2020-03-05
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting March 5, 2020.
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of March 5, 2020, was called
to order at 6:00 p.m. by Vice-Chairman Lisa Holland.
Members Present: Commissioner Lisa Holland, Commissioner Rhonda McCarvel,
Commissioner Nick Grove and Commissioner Patricia Pitzer.
Members Absent. Commissioner Ryan Fitzgerald, Commissioner Bill Cassinelli and
Commissioner Andrew Seal.
Others Present: Adrienne Weatherly, Andrea Pogue, Bill Parsons, and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-call Attendance
__X___ Lisa Holland ___X___ Patricia Pitzer
______ Andrew Seal ___X___ Nick Grove
__X___ Rhonda McCarvel _______ Bill Cassinelli
________ Ryan Fitzgerald - Chairman
Holland: Good evening. At this time I would like to call to order the regularly scheduled
meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for the date of March 5th, 2020,
and we will start with roll call.
Item 2: Adoption of Agenda
Holland: Thank you, Madam Clerk. The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the
agenda. The only note is that we will be opening Item A on the agenda for the purpose
of a continuance. They are requesting a continuance. But, otherwise, the agenda is the
same. Can I get a motion to adopt the agenda?
McCarvel: So moved.
Pitzer: Second.
Holland: I have got a motion and a second. All those in favor? Any opposed? All right.
Motion is approved.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT.
Item 3. Consent Agenda \[ Action Item\]
A. Approve Minutes of February 20, 2020 Planning and
Zoning Commission Meeting
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2020
Page 2 of 50
B. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Day Wireless(H-2019-
0115) by Day Wireless, Located at 1668 E. Franklin Rd.
Holland: And, then, we have also got the Consent Agenda. Can I get a motion to approve
-- which has approve the minutes of the February 2020 -- February 20th, 2020, Planning
and Zoning Commission meeting, as well as the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for
Day Wireless, H-2019-0115. Can I get a motion to approve the Consent Agenda?
McCarvel: So moved.
Pitzer: Second.
Holland: Got a motion and a second. All those in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT.
Holland: All right. At this point in time I will explain the public hearing process for the
evening. We are going to open up each item individually and start with the staff report.
The staff will report their findings regarding how the application adheres to our
Comprehensive Plan and our Uniform Development Code with the staff's
recommendation. After the staff has made their presentation the applicant will come
forward and present their case to the Commission and -- for approval of their application
and respond to any staff comments. The applicant will have 15 minutes to do so. After
the applicant's finished we will open up the floor for public testimony. There is a sign-up
in the back on an iPad as you entered. If you wish to testify tonight, please, go ahead
and sign in on that iPad as you enter the room. If any individual is here and they are
speaking for a larger group, such as an HOA, we will ask for a show of hands at that time
for individuals that want to testify on their behalf and those folks that raise their hands will
give up their time for that representative to speak for up to ten minutes representing the
larger group. After all testimonies have been heard the applicant will be given another
ten minutes to have a chance to respond to public testimony and close the discussion.
At that time we will close the public hearing and Commissioners will have a chance to
deliberate to make a recommendation to City Council or make a decision on the
application.
Item 4: Action Items
A. Public Hearing for Hill's Century Farm North (H-2019-0134)
by Martin L. Hill, Hill & Hill Properties, Located at the
Southeast Corner of S. Eagle Rd. and E. Amity Rd. –
1. Request: Rezone of a total of 39.9 acres of land from the R-8
zoning district to the C-N ( 4.9 acres), C-C ( 4.35 acres), and
R-15 (30.65 acres) zoning districts;
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2020
Page 3 of 50
2. Request: Preliminary plat consisting of 137 building lots, 18
common lots and 10 other lots on 43.02 acres of land in the
R-8, R-15, C-N and C-C zoning districts;
3. Request: Planned unit development for an age-restricted 55
and older gated community with deviations from certain
development standards; and,
4. Request: Conditional use permit for a 73,730 square foot 443-
unit self-service storage facility on 3.89 acres of land in the C-
C zoning district.
Holland: So, with that we are going to open tonight the public hearing for Hill Century
Farm North, which is H-2019-0134, and they are requesting a continuance. So, I don't
know if staff had any additional comments, but certainly would welcome the applicant to
come forward and make their request.
Wardle: Madam Chair, Commission Members, Mike Wardle, director of planning for
Brighton Corporation, 2929 West Navigator in Meridian. Obviously, we are not here
because we want to be here asking for a continuous. Bill, if you would -- yes. And let me
just -- can you give me control, so that I can -- I got control? It's not advancing. I need to
go to the last slide if you could -- one -- two more. There you go. Over the course of the
last 15 months we have actually had several actions. You -- you approved a modification
of a development agreement about a year ago, as did the City Council. We have had
three neighborhood meetings and two specifically for the projects that we currently have
in queue. That was in July and in November and during those three neighborhood
meetings associated with this property we have an average of five people attend and so
what we did was 108 days ago today we filed an application. Staffing issues and so forth
kept it from getting to you in a -- in a more timely manner, but when we posted the site
and the two white red outlined arrows, so the two principal posting locations, those were
posted in a timely manner. They were actually initially posted on the opposite corner and
I -- the first day -- well, I happened to be in Lisbon, Portugal, and opened up my e-mails
after an all night flight and I saw the pictures as they were posted and I immediately
contacted staff and said they are in the wrong locations, get them moved, and they got
them moved in a timely manner. The circled white and black outlined arrow shows a stub
street and, quite frankly, I didn't even think about the stub street. So, we had a sign
placed, but, again, the sign company put it on the opposite corner. So, by the time we
got that sign in that location it was nine days in advance of the hearing. So, that's the
technical issue and I met with staff on Monday when I got back and indicated that we
would be requesting since the technicality kept us from this hearing, we would be
requesting continuance to the next agenda and staff has indicated, as does the clerk, that
it looks to be a full agenda, but just as this particular situation pulls an item off an
application you never know. So, we are requesting a continuance to the next meeting,
which would be I believe the 19th of March and we will take our chances, knowing that
we will be the last item on the agenda, but given the fact that it took us 108 days to get
here we need to move as expeditiously as we can. So, with due respect we have asked
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2020
Page 4 of 50
for your continuance to the next regular meeting and we will direct our sign people to go
out and re -- re-notice the dates, so that anybody in the neighborhood would be fully
aware that there has been a change and at the conclusion of my comments and your
decision I'm going to voluntarily meet with anybody from the neighborhood in the foyer
just to bring them up to speed on what the circumstances are. But I would note that each
of the neighborhood meetings that we have had we have never had any expressed
opposition. There were questions that were answered for what largely is a -- an age
qualified gated community. So, again, with due respect we ask for a continuance to the
next regular meeting. Happy to answer any of your questions.
Holland: Thank you. Madam Clerk, can you clarify for us how many items we have on
the agenda for the next meeting?
Weatherly: Madam Chair, for March 19th we currently have six hearings and, then, on
April 2nd we currently have four hearings.
Holland: Thank you. I don't have any questions. Anyone from the Commission have a
question? Thank you.
Wardle: Thank you.
Holland: I'm going to look at my fellow Commissioners. I know the request is -- from the
applicant is for March 19th. I know staff tries to do what they can not to have more than
five or six applications, because, otherwise, they can be pretty lengthy meetings for us.
McCarvel: Madam Chair?
Holland: I will look to you all. Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: I would not be opposed to the 19th. As the applicant said, things tend to drop
occasionally and I don't see -- going into spring I mean we get six versus four -- I don't
know. I think it's been a while since we have had a long meeting anyway. One -- one of
the super long ones. I -- I personally wouldn't be opposed to it, so --
Holland: One of my thoughts -- I am certainly sympathetic to the applicant. It's always
unfortunate when you have got a small little piece that got missed on where a sign is
posted. I know we also are a little bit light on staff, so I worry a little bit about our staff
load for getting some applications in for next -- next meeting.
McCarvel: Madam Chair?
Holland: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: Yeah. That was going to be my next question though. Is -- I mean is this one
ready to go anyway for staff or is this an additional load for you guys?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2020
Page 5 of 50
Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, Commissioner McCarvel, it's not
an easy answer. I mean is anything ready to go these days? Everyone would like it to
be ready to go as soon as it hits our desk. But we had a chance to meet with the applicant.
Certainly we understand their time constraints. We have talked about it as staff. Now,
certainly, our preference is -- I think our guidance to you is as meetings -- meetings get
late into the evening -- we didn't know if the Commission was going to have a cutoff date
at some point and want to bump things out if we start getting too late into the evening. Is
11:00 o'clock going to be your timeline and, then, eventually, they could get bumped at
that point and take that chance with that, as the applicant alluded to. I can tell you that
that -- the 19th hearing has two multi-family projects and the Delano is coming back before
you on that agenda, which was a pretty controversial hearing and so it was remanded
back to you with a redesign. So, I think if -- again the decision is yours. If you guys want
to -- think you can handle that -- that many projects on that hearing we will -- staff will do
what we need to do to get -- get the work done and get it prepped and get it ready to go.
Yes, we have the application processed. It's in the queue. We have it scheduled for
hearing. Our intent was always to keep it on this hearing. But, again, we had a
technicality. But, again, it is -- it's your purview. If you guys want to go and have that
many items on a hearing we will -- we will re-adjust schedules and see what we can do.
But, if not, the other -- I can tell you right now what we have in the queue is -- it's ramping
up, too, so we are -- you are going to start seeing more and more agendas getting fuller
and fuller and so we have -- we got to be cautious on what we do moving forward and
how we schedule our time.
McCarvel: I guess that was going to be my next question, too, is what is on the agenda?
I hadn't looked.
Holland: Commissioner Pitzer, do you have a comment?
Pitzer: Thank you. So, it looks like we have three that are conditional use permits and
we have one, two, three -- two of them that are the subdivisions for the Comprehensive
Plan, but the following were two -- we already have three that are all subdivisions. I -- I
would not be opposed to doing a 3/19.
Holland: One other thought, too, is if we did want to put it on March 19th you could always
put a cap on the time, that we wouldn't go past a certain time if we got there.
