component to kind of tie in and blend in with that mixed use comp plan changes that we
were processing back in '17. But I worked on the Selway project when I first started with
the city and my recollection is that it was always part of a PUD -- approved as part of that
PUD for 171 units and it was zoned R-4. The city actually recommended a condition of
approval that they rezone it from R-4 to R-40 and the Council denied the rezone and that's
why it remains R-4 today with the 171 units on it. The reason why the apartments went
forward -- and the -- the Council couldn't necessarily deny the project based on the public
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 13 of 68
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 11 of 45
testimony that the -- the gentleman was up here testifying is because it was entitled with
the PUD and there was no mechanism for the Council to deny it. It was already,
essentially, approved with the PUD process. All that we were doing at that time was
making sure that it -- it integrated with the neighborhood and that those were the findings
that the city made and that's why the apartment was built. But in relationship to this
project right now it's zoned R-4, but the DA says that they are allowed to do office uses.
that's currently how its structured in today's world and as I mentioned to you in my
presentation that's what the Council supported two years ago, that office was a better use
for this and so they, essentially, denied the rezone for this piece, too. It was R-15. Those
R-40 -- they were a lot -- they were proposing I think 82 units. They watered it down to
Commission had concerns with the multi-family, that it was going to be too dense, not
enough open space, parking concerns with that project. So, you guys continued it out
and they lost units, brought in more amenities, more open space with that multi-family
project and you guys had recommended approval, but, again, at the time that it got up to
Council just felt office was better and so the applicant elected just to withdraw their
application rather than take the chances with a denial and ultimately it was -- got
withdrawn and office uses stayed on the site.
Cassinelli: Was that in '18? Because I know in '17 we recommended for denial on it.
Parsons: I believe you continued it out for the apartments to get modifications, but, then,
you forwarded it on, if I recall, but I don't know if you actually partially denied it.
Fitzgerald: I think we have seen it three times. I know we have recommended denial
once, recommended approval once, and, then, this is the third time we have seen it, if
that's what I recall.
Cassinelli: I didn't look at it. I looked at the one -- I was reading through the one that was
-- that we recommend for denial and the other one I thought was just for the storage unit.
Fitzgerald: I think we split it up and, then, sent one on and kept one not going forward or
something. I think --
Cassinelli: I think the last one in '17 was the one that was recommended for denial.
Parsons: Partial approval. Partial denial. I think there was something that was -- there
was two CUPs that went concurrent with that comp plan change. One was the
apartments, the other was the storage. So, I stand corrected. If you guys recommended
denial on it, rather than approval, then, I stand corrected and you went forward with a
partial denial on the multi-family component. You felt it was too dense.
Fitzgerald: Yeah. I think that's what happened, because we split it in half.
Cassinelli: While my mic still on, I will go ahead --
Fitzgerald: Go right ahead, sir.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 14 of 68
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 12 of 45
Cassinelli: -- and make my comments. I -- I like the product. I like -- I think there is a
need. We have got -- I mean multi-family as far as apartments have been exploding and
going up all over, but there are -- I don't think there is a lot of -- now that -- the -- the
number that Scott put up, that five percent number, had a mix of -- it was multi-family and
included townhouses. But I -- I don't -- I'm just trying to picture in my mind townhouses
around Meridian and I don't think there is a lot. I know for -- you know, for young -- for
young families it's -- it's definitely a need and it's a -- we haven't needed it in the past,
because single family homes in Meridian were always so cheap and so --
Fitzgerald: Yeah.
Cassinelli: But now they -- now they are kind of out of control. So, townhouses are a
great way for, you know, somebody starting out to -- to own and do that. So, I really like
that. My issues with this -- looking back and what I saw and what I recall is we denied
the -- the residential portion of that based upon a lot of factors. Dense -- density being
one. Changing of the DA -- the original DA for Lochsa Falls included the 171 multi-family
and that's what was put in was -- with the Selway apartments and now we are looking to
change it up and add more residential units and I know if I was -- if I was living in there I
wouldn't be happy if I bought within that -- in that DA is what it is, now I'm trying to go
back and change it later. I -- you know, I don't like -- I just -- I don't like it. I don't like it
from that standpoint that it -- we are trying to change the DA for that. I know we changed
the zoning of it to get -- to get the -- the storage in there and when you look at the mixed
use community and having three -- three different types of usage, I know that -- I think
Selway apartments are -- are separate and that's high density, but, really, kind of included
in that little pocket there as far as being mixed use community. So, there is your high
density residential for the MUC. You have got the storage unit, which is one aspect. Now
you're looking for another and that's why I think -- I mean to me the office -- to keep it as
-- you know, to have it with the office would be a good use of that land. The other issue I
have with this is that we are looking at two steps up. Not from R-4 to R-8, but we are
going -- we are going all the way up to R-15. So, we are looking for -- for -- for a two step
up and that is -- it's a complicated piece, because, obviously, R-15 fits in the MUC and
this one doesn't have the -- if you look at it as an MUC it doesn't have the residential
component, but the Selway to me is that residential high density component of an MUC,
even though I don't think the Selway that -- that's not in this -- that parcel is not part of the
MUC, so it's kind of confusing that. So, the way I stand I like the -- I like the project from
what I see of it and I think there is a need, I just -- messing with it -- you know, changing
the DA when people -- they bought in Lochsa Falls with the understanding what that was
going to be and, then, you know, instead taking two steps up in the -- in this -- I mean if
we are looking at it like that. So, those are my issues with it. Those are my concerns as
-- as a result I would personally probably vote to deny based on those.
Fitzgerald: So, could I ask a quick question? So -- and I will ask you and, then, Bill, too.
Everything that is -- that is being submitted in this application goes with the DA; correct?
So, they -- they can't come back and change it, but that's not coming to us again, but just
-- I mean I'm making sure that there is an understanding. So, we are going to maintain
and if this was something we move forward with or not. But the DA -- it would change to
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 15 of 68
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 13 of 45
have this product type elevation setup. So, it's not that there is something to come back
in and let's go build R-15 and increase the density later on. They would have to come
back to us again. So, I'm just making sure that it's clear. If it goes -- this -- everything
that is in this package goes into the DA. So, they have to build this product or come back
and ask for something to change.
Cassinelli: This product is in the DA?
Fitzgerald: It would have to be. It goes with it.
Cassinelli: So, we would have to change -- we would have to -- if they are looking to
amend the DA.
Fitzgerald: So, you want to clarify, just to make sure we are on the same page?
Parsons: I'm looking at the staff report. Give me a few minutes here.
Cassinelli: Because that's -- that's my understanding is part of the application was to
amend the --
Fitzgerald: Yeah. No. I agree.
Cassinelli: Yeah.
Fitzgerald: But is -- and all this -- this -- the plat and the elevations and what they are
proposing would go into that modification. So, like if they were going to do something
different that was even denser they would have to come back and ask again.
McCarvel: Mr. Chair? Bill, also -- as part of the comments on -- last meeting with this
was even though it's R-15 pretty much for the setbacks. It's just a hair over R-8. Is it --
yeah. It's -- the density is like nine -- nine point something. I mean it's not pushing the
limits of the R-15, it's just that for the setbacks of the properties, but --
Parsons: So, Commissioners, looking through the development agreement modification
portion of the staff report, yes, right now, just to clarify, the density is 8.87 dwelling units
to the acre, which is slightly above the medium density residential designation, but this is
mixed use community where we anticipate densities between six and 15 dwelling units to
the acre. So, it even falls in between the midpoint of that range as anticipated by the
Comprehensive Plan and the current Comprehensive Plan designation and, then, yes,
the new DA, if you will, or the modified DA says that the applicant shall comply with the
site plan elevations, open space, all of the things that you see in this plan is what's tied to
the property if Council approves it the way it's being presented this evening. Again, you
don't -- you are not an acting body on the DA modification, that's something -- the purview
of the Council, but that staff's recommendation in the staff report that their strict adherence
to the plan that you are seeing this evening, along with elevations and that density. So,
yes, if changes were if this didn't move forward -- let's say they get approval through the
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 16 of 68
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 14 of 45
Council and the DA gets executed and this is the plan on the books, yes, if they wanted
to change it they are coming either before Council or this body, depending on what other
applications they would be proposing.
Fitzgerald: Thank you, sir. Just want to make sure that was clear in everybody's mind.
Additional thoughts? Comments?
Seal: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal.
Seal: Just in looking at it and reading through the comments that are -- I mean Mr.
Noriyuki's response for the public comments piece of it, I mean there is some -- some
compare and contrast in here as far as, you know, putting in what's proposed versus
putting in office space, essentially, and as far as the -- the number of trips each day and
everything and it's very well thought out and it's very well presented, but I think in my mind
the difference between them is going to be you're going to have everybody leaving at the
same time, everybody coming back at the same time and what a retail office type space
-- not necessarily a restaurant or something, you are going to have people that are going
to be coming in and out during different parts of the day, not necessarily rush hour. I
mean most people don't set their appointments up to be somewhere at 8:00 o'clock in the
morning. So, I think that's an important distinction. The other thing -- and I mean we
have talked about before is just the report that we got from the West Ada School District
shows that every school that's -- every school that the children in this should go to is
overcrowded and they won't go to it. They will be bused somewhere else. So, if it were
my kid I wouldn't want them to be bused somewhere else. I want them to go to the school
that's across the street and down the road, whatever that looks like. You know, the closer
the better essentially. I mean that's because you want your kids to play with kids that
they go to school -- school with, not come home to a -- you know, a subdivision of
strangers essentially. So, I mean those are the two things that I'm looking at. The -- the
other part is the ACHD report actually shows that -- I mean, essentially, those -- not only
McMillan, but the streets there are -- I mean they are at capacity or more according to two
plus year old data. So, that's -- you know. And I do drive by this area all the time, so that
-- that portion of McMillan is horrible, to say the least. Anybody that's willing to take a
bike out on that portion of McMillan is taking their life into their own hands for sure. So,
you know, to try to put more people, more kids and everything into that is going to be -- I
don't think it would be a very good use for it. And the other part that I want to bring up as
far as the office space piece of it, people are going to be coming in and out of that,
essentially, by Google or by direction, so I would imagine the offices in that area are going
to instruct them to come in and out on McMillan. Now, whether or not they are going to
go out Apgar and they are going to go all the way out to Linder, that's -- you know, nobody
knows. I'm sure once people that would frequent those places of business figure that out,
they are going to do the same thing that a lot of the residents are doing and that's -- they
are going to go straight out to Linder and they are going to go out from there, just because
you can't get onto McMillan from there in the mornings. It's probably nearly impossible
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 17 of 68
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 15 of 45
with the amount of people that they have going in and out. You know, those things
considered, I'm -- I'm definitely looking at this for a denial.