McCarvel: I think that's not a bad idea going forward. Sorry, Madam Chair.
Holland: Any other thoughts? Commissioner Grove? With that I will let one of you take
a stab at making a motion if you would like for when that gets moved to.
McCarvel: Madam Chair?
Holland: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: I move that we -- are we -- we are continuing; right?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2020
Page 6 of 50
Holland: Correct.
McCarvel: -- file number H-2019-0134 to the March 19th meeting due to a signage issue.
Holland: Commissioner McCarvel, did you want to mention anything about time
restrictions on this one?
McCarvel: I think we will just play it by ear, as long as it doesn't go past midnight. I mean
I think that's something maybe we need to maybe set offline. I mean I think just in general
going forward that's probably not a bad idea to have this set on the meetings.
Holland: So, just to clarify, your motion is to move it to the hearing date of March 19th
and we are not putting a time cap on it right now, but --
McCarvel: Yeah. Pending discussions on the time cap.
Holland: Okay. Do I have a second?
Grove: Second.
Holland: Okay. I have got a motion and a second to continue the public hearing for Hill
Century Farm North to the hearing date of March 19th. All those in favor? Any opposed?
All right. Motion passes.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT.
B. Public Hearing Continued from February 20, 2020 for Meridian
Station (H-2019-0142) by Matt McAnulty, Located at the
Southeast Corner of N. Main St. and E. Broadway Ave., North of
the Railroad Tracks
1. Request: Conditional Use Permit for additional height
exceeding the maximum height allowed of 75 feet in the O-T
zoning district for two (2) 100-foot tall vertically integrated
structures.
Holland: Next we are going to open up the public hearing for Meridian Station, which is
H-2019-0142, and I know that there is a number of you in the room that are here to see
what happens with this application, so I'm going to give a little bit of a brief summary of
what we discussed in our last meeting and kind of where we are at right now. We had
made a motion in our last meeting that we would be opening up tonight not for public
comment, but we would just be opening up for Commission deliberation and that we would
be able to ask the applicant questions if we had anything. But I think we would like to
start with just Commission deliberation and if we have a need to bring the applicant up
forward to ask questions or ask staff any questions we can certainly do that. If we do
open up the hearing for the applicant to make a presentation or present anything new, we
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2020
Page 7 of 50
would likely have to open it up for public testimony, because typically you can't have
anything new without having the public be able to comment on it. So, I would just make
that note of caution. But, if possible, I believe the intent of the motion last time was to just
ask questions if we had anything we wanted to clarify from the applicant. So, in front of
us is a request for a conditional use permit, because there is a development project that
would like to construct two hundred foot tall vertically integrated buildings, which exceeds
the maximum height in the OT zoning district of 75 feet. So, really, the only thing that we
are here to approve is the height variance that they are requesting. They would be
allowed to do their project in 75 feet. What we discussed last time is really whether or not
that height made sense for this specific downtown project and we did receive 15 new
pieces of written testimony, so thank you to all those who have written in. We do read all
of those -- those letters and those notes and it's very helpful as we deliberate up here.
So, we really appreciate your involvement and your -- your presence being here tonight
means a lot to us. Just to recap, 14 out of 15 of those were in favor of the height
modification. One of those was opposed. And we did certainly have some other
businesses testify last time that gave some concerns about parking. But that was the
main concerns that we talked about was -- was parking and whether or not a height of 75
feet was adequate or if we should be able to allow this one to have a hundred foot height.
But at this point we -- we could certainly keep the hearing open if you would like to discuss,
so that way we can bring the applicant up if we have any specific questions. If we need
to go through the project in more depth I can certainly have staff give another overview if
we would like to do that. I know, Commissioner McCarvel, you had a chance to read
through the minutes from the last meeting.
McCarvel: Yes.
Holland: All 30 some pages of it.
McCarvel: Just this -- just this one. I didn't read the whole meeting, but I did read this
application.
Holland: All right. I don't know if anybody would like to kick us off on that discussion or
give another recap of your thoughts, but I would certainly open it up for that.
Commissioner Grove? I don't have to put you on the spot yet.
Grove: I don't have anything. I would like to hear from Commissioner McCarvel on -- on
her thoughts of -- on what she saw in the application, since we have already had a chance
to weigh in.
Holland: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: Madam Chair, I -- I actually really like the project. I know it's something new
and different from what we normally have been accustomed to. The only thing that tall
we are used to seeing around here is grain elevators and silos. But I think the frontage
is pretty. The open space -- the green space, the parking, I think would be a welcome
idea. I -- I do think -- I saw some comments, you know, fearful that apartments would
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2020
Page 8 of 50
have the two and three guests and all that and while that is usually true, I think from what
I have seen in other downtowns, the people that usually live downtown tend to edit their
vehicles and that kind of thing. If you are going to want massive amounts of vehicles live
somewhere else. I think it would be a nice change and provide a lot of things that
downtown Meridian needs to make it a vibrant downtown. The walkability and having that
density in the downtown is what makes I think businesses thrive. That's my two cents.
Holland: Thank you. I'm just going to recap a couple of the reasons I was in favor of the
project as well. When you get a project like this, the -- I think the applicant's gone above
and beyond in the number of parking stalls proposed, because that's always the biggest
concern we get when it comes to a big project like this, especially when there is multiple
stories involved and there is lots of apartments involved. The applicant gave us a mix
last time of the number of units that were going to be in there and there was primarily
single family -- or one bedroom and studio apartments as kind of the main chunk of it.
There were a few two bedroom apartments, but it seemed pretty reasonable for the
amount of parking stalls that they were creating. But in general they only had 414 parking
stalls that would be required by code and they propose 659, which is 245 stalls more than
required, and in the meantime they will also have a surface lot that's kind of up in the
front. So, when you look at downtowns -- I mentioned this comment last time, but I have
read a lot of -- I have attended a lot of webinars on downtown development projects and
what's good and bad and one of the comments made is if you have a parking problem
you are doing something right in your community, because it means there is a reason for
people to come to your downtown. So, this would help alleviate a challenge of having a
parking problem and also give more reasons for people to come downtown to gather. But
having 245 extra stalls makes me feel a lot better about the project and if -- if we were to
restrict their height just back down to the 75, if I was in the developer's shoes the first
thing I would get rid of is a lot of those parking stalls, because that's not where they make
their money, they are doing that as a benefit to the community in my opinion. So, that
was a couple of my thoughts. I -- I am in favor of a hundred foot tall building, because
where you want to have the density and where you want to have the height is in your
downtown core. It doesn't make sense to put it in the residential neighborhoods, it doesn't
make sense to put it really anywhere else except for a few pockets like the Ten Mile
development that's going up where it's -- it's planned for those office towers. But your
downtown is really where you want to see the density and I would almost rather have -- if
we move forward with approving this conditional use permit I would almost make a
recommendation that we also ask the City Council to reconsider what the height should
be in our downtown long term, because that was a question we kind of went back and
forth on, too, well, if 75 was the number why don't we stick with 75, but it's been a number
of years since it was set at 75 and I think there is some new design standards out there
and perhaps our city would like to take a more look at that, because I remember in the
Comprehensive Plan committee -- and I know the Downtown Meridian Development
Corporation has put together a great plan on what they envision for downtown and there
is certainly some elements of raising height so bringing it up. So, that's my summary.
Commissioner Grove, do you want to add anything else?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2020
Page 9 of 50
Grove: I would echo most everything you said there. I think the opportunity for this project
to be able to move forward helps the downtown create the -- some of the building bones
that we just lack from previous generations to really revitalize downtown. You know, when
you hear about downtown revitalization there is typically something to, you know,
renovate, move into, change and we just don't have a lot of those structures in our
downtown. So, we are very limited in how -- how successful downtown can be based on
the limited amount of space available to make those changes and taking a blighted area
like the railroad property and being able to repurpose it with something to this scale I think
is -- is vitally important for not only the short term, but the long-term health of our
downtown and, yes, it's -- it's painful because it's change, but it's changed that will benefit
the business owners of downtown and -- and the community as a whole. I really like this
project and I like the idea of approving the one hundred foot height limit on this building.
Holland: Commissioner Pitzer, do you have any other comments you would like to make?
Pitzer: Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, I love the concept. I was the one that
was opposed to this at the last meeting, but I like the concept, I like the -- the courtyard,
the open space, you know, having the additional retail space. What I was opposed to
especially was asking for a 33 percent change, but I have to sit here in reflection and say
is this good for Meridian. I mean that's basically what -- what -- what we are here for and
that's why we make recommendations to -- to Council and I think in -- in -- in looking over
everything I would have to say that, yes, this is probably in the best interest of Meridian.
I don't like the height. I think it's going to eclipse everything around here, but maybe that's
short term and I think that if we make -- if we set this precedent and let this go through at
a hundred feet, I think we absolutely have to ask for a change in the comp plan.
Holland: With that if -- if anybody wanted to ask a specific question, we certainly have
the meeting open. We could -- we could ask the applicant to come forward if anyone had
a specific question for them or if we feel like we are all on the same page, which it sounds
like we are all heading in that same direction, I would accept a motion to close the public
hearing so we could make a further motion of recommendation -- or in this case, actually,
we make a -- we make a final decision on this, since it's a conditional use permit. But we
would need to close the public hearing first. So, can I get a motion to close the public
hearing?
McCarvel: So moved.
Pitzer: Second.
Holland: Okay. Moved and second to close the public hearing. All those in favor? Any
opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT.
Holland: All right. I would accept a motion at this point as well, unless there is further
discussion you would all like to have on Meridian Station.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2020
Page 10 of 50
McCarvel: Madam Chair?
Holland: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve
file number H-2019-0142 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March
5th, with no modifications.
Grove: Second.
Holland: I have got a motion and a second to approve the Meridian Station's request for
the height variance, H-2019-0142. All those in favor? Any opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT.
C. Public Hearing Continued from February 20, 2020 for Handy
Truck Line Silos (H-2019-0149) by Handy Truck Line, Located at
630 E. King St.
1. Request: Conditional Use Permit for additional height
exceeding 20% of the maximum height allowed ( i.e. 50 feet)
in the I-L zoning district for two (2) 80-foot tall silos.
D. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Handy Truck Line
Silos (H-2019-0149) by Handy Truck Line, Located at 630 E.
King St.
Holland: All right. With that we will move on to the next one. And thank you to all of you
who showed up tonight. It's always great to see the public show up and -- and making
comments on projects. So, we really appreciate that. So, next we are going to move on
to Item C, which is a public hearing continued from February 20th, 2020, for Handy Truck
Line Silos, which is H-2019-0149, and we are also going to open that with the Findings of
Facts, Conclusions of Law. I know that's a little bit atypical for this one, but we are going
to open those together and I will start with the staff report, please.
Parsons: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. Next item on the
agenda this evening is the Handy Truck Lines conditional use permit. As you mentioned
it was continued from the 2020 -- 2020 -- Planning and Zoning -- or 2/20/20 Planning and
Zoning Commission for the purpose -- for the reason being that they did not get the site
posted within the parameters of the UDC. The applicant is here again to discuss a
conditional use permit to increase the height of some silos that they want to construct on
the site. The property is currently zoned industrial within the City of Meridian and you can
see in the zoning map and the future land use map that a majority of the property around
this site is also zoned industrial and there are also industrial uses that are occurring
around it. So, it's -- it's kind of this -- it's an enclave of industrial around our railroad tracks
in close proximity to our downtown area. Right now the applicant is currently operating a
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2020
Page 11 of 50
construction business there. These silos are primarily for the purpose of having concrete
powder and housing concrete powder. The proposed silos would be located within the
railroad corridor in their right of way, so there was no permission needed or the property
owner doesn't own the land, but they have a lease agreement with the Union Pacific
Railroad to operate and conduct their business. So, like the previous application that you
just took action on, this is one of those cases where a certain height limit is allowed at an
administrative level, if you are under 20 percent or up to 20 percent can be approved
through the staff level, because the I-L zone has a height limit of 50 feet and they are
asking me to go up to 80 feet, they exceed the 20 -- the 20 percent allowed under the
administrative process. So, that's why we are really here to talk with you this evening and
get your blessing of this. You can see here they provide us some elevations of what the
silos would look like. Typically we have design standards that go along with all of our
commercial industrial buildings, but in this particular case, if you had a chance to read the
staff report, we made a finding that this is really just more of a function of the business,
rather than actual habitable building and not your typical commercial building. So, the
applicant's going to only have to come before staff with a certificate of zoning compliance
and forego the design review process if they obtain approval of the CZC -- or this CUP
application. Staff did receive written testimony from Scott Hanks, who is the applicant,
and they are in agreement with all conditions in the staff report. Staff is recommending
approval and I will stand for any questions.
Holland: Thank you, Bill. Any questions for staff? With that would the applicant like to
come forward and share a few words with us. And if you wouldn't mind, please, state
your name and address for the record.
Handy: Yeah. So, I am not Scott Hanks. He, unfortunately, could not make it. My name
is Branson Handy. My current address is 8364 Craydon Drive in Boise. As proposed,
Madam Chairman and the Commission, these two silos will be directly adjacent to the
existing ones and they will be the same height. So, the original silos that were built are
about 80 feet and we are asking for permission to build two adjacent silos at that height,
so -- yeah. If you have any questions I will do my best to answer.
Holland: Any questions for the applicant? You got off easy. Thank you. Appreciate it.
Handy: Thank you very much.
Holland: Is there anyone signed in to testify on this application, Madam Clerk?
Weatherly: Madam Chair, we have one person signed in. That's Lindsay Anderson.
Holland: Lindsay, are you here? Would you like to testify? Seeing no hands. Is there
anybody else in the room that would like to testify on this application? And with that I
don't think the applicant has anything else to add, so I would take a motion to close the
public hearing for Handy Truck Lines, 2019-0149.
McCarvel: So moved.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2020
Page 12 of 50
Pitzer: Second.
Holland: Got a motion and a second. All those in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT.
Holland: All right. We are here for deliberation and my thoughts looking at this that it
seems pretty straightforward that they are just putting in two additional towers next to
some existing towers that are going to be similar in height. I don't see a big concern with
it being restrictive to public view. It's in an industrial area. It's next to the rail line. That's
really where these kind of things fit most anyway. So, I don't know that I have any big
concerns over it, but would love your thoughts. Anyone want to go next? Commissioner
Grove?
Grove: Madam Chair. To me it looks, like you said, pretty straightforward. It completes
the -- the little block that they have of other silos, so I don't see issues with it.
McCarvel: Madam Chair?
Holland: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: I'm in support of this as well. I don't see an issue with it. It's adding to what's
already there.
Holland: Any other comments? Commissioner Pitzer?
Pitzer: No.
Holland: With that I would -- this is a conditional use permit and I would ask of anyone
making the motion on this would also -- assuming we are not making any changes or
modifications to it, that we could also include the approval of the Findings of Facts,
Conclusions of Law for Handy Truck Line Silos with the approval of the CUP.
McCarvel: Madam Chair?
Holland: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve
file number H-2019-0149 as presented in the staff report for the hearing dated March 5th,
2020. In addition approving the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Decision
and Order for the same file number.
Holland: I have a motion. Do I have a second?
Grove: Second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2020
Page 13 of 50
Holland: Okay. Motion and a second to approve the conditional use permit. All those in
favor? Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT.
E. Public Hearing for Bannock Ridge (H-2019-0143) by Ryan
Recla, Located at 2940 S. Mesa Way
1. Request: Development Agreement modification to remove the
subject 4.35-acre property from the boundary of the existing
agreement Bannock Ridge - Inst. #2017-084176) for the
purpose of entering into a new agreement consistent with the
proposed development plan; and,
2. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 10 building lots and
5 common lots on 4.35 acres of land in the R-4 zoning district.
Holland: Next we will move on to the public hearing for Bannock Ridge, H-2019-0143,
and we will start with the staff report.
Parsons: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. Next item on the
agenda is the Bannock Ridge Subdivision. This is a preliminary plat and development
agreement modification. If -- as you are aware, you are a recommending body on the --
on the plat and the City Council will take action on the development agreement
modification. This property was annexed and zoned in 2017 and platted as part of a
larger project called Bannock Ridge and now the applicant wants to come forward and
bifurcate this property from the original plat and boundary of that project and enter into a
new development agreement, which Council will take under consideration. The property
is currently zoned R-4, which is consistent with the current land use designation of low
density residential for this property, so we can anticipate densities of three units or less
to the acre and this project is well below that. On the graphic on your left there you can
see where -- where it was the larger portion of that Bannock Ridge in 2017 and so the
applicant -- and the elevations that were tied to that development agreement, so the
applicant is here tonight to discuss just doing a subdivision on 4.35 acres of land, which
is being removed from the additional 13.58 acres that was approved in 2017. The
preliminary plat consists of ten building lots and five common lots in the R-4 district. One
of the existing homes -- one of the lots will contain the existing residents and the
outbuildings that are currently on Lot 10, Block 1. Staff had made mention in the staff
report that some of the dimensional standards on this particular property did not meet the
R-4 standards and they will have to comply with that at the time that they submit the final
plan. Because this project is below the ten acre minimum there is no required open space
for the project as required in the UDC, but the applicant is required to extend the ten foot
multi-use pathway that's through the site. Because the existing home meets staff
preferences to have the pathway along the creek, but given the site constraints and the
fact that the existing residence is remaining on Lot 10, Block 1, we worked closely with
our Parks Department to ensure that we could route it through the development, have an
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2020
Page 14 of 50
on-street segment, and, then, run along the south boundary behind the proposed
buildable lots with this subdivision. This is pretty consistent with the -- the previous
approval as well. You can see here that there is a stub street on the west boundary that's
going to be extended with this development and stubbed to the south for future
connectivity with the adjacent properties and that's kind of the finding of what we try to do
when we are working with the applicant. We worked -- staff -- when we initially started
with this project we weren't keen on separating this piece from the larger piece of the
property, we wanted to make sure that all of this came in and was a cohesive development
plan and that's why the DA was in place to make sure all of it developed at one time, but
because the applicant is extending the street and it's generally consistent to what's
already in the DA, staff felt comfortable with the plat that you are seeing before you this
evening. The applicant also provided some sample elevations for you. The majority of
them are single story. The applicant hasn't determined whether or not they are going to
do any -- any other additional two stories, but there is nothing prohibiting them to do that
as a recommended DA provision or a condition of approval. I would also mention to you
because -- at the time this came in -- or excuse me -- some of the lots will be taking
access from a common driveway, so as you can see here the plat depicts this as a private
street. It's not. It's actually a common driveway and the code allows up to six homes to
take access from a common driveway. So, that's why you see the turnaround on -- on
one -- on the two buildable lots for Fire Department requirements. Staff did receive written
testimony from Dan Lardie in agreement with all the conditions in the staff report. Staff
finds that this project is consistent with the development agreement and the
Comprehensive Plan and we ask for your approval or recommend approval this evening
and I will stand for any questions.
Holland: Any questions for staff? No questions. At this time I would ask the applicant to
come forward. And if you wouldn't mind, state your name and address for us. Appreciate
it.
Lardie: Madam Commissioner -- excuse me. Madam Chair, Commissioners, Dan Lardie.
Leavitt Associates. 1324 1st Street South, Nampa, Idaho. 83687. So, Bill, thanks. I
appreciate the -- the lead in here. You did a good job. The question I have -- and I did
-- I did send an e-mail in and said that I agreed with the conditions. The one -- the one
condition that I do have a question on is the fencing. If I do -- can I get a question for Bill
on clarifying that as far as what's required there?
Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, we will have a conversation here.
So, Dan, what -- what in specific to the fencing question? Or what's the condition?
Lardie: It's along -- it's along the entire path and then --
Parsons: Okay.