McCarvel: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: Yeah. I'm really torn with this, because I -- I really like the product and I love
that they have come with 20 percent open space, plus additional parking, plus, plus, plus,
plus. But I'm recalling our original denial on -- that really -- anything over the R-4 on this
piece was just because of the traffic trying to get out of there on that corner and that it's
already backed up. I think -- I think the office may be the better way to go on this. But I
do -- I love the concept, I just -- I wish it was somewhere else just because of the already
high density behind it, the issues that already exists there.
Fitzgerald: Well, I would add my two cents. I love the product. I think there is a need for
it in Meridian. I -- I think they did an exceptional job of laying this out. I don't think -- just
for informational purposes, I don't think they are going to give us access onto McMillan.
I think that's going to be emergency only forever. I don't think you are ever getting access
to McMillan ever. So, whatever goes in there is going to have to use Selway Rapids or
whatever they are going to -- because they can't curb cut on that island way on Goddard
Creek. So, this is going to be a layout of -- something is going to go onto that Selway
Creek line. So, that's just something -- food for thought everybody. I -- this piece of
property we have struggled with for a long time. I think the DA's history is pretty extensive
on -- I -- if I remember correctly -- and you guys can correct me if I'm wrong -- but there
was a component of how much high density was supposed to be on the PUD and it was
partially taken down, but not the whole thing, but I don't recall how much of it. So, that
was something that came up and I remember having a conversation about it at our last
meeting. I think we have seen this thing three times. So, I think this is the best rendition
I have seen of it, but it's still back to the residential piece and if it fits there. So, I'm
struggling, because I do know that there is a need for this product in the city, but if this is
the right spot or not I don't know. But there is -- I'm struggling.
McCarvel: Yeah. Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: The other thought that just ran through my head is if this was something else
other than -- I know -- I can see where there is plenty of parking within this little corridor
for what's there, but we already have excessive overflow and people looking --
Fitzgerald: To replace the park.
McCarvel: -- at parking and if it was a regular street or office or something there might
be an opportunity for some of that overflow parking that's already congesting Goddard
Creek to be --
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 18 of 68
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 16 of 45
Fitzgerald: Oh, sure. Let's blame the parking on somebody else's problems.
Cassinelli: I think we have learned since then.
Fitzgerald: Yeah.
McCarvel: Yeah.
Fitzgerald: Well, we are definitely getting better at it.
Cassinelli: Hopefully.
Seal: And Mr. Chairman?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal.
Seal: I also -- I would like to -- I mean I didn't say anything about the positives about this
and that is that if you took this -- if you could cherry pick this and put it into a -- to a spot
that's more appropriate I would be all over it. I mean I have -- myself I have kids that
absolutely need this type of housing in Meridian. So, I mean, you know, I know people
personally that would benefit from having this kind of -- this kind of product available to
them and it is very well thought out and it's very well laid out. I have no issues with
anything that they have done on that. It's just the, you know, the -- how appropriate is it
for this specific area. That's what I struggle with.
Fitzgerald: So, I'm understanding of the certainty of somewhat of the zoning and we have
done this because of that several times. So, there is some thought there. And I
understand the Goddard Creek neighborhood as they have had a young kid get killed on
a bike not very long ago. So, that is very fresh and we need to take that into account. So
-- so, that's thoughts, additional -- do you have -- I can't do motions, because I'm --
McCarvel: Yeah. I would be happy to move forward with a motion if --
Fitzgerald: Any other comments from other commissioners before Commissioner
McCarvel --
Cassinelli: I just -- just kind of a general comment. We -- we talk about these in-fill
projects all the time and they are tough and I know there was -- there was one up on
Linder across from the fire station there on the backside of Paramount that the first go
around I remember we denied it and it was -- it was multi-family and they came back with
a product that the neighbors were happy with, it fit, it worked, it's going in right now. It's
-- it's developing. There is a Montessori school and there is some other things in there.
So, I -- you know, not just office -- it doesn't just have to be, you know, like a dentist office
or CPA office or something, but there -- there -- there is a need for a lot of those types of
things that aren't your standard, you know, Walgreens on the corner, you know, fast food
or something like that, there is -- there is -- there are definitely other -- I think other needs
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 19 of 68
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 17 of 45
in -- in Meridian that could fit in that spot. I think this would -- and I don't know what the
-- you know, what the zoning is down at -- at the corner and I think a Jackson's or Fast
Eddy's built in another spot down there on that -- on that corner, what's going in, but this
-- that's a lot of land down there, too. This is a project that I think could -- will be wonderful
for something like that. So, those are just some thoughts there.
Fitzgerald: Yeah.
Cassinelli: Commissioner McCarvel, were you going to take a stab?
McCarvel: Sure. After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to
recommend denial to the City Council of file number H-2019-0068 as presented during
the hearing of November 7th, 2019, for the following reasons: That it should remain as
suggested with the office or R-4 because of traffic concerns.
Cassinelli: Second.
Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to recommend denial of H-2019-0068 for the
hearing date of November 7th, 2019. All those in favor say aye. Same -- motion passes.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT.
B. Public Hearing for 840 E. Ustick Rd. ( H- 2019-0098) by Scott
Lamm, Located at 840 E. Ustick Rd.
1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 2. 29 acres of land with
an R-4 zoning district
Fitzgerald: Bill, do you want to move on to H-2019-0098, 840 East Ustick Road, and --
Mr. Parsons, I will let you take over, sir.
Parsons: Perfect. Thank you. Next item on the agenda is 840 East Ustick Road. This
is an annexation and zoning request. The site consists of 2.29 acres of land, zoned RUT
in Ada county and, again, it's located at 840 East Ustick Road and that's midway between
Meridian and Locust Grove on the north side of Ustick Road. The property is surrounded
by single family residential zoned R-1 and RUT in Ada county, but they -- there is one
property just on the west boundary that is currently -- it's not showing up in this map, but
it was recently annexed in as part of the 750 East Ustick property. So, there is an R-4
property right adjacent to this piece that was approved last year with a development
agreement. The site is currently developed with an existing home. With the widening of
that road project back in -- a few years ago the well for this property was wiped out with
that project and so as part of that roadway project the previous owner entered into an
agreement with the city to -- that allowed them to hook up to city services outside of our
boundary and they would -- once they were contiguous they would annex in. So, that's
really what they are doing tonight. It's just there is no development proposed, so staff is
not recommending a development agreement as part of the annexation request, but we
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 20 of 68
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 18 of 45
are recommending, rather than annexing the property in with the R-4 zoning district, we
are recommending that they come in with the R-2 zone, which is also consistent with the
low -- low density residential designation. Really, the primary differences between the
two zoning districts is, one, R-4 are smaller lots with less street frontage. So, you are
looking at 60 feet of street frontage and an 8,000 square foot lot in the R-4 zone. In the
R-2 zone you need 80 feet of street frontage and a minimum lot size is 12,000 square
feet. We did run this idea past the applicant and they are amenable to staff's
recommended change and having this come in with an R-2 zoning designation without
entering into a development agreement. Now, if the -- this body wants the app -- or wants
staff to enter into a DA, certainly, that's within your purview. If you are inclined to do that
and support the R-4 zone, then, we would ask you to continue this out and allow time --
staff some time to craft those -- those DA provisions and bring those back to you for your
consideration. Staff has not received any written testimony on this application. The
applicant, again, is in agreement with the R-2 zone in lieu of the R-4 zone. We are
recommending approval with the comments in the staff report. We don't condition
annexations. They are -- unless we do that through a development agreement and, again,
we are not recommending that. So, I will conclude my presentation and stand for any
questions you may have.
Fitzgerald: Thanks, Bill. Any questions for staff? Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: Because I just want to be here all night.
Fitzgerald: Do that. Nowhere to go.
Cassinelli: Bill, with the -- assuming the new Comprehensive Plan is -- is adopted coming
up next month, is that going to allow residential step-ups?
Parsons: Chairman, Members of the Commission, it is not. That -- that provision of the
Comprehensive Plan will be removed as part of the update.
Cassinelli: Okay. That's what I thought. So, basically, the way this is -- the way this
one's looking at now, I mean if we -- if we -- if it's approved as R-2 it's -- it's staying R-2.
Parsons: If it comes in as R-2 and they want to subdivide it, they can do that as long as
they comply with the R-2 zoning districts. If they want to do an R-4 zone in the future,
then, whatever they do would have to comply with the R-4 standards and be -- provide
densities of three or less units to the acre consistent with the LDR designation.
Cassinelli: Okay. Thank you.
Fitzgerald: Additional questions for staff?
Parsons: Or amend the Comprehensive Plan.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 21 of 68
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 19 of 45
Fitzgerald: Yeah. That's -- I had the exact same -- when we were talking earlier, because
I had the same -- the potential for that area to redevelop is pretty high and the R-4 has
been brought in the next door. So, something to think about as we go forward. But any
other questions for staff? No? Would the applicant like to come forward? Probably just
come say hi. And, then, you can agree with staff on -- on the record, so -- just state your
name and your address for the record, sir.
Lamm: Scott Lamm. 1217 East Lone Creek Drive, Eagle. Bill and the staff have been
great to work with. We have no plans to develop the property. We have just been
renovating the old farmhouse that's there and that's all we are doing.
Fitzgerald: Okay. And, Mr. Lamm, do you have a preference on R-2 or R-4 if you are
going to ever do a redevelopment or --
Lamm: No. We don't plan on redeveloping. The staff was kind enough to reach out and
ask my opinion on that --
Fitzgerald: Yeah.
Lamm: -- and pretty much I don't really care. I mean I -- if I'm going to have to pay a
development -- for a development agreement anyway, I would prefer the R-4 --
Fitzgerald: Yeah.
Lamm: -- but, if not, I'm all for saving the 300 bucks.
Fitzgerald: Understood. Any questions for the applicant? Okay. Mr. Lamm, thank you
very much.
Lamm: Thank you. Thanks, everybody.
Fitzgerald: And we appreciate -- and we greatly appreciate it. Madam Clerk, is there
anyone to testify on this application?
Weatherly: Mr. Chair, if my technology serves me properly, there is nobody signed up for
this application.
Fitzgerald: Is there anyone in the audience who would like to testify on this application?
Seeing none, Mr. Lamm, do you need to say anything additional? Okay. Can I get a
motion to close the public hearing on H-2919-0098.
McCarvel: So moved.
Cassinelli: Second.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 22 of 68
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 20 of 45
Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All those in favor
say aye. Opposed same?
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT.
Fitzgerald: Okay.
Cassinelli: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: Shall I just move to make a motion?
Fitzgerald: I think you should.
McCarvel: That would be good.
Cassinelli: Okay. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony I move to
recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2019-0098 as presented in the staff
report for the hearing date of November 7th, 2019.
McCarvel: Second.
Seal: Second.
Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second and a third to approve -- or to recommend
approval of file number H-2019-0098. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same. Motion
passes. Thank you, Mr. Lamm. We appreciate it.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT.
C. Public Hearing for Waterwalk (H- 2019- 0111) by dbURBAN
Communities, Generally Located on the West Side Of N. Eagle
Rd., North of E. Franklin Rd.
1. Request: Rezone of 6.03 acres of land from the I-L to the C-
G zoning district.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Moving on to our next item on the agenda, which is the Waterwalk
application, H-2019-0111, and we will start with the staff report. Mr. Parsons.
Parsons: Thank you, Chairman, Members of the Commission. The next item is the
Waterwalk rezone. The site consist of 5.18 acres of land, currently zoned I-L in the city
and it's located on the west side of North Eagle Road and the east side of North Olson
Avenue just north of East Franklin Road. To the north and west there is industrial
property, zoned I-L. South is vacant, undeveloped commercial properties zoned C-G and
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 23 of 68
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 21 of 45
to the east you have Eagle Road, State Highway 55, and retail, R.C. Willey store, zoned
C-G. This property was annexed in 1997 with a requirement of a DA. However, a DA
was never executed with the annexation. The current Comprehensive Plan designation
for this property is commercial and the requested C-G zone is consistent with that
designation. The property is currently vacant at this time. The applicant did provide a
conceptual development plan for this particular property that shows two Extended Stay
hotels on the site. If you read through the staff report you had noted that there is some
deficiencies on the site plan regarding fire department access and, then, the amount of
parking that's required by code. So, staff's recommendation is that we not tie this
development agreement to the development agreement at this time, just because the
applicant could work through staff on some of those challenges as they go through the
CZC and design review process. Would also mention to you -- because of the -- the
component of this type of use we also want to be -- I want to say hesitant as to what other
complimentary uses could go with this restaurant -- or this hotel site. Certainly with this
type of use you could get retail, office, maybe a restaurant to be a good partner with this
use. So, through the development agreement process -- or through the provisions that
we are proposing we have limited the use of the site to those four specific uses and if the
applicant wanted to do anything other than those uses on the site, they would have to
come back, modify that DA with the Council and bring forth a new concept plan to show
how this could develop with other uses than what we are contemplating currently. Right
now we are -- we have limited to -- and I will read Sonya's notes here. So, we are limited
to office, hotel, retail and restaurant uses is currently how we are proposing it in the DA
modification -- or the new DA. The applicant was informed of that information and they
were in agreement with the staff report. So, again, staff is not holding the applicant to
these -- to this concept plan, but we are supportive of the rezone to allow this use to occur
on the property. We find that it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and we ask
for your approval tonight and I would stand for any questions.
Fitzgerald; Thank you, Bill. Any questions for staff? None? Would the applicant like to
come forward? Sir, thank you for being here. Please state your name and your address
for the record.
Holt: Dustin Holt. 211 East Broadway, Salt Lake City, Utah. And if I call you Madam
Chair it's because I prepared my comments on Monday, so --
Fitzgerald: That works.
Holt: Congratulations to Commissioner Perreault. But I apologize if I call you Madam
Chair. Mr. Chair and Commissioners, thank you very much for your time this evening. In
my role in -- at dbURBAN, Dusty Baker Communities, I am before bodies like yours at
least monthly and a lot of times several times a month, so even though I'm not here from
Meridian, thank you for your service. I think I have a glimpse of what it -- what it entails
to do what you do. So, thank you very much. I also wanted to publicly thank Sonya.
Sonya, the planner, couldn't be here tonight. I met Bill at my first visit. I have been
working with Sonya on this for close to a year now. So, we did want to make certain that
we got certain things right and I appreciate her time. I do not want you to hold us to this
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 24 of 68
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 22 of 45
site plan. There are things that we need to work through. I was on the phone with
Waterwalk as recently as yesterday on their prototype and their prototype may go to one
building. So, I know there are things that we are going to work through and I will mention
a couple other things, but I just wanted to -- wanted to thank Sonya publicly. I also want
to thank Brad Miller, who is here, and the Van Auker family. They have been wonderful
to work with. And now Brad with the older -- Adler Industries and the property and their
continued support. So, we are -- we are not only acquiring this five acres, we are
acquiring the two acres south of this that fronts onto Franklin. So, that's another reason
in our conversations with Sonya of delaying the DA is we would like to work through a
Comprehensive Site plan with some of the uses that Bill mentioned in conjunction with
the hotel. So, the application request for you tonight is a rezone. It's a rezone to know
with certainty that those four uses specifically that Bill mentioned would work, that we can
work through access, we can work through parking, we can work through those uses
really comprehensively on this seven plus acre site. As Bill mentioned, the general plan
calls for this area to be commercial, so we think it's something that complies with that
request. We have read the staff report. I think the only other comment that I would make
-- we are in full support of the staff report and appreciate what Sonya has done. The only
other comment is as we -- as we come back and work through this we are hopeful that at
a minimum we might be able to explore a right-in, right-out onto Franklin. We know we
will never get a full intersection. We know that our main ingress-egress will be off Olson.
We know we will never do anything on Eagle, but certainly exploring at least a right-in,
right-out just for circulation pattern and flow is something that we would like to do. So,
we wanted to note that on the record. We -- we clearly understand the next steps would
be to finalize that site plan and, then, work through a DA and -- and have that document
recorded. So, if there is -- if there is any questions I'm happy to answer them. If not, we
appreciate your time this evening and would respectfully request the forwarding of a
positive recommendation.
Fitzgerald: We appreciate it. So, there is some significant topography on that piece of
property, at least to the nor -- or your south and is there -- are you thinking you are going
to combine this into one project eventually or two different separate site plans?
Holt: No. I think it would -- will ultimately always be two different site plans, two different
parcels, because of topography, but certainly thinking through really any connection as
far as cross-access from this site to something to the south really needs to happen to the
west and they are close to Olson where the topography is shallower. So, thinking through
that, Matt Munger of WHP is here and they have been wonderful to work with. I should
also thank him. But -- but thinking through all of that is something that -- that we want to
do as a whole.
Fitzgerald: Okay.
Holt: Holistically.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 25 of 68
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 23 of 45
Fitzgerald: That works. Thank you very much. Any additional questions for the
applicant? Seeing none, thank you very much for being here. We appreciate it. Madam
Clerk, do we have anyone signed up for this application, ma'am?
Weatherly: Mr. Chair, I show Brad Miller.
Fitzgerald: Mr. Miller, do you want to testify? Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else here
that would like to testify in this application? Seeing none, any other questions for staff
before we move to close the public hearing? Can I get a motion to close the public
hearing? Or would you like to say anything additional, sir? Okay. Jumping the gun.
Cassinelli: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: I move we close the public hearing on Item 4-C Waterwalk, H-2019-0111.
Seal: Second.
Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on H-2019-0111.
All those in favor say aye. Opposed same. Thank you very much.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT.
Cassinelli: I -- I think it fits it, it -- I mean if we are -- all we are doing is -- is the rezone I'm
all for it.
Fitzgerald: I -- I'm in agreement. I think there is time -- it's time for that corner to be
something different and it's been kind of an interesting and a different group of parcels
there for a long time and I think Brad's work in past to the north has been great. This
would be a good thing to clean up for the city I think. So, I'm in support.
McCarvel: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: Yeah. I agree. I -- this is no longer an industrial corner. Changing it to C-G
makes perfect sense. A hotel on that corner I think is fabulous. As long as they are in
agreement, which they seem to be, with everything in the staff report, I don't see a
problem with this.
Fitzgerald: And they realize they are not getting access to Eagle Road, which is always
an easy thing. Commissioner Seal.
Seal: Basically the same comments. It's nice to actually see a conceptual plan be
provided as part of this and to understand how the southern piece of property is going to
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 26 of 68
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 24 of 45
tie into there. So, just seeing what may conceptually go into there is -- it's actually a nice
piece to go in there. With that, I will -- I can make a motion on this one.
Fitzgerald: A motion is always in order.
Seal: Okay. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony I move to
recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2019-0111 as presented in the staff
report for the hearing date of November 7th, 2019.
McCarvel: Second.
Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to recommend approval of H-2019-0111, the
Waterwalk rezone. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same. Motion passes. Thank
you very much. We appreciate it.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT.
D. Public Hearing for Percy Subdivision (H-2019-0097) by Schultz
Development, Located on the East Side of S. Meridian Rd. and
South of E. Amity Rd.
1. Request: To de -annex 0.42 acres of land currently zoned R-
4 for the purpose of combining the property with the adjacent
County RUT parcel to the south; and
2. Request: A Rezone of 30.02 acres of land from the R- 4
zoning district to the R- 8 zoning district; and
3. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 113 single-family
residential lots and 11 common lots on approximately 28. 51
acres in the proposed R- 8 zoning district; and
4. Request: A Modification to the Development Agreement
Instrument No. 2016-007091) to incorporate the requested
Preliminary Plat.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Moving on down the agenda. Next we will open the public hearing on
application H-2019-0097, the Percy Subdivision, and we will start with the staff report.