Lardie: -- if it -- if it is along the entire path can it be -- can it be done at the time of home
construction?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2020
Page 15 of 50
Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, if I can address you. So,
essentially, as I said in the presentation, the pathway comes in through the site and, then,
run along the back of the buildable lot. In our code we require -- the code requires the
developer to put in the fencing at the time of the subdivision approval, because we don't
want homeowners putting in incorrect fencing that violates our code. You probably --
some of you have had experience dealing with that throughout the years with the
numerous projects that have come through and we have since changed. A few years
ago we changed our fencing ordinance to be more flexible in the standards and the type
of fencing that would allow along a common lot. So, a quick answer is, no, it can't go on
with the buildable lots, it needs to happen with the subdivision improvement per the city
code. But there are fencing options for that to happen. I think your concern is that's going
to get destroyed when you are constructing homes on it.
Lardie: That and the initial cost. Just the --
Parsons: The code requires the developer to put that in.
Lardie: I will continue, Madam Chair, Commissioners. It is -- it is nine buildable lots, plus
-- it's simple. It fits with the nature of what's there. At one point in time the development
agreement was in place for the entire 13 acres, but since -- some homeowners aren't
interested in developing just yet. So, with that it's a nice addition to the area and it follows
the Comprehensive Plan land use. So, with that I could stand with any questions.
Holland: So, one question I had. The way that the -- the middle drive aisle comes down
the Mesa Court it looks like --
Lardie: Yeah.
Holland: -- originally it was proposed to kind of come up from the south, not from the
east, so I don't know if your group is the one that's still a part of the development that will
happen to the south at some point in the future when those other homes want to
redevelop, how would that affect the overall -- I mean it's not going to be part of the
development agreement anymore, but would you envision that the rest of the plan would
stay somewhat consistent with what was originally submitted for the Bannock Ridge
Subdivision?
Lardie: Madam Chair, Commissioners, I believe that in order to be the most -- get the
most efficient use of the land, the previous -- the previous development -- or the previous
layout would still hold true and still can be done. It will look a little bit different, you know,
such as it does now, but we are -- the extension of the streets to the east as it extends
through and it will connect into the path like it did before and still allow for development
along those north lots and so allow for a stub road down to the south. So, still completes
it.
Holland: Okay. And, then, one of the questions, too, is Lot No. 2 that's in that Block 2
right on the elbow curve --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2020
Page 16 of 50
Lardie: Yes.
Holland: -- coming down, that was I think originally proposed as an open space lot in the
-- the overall concept and I know that we are -- we are taking this into consideration as a
separate plat, but would that become a home site now or would that still be an open
space?
Lardie: Madam Chair, Commissioners, so on -- on that particular lot it is a buildable lot
now. Before we were using it for storm drainage, because the whole site was running
there. Now it's only this -- only four acres out of 13, so -- and that's the reason why it's a
buildable lot. There is some -- there is some comments probably in your packet from
ACHD and we are still discussing that particular area. ACHD has requested a full blown
cul-de-sac there.
Holland: Okay. Thank you. Any questions from Commissioners?
McCarvel: Madam Chair?
Holland: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: Yeah. So, we are taking this out of the original -- if we do that you're not
required to put any amenities and green space and all that, because of the -- you're under
the acreage, but would these homes still be able to use -- are they still going to be
considered part of the rest of the development and be able to use their amenities?
Lardie: Madam Chair, Commissioner McCarvel, as far as I know they will -- they are
probably not going to be developed by the same developer as far as I know. The middle
development -- the middle homeowner is -- is -- I don't say holding out, but is -- is resistant
to -- to the development. So, I don't know.
Holland: One more follow-up question for you, too. So, it's -- it's hard to see green
screens on here. I know you are not required to provide any because of the size. I know
you have got the pathway that comes down, but are any of these lots open space lots or
are they all home sites?
Lardie: Madam Commissioner, they are all home sites. Except for the pathway and the
land -- and it's required landscape on both sides.
Holland: Okay.
Lardie: There is also Ten Mile Creek that's open. It's meant to be left open. Again, it's
the creek.
Holland: Sure.
Grove: Madam Chair?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2020
Page 17 of 50
Holland: Commissioner Grove.
Grove: In the packet and with the staff report it was indicated that an agreement needs
to be in place with the HOA to the west to continue that pathway. Is that something that
has been done or do you see it being an issue?
Lardie: Madam Chair, Commissioner Grove, the -- so, in order to connect to that path,
yes, we do have to connect and get a -- get an agreement with the HOA. Has it been
done? No, it hasn't. I am going to assume that the homeowners there would -- would
appreciate the fact that it would extend and provide them connectivity to the east, other
than they have now.
Holland: Any other questions?
McCarvel: Madam Chair?
Holland: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: Other than the fencing, are you in agreement with all staff recommendations?
Lardie: Madam Chair, Commissioner McCarvel, yes.
Holland: Commissioner Pitzer, did you have a comment?
Pitzer: Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. What -- what size is the -- of the smallest lot that
you have on --
Lardie: Madam Chair, Commissioner Pitzer, the smallest lot as shown on this plat is
8,001 square feet.
Holland: Any follow-up questions? Okay. I think that might be it for now, but we will see
in a few minutes.
Lardie: Thank you.
Holland: Thank you. Madam Clerk, do we have anyone signed in to testify tonight on
this application?
Weatherly: Madam Chair, we have three people signed in, two of which wish to testify,
the first being Aneke Binford.
Holland: Okay. Aneke, if you want to come forward and if you wouldn't mind stating your
name and address, again, for the record we would appreciate it.
Binford: Aneke Binford. 3101 Mesa Way. My husband and I own the property south of
this proposed subdivision and just for the record we are not resistant to development. We
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2020
Page 18 of 50
are not opposed in any way. But we do have two concerns about this project. The first
is the lack of substantial buffering between the public walking path and the full length of
our entire property. The second is the impact on our ability to effectively irrigate our land.
The pathways master plan states the city should be sensitive to private owners when
trails are proposed adjacent to private property. The city acknowledges the pathway
safety is a major concern -- and I'm quoting -- of both pathway users and those whose
property is adjacent to the pathway. Of the eight safety concerns identified in the master
plan, two issues impact us the most. Privacy and trespassing. According to the master
plan one of the city's recommended improvements to address privacy of adjacent owners
includes the use of good neighbor fencing and planting of landscape buffers. The city's
recommended improvements to address trespassing is to clearly distinguish public
pathways from private property with vegetative buffers and the use of good neighbor
fencing. The current fencing will not discourage trespassing. Half of the fence is three
pole fencing, which can easily be slipped through onto our property. Also much of it is
being held up with wire and baling twine. This does not provide a high degree of
maintenance that would discourage undesirable activity along the pathway. The
pathways master plan acknowledges that loss of privacy and increased risk of trespassing
are true concerns when public paths are adjacent to private property. We asked that the
developer heed the city's recommended improvements as outlined in the master plan to
provide good neighbor fencing and a more substantial vegetative buffer. We also have
irrigation concerns. We recognize it's our responsibility to control our water. However,
flood irrigation is not exact. Currently we are able to fully irrigate the high areas of the
pasture by running the water for a longer time. Overflow from low areas simply waters
that connecting pasture. But when that connecting pasture becomes a walking path and
private homes, we will have to shut off water as -- as soon as the lower areas are
saturated this will leave some of the areas literally high and dry. This will result in areas
of unusable ground for us. We propose that the developer construct a berm to stop any
overflow water from leaving our property so we may continue to irrigate sufficiently and
responsibly. So, basically, to sum it up. For our two concerns we are requesting a good
neighbor fence and more substantial vegetative buffer on the pathway. This will clearly
distinguish the public property from our private property and also discourage trespassing
and address privacy issues. We are also requesting a berm to allow us to continue to
effectively irrigate our full property. We would also like to note that when Observation
Point Subdivision was developed on our west border the city recommended that the
developer construct a three foot landscape berm with a fence, which he did. When
Cabella Creek was developed to our east the city recommended the landscaped berm to
address headlights from the new road into our home and the developer provided that. In
each case the city heard our concerns regarding development impact and we are hopeful
for a similar response tonight.
Holland: Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
Binford: I had pictures I didn't get to, but my husband is up after me, so maybe he can --
can he use those pictures?
Holland: Sure. That would be great. Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2020
Page 19 of 50
Weatherly: Madam Chair, Matthew Binford.
Holland: And, Matthew, if you wouldn't mind stating your name and address for the record
we would appreciate it.
M.Binford: My name is Matt Binford. I live at 3101 Mesa Way. And we are the five acres
that adjoin this property. Could we go to -- a couple more slides forward? Oh, I can do
it? So, this is the west facing Observation side of what was developed. My wife
referenced that there is a three foot berm here, plus a fence, and, in fact, when
Observation Point went in the irrigation -- they actually added tile drainage across this
back, so we could continue to flood irrigate. So, you know, the city helped push us for
that and we really appreciate that. What we are hoping is something similar -- let me go
forward here. This is actually the fence between the developer -- the development and
our property. You can see this fence is about ready to fall down. So, my wife and I are
concerned that the developer is not proposing any fence here, that we would bear the
burden of kind of protecting our property versus this walking path. So, I don't know that
that's a fair assessment. What we are asking for is not for the irrigation so much, but to
berm this up so we can continue to irrigate, but also there needs to be something that
kind of protects our property from their development and the -- as my wife quoted, the
issues with a walking path. So, we would like to see -- we understand that the -- it can't
be a closed fence. We would love to have just a solid vinyl fence there. But the city
encourages open fences for crime and that sort of thing, but we would like to see a new
fence here by the developer to kind of protect our property and people from going through
this, you know, broken down fence that they are not going to improve as part of this project
and I think that that -- that, you know, we shouldn't bear the burden of a development
coming in and if the walking path goes along here, we are going to have to maintain this
fence, because my guess is those homeowners will not. So, thank you very much.
Holland: Thank you. I appreciate it. Madam Clerk, anyone else signed in to testify?
Weatherly: No one else signed up to testify.
Holland: Is there anyone here that would like to testify on this application? It looks like
we have got a couple back here. If you want to come forward and state your name and
address for the record.
Blackburn: Which microphone?
Holland: Just talk into one of them.
Blackburn: Okay. I'm Celeste Blackburn. Address is 2978 South Novara Way. I'm in
the development Cabella Creek that was put in adjacent to all these beautiful pictures. I
saw my home in one of these pictures. Anyway, I don't have anything formal prepared.
My only concern would be our current walking path in Cabella Creek and the current
walking path in Observation Point go right along the creek. I'm not sure why we need to
move a walking path up a few feet and around some houses to connect it. I don't know
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2020
Page 20 of 50
why they can't just go along the creek side and keep it as it has been with both
subdivisions. My other concern is that the original CC&Rs for this subdivision, which is
called something estates. It starts with a K. Says that all building lots within that
subdivision have to be 30 feet away from each other and I'm not sure that the plot that is
proposed would met that. I know in the original proposal that was going around with just
this three lots, that they did come around with a petition to lift that, but as far as I am
concerned I do not know that that was lifted.
Holland: Thank you. And to address those concerns real quick, I think this specific
application is requesting to change the development agreement, which would take them
out of whatever initial subdivision. I'm not sure what -- which subdivision you're talking
about, but maybe Bill could answer that.
Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, she's -- she's speaking -- and I
think you are talking specifically to CC&Rs; correct?
Blackburn: Correct.
Parsons: Yeah. This won't change that. The developer is still going to have to work on
that if they haven't and get that cleared up. But trying to think of -- trying to think of the
best path for her to take forward. I mean it's in the city now. CC&Rs -- those were created
through the county. So, something that's going to happen -- have to happen privately,
not between the city and --
Blackburn: Okay.
Parsons: -- and the applicant.
Holland: Thanks for explaining, Bill.
Blackburn: Thank you.
Holland: Thank you. Appreciate it. And we had one other one back here that wanted to
testify. State your name and address for the record for us. We would appreciate it.
Clausen: Jamie Clausen. 3010 South Glacier Bay Way. So, I am -- I have never done
this before. Just a couple of things. I live in -- off of the Observation Point, I'm in the
Glacier Springs development, which is right behind -- or next to, however you want to
view it. And this -- we had a few concerns. One of them is regarding the developer,
because we did have the community meeting. They called it at a time of day when nobody
could attend. They had it in a place where there was no room really. They did not provide
a space for us to truly meet. They had to -- the restaurant -- the little pub restaurant had
to come up with a space for us to even gather and their wording to us was, oh, we weren't
expecting anybody to show up to this. They never do. Which I thought was very
unprofessional. There has been just a lot of things that we heard at the meeting and I'm
just kind of worried about the housing that they are intending to put in there if they do get
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2020
Page 21 of 50
this. They said that they are wanting to do it equal to what's already around. Well,
Observation Point and the other development are very different. So, what do they mean
similar to? Are they putting in smaller homes here? Bigger homes -- you know, it's just
-- it's not -- I don't know. I just -- there is a lot of things being said that just are not -- don't
seem to connect and I feel like -- you know, just like the -- the postcard that came out and
had the wrong acreage and stuff. My husband and I actually came in and talked to
somebody in planning and developing and asked him about some things, because we
wanted to get some clarification on some of this and we pointed out that and, then, I
noticed they put in a thing saying that they needed to fix that, but they didn't re-send out
postcards or anything to anybody, so as far as everybody knows there is ten houses going
on seven acres, you know, because nobody knows unless -- anyway. So, just a few
things. I'm concerned about street being -- you know, he said he thinks that it would be
-- you know, we would want it to go around. We do not. I'm concerned with water and
sewer, because they are going to have to plumb it into that. Are they going to increase
the pressure if there are houses there, because I don't want my water pressure to go
down and things like that. Sewer, you know, same thing. I just -- I -- I'm worried about
things -- and I'm worried about substandard things happening, instead of what's actually
supposed to go in there and what -- you know. And it being equal to what's already there.
And our property values and all that, too. That's kind of where I'm going to.
Holland: Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Last call. Anybody else that would
like to testify on this one? No hands. I will have the applicant come back forward. I know
we have got a few questions for you from the -- the crowd. If you wouldn't mind stating
your name and address again for us on the record.
Lardie: Madam Chair, Stan Lardie. Leavitt Associates. 1324 1st Street South. Nampa.
83687. I wrote some notes, but I want to make sure that I hit all the points that were --
were added there. So, the walking path, it meets the city standard. So, it's on a 20 foot
lot per their request and it only has to be 14 with landscaping on both sides and now per
our earlier discussion fencing. So, the fencing is -- is going to be directed by the city. So,
that's where I will leave that one. The next one -- sorry, my notes are really bad.
Holland: That's all right. We can help you with a few questions if you need to. I wrote
down a few notes as well.
Lardie: So, there was one comment about -- about the Kachina Estates CC&Rs and as
far as being 30 feet away from the existing lot. So, that would be on the existing lots. So,
the parent lot of the four hundred -- or 4.35 acres. Thirty feet. And our -- we have held
back 30 feet all the way around our property on that. There was another question about
pathway and why we don't go along the canal -- along the Ten Mile Creek. The
homeowner, Mr. -- Mr. Walsh -- or, excuse me, Mr. Marsh, is -- his home actually
encroaches in on what the city and Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District would want for a
pathway to be -- go along there for an easement. They require -- or they request 50 feet
and right now his house is actually 30 feet from the center line of the canal, which leaves
no room for a pathway on that side without demolishing his home and that's why we are
not there. Let's see. So, as far as substandard construction, construction is held to
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2020
Page 22 of 50
standards by the city. ISPWC, the Idaho Standards for Public Works Construction, and
so the city does their inspections and they require us to do our inspections. Home types.
We are probably closer with Glacier Bay as far as what is -- what we have presented
as far as quality and types of home. That's what I have got for notes. Madam
Commissioner --
Holland: Okay.
Lardie: -- or Madam Chair. Can you help me? Did I miss anything?
Holland: Yes. There was a question from the neighborhoods to your south, I believe --
and, Bill, if you wouldn't mind flipping back to the plat so we can look at that. There were
some concerns about the pathway running along their fence line there and the fence that
they have existing they are wondering if you might be willing to help replace that, so that
they would have -- they were also wanting a buffer there for their irrigation. If you could
speak to that situation.
Lardie: So, the pathway will -- Madam Chair. The pathway will probably be sitting up just
a little bit higher. So, probably create that natural berm that they are looking for. It's not
going to be a three foot berm, but it will probably be -- you know, maybe -- maybe a foot
berm. Just -- just if that -- if irrigation is really truly questioned and, then, provide
landscaping along that -- their land and the fencing will have to meet code.
Holland: Okay. Would you be open to doing a three foot berm there on the edge of the
pathway and doing some landscaping on there and help them with their fence?
Lardie: I would need to ask my client if he would be willing to do that.
Holland: Sure.
Parsons: Madam Chair, I don't mean to cut into the applicant's time, but I believe there
is going to be a sewer -- sewer main running through -- underneath the pathway. And I
am correct, Dan? Is that -- did you get that worked out with Public Works?
Lardie: Madam -- Madam Chair, Bill, the -- the sewer main is not running that direction.
It's going to be -- the sewer service is under the -- under that pathway and it -- well,
actually, it's not under the pathway, it's in an easement along the backside of there --
those lots.
Parsons: Okay. Okay. So, it's going to be outside of the pathway easement, so you
could landscape in that area.
Lardie: Yes.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2020
Page 23 of 50
Parsons: I just wanted to make sure that if it -- it had been moved onto the buildable lots
that landscaping could be prohibited if there was a sewer line in there. So, I just wanted
to clarify that for the record.
Holland: Thank you, Bill. I think we would be open to hearing from your --
Lardie: I'm sorry.
Holland: I think we would be open to hearing from your team if they were open to working
with that neighbor to the south on this request. If you wouldn't mind, when you come up
state your name and address for the record for us, too.
Recla: Yeah. My name is Ryan Recla and my address is 4123 West Garnet in Boise.
83703. So, as far as landscaping and the berm, I don't -- so, are they thinking three foot
tall or three foot wide or what --
Holland: Well, I think what they explained to us was that they -- they flood irrigate their
yard right now and so they are worried if there is not a berm there --
Recla: I don't think that's an issue to be able to build a -- I mean because there is -- how
much of a buffer did we leave? We had a ten -- we have a 20 foot easement with a ten
foot walking path and with five foot on each side. As you are not opposed in the five foot
-- I mean we -- is this berm on their property or our property? Ours?
Holland: I would assume it would be on your property.
Recla: And a five -- and a five foot wide -- three foot tall seems like it would be really tall.
I mean like you would have a -- you know, you would have a peak. Now, is there -- I
mean I don't mind at all pushing some dirt over there to try and stop it from draining over.
I don't know if you necessarily would need -- three foot seems a little extreme and a little
unsightly in a five foot path. But I am -- I mean if they are not opposed to having part of
it on their property, too. I mean it's not like there won't be dirt to be able to be moved
around. So, I don't see -- working with them on something like that would not be a
problem. The fence -- so, am I getting asked to help with the fence or pay for it all?
Holland: That's a great question.
Recla: I mean I heard help. If -- I mean I'm more than happy to do a neighborly good
neighbor thing where --
Holland: Sure.
Recla: -- we each help pay for it.
Holland: I believe their question was if you would be willing to pitch in and put in the
fence. But certainly we could ask the applicant to -- or ask the -- that specific neighbor to
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2020
Page 24 of 50
meet with you ahead of City Council so you could come up with a solution, too. That
might be an option.
Recla: Yeah. Because if I -- if it was a joint effort I would be happy to. There -- yeah.
So --
Holland: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions from the Commission? Seeing none, I
think that we have answered most of the questions of the room. Anything else you would
like to add?
Lardie: No. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Holland: Okay.
Lardie: Thank you, Commission.
Holland: Thank you. Appreciate it. With that I would accept a motion to close the public
hearing for Bannock Ridge, H-2019-0143.
McCarvel: So moved.
Pitzer: Second.
Holland: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT.
Holland: All right. We are here for deliberation. So, I -- if I could have my choice I would
rather see all three of these lots come in together than have the one piece by itself,
because I think it does create some consistency challenges for sure. I'm not opposed to
the R-4 lot size. I think that seems like a nice fit there. I like that -- you know, I would
prefer to see the -- the pathway go along the creek as well, but with the lots the way that
they are laid out and the home that's there, I see the challenge and appreciate that they
were willing to reroute that to the south. Kind of an interesting little in-fill piece. I'm not
sure -- I might still need a few more minutes to come up with my thoughts, but I would say
at a minimum I would at least request the applicant meet with the neighbor to the south
to discuss the -- what berm, landscaping, and fencing they would be willing to work on
together to create that transition that they would like and I -- I see and understand their
concern if there is a pathway that runs right next to their property line and a fence there.