Mr. Parsons.
Parsons: Chairman, Members of the Commission, next item is Percy Subdivision. There
is a slew of concurrent applications with this, one of which we have never done before,
which is de-annexation of a -- a sliver of property and I will -- as I get into my presentation
I will elaborate a little bit more as to why we are -- we are de-annexing that piece of
property. So, we are looking at a de-annexation, a rezone of 30.02 acres of land from
the R-4 zone to the R-8 zone and, then, a preliminary plat consisting of 113 single family
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 27 of 68
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 25 of 45
building lots and 11 common lots and 28.51 acres in the proposed R-8 zone and, then,
also a development agreement modification to tie the applicant to the proposed
development plan that he is showing -- that we are discussing this evening. So, this
property -- history on this property. It was annexed in 2015 as part of the South Meridian
annexation. At that time the applicant was granted R-4 zoning with a development
agreement. As part of that development agreement the applicant was granted permission
to proceed with a rezone of this property and a DA modification at no cost to them in
anticipation of this -- potentially redeveloping other than R-4. That was, again,
contemplated in that DA and that's why the applicant's pursuing the R-8 zone this evening,
because that was the intent behind the recorded development agreement. So, the reason
why -- but also as part of that -- so, again, the city recognized that it would redevelop,
come in with a subdivision consistent with the medium density and low density
designation on this particular property. If you had a chance to read my staff report, there
was comments in there that this property does have dual designations on it. It has low
density -- or it's primarily low density. There is medium density along the north boundary
and, then, predominately it's low density residential over the majority of it. As this body
knows, the Comprehensive Plan and those land use designations aren't parcel specific
and so looking at the proposed density for this project, which is slightly above the low
density standards it's at 3.96 dwelling units to the acre and because there is a medium
designation on this property, along with the low density residential designation, staff didn't
feel it was appropriate for the applicant to request a step-up and we find that the density
that's proposed this evening is consistent with the dual designation on this particular
property. Now, the purpose for the de-annexation of the property is to facilitate the
roadway -- the access to Meridian Road. The city, ITD and ACHD, we all work together
on a master street map and we have policies that restrict access to Meridian Road,
because of the mobility and nature of it and the high high volumes of traffic. In this
particular case ITD was adamant that this roadway connect at the mid mile between Amity
and Lake Hazel and that the only way that could happen is that the developer could work
with the adjacent neighbor to the south and, then, that neighbor that is also farther to the
south in order to execute the necessary easements to dedicate to ACHD in order to
construct an offsite portion of that roadway and if you can see my cursor here, that's --
really, this is the -- the frontage that we are talking about. So, this is the off-site portion
to get the connection to Meridian Road, thereby along the north boundary of this property
the applicant will have to go through the county. Once they get to the de-annexation
process with the city, go to the county and re-establish a zone for this particular property.
So, the county has a rezone process as well to reassign it the RUT designation, so that
this property owner can do a property boundary adjustment and, then, consolidate this
sliver in with his property to make him whole and keep him consistent with the RUT zoning
in the county. The applicant shared an e-mail with me today. He's already conducted a
pre-application with the county, so he is aware of what the requirements are going forward
with reverting that back to Ada county zoning. Now, the rezone -- the exhibit on the right-
hand side is the boundary of the rezone, which, again, is 28 -- approximately 29 acres
and, again, it's currently zoned R-4 and the applicant is proposing R-8 zoning. So, here
is the -- again, the preliminary a plat and the landscape plan before you. And, again, the
plat consist of 113 single family detached lots. The applicant is proposing to develop the
site in two phases. As of today if you had a chance -- again in the staff report staff was
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 28 of 68
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 26 of 45
concerned with the phasing plan that the applicant submitted with the application. Today
the applicant did provide staff with a revised phasing plan and layout for your
consideration this evening. The notable change as you can see here is that we are going
to get the Meridian Road frontage improvements with the first -- entire Meridian Road
frontage improvements with the first phase and, then, the applicant also has been working
with the developer on the east boundary to provide utility connections and a stub street
and so rather than having two stub streets on the east boundary, the applicants -- in
conjunction with Brighton Corporation on their east boundary, is proposing only one stub
street and, then, common driveways along the north and south boundary to provide those
accesses. The plat that's proposed to you this evening is a little bit -- it does exceed the
open space standards of the UDC at 12.36 percent open space. In my staff report we --
staff was concerned that the primary open space was predominantly located along
Meridian Road and the collector street, which is East Quartz Creek Drive along -- excuse
me -- East Quartz Creek Street along the south boundary and so we wanted to have a
little bit more open space that was central to the development, so that we weren't having
people recreate along the -- the major roadways for these developments. Originally staff's
recommendation was the applicant to lose these two adjacent lots, which was Lots 7 and
-- Lot 6 and Lot 7 and combine those into a Lot 5. Again, the applicant is conceding to
losing -- while providing a larger open space really orienting it more so that you can see
it from all three sides of the street and, then, that facilitates a bigger open space, but it
also has greater visibility on there. So, staff is amenable to the changes that the
applicant's proposing to the revised phasing plan and the layout that's before you this
evening and you can also see in that exhibit the connection of that collector street to
Meridian Road along the south boundary, both the portion that he is expected to construct
and the offsite portion. In the DA we have required the applicant to construct the entire
boundary -- or construct the entire length to that collector street with the first phase. Here
is the open space exhibit as I mentioned. The amenities proposed for the development
consistent of a tot lot, a gazebo, and, then, Meridian Road requires a ten foot multi-use
pathway within the 35 foot landscape buffer along that roadway and the applicant, again,
is going to construct that in its entirety with the first phase. The other unique thing about
this proposed development is the applicant is also providing a variety of a lot of sizes
within the development to provide housing diversity and that's also the reason why staff
is supportive of the request to the R-8 zone and here are the sample uses -- or examples
of the proposed elevations in the development. You can see there are varying sizes,
various architecture throughout the development. So, there will be quite a diverse
housing mix within the proposed development, even though they are all front loaded
garages. It's single family detached homes. Staff did receive written testimony from Matt
Schultz in agreement with most of the conditions of approval. I think with the exhibit that
I showed you this evening a lot of staff's conditions have been addressed. So, as you
can see with the revised phasing plan, the State Highway 69 improvements, that buffer
along that roadway with the berm, the fencing, the landscaping and the ten foot multi-use
pathway will all be constructed with phase one as recommended by staff. The applicant
did reorient that open space, as I mentioned to you in my presentation, which is the exhibit
on the right. Staff is amenable to that change. And, then, we are recommending -- one
other thing that I brought up in the staff report was the need for a sidewalk to be extended
along the collector road along the offsite portion of the site. So, the UDC requires the
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 29 of 68
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 27 of 45
applicant to do detached sidewalk on -- on the portion of the collector road that he is
required to construct as part of the development, but for the offsite portion ACHD is only
requiring a 30 foot wide street segment with three feet of gravel on each side and, then,
the borrow ditches for drainage. So, we certainly want the app -- we want -- we
understand that these kids are going to go to Meridian School District. We want to make
sure that where ever that bus stop location is is in a safe location for kids to get to that
school bus stop. So, it's been my experience that the -- the school buses actually stop
on Meridian Road and pick kids up at intersections of roadways, rather than driving into
the subdivisions. So, staff was very concerned with how that would play out and so we
have actually asked the applicant to go speak with the school district and see -- try to
determine where the school bus stop will be for this particular development. If it is located
at the intersection of the collector street at the mid mile, then, we certainly want the
applicant to construct that five foot sidewalk along the entire boundary of that collector
street to get the students to the intersection -- safely to that intersection, rather than
having them walk on just the paved roadway. So, that is a recommended condition in the
DA and the staff report and I think that's the one that the applicant will -- will work with the
school district. He is amenable to it, but, again, I left it flexible in the staff report that if the
school district -- if that's where it's anticipated, do it. If it isn't it doesn't apply, they don't
need to comply with that. No sidewalk is required. And, then, I would also mention to the
Commission that currently both our Fire Department, Police Department and ITD are
restricting the access out of this development to a right-in, right-out, left-in only until such
time as ITD can complete their corridor study of State Highway 69. So, the state wants
to study that to understand the access management for that highway and see -- determine
what the future right of way needs are going to be for that roadway. So, right now we
have a pretty specific in the staff report that has restricted that use, but I think we should
probably modify that condition this evening and give the applicant some flexibility that if
it's just a signalized intersection in the future that it could be allowed to be a right -- full
access at some point in time. So, in your motion this evening I would just ask that you
include that as one of your motions, that it's right-in, right-out, left-in only until such time
is ITD determines that it can be a full access and a signalized intersection. With that the
only written testimony that I received was from Matt Schultz, the applicant, again, in
agreement with the conditions of the staff report, with the modifications that I stated and
I conclude my presentation and stand for any questions you may have.
Fitzgerald: Thank you, Bill. Any questions for staff? Or at least at this time. No? Mr.
Schultz, would you like to come forward, sir.
Schultz: Good evening, Commissioners. Matt Schultz. 821 South Ten Mile in Meridian.
Here on behalf of MWT, LLC. They are the contract purchaser of the Percy Farms
property, which Bill said was annexed as part of the mass annexation of -- I believe 40
properties four years ago and it was brought to our attention that Mr. Percy might want to
develop it. Our first inclination was, man, it's close to the highway, you know, it gives you
a little bit of pause, right? It's close, which is good, and it's close, which is bad sometimes,
because the noise and the traffic and ITD is kind of tough to work through that sometimes
and so we prefer not to be right on the highway, but after looking at it we love south
Meridian, we think it's -- it's a great piece of property if done right and if done well and if
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 30 of 68
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 28 of 45
mitigated well with the proper buffers and access and all those things, which -- which we
-- we believe we have addressed. We do agree with the staff report. We have since the
staff report came out, updated the phasing plan, reworked that central area to open up
into the three sides and make it a few thousand square feet bigger. It's a half -- it's a
20,000 square feet. It's -- it's big. It's ample. It's not as big as our entry feature, which
-- which we do need to preserve not only for a nice, passive open space, but we have an
irrigation pond we need to do there, an irrigation holding pond that will have a little fountain
in it. You are only allowed to do 25 percent of that area with the pond, the rest has to be
open. So, we really want to preserve that size. W e think it's nice to have that size. It's
more of a passive area, not a go out and you can throw a frisbee or whatever out there.
But that's -- the kids are more likely to be around the playground in the middle, which is
centrally located, connected with micro paths. It actually works out pretty well, the
geometry of the site in that regard. We have done some other smaller R-4 projects over
the last few years in Meridian, 15 lots, 20 lots, with a mix of builders, so a good variety.
We want to apply that here. We didn't say, hey, we want an R-8, because we want to do
all 4,000 square foot lots. Not that there is anything wrong with 4,000 square foot lots,
because there is not, but in this location at this spot we thought we needed to do some
transitional larger lots on the east and on the south and, then, some medium sized --
almost R-4, but not quite. In the middle. You know, some six to seven, almost eight
thousand square foot. It meets the R-4 width, just not the best, but they are still ample,
and, then, the transition is nice -- I'm just going to plainly state two car garage, but single
story. A lot of people want it right now. It's still very nice, very expensive in south
Meridian. But we wanted a mix of that two car or three car, 50, 60, 70. We are not going
for high density here. It's a -- it's a low density R-8, you know at -- at that four. It's -- we
thought it was appropriate, whether we had to ask for a step up or not, which we still can,
but even in your new comp plan that you guys approved recently I hear, you have said
that this would be medium density. You have recommended that to Council. Whether
you did or not, we still -- we think it's appropriate, like Bill said, to slide that -- that boundary
down to that mid mile. We think that's the good -- that's the good break point between
the medium and the low. We are -- like I said, we are a low density medium at that four
to the acre. But the bigger -- the issues on here are access, which has been difficult. We
have got great neighbors to work with, it's just -- there is a certain way things need to go
to accomplish access easements, like Bill said, and that's why we have -- the first time
ever done a de-annexation strip. It's essentially adjusting our boundary four years ago
that was annexed and say, yeah, we should have done that about 20 feet narrower and
everything would have been good, because in exchange for granting that access
easement its use would like to retain an extra 20 feet. So, there is a process for doing
that. We are doing it. It's a little cumbersome, but we are getting through it. We don't --
we think it's a minor modification, it doesn't adversely impact what the city wants to do
and what we want to do long term. Just right now he would like to stay in the county,
RUT, until which time in the future sometime long term, medium term, we don't know yet,
but right now everything in the short term he's not interested in -- in -- in rezoning this
whole property and developing. So, in the meantime there is an offsite access road that
we are building to, essentially, standards, which is a 30 foot wide pavement. Half on each
property owner right at the mid mile, with a seven foot borrow ditch for drainage, at which
time that the adjacent property is developed they would do the full curb, gutter, sidewalk
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 31 of 68
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 29 of 45
and -- and widen that out. The only thing we disagree with -- with Bill -- but he did give
me some wiggle room with the school district -- was the requirement for the offsite
sidewalk. I don't think they are going to require it -- that they are going to pick up people
right at that Meridian Road intersection, short or long term. I think this is a mid-mile
collector, they are going to come inside somewhere. If our kids do need to get up to
Meridian Road they can -- we have a pathway connection out there just north of the
intersection going out there. I mean there is ways to get it out there without going on that
frontage and we just were constrained on our width of what we can do along that mid mile
and so we will check with the school district, but I'm 99 percent sure they are not going to
want to stop right there on Meridian Road and pick up kids. I'm thinking they would rather
come in, do the loop, pick them up and just to the east of us I know Brighton is getting
ready to submit a very large application that will continue that mid mile all the way over to
Locust Grove and there will be a mid-mile connection out to Lake Hazel another quarter
mile past us. So, there will be a grid -- a mid-mile grid, a collector road, through -- through
that section. We are doing our share of it and we are the first ones in, so we get to pioneer
some of these access issues and utility issues of bringing water from a quarter mile away
down Meridian Road. The sewer is already through the site. It was put in in conjunction
with that mass annexation. The portion of infrastructure to serve all those properties was
installed, including through that east-west road on our north boundary there is sewer all
the way through that and it actually goes under Meridian Road to -- to the west. So, it's
-- it's eminently developable. It's the right time to do this. We think we have the right
plan. We are not asking for high density R-8, we are asking for low density to get some
flexibility. So, we still have some R-4 lots underneath that zoning, but it gives us some
flexibility in our -- in our depths and widths to -- to have a mix in that and we thought that
was important to get some good energy out there. So, to illustrate kind of the sizing, I
think our average lot size is -- it is 7,200 square feet. That's our average. Our minimum
of 5,200 square feet, where 4,000 is allowed in an R-8 and as far as the distribution of
those lots, we only have 19 percent between five and six thousand. We have 81 percent
over six. We have 53 percent over seven and 24 percent are over 8,000 square feet --
you know, over those times. So, it's -- it's skewed to the -- to the -- to the bigger lots within
that -- in that regard. Bill did point out that we did -- Brighton called me after we had
submitted this, say, hey, can we work with our stub streets on our east boundary. I said,
sure, just don't slow me down. But we are working -- so, it's a real -- we see this very --
a revision, those two stub streets get converted to the common driveways and, then, we
just add a stub street where it works better for their geometry and ACHD has approved
the single -- the single stub in their staff report, because I brought it to their attention as
they read the staff report. So, they have -- they have put that in there that they would --
they would accept one, even though our official preliminary plat doesn't show it right now.
We would like that to be a condition of the final platting as we have it. But we think it's
the right place in the right time. A beautiful -- a beautiful wall, a berm. We have actually
doubled the -- almost doubled the required trees and shrubs from your minimums on that
buffer. We made sure our landscape architect, after Bill pointed out, hey, you might want
to do something else and, again, we looked at that. We don't want to go minimums. We
want to do more. So, I kind of instructed our landscape architect to go back and -- and
bump that up. We actually have 35 feet -- we have a ten foot -- we have a 35 foot
landscape buffer. There is a ten foot sidewalk in that to the right of way and, then, we are
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 32 of 68
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 30 of 45
also going to do ten feet of landscaping within the right of way. So, we actually have a
45 foot landscape buffer where 35 is required. So, we want to do something nice on the
entryway corridor coming in from the south. I mean we won't be the last -- the first one in
over time, but we are now. You know, we will be the next -- first one in coming from the
south. So, we want to do something that everybody can be proud of and say, yeah, it
looks nice. It's been in the -- the fence along there won't be your standard, you know,
vinyl -- vinyl, but it's -- you know, 20 dollars a square -- 20 dollars a foot standard, it's
going to be Redtail and Caven -- Caven's building right now. The Redtail is already done
and it's more of a stamp composite, the concrete pillars, it's more of a composite look to
it that's, you know, probably three times as much cost that does deafen the sound, that
the berm being up as well will -- will be a sound barrier and -- and, then, staff -- or your
code requires a ten foot total, four foot berm, six foot fence wall. We are going to recreate
that, even though it falls off right now as it comes up the hill there, we are going to lift all
that up and so it will be a consistent berm all the way along there that you will see, instead
of looking down on that field. So, it's going to -- it's going to change the look and feel of
that for the positive I think. So, hopefully, you -- you concur with staff's recommendation
for approval. I know we do. And I will stand for any questions.
Fitzgerald: Thank you, sir. Any questions for the applicant?
McCarvel: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: Matt, could you tell us what the -- the tot lot on -- is that the area in the middle?
Schultz: In the middle. Uh-huh.
McCarvel: And, then, what goes on that back northeast corner?
Schultz: Yes. Chair and Commissioner McCarvel, it's really elevated -- the highway is
really elevated up. There is probably 12 to 14 feet above the site. That is a secondary
emergency access --
McCarvel: No. No. No. The east, not west. Within the subdivision.
Schultz: There is drainage and open space. Excuse me.
McCarvel: So, drainage and --
Schultz: Yeah. It's open space. There is nothing -- there is no -- there is no amenity in
that one. There is a central amenity of a playground and we have a gazebo in the front.
I probably want to move it from the other side of the pond in the final iteration, but it's in
that front area and this is kind of central -- it will be underground seepage. It won't be a
pond. It will -- it will be flat with --
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 33 of 68
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 31 of 45
McCarvel: And I guess I like the passive open space on the entry to the -- you know, I'm
just saying -- I mean being along the busy road is -- I mean something more amenity wise
within there I guess -- since there is nothing marked --
Schultz: On the -- on the front -- on the mid mile on the south on that big one as you
come in --
McCarvel: Yeah. Yeah. I like that. I like the more water and that passive area up there,
but I'm thinking within it it would be nice to have something more than just -- so, I was just
curious what the plan was there. But it is just green space.
Schultz: Yes. Chairman and Commissioner, we -- as we do our preliminary layouts we
know that the ground slopes all down to that way and we are going to run a reserve --
ample area. ACHD requires really large facilities for drainage, you know, and sometimes
people do ponds and depressed retention ponds, sometimes they do beds. We have
some subsurface conditions, fortunately, but I prefer if it can be out of sight, out of mind,
it's -- it's grass, it's open space, you can walk your dog, you can play catch, but they don't
allow you to plant your trees in the middle of it where that facility is underground. You
can put shrubs on the outside and trees on the outside and center is grass and they like
to keep it that way just for -- in case they have to go in and deal with it later if it ever clogs
up in 20 years or something. But it's a big underground gravel drainage bed, but covered
with landscaping is what it is.
Fitzgerald: Additional questions for the applicant? Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: Does it look like I was going to ask --
Fitzgerald: You were going for your mic.
Cassinelli: And this might -- might be for Bill, too. What are the minimum number of
amenities? Is it just two?
Parsons: Yeah. Commissioners, yeah, the minimum is for five acres you do one and,
then, an additional 20 acres out of that another. So, as I said we -- code only requires --
and Matt's doing three at this point. So, he is in excess of both open space and -- and
amenities at this point.
Cassinelli: Okay.