I would like to see some sort of transition of some sort at least, but those are my starting
thoughts. Anyone else want to go next?
McCarvel: Madam Chair?
Holland: Commissioner McCarvel.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2020
Page 25 of 50
McCarvel: Question for staff. Do you have a picture of where the -- the layout and where
the -- how the path originally was in the DA agreement?
Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, Commissioner McCarvel, that's it.
The graphic on the left -- yeah. The green there shows you how the path would run
through there on the previous version.
Holland: I think one of my other concerns, too, is because of its size they are not required
to do any open space and, you know, it -- certainly we can't require them to do open
spaces if they are only 4.3 acres, but I worry about how the next two chunks will develop
if there is not open space required here, since that's where the bulk of the open space
was originally proposed was for that Block 2 and where the greenbelt pathway comes
down on the north side. So, that is a concern I have about this project. Commissioner
McCarvel, any other thoughts? Not yet?
McCarvel: Yeah. That's -- I mean that's kind of where I was going with it. It changes --
definitely changes the landscape of everything to be built, along with what's already --
what everybody around them was expecting.
Holland: Commissioner Grove?
Grove: Madam Chair. I had a question for staff. In the report it mentioned something
about the existing building in the south being an issue in the south -- like too close or
something like that and I can't find it in the report and so, sorry, I'm kind of fumbling for --
to find exactly what I'm asking, but do you know what I'm speaking about?
Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, yeah. Absolutely. You know,
whenever -- whenever we keep existing structures on -- on properties as part of a
subdivision they have to -- when we plat the lot the property -- when we resubdivide that
property and make sure that we are creating new parcel lines around existing structures,
they have to comply with the dimensional standards of the code. So, we always have a
front setback, a side setback, and a rear setback and we had called that out that that
building did not meet the setbacks of the district, so they are going to have to adjust the
plat -- the property boundaries of that to make sure that they are complying with the R-4
setbacks and they said they can and they said they are agreed to it, so that that's -- that's
addressed as a condition of approval in the staff report. So, yeah, we caught that and
that's why we called it out and brought it to your attention.
Holland: Thanks, Bill.
Grove: Thank you.
Holland: Any follow-up comments, Commissioner Grove? Not yet?
Pitzer: Madam Chair?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2020
Page 26 of 50
Holland: Commissioner Pitzer.
Pitzer: Yeah. I -- I'm having a lot of problems with this one. I'm thinking this is premature.
I think it needs to -- that the existing structures that are on there -- this is just changing
the entire face of the original DA and which now it's going to flow into the neighboring
subdivision. I especially don't like what the -- how the walkway is coming through and
taking out any open space where in the future, if that was an ACHD issue to have that
there and now it's a buildable lot becomes another issue for it.
Holland: And I agree, it's hard to see a pathway without the context of what's going to
develop around it in the future, because we don't know what that timeline looks like either.
Any other thoughts? Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: Well, I'm trying to look at it from both ways, if -- if we were to recommend
approval on this I would definitely want to see the berm and, yes, they -- the developer
needs to do the fencing. I mean I just think that's a no go. I mean that needs to be
consistent and I think if they are wanting to go while the other land is still in use the way
it is, then, there needs to be some berming and -- I guess just start there. If we were to
approve it as is, but --
Holland: I'm in the same boat. I'm trying to look at it from two different lenses, so what it
was proposed as and what it would be if it was just coming forward to us not attached to
a DA, not attached to the other development. Coming to us as a stand alone piece -- I
know they are not required to have any open space and they are big enough lots that they
have got their own private yards, but I certainly would like to have seen a little bit more
open space in there for the future of how it would connect to other subdivisions.
McCarvel: Madam Chair?
Holland: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: The original open space lot was that --
Holland: That Block 2 is and --
McCarvel: Yeah.
Holland: -- also up north --
McCarvel: Right.
Holland: -- where the pathway comes down.
McCarvel: And that was mostly to -- for drainage reasons, wasn't it? Now you want to
build homes on there. I mean that opens up -- I think the person who is buying that home
ten years from now is -- I mean where is all that going and, then, it puts in on the other
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2020
Page 27 of 50
two sections that has originally come into the DA agreement thinking that's where their
drainage was going.
Holland: We can certainly make a condition that they keep that block open as a drainage
lot.
McCarvel: Yeah. And I guess the -- oh, I see what -- so, the pathway was not going to
exactly follow Ten Mile Creek in the first place, but it was going to be along a lot more
open space.
Holland: Correct. They moved the pathway down south to where that red line is --
McCarvel: Yeah.
Holland: -- and, then, they added homes between the existing home site and the pathway.
We will reconfigure how to -- anymore discussion or -- certainly happy to take a motion if
anyone is close there. This is a tough one for sure.
McCarvel: It's a tough one. Yeah.
Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I just -- you know, as we talked
about your discretion and the authority that you have, obviously, in my presentation I said
that Council would be acting on the DA modification, but you always can add DA
provisions and change DA provisions. So, if it is your pleasure that the developer
construct fencing and berming along the pathway, certainly I would -- in your
recommendation include it as a DA provision, rather than a plat condition, because it
really needs -- if you are going to require something more than what code requires it really
needs to be captured in a development agreement, not in a plat. With a plat we are just
looking at conformance with the code. So, keep that in mind as you deliberate. And also
know that if -- this plat is what's tied to the current development agreement, so if Council
doesn't approve the DA mod, the project's a no go, so -- and the applicant was made
aware of that from the very -- very early on in the process. We -- a lot of the discussions
that I hear you having this evening are the same things we had with them. So, I just
wanted to give you some of that context, too, as you deliberate up there.
Holland: Thank you, Bill. Yeah, again -- so, we don't get to decide on the development
agreement modification, we are just making recommendation, but we can certainly put
some of those provisions in there we would like to see. I would say that we definitely
should add a provision that, you know, perhaps the -- the applicant could meet with the
property owner to the south to discuss what options are available, but I don't see it as
unreasonable that they have to work on at least putting in a significant portion of the
landscaping, berm, and fence.
McCarvel: Madam Chair?
Holland: Commissioner McCarvel.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2020
Page 28 of 50
McCarvel: I would agree. I mean it's their change that's going to most affect the property,
so it should be I think their obligation to protect the property.
Holland: Commissioner Pitzer, did you have another comment?
Pitzer: Yes, Madam Chair. I also think that it should be in the provision for Lot 2 to be
held as -- as an open lot, rather than as a buildable lot.
Holland: Okay. I would entertain a motion if someone is close to making one. Or if there
is anymore discussion we need to have on this. Right now what I have heard is that we
would like to see a DA provision adding landscaping, berm and fence between the
pathway and the neighboring parcel to the south and that we would recommend Block 2,
Lot 2, would remain as an open lot for a future retention pond or retention space.
Pitzer: Madam Chair?
Holland: Commissioner Pitzer.
Pitzer: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move that we
recommend approval to the City Council of file H-2019-0143 as presented in the staff
report for the hearing date of March 5th, 2020, with the following modification to the DA
approval, adding landscaping, berm, and fencing along the perimeter and retaining Block
2, Lot 2, as remaining as an open lot.
Holland: Commissioner Pitzer, can I clarify your motion on the DA? Your
recommendation is for a DA provision to add landscaping, berm, and a fence to the
property that's to the south between the pathway and the lot to the south; is that correct?
Pitzer: That's correct.
Holland: Okay. Thank you.
Parsons: Madam -- Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, just some more
clarification.
Holland: Yes, please, Bill.
Parsons: It's a little vague with landscaping, berm, and fencing. Obviously, the code is
going to require fencing. It's going to require a certain amount of landscaping. What --
as the applicant discussed, you are not going to get -- with a five foot landscape strip you
are not going to get much of a berm. Probably the largest you are going to get is maybe
18 inches, unless the applicant and the adjacent properly owner can agree to different
terms. So, if it's your desire, then, I would say -- the other thing is the code only requires
one tree for every one hundred linear feet of pathway. So, you can see here what they
have there -- if it's your desire for a certain tree count, I would probably come up with a
number or pick something more than just landscaping. You are to have shrubs, to have
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2020
Page 29 of 50
-- and trees there. Deciduous trees. I mean how -- I will leave it up to your discussion,
but just something more than just landscaping, berm, and -- and fencing. Fencing I can
get. They put in the fencing on both sides of the pathway of that common lot. But what
look are you going for there? A berm -- 18 inch berm, 24 inch berm -- certainly the code
allows -- through alternative compliance the applicant can meander the pathway and have
it wider and so he has the ability to do some nicer landscaping along the pathway. So,
just throwing out ideas. Just need more than just landscaping. We have that now in the
plan that we have in front of you.
Holland: Thank you, Bill.
Pitzer: Bill, would we be able to add the provision that they work with the property owners
as part of that?
Parsons: Certainly. That's within your prerogative to include that as part of the motion,
that they come up with some kind of treatment for that area prior to City Council. You
have that purview, too. And we can get that on the record and make sure that not only
what the neighbors testified to, but the adjacent property owner gets what they are kind
of -- I mentioned to you as far as the drainage issues, making sure they don't trespass
onto adjacent properties and they get the privacy that they are afforded under the policies
of the Comprehensive Plan.
Holland: The one thing we could look at -- a suggestion is we could put more specific
requirements in there of what we would like to see on the landscaping and the buffering.
I would agree that three foot might be significant there. It might be challenging to do on
a pathway there, but perhaps we tell them to do a two foot berm there and they would
work with -- they would meet with the neighbor to the south prior to the City Council
meeting to see if they can come up with some sort of compromise for that, but our
recommendation is if they can't come to a compromise they would at least be required to
put in -- whatever we decide, whether that's one foot, two foot buffer, and X number of
trees or shrubs along the pathway and fencing on both sides of the pathway. Open for
discussion if anyone else has comments. Commissioner Grove.