Fitzgerald: Additional questions? Matt, thank you for -- we will see if there is public
testimony and we will bring it back up if there is additional questions. We appreciate it.
Madam Clerk?
Weatherly: Thank you, Mr. Chair. One person signed up. A Ron Galloway.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 34 of 68
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 32 of 45
Fitzgerald: Mr. Galloway, don't need to testify? Is there anyone else in the audience?
Yes, sir. Please come forward. Please state your name and your address for the record,
please, sir.
Reiterman: Carl Reiterman. I live at 2697 South Linder Road. I own the property directly
north of this and my question or concern is the little stub street that comes up on the north
side will that have sewer and water in it, because right now my property has no sewer
and water connected to it. It's also in the county, which we were not annexed -- I don't
understand why we weren't, but we weren't.
Fitzgerald: And usually when we are running stub streets we are stubbing other things,
so I will let the applicant respond to that. Or, Bill, if you want to talk about that or we can
have him respond when he comes back up, sir.
Reiterman: Thank you.
Fitzgerald: Thank you very much. Anyone else in the audience want to testify on this
application? Matt, do you want to come back up and close your thoughts and answer this
gentleman's question if you can.
Schultz: Yeah. Matt Schultz. Thanks. Thanks for the neighbor for showing up to the
north. We have wondered what his intents were, but he is -- and it has been tried to be
sold for mini storage -- potentially it's zoned. I think BC in the county -- but definitely all
these stub streets have utilities in them. Sewer is really close to his property. It's about
120 feet away in our road, so we will provide a stub from the existing one to his boundary.
It slopes down and it will work great. Water and sewer and there may be potential in the
future on the irrigation, depending on how that develops, but it's pretty standard for us.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Any additional questions? Commissioner Cassinelli?
Cassinelli: Kind of follow up to Commissioner McCarvel's. The -- I guess that's the
southeast corner where you got the emergency access going out, did you look at -- and
you were kind of describing some of the slopeage in there. But is it possible to maybe --
and maybe put another -- get another lot in there or something -- move some of that --
move some of the -- more green space internal.
Schultz: Chairman and Commissioner Cassinelli, we -- we left that like that, because as
that road comes down -- I think it's a 20 foot wide fire access that can double as a
pedestrian, but it will be going at about a maximum ten percent, but there will side slopes
coming down off of it, so we wanted to leave that area bigger to have sloped grass, to not
be too patched in that area. So, we looked at the topography in the third dimension on
this, which was -- which is not apparent, you know, just looking at this it is not, we felt that
that was the right space to leave for that. We didn't really put it there for open space per
se, we put it there for that access road and -- and left it ample for the grades and
everything else and, then, at that entryway we -- that's kind of what was left over. We
liked it big as -- not only as a passive area open space, but just as a -- as a big open field
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 35 of 68
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 33 of 45
as you drive in, just as an entry feature per se, you know, as you drive in and make it look
bigger with some R-4 lots backing up to it and in the central area I think by reorienting it
like we did it is really going to open it up. It did increase some, you know, a couple
thousand square feet, which isn't huge, but it really makes -- it's going to make it feel so
much more open having it open on three sides and we just made that change here
recently. We thought that was a good idea. So, as far as adding more open space and
losing lots -- trading lots would be cool, you know, I mean that's okay, if we could -- we
thought we had an area to do it. We are just not seeing a place to trade lots, other than
that -- that front area and we actually went through that iteration of maybe losing two lots
in the middle and maybe gaining two lots on the front, but still having some for the pond
and two issues pop up. Because the lots are so deep it's inefficient -- we actually lose --
it's a net loss of open space, even though your -- it's an even lot swap, it's a net loss of
open space and, two, we are kind of pinched on the -- which I didn't even know until --
until it was pointed out to me that ponds can only be 25 percent of that area and so we
are -- we are still going through the final engineering about the size that that pond needs
to be and we feel like we -- we -- we like it for three different reasons with the front up in
that area. So, we really think besides this extra area, which seems to be kind of unused,
the drainage part, I think it's pretty well programmed for everything we need to do,
especially with the micro paths connecting everything together, so -- that's my long
explanation. I'm sorry.
Fitzgerald: Additional --
Cassinelli: I guess on that -- that one -- the area where that access road is going out --
out to Meridian Road, it's -- it's because of the topography there?
Schultz: The topography for sure. Yeah. It is. I mean it's probably 12 to 14 feet higher
than the top is from the bottom and so the three to one side slope is going to come out
about 30 feet more from the -- from the top of that road just to the bottom of it and so that
will be a gentle slope that there is just no -- to get another lot in there it's problematic,
because of the third dimension.
Fitzgerald: Additional questions?
Cassinelli: No.
Fitzgerald: Okay.
Cassinelli: Thank you.
Fitzgerald: Thank you very much, sir. We appreciate it.
Schultz: Thank you.
Fitzgerald: Can I get a motion to close the public hearing on H-2019-0097.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 36 of 68
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 34 of 45
Seal: So moved.
McCarvel: Second.
Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on file number H-
2019-0097. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT.
Fitzgerald: It is properly before you, Commissioners. Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: Well, as far as -- kind of go down the checklist. I -- the density I think it's --
I'm -- I'm good with the density and -- and the way it transitions. Obviously, I think if you
are trying to put, you know, R-4 lots up against Meridian Road they are just -- they are
not going to -- probably not going to sell. I mean they might. There is --- there is areas
where you can look at Eagle Road to -- you know, to the north down to Eagle against --
you know, you got some of the -- and along Chinden and whatnot, but I think for the most
part that's a good -- good use of that, putting smaller -- smaller homes in there. So, I'm
-- I'm great with that. When I looked at it I saw the issue of that corner, that that was --
that I addressed and I, you know, understand the topography. I would -- I guess, you
know, if there was a way to get a little bit more internal green space I would like to see it,
but I think they have probably done that and I was thinking -- my first thought was, you
know, swap a lot into that corner, but it really can't be done. Perhaps like to see them
look at some different amenities, other than the tot lot and the gazebo, something that
maybe fit -- because these are -- I'm guessing these might be a little bit higher end homes.
I'm not entirely sure, but something that would -- would fit that little -- a little bit better.
Maybe a little bit more established community, so to speak. I think other than that it's a
-- it fits as it -- as it goes for Meridian Road on the east to the west there with the lots
getting larger and it sounds like if -- they have talked with Brighton and they are going to
-- you know, those lots along the -- the western side are going to line up to their lots,
so --
Fitzgerald: So, I -- I agree. I appreciate the applicant ensuring there is -- that they are
working with their neighbors to the north and to the east. The gentleman is getting his --
the stub street to the sewer and water and going to the north and I know Brighton
appreciates being able to oriental the road that makes sense for them. I'm okay with the
micro paths and how that plays into the middle section and the green space there. I know
Woodbridge had something similar to that when I lived there and it kind of fed everybody
into that green space. It was a walkable area and, then, those -- that was a drain area --
it's underneath landscaping, so you have kids out there playing football and on that. So,
I don't have a problem with that either. But I understand what you are talking about.
Possibly mature components. But with the -- the smaller homes to -- on -- along Meridian
Road, I don't mind having a tot lot there either. So, it's kind of a balancing act. I think
they have done a good job with what they are working with topography wise as well.
Commissioner McCarvel.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 37 of 68
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 35 of 45
McCarvel: Yeah. I mean the passive areas in the northwest and the southeast I like and
I'm -- if -- just my two cents, if they can have more than 25 percent be that pond, I think it
probably would be really pretty. Yeah. And the inner ones I was just wondering if there
is any, you know, opportunity to do something on that other small little space in there, but
I do like the reorientation of it. It just feels better. And of course -- I mean what this
demonstrates going to the east over there to the future project, that's the way they have
meld those together, that's -- I think that's fine. I think to the gentleman's point, I believe
he asked why they weren't annexed. I think -- it's -- the City of Meridian just doesn't come
annex you, you just need to request it.
Fitzgerald: Yeah.
McCarvel: So, yeah, I'm in favor. I agree, the density -- especially along Meridian Road
I think this is a nice blend, especially now you got Schaffer Butte and another one coming
on the other side I think is just fine.
Fitzgerald: I like to mix of products with the different lot sizes, so -- Commissioner Seal.
Seal: Chair. For clarification, Bill, on the open space. I mean with -- with the modifications
they have made in the revision that they have submitted, is that -- does that comply with
what staff wanted within the report. It doesn't -- as I'm reading back through it it doesn't
seem like it, but I just want to make sure. So, if we throw a motion out there that we -- it
seems like it's amenable, but I want to make sure that we have that in the -- in the motion.
Parsons: Yeah. Thank you for that, Commissioner. I had some comments on how you
should probably -- guide you in your motion this evening. Certainly with -- with the
reduction of the stub street, in addition to the common driveways, we don't have
conditions to address that. So, certainly what we have done -- and I don't want to hold
up the applicant this evening either, there is no need to, but typically what we have done
is -- is had them provide us a new -- a revised plan ten days prior to the City Council
hearing and, then, that way we can prepare a memo for Council and have them
incorporate some additional conditions that coincide with the changes to the plat.
Certainly I'm open to that this evening. So, I would just include in your motion -- I think
we should strike some conditions for sure. I was looking at those -- that staff report, so if
-- again, if the Commission is open to the open space changes, certainly my
recommendation was to lose two lots and have a bigger open space. Now, what he has
done isn't commensurate to what I asked him to do, but I think having it open from three
sides does make it at least more visible and more usable than the way it was before. So,
I'm okay with -- with that change, so --
Seal: And he did -- yeah, he did take some of the space away from the other lots that
were in there. So, he didn't --
Parsons: He even shrunk those lots a little bit, yeah, and that's something that he and I
discussed. So, certainly, if you are open to that you can strike condition 2-A in the staff
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 38 of 68
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 36 of 45
report at site specific and 2-A under the preliminary plat and, then, under the landscape
plan it's 3-A.
Fitzgerald: Thank you, Bill. One of the questions I think we need to -- or can you point
out something -- and I can't remember which point it is on the -- the road section and the
flexibility we are giving them to discuss options with the school district, which specific
point -- is that -- I couldn't find it without looking back.