Grove: Madam Chair. I think, kind of summarizing, so if we put in language the berm no
less than 18 inches with fencing consistent with the standards on both sides of the
pathway and -- I don't know if -- I really don't want to start counting shrubs right now, so I
don't know if I -- I want to add anything specific in that -- in that term, but I think those --
at least those conditions and kind of putting it in those terms would -- would make the
most sense moving forward.
McCarvel: Madam Chair?
Holland: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: The word I keep coming -- I'm with Commissioner Grove, I do not want to -- I
am the world's worse landscaper, so to visualize exactly how many trees and shrubs --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2020
Page 30 of 50
the word I keep coming up with is enhanced. I don't know if that does enough for a motion
though. And I think enhanced landscaping --
Holland: I think we could perhaps say enhanced landscaping, but that maybe the property
owner to the south and this developer could work together on what that looks like and
present that to Council.
Pitzer: Madam Chair? I do like the idea of the meandering fence, other than the straight
as well. I hope that they would take that into consideration as well.
Holland: So, with that we either need a new motion or I think at this point, to make it
clean, we need a new motion. So, I would entertain a motion from someone if they would
like to and I can try to recap what we just talked about if you would like. The couple of
things we talked about was for a DA provision that would create a berm of no less than
18 inches between the property to the south and this development near where the
pathway intersections. That we would require fencing to be constructed on both sides of
the pathway and that they would work with the neighbor to the south to come up with an
enhanced landscaping solution and present that back to Council and that Lot 2 would
remain an open lot, rather than a buildable lot. Those are the things I have written down.
McCarvel: And now so does Commissioner Pitzer, so --
Holland: Commissioner Pitzer, did you need anything or are you good?
Pitzer: Pardon?
Holland: Do you need a recap on anything else. Are you okay?
Pitzer: Well, we will give it a try.
Holland: All right.
Pitzer: All right. Let's do this. Okay. After consideration -- after considering all staff,
applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council on file
number H-2019-0143, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date March 5th,
2020, with the following modification: That DA provision creating no less than an 18 inch
berm along the southern property, with fencing on both sides of the walkway and work
with the property owner for the southside to provide enhanced landscaping with a -- and
berm.
Holland: Do you want to add Lot 2 as an open space lot?
Pitzer: That was the one. Yes. And have Lot 2, Block 2, remain an open lot.
Holland: Okay. I have got a motion. The motion primarily is to adjust the boundary
between the south property owner and the development related to where the pathway
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2020
Page 31 of 50
comes in and building a berm, building additional fencing on both sides of the pathway,
an 18 inch minimum berm and enhanced landscape -- enhanced landscaping. Do I have
a second?
Parsons: Sorry, Madam Chair. And that's prior to City Council I take it?
Holland: What was that?
Parsons: Changes prior to City Council.
Holland: Yes. Correct. That those recommendations would come forward to City Council
and that they would meet prior to City Council. And also that Lot 2 remained open. Do I
have a second?
McCarvel: Second.
Holland: All those in favor. Opposed? Okay. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT.
F. Public Hearing for Andorra Senior Living (H-2019-0127) by
Sawtooth Development Group, LLC, Located at 715 & 955 S.
Wells St. and 971 E. Wells Circle
1. Request: Annexation of 16.99 acres of land with TN-R zoning
with a conceptual development plan for a senior ( age 55 and
older) living community consisting of (76) single-family
dwelling units and a 3-story apartment building with 88
dwelling units and a building footprint of 30,000 square feet;
and,
2. Request: Request to Vacate existing ACHD right-of-way (un-
named cul-de-sac) consisting of 0.45 of an acre of land that
lies between the properties located at 715 and 955 S. Wells
St. & 971 E. Wells Circle
Holland: Last, but not least, we will open the public hearing for Andorra Senior Living, H-
2019-0127 and we will began with the staff report.
Parsons: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. Last item on the
agenda this evening is the Andorra Senior Living annexation and vacation application
before you. Just like the previous application, the vacation is the responsibility of the City
Council and they will be the recommend body that forwards on a recommendation to
ACHD, who is the final decision making on the vacation application. The subject property
consists of 16.99 acres of land. Currently it's zoned RUT and R-1 in Ada county. It's
located at 715, 955 South Wells Street and 971 East Wells Circle at the southwest corner
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2020
Page 32 of 50
of East Magic View and South Wells Street. Adjacent land uses. To the north we have
single family residents, zoned RUT. South we have an office park, zoned L-O. To the
east we have vacant and single family residents. Vacant land and single family residents
zoned L-O and RUT in Ada County. And, then, on the west we have Woodbridge and
Locust View Heights Subdivisions, zoned R-4 in the city and R-1 in Ada county. It's
interesting, this is the first application that I have had a chance to process since the
adoption of a new Comprehensive Plan and this was from what I remember one of the
areas that was pretty contentious on what the proposed land -- land uses would be moving
forward. Tonight we have a unique opportunity where we have residents supporting a
plan just after we adopted a new plan, so I think that's certainly an accommodation to not
only the citizens that participated in that plan, but also accommodation to -- and
recognition of your hard work as you sit here and volunteer sitting here every Thursday
-- two Thursdays a month listening and making sure that we are providing a premier
community for our citizens. The applicant is here tonight, again, to discuss developing
the site with a senior living community, which consists of 76 single and duplex units along
the north and west boundaries and, then, in the southeast corner you will notice that they
have a three story apartment building, which will have components such as a spa, a salon,
a restaurant. As we updated our Comprehensive Plan we spent quite a bit of time
adjusting our mixed use standards to make sure that they were better and more
understandable for not only you, staff, but also our residents and this is one of those
cases where typically in an MUN designated area we anticipate smaller footprints, but
there are provisions in the Comprehensive Plan to allow the applicant to increase that
square footage based on the design and how well it integrates with adjacent properties.
We know this is one component of a larger mixed use neighborhood area and moving
forward -- so -- and when we look at these on a case-by-case basis we are going to take
that under consideration. As I mentioned to you, there is already office in the area. There
is hotels in the area. There is existing single family homes in the area. And this will be
one integrated component of that mixed use area. Looking at the open space that they
are proposing and that public amenity of the pathway coming through the central location
of the site, staff felt it was prudent to allow the application that increase in -- from 20,000
square foot building -- per footprint to the 30,000 for the three story apartment complex.
Also make mention that the restaurant is on the end -- the north side of that building as
well and that's approximately 6,000. So, if we were looking at the aggregate of that
footprint we are talking 36,000 square feet. And, again, we feel this is within the right
context and meets the mixed use standards of the Comprehensive Plan. The other
unique thing about this property, as you saw on that map, is there is two different land
use designations. A portion of it, approximately nine acres, is medium density residential.
A portion where this larger structure sits is that eight acres, approximately, mixed -- or
eight acres of mixed use neighborhood. Again, looking at the overall entire development,
staff finds that it is consistent with that newly adopted future land use map. Access to this
site is unique as well. As you heard through the Comprehensive Plan update, there have
been some access challenges with this development in this area and this particular use
is -- is no different. The good thing about this -- and it's typically this type and this style
of development has less trip generation, which we have all heard over the years and
years how much -- how limited access is here, but we do want to preserve connectivity in
the area. So, one of staff's recommended changes to the concept plan that's before you
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2020
Page 33 of 50
this evening is to actually stub at Wells Circle, which is the cul-de-sac along the south
boundary. It's where you can see my cursor. You can see currently that there is a
hammerhead turnaround at the terminus of that road and, then, some greenspace. Staff
did not receive -- does not have ACHD's staff report on this application. I know the
applicant has been working in conjunction with ACHD's staff to determine how that would
-- how that road would terminate in the future with this project. He did communicate to
me this evening that they are agreeable to deviating from their standards and allow this
configuration that's before you this evening. I don't have written confirmation of that, nor
have I received an e-mail to that effect, but in our -- as a recommended DA provision we
have required the applicant extend this road in accordance with ACHD's requirements.