Parsons: Well, currently the way the DA reads it says construct a five foot sidewalk along
the entire length of East Quartz Creek Street and, then, it goes on to say if the school
district doesn't require a stop along that roadway at that intersection, then, it won't be
required -- required for the offsite portion of the roadway. But he still has to do it for the
portion -- his on site --
Fitzgerald: Absolutely.
Parsons: -- and so that's actually DA provision 2-C.
Fitzgerald: Thank you, sir. And, then, we have the right-in, right-out --
McCarvel: Yeah.
Fitzgerald; -- discussion as well.
Seal: I had a question on that.
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal, go right ahead, sir.
Seal: If you could just restate what you had stated previously. I wrote some notes, but
now I'm looking at them going what did I mean.
Parsons: Well, currently it's in the staff report under a preliminary plat condition -- actually,
-- let's see here. 2-D. It specifies that it's right-in, right-out, left-in only and, then, comply
with ITD mitigation measures as described in the -- in the traffic study. But I can see at
some point when there is enough traffic and there is a -- this -- a warrant for a signal there,
that at some point it would be open to a full access, because now we have a controlled
signalized intersection. So, I think -- I think we can leave it until such time as the
intersection is signalized or --
Fitzgerald: Yeah.
Parsons: -- determined meets IT -- or ITD completes its corridor study and deems that it
can be -- it will be -- warrant a signal and be improved to a full access. But I think it's --
to me I would just leave it open until ITD completes the --
Fitzgerald: Corridor study.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 39 of 68
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 37 of 45
Parsons: -- corridor study.
Fitzgerald: Yeah.
Parsons: -- and they determine what the future needs are for that.
McCarvel: So, did you say in the staff report it is already stated properly for -- to work
with the school district or do we need to change that wording? Because I think we are all
in agreement that -- that --
Parsons: Yeah. The way it's worded it says if -- if West -- West Ada School District
doesn't -- does not require a school bus stop at the intersection of Meridian Road and
East Quartz Creek Street, the five foot wide detached sidewalk is not required to be
constructed along the offsite portion of the roadway.
McCarvel: So, we --
Parsons: So, I have got it covered.
McCarvel: So, we don't need to make any other comments --
Parsons: Leave it as is. If the applicant can get with Joe Yochum before City Council,
we can take it up then.
Fitzgerald: Got it. Perfect. Any additional questions for staff? Any additional comments?
Somebody want to take a shot at where we are headed.
Seal: I can try this one.
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal, go right ahead, sir.
Seal: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend
approval to the City Council of file number H-2019-0097 as it's been presented by the
staff report for the hearing date of November 7th, 2019, with the following modifications:
That we strike conditions 2-A and 3-A and accept the revisions submitted by the applicant
and we modify condition 2-B, that the right-in, right-out and left-only remains until ITD
completes the corridor study.
McCarvel: And authorizes a signal.
Seal: And authorizes a signal.
McCarvel: Second.
Fitzgerald: I have a motion --
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 40 of 68
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 38 of 45
McCarvel: Yeah.
Fitzgerald: Any clarification needed?
Parsons: Just one clarification. Just include in your motion that ten days prior to the City
Council hearing they submit the revised plat and landscape plan consistent with the
exhibit on the left-hand side of your screen. Or, excuse me, the right-hand side.
McCarvel: Second including those comments.
Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second. Does staff understand what the motion is or
do we need to have it restated? We are good? Okay. Awesome.
McCarvel: You got the 2-A and, then, landscape was the three -- the landscape 3-A and
I -- got it.
Cassinelli: Bill, did you -- was there one other one that -- you mentioned a 2-C. Was
that --
McCarvel: That was the school --
Fitzgerald: That was already stated in there properly.
McCarvel: Yeah.
Fitzgerald: Okay. So, I have a motion and a second to -- for approval of file H-2019-0097
with modifications. All those in favor say aye. Oppose same. Motion passes. Thank
you. Mr. Schultz, appreciate it, sir. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT.
E. Public Hearing for Street Length for Cul-De-Sacs (H-2019-0107)
by Todd Campbell
1. Request: To extend the maximum street length for cul-de-
sacs listed in UDC 11-6C-3B.4 from 450 feet to 500 feet, or
up to 750 feet with City Council approval.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Moving on to our last item on our agenda. We have -- we will move
forward to open a public hearing on H-2019-0107, the street length for cul-de-sacs, UDC
Text Amendment and Bill.
Parsons: Thank you, Chairman, Members of the Commission. The last item on our
agenda this evening is the UDC Text Amendment to modify our cul-de-sac length
requirements of our subdivision standards in the UDC. This is not a staff initiated request.
This actually came forward from a developer of a project for the Silver Springs
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 41 of 68
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 39 of 45
development that you guys recently approved. There was an extended cul-de-sac length
that did not meet current code, which was 400 feet. As he went through that hearing
process and took those deliberation -- that application up with City Council, both
applicants, staff, City Council kind of struggled with what we should do with it. You know,
as you know, Council cannot waive code requirements and so, essentially, the applicant
took it upon themselves to come forward with this amendment, understanding that it does
affect all properties citywide and so the applicant, as part of their application submittal
they were given homework. We asked them to actually go out and look at all the other
jurisdictions in our surrounding area to see what they approve and, like anything, every
code varies anywhere you go and I just want to give Caleb some kudos, too, because
he's the one that really ran with this and he looked -- even took either a broader cast --
cast it a broader net and looked nationwide for what other cities were doing and that's
why you kind of see staff's recommend changes before you on this exhibit. So, originally
the applicant was proposing 500 feet and, then, allow some flexibility for City Council to
approve up to 750 feet and, really, that 750 feet came down to -- that's what ACHD
policies allow, up to a 750 foot cul-de-sac and also our fire department or their fire code
allows up to a 750 foot cul-de-sac. Well, we as staff, before we agreed to going over that
500 foot -- or even increasing our -- the cul-de-sac length from 500 -- from 450 to 500, we
wanted to understand, again, what's happening in the area and so 500 feet seems to be
pretty consistent with local jurisdictions in the area. So, as I mentioned Caleb went out
and took that broader net and looked and said what are other areas doing. So, we think
we have a workable solution here. So, we went ahead and the black text above you is
what the applicant was proposing. We came in with these changes -- will allow up to 500
feet. We think that is pretty consistent with the area. So, we are amenable to that change.
But we want to also give the development community flexibility in going up to 750 feet,
but holding him to a maximum number of dwelling units and that number landed -- that
we landed on was 20 and that seemed to be somewhat of a consistent number throughout
the nation that, yeah, we will let you go up to a certain extent, but we will cap you at the
number of units that could take access off the -- the extended cul-de-sac. Also mention
to you here, we also wanted to give flexibility in case there aren't any other stub streets
to the property or there is some kind of topography issues or irrigation facility that prohibits
the extension of the roadway, too, and that's pretty consistent with other section of our
code for our block length standards. And, then, we also wanted to define how to measure
the length of the cul-de-sac, because, again, it's arbitrary, it wasn't well -- well defined in
code and so, again, Caleb put a lot of this information together for you to take under
consideration this evening and we did have conversations with the applicant and I believe
they were in agreement with the changes as well. Just to -- to put some -- the text to a
graphic, certainly here is an exhibit that we put together. This represents exactly what
we have -- what I just presented to you in the code change in a -- in a situation where
there may be an example of a 750 foot cul-de-sac where there is no adjacent connectivity
with the adjacent property. So, you can see it's limited to 20 homes on that and, then,
there would be connections into the adjacent subdivisions. That would be one -- one of
the goals that we would get. Now, I would mention to the Commission that it's not the
intent of staff to support 750 foot cul-de-sacs throughout the city. Again, we always want
to promote interconnectivity where we can and provide stub streets and promote shorter
block lengths. So, this isn't just a tool that we want to use haphazardly and just approve
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 42 of 68
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 40 of 45
all these long cul-de-sacs. Again, we have plenty of policies in the Comprehensive Plan
that speaks to interconnectivity and stub streets, but we want to -- we understand there
are circumstances out there where this may not be possible and that's why we are here
this evening. Caleb also did a quick review of other cul-de-sacs in our community and he
communicated to me that based on his research and survey of area photos of our city,
there is only actually three cul-de-sacs in all of Meridian that have more than 20 homes
that access on a cul-de-sac and those numbers were like two or three lots above the 20.
So, again, staff is -- is pretty comfortable with that -- that -- limiting the number of homes
off of a cul-de-sac to 20. Here are some alternatives. Again, as I mentioned to you, we
don't want to encourage cul-de-sacs. The idea is to work with developers and property
owners to find solutions to do that. So, an example of one is where we could have cul-
de-sacs and an example of where the developer could connect the streets and essentially
you had the same number of lots, but not impact the development at all. And, then, as I
mentioned to you we also took it upon ourselves to work on a section of that Silver Springs
project where we had struggled with that cul-de-sac length and so that graphic in the
upper left-hand corner is what was approved with the cul-de-sac contingent upon this text
amendment and, then, as you head to the right-hand screens you can see where there is
other ways they could have redesigned it and still kept generally the same lot count. They
would have only lost a lot with the middle, the better version of the graphic, and the best
option they would have lost two lots. But there are ways to mitigate around cul-de-sacs
and making projects work. So, just wanted to go on record and give you some options
as well. And certainly in your motion if you feel like we should add graphics to our code
to kind of represent those text changes, you can include that in your motion as well this
evening to include something -- this graphic as something we can incorporate as well --
incorporate this graphic in accords with the text changes as well. Other than that, again,
we have been in communications with the applicant the whole time on the proposed
changes. I know Mr. Yorgason had a conversation with Caleb this afternoon. I'm not
sure if he's proposing any changes this evening or not. I will let him speak to those. But
staff is recommending approval of the text changes with the recommended changes in
the yellow text before you. I will stand for any questions you have.
Fitzgerald: Thanks, Bill. Any questions for staff?
Seal: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal.
Seal: And I noticed that the fire department hadn't had a chance to respond to this. I just
was -- I'm curious as to their thoughts on it and even looking at the graphics, I'm thinking
about something going down -- especially the long, straight cul-de-sac here, if that's 750
feet long and we got to get, you know, four or five fire trucks in there to fight a fire, that
seems like it could cause quite an issue.
Parson: Well, Commissioners, I'm not a fire expert, but I have dealt with this and had
many meetings with the fire department. So, yes, their code allows for 750 feet,
contingent upon wider road. So, right now I know ACHD's policies, they have shifted their
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 43 of 68
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 41 of 45
direction a little bit over there. They want narrower local streets. So, in this particular
case I believe in working with the previous fire marshal a cul-de-sac of this length would
have to be 36 feet of pavement as well -- 36 feet wide between the curb and -- the two
curbs you have to have 36 feet of asphalt. So, that's what's going to drive the width of
the cul-de-sac is the fire code. So, just a wider road for them to get down that roadway
faster --
Seal: Okay.
Parsons: -- and not have the obstructions.
Seal: Thank you.
Fitzgerald: Bill, you correct me if I'm wrong, they would allow in fire code 30 houses on a
cul-de-sac section; correct?
Parsons: Yeah. Yeah. On a single access up to 30 single family homes can be on a
roadway. Correct.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you.
Cassinelli: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: Bill, can -- right now the way it stands can they not extend a cul-de-sac through
alternative compliance?
Parsons: Commissioners, that is not an option at this time. The code is very black and
white on this particular case as we found out at City Council. We cannot waive that. It
says no cul-de-sac shall be greater than 450 feet in length at maximum. Then there --
again, the expectation is you design -- you design around it, just like we have shown in
these graphics. There is ways to do it. It's just -- you have to put pencil to paper and
make it work.
Cassinelli: Yeah. Is that an option is to -- is to keep it -- keep the lengths as is and --
and --
Parsons: Commissioners, yeah, if you don't agree with changing the code, that's -- you're
a recommending body. If you don't like the proposed changes you are more than
welcome to recommend denial of the application.
Cassinelli: But I mean is that an option as far as getting alternative compliant to --
Fitzgerald: In the future?
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 44 of 68
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 42 of 45
Cassinelli: Yeah. So, keep it -- keep the lengths as is, but allow alternative compliance
to -- is that more of a headache --
Fitzgerald: Want to say that -- that puts pressure on staff to figure out, instead of having
the applicant can do it for them. I mean that's -- bring in what you want and, then, work
with the staff to come up with the right --
Parsons: There is pros and cons to all of it, to be honest with you, because alternative
compliance -- it is, essentially, a staff level variance and it's -- it's on a case-by-case basis,
so that you have -- at least you have the ability to say no at some point with it, where this
is code this is citywide, so everyone if they comply with this, you -- essentially you are
shifting the burden from staff versus shifting the burden to City Council. So, that's kind of
the pros and cons here to it. But certainly with annexations and with some of the policies
in the Comprehensive Plan if -- if staff doesn't feel that the extended cul-de-sac is the
right fit, we can certainly recommend modifications and -- or denial of their annexation.
We have that ability. But, again, what we are proposing this evening I think is -- is a good
alternative. We talked about it. We have been working with everyone out there and I
think this works for everyone. Again, the intent isn't that you have 750.
Fitzgerald: Everybody having --
Parsons: -- 750 linear foot cul-de-sacs throughout the City of Meridian. We still need
connectivity.
Fitzgerald: Well -- and the 500 that's only 50 more feet. But I mean giving the City Council
the ability to shift in within that -- that 500 to 750 I think is reasonable.
Parsons: Certainly you guys will be able to weigh in on that as part of your
recommendation onto City Council. I don't want to just say okay, kick it off down to
Council and let them decide on it. I mean ultimately they are going to decide, but you
have the ability to say, yes, whether or not you support the long cul-de-sac and forward
on that information onto City Council with your recommendation.
Cassinelli: And, then, Bill, another question. What -- right now what is the maximum
block length, so I can have a perspective.
Parsons: Well, the code right now restricts block length to 750 feet and, then, Council
can go up -- you can go up to a thousand feet with ped connection or open space or an
alley. There is certain guidelines. And, then, the Council can approve up to 1,200 linear
feet when you have large waterways, arterial roadways, topography -- some of the same
similar language that you see with this text change.
Cassinelli: Okay. So -- so, the 750 foot cul-de-sac could be as long as -- and just for my
perspective, that could be as long as a -- as a standard maximum block length right now.
Parsons: That is correct.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 45 of 68
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 43 of 45
Cassinelli: Thank you.
Fitzgerald: Additional questions? Would the applicant like to come forward or we had --
we had -- do we -- we do have an applicant. Want to come forward and discuss with us.
We are going back and forth with staff, but -- thanks for being here.
Waite: Yeah. Mr. Chair, Commissioners, my name is Dean Waite. 4283 Nystrom Way,
Boise, Idaho. 83713. I do appreciate your time today and I will throw away my notes and
won't make this a long speech. I do appreciate Bill and the rest of the staff helping us
with this. The one point I do want to make is that during our presentation and the work
with City Council and with the staff on Silver Springs -- in the City Council meeting we
were directly asked by the City Council to make this proposal. They -- they wanted -- they
wanted to approve this as Bill stated, but they could not, their hands were tied. In talking
with staff and with their -- the Council, they could not do what they want to do and so we
went through, did the homework, checked with the other local jurisdictions, which are
between 500 and -- like Boise and ACHD up to 750 and -- and tried to find something that
-- that we thought worked and so here we are today and we were -- yeah, we are okay
with the changes that the staff has recommended to what we propose.
Fitzgerald: Perfect. Any questions for the applicant? Thank you very much for being
here. We appreciate it. Mr. Yorgason, do you want to come and testify, since you are
the only one in the room.
Yorgason: Thank you. For the record Dave Yorgason. 14254 West Battenburg Drive,
Boise. And just a couple things. First of all, again, thank you, staff. Appreciate all the
work you have done and the research you have done and that's exactly right, as I stood
and testified to City Council, they asked us to come back with an application, which is
what we have done. Lots of discussion with the fire chief to make sure it was compatible
with what they wanted and be consistent with the other cities. I got a copy of the staff
report a couple hours ago, so happy to do a quick little peruse through it and, additionally,
I also wear the hat of the Building Contractors Association and the BCA has not had a
chance to review this and make a formal position, though I have talked to a couple
developers and I look at my experience in developing in the city here, as well as other
surrounding cities, and, really, the only question that will come up is the number of units
being restricted to 20 on -- on the streets. I don't want to make that a big deal tonight
and it's really important for them to keep moving forward with their final plat and their
construction drawings for their development. However, I do know that I did a quick little
sketch if I were to do it -- not a 750, but a 500 foot long cul-de-sac. Not in an R-15, but in
an R-8 zone with the standard lot sizes that are in R-8 zone. I actually come up with 29
lots. So, 29. So, the 30 lots that Commissioner Fitzgerald referred to as -- that would be
restricted based on the -- the single access -- if we had a lot of discussion with that, we
would appreciate that. I know to raise that number from 20 to 30, but I'm not here to make
a big deal out of that as well. I haven't cleared a whole lot of -- our association, the BCA,
has not actually made a formal statement on that. What's really more important is to have
this application move forward, so they can keep moving forward with their construction
drawings. Lastly, the city made the -- the condition -- the requirement that they will file
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 46 of 68
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 44 of 45
their final plat application after whatever is approved by the City Council of this
modification to the code change. Commissioner Cassinelli, I appreciate your comments
with regard to alternative compliance. I love that idea. This was what was directed by
the Council. And also I appreciate why, meaning don't put the pressure on staff to be
arbitrary with the decisions, but let's be consistent with across the city and so this bump
up from 450 to 500 makes a lot of sense. So, with that I appreciate the comments and
approve what was being presented here and I will just stand for any questions you might
have.
Fitzgerald: Any questions? Thank you, sir, very much for being here.
Yorgason: You're very welcome. Thanks again.
Fitzgerald: Absolutely. Any questions for staff before we close the public hearing? Can
I get a motion?
Cassinelli: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: I move we close the public hearing for file number H-2019-0107.
Seal: Second.
Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on H-2019-0107.
All those in favor say aye. Opposed same. Motion passes.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT.
Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: I would be in favor of moving forward with this. I would like to include the
graphics with the text changes. I think --
Fitzgerald: Agreed.
McCarvel: -- pictures say a thousand words. I would not -- I don't think I would want to
entertain moving that from 20 to 30 lots. I think that's -- I mean fire, everything -- I think
there is other ways to do a street with that much density. I don't think it needs to be down
a cul-de-sac, so -- my two cents.
Fitzgerald: Additional comments? Thoughts? So, I -- I have no -- I think as Council is
going to see this again when we bring it -- I think they -- if they want to take it to the 30
and match the fire code they can do that. I want to allow the applicant to move forward
as well and I have no problem with the changes. I think it -- it makes sense. Again, it
gives Council leeway to approve based on design and uniqueness of typography or other
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda November 21, 2019 – Page 47 of 68
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 7, 2019
Page 45 of 45
things to approve a larger block length if they need to, but I think this makes sense. So,
someone want to make a motion?
Seal: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal.
Seal: After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend
approval to the City Council of file number H-2019-0107 as amended by staff in the staff
-- staff report for the hearing date of November 7th, 2019.
Cassinelli: Are you going to have the graphics?
Seal: With the -- with the following modifications: That we include the graphics with the
text changes.
Cassinelli: I will second that.
Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to approve -- or recommend approval of file H-
2019-0107, street length for cul-de-sacs UDC Text Amendment and all those in favor say
aye. Opposed same. Motion passes. Thank you, gentlemen. We appreciate you being
here.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT.
Fitzgerald: I need one more motion.
Cassinelli: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: I have a motion to adjourn.
McCarvel: Second.
Fitzgerald: I have a motion to adjourn. All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT.
Fitzgerald: We are adjourned. Thank you all.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:10 P.M.
(AUDIO RECOR OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
By Adrienn�leatherly, Pe�uty Clerk
Chris Johnson, City Clerk
�, 0 1 tq
MAN DATE APPROVED
r,Ucusr i,
P`vO 1963
O�
4
"00 w
i
Ss" Qom.
��6 CEh,TEF at �h e'(AE�SJ.