Also as part of this application there is some right of way that's being vacated. It doesn't
show up very well on this particular concept plan, but if I can step back I can show you
what -- the general proximity of that. It's basically right in the middle of the project. There
was some unnamed right of way that was dedicated with the subdivision back in 1983 in
the county. As I alluded to it in the staff report, this is not required for access to this
proposed development, so staff is supportive of the right of way being vacated and we
have made that recommendation to City Council. Access for this particular property will
come from the adjacent local streets and, then, for internal circulation, actually, the
applicant's actually proposing gated private streets, which is consistent with the UD -- it's
allowed under the UDC. What the applicant wants to do moving forward -- this is one of
those unique situations with the TN-R zone that they are requesting to be annexed in
with, the multi-family -- or all of these uses are principally permitted. So, once the DA is
in place, the zoning is in place, the applicant would only have to go through staff approvals
and that's why it's critical that the applicant worked with the neighborhood, because there
won't be another chance to talk about this development once zoning is in place. In the
staff report I made mention of multiple alternative compliance applications that the
applicant will have to go through. Specifically there is some common drives that take
access off the private streets. That's apparently prohibited, unless approved by
alternative compliance. There is more than 50 units obligated access, which will require
that alternate compliance through our private street standards and, then, in the narrative
of the application and on this concept plan the -- the applicant had specified that they may
want to provide lesser -- or smaller balconies for the residents in the apartment portion of
the development. And, again, that is also eligible for alternative compliance, which are
all staff level approvals. So, again, the use itself at staff level. Any deviations from those
standards would only require staff level approval. The applicant also went into great detail
as far as what the architecture is going to look at -- look -- look -- be as part of the
development. So, giving you a representation of what the apartment complex is going to
look. The restaurant component, which fronts onto that open space in the Five Mile Creek
and the pathway and, then, here is some of the attached units and the single family units
with, again, that cohesive design theme that we envision in a mixed use area. One of the
items that I did point out to you in your staff report is this -- again, this is part of a
subdivision that was recorded in the county. There are parcel boundary lines that need
to be shifted to, again, a property boundary adjustment, which is a staff level approval,
and there is platted easements that were created with that subdivision. Because the
applicant's not subdividing the property at this time and only requesting annexation, those
platted easements that were created with that subdivision in 1983 had to be vacated. So,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2020
Page 34 of 50
although we are vacating the right of way, we have a vacation application to vacate right
of way tonight, that vacation is separate -- a different vacation process from vacating a
right of way process. So, there is a DA provision that they need to get that completed
prior to getting any approvals from the city moving forward. Because this property's been
here for a while and the city has some -- it's -- what's interesting about this property is
there is some existing sewer easements on some of the parcels as well and that does
impact some of the site design and the applicant's been informed of that and been asked
to reach out to Public Works prior to the City Council hearing, so that we can make sure
that what they are proposing will work for not only you, but also the city. So, if I can just
highlight -- if you can see my cursor here. So, currently there is an easement that runs
east-west through the property here. It goes across one of the lots and, then, when it's
in that unnamed right of way it's in right of way, so the applicant's going to have to work
with the city. If the right of way is vacated he is going to have to create a separate
easement document in favor of the city to maintain access to our utilities and, then, also
along the west boundary of the site, a portion of it right about midway up to the site along
this west boundary here, there is an existing trunk line that runs through the development
that serves portions of south Meridian. So, that can't -- it's going to be difficult and
expensive to move that trunk line and so that was conveyed to the applicant that we need
to -- typically on those types of easements we would like a gravel road, so that the vac
truck can get to the manholes. But the applicant's going to work and see if they can
landscape that -- somehow enhance that as part of the development, realizing that they
have to maintain that access for Public Works. You also notice in the staff report I also
noted that the applicant's proposing 22.8 percent open space. Again, this is conceptual
at this point. Don't have any open space exhibits to demonstrate that. But moving forward
and a recommended provision in the development agreement is that the applicant comply
with the UDC standards as far as open space and site amenities. Some of that -- and
amenities that they called on the concept plan include a clubhouse, a fitness facility,
restaurant, spa, salon, internal walking trails, a pool, open grassy areas, a community
garden and also various sports courts, bocce ball, putting greens. So, you can see that
they are actually gearing towards that retirement lifestyle, if you will, and trying to provide
a rich amenity package for this proposed development, which staff is, again, supportive
of. The applicant will have to go through that process and comply with standards and
make sure -- we will verify all that with the certificate of zoning compliance process. So,
one thing unique about this development is it is still classified as multi-family in our -- in
our zoning code and so the one thing that I want the Commission to at least take under
advisement this evening is the amenity package and the open space, because that is a
very critical component of our multi-family developments that we hear over time and time
again at these hearings is what's the open space, is there enough, and certainly when we
get into 164 units, like this particular development, it doesn't fall on the staff to make that
determination, it falls onto this body to make that determination and that's why I highlight
that for you this evening, because I can tell you the open space and, then, amenities is
greater than what code allows, but we want to make sure that the applicant does have
some sort of commitment to what they want to do on the site, not just, well, we may want
to do this, we are thinking about that. We at least want to have something -- some
certainty from the developer as to what they are really going to commit to as far as open
space and that amenity as we transition to staff level approvals. In the staff report I did
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2020
Page 35 of 50
note that there was some public testimony for you to take under consideration and,
hopefully, you had a chance. Again, a lot of it -- most of it was in support of the project.
Staff did not receive any written testimony from the applicant on -- on the application, but
we are recommending approval with a development agreement and with that I conclude
my presentation and stand for any questions you may have.
Holland: Bill, one question. So, on the -- the slide you just flipped from with the individual
units, they would be for rent, not for sale? Is that my understanding? Because, otherwise,
they would have to go through a plat process? Or because it's multi-family they are
exempt from doing that?
Parsons: Yeah. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, the way the code defines
multi-family is just the number of units on a single parcel. It doesn't speak to design.
Holland: Sure.
Parsons: So, in this particular case, yeah, those would be for rent. We have discussed
the possibility of them coming back later and subdividing it and, then, selling off the units
and the concept plan that they provided had some preliminary lot lines on there with
setbacks, because they want to make sure what they are proposing here works --
Holland: Right.
Parsons: -- and if they wanted to subdivide it, but at this point it's not their intent to sell
these off at this time, but they will, as far as I know, rent those out to 55 and older
demographic.
Holland: Thank you, Bill. Any other questions for staff? Commissioner Grove.
Grove: Madam Chair. Bill, during a lot of the Comprehensive -- that whole 18 months or
whatever, a lot of time was spent on this section and one of the biggest pieces of
conversation was about connecting Locust Grove to Eagle in some form or fashion with
a -- with roadways and being able to address how that is considered over the long term.
With this development it looks like it eats up a major portion of where -- where that would
be possible moving forward. Did staff take a look at that concept in relation to this
development?
Parsons: So, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Grove, we did
and that's -- and we were very upfront with the developer that our primary purpose -- one
of the objectives with this development is to make sure that that stub street -- if you see
the concept plan here -- this mouse isn't going down there, but that -- that is going to be
a stub street. He is going to dedicate right of way to make sure that when -- if and when
that adjacent subdivision redevelops in the future, consistent with our plan, and they --
they -- something else happens there other than a county development, that that road
would punch through and tie back into Locust Grove. That is a critical component to this
development and the applicant is going to work with ACHD. As I mentioned to you, this
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2020
Page 36 of 50
is probably the design that it's going to look like, but through a license agreement they
are still going to dedicate the right of way and, then, through a license agreement they
will be able to do some of these improvements and use that until such time as the road is
extended is how that usually works.
Grove: Thank you.
Holland: So, the one follow up to that, if -- if that was the case that Wells would get
extended in the future, could we make a condition that no lots would have driveways
facing Wells?
Parsons: Certainly. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, yeah, absolutely. We
don't want anything fronting on that, because it will become essentially -- essentially a de
facto collector. At that point you open that up to Eagle and Locust Grove you are going
to get some traffic through there. So, yeah, I don't think -- I can see what you are saying
with those one units fronting on there, they could maybe orient them differently.
Something the applicant could maybe address for you this evening.
Holland: Sure.
Parsons: It's a good thought.
Holland: Thanks, Bill. Any other questions for staff? With that I will have the applicant
come forward and share with us a little bit. Is the applicant here? Trying to decide who
is going to speak. You drew the short stick. If you wouldn't mind stating your name and
address for us I would appreciate it.
Sammis: Yeah. Madam Chair, Commissioners, my name is Clay Sammis. I live at 133
Simpson, in Ketchum -- Ketchum, Idaho. I didn't -- I apologize, I was talking to my
architect. So, I'm here to answer questions. But if -- is that -- is that what your -- did you
have questions?
Holland: We would allow you to -- you have got up to 15 minutes if you have anything
else you want to share beyond what staff shared with us.
Sammis: We are going to tag team this together.
Holland: Perfect. If you wouldn't mind stating your name and address for the record for
us as well.
Garner: Madam Chair, Commissioners, thanks for letting us be here tonight. Jeremy
Garner. My address is 489 East Lockhart here in Meridian. Before I forget, though, my
partner reminded me -- I want to thank the homeowners that we have been working with
in both Woodbridge and Locust View Heights. They have been very supportive of us.
We did go through the process of doing several neighborhood meetings and we have
been the beneficiaries of becoming what we hope to be really good neighbors within --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2020
Page 37 of 50
through this project. So, obviously, the concept for this plan -- Meridian continues to be
a destination for retirement with the mild climate and we feel that this project here is -- is
very well suited for what we want to do and how much we feel strongly about this particular
product and how well it will do here. So, obviously, the -- Bill did a good job laying out
exactly what we want to try to accomplish with this -- with this product and you will notice
that -- I'm glad he talked about the open space and the amenities, which I think hit on
what really is needed in this -- in this valley and for this particular target market, which we
feel very strongly about as well. So, stand for any other questions that you may have.
Unless we are missing something, but --
Holland: Any questions for the applicant? I believe we will have some public testimony,
So, we will give you guys a chance to come back up in a little bit if we have more questions
for you.
Garner: Sounds good. Thanks.
Holland: Thank you. Appreciate it. Madam Clerk, I believe we have several sign-ins for
testimony tonight.
Weatherly: Madam Chair, we do. We have seven people signed up to -- that signed in,
but none wish to testify.
Holland: Is there anyone in here that would like to testify? I see one hand in the back. If
you want to come forward. That's okay. If you didn't sign in you can still come forward
and we will just have you put your name and address on the record and you have got
three minutes to share with us.
McKinley: Okay. Maybe it will take longer, since I don't know how to work this. I can't
really see this very well, but I would like to -- I would like to try. Could somebody --
Holland: If you wouldn't mind go ahead -- if you wouldn't mind pulling the microphone
down towards you and, then, saying your name and address for the record.
McKinley: Monica McKinley. 1080 South Torino Avenue and I'm in Meridian.
Holland: Okay.
McKinley: I would like to start out by showing you where I live, but I don't know how to
work this. Could somebody please tell me how to click back into the -- the bigger picture?
Hopefully this won't take away from my three minutes. Nope. Nope. Right there. That
one right there. Okay. This -- this piece of -- this R1 that is right here that is adjacent to
here, I believe this is the subdivision that they said that they had contacted and may --
and that they were working with it. Am I correct in saying that? Okay. This is my house
right here. I have lived here for 25 years. We have not been contacted by them
whatsoever. He just stood up and stated that they -- they have had neighborhood
meetings with us. That is not true. We have not had a single neighborhood meeting with
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2020
Page 38 of 50
them. He has not contacted anybody in -- in -- in my neighborhood. As far as I know they
have contacted these four homes right here and that's it. So, we were not given any
notification at all about what they were doing. Tonight is the first time that I have been --
that I have seen any of the development. This is the first -- I haven't even been contacted.
The only reason that I know about this is because I was told by one of these four people
that this meeting was coming. So, for them to stand up here and say that they have had
meetings with our neighborhood, that's not true. For them to say that they have been
working with us, that's not true. They may have had contact with -- with maybe one or
two people on this back lot, but that's not -- that's not true at all. I would specifically like
to talk about this stub street -- this stub right here. I am not necessarily opposed to any
of this, other than the -- other than the rental part. If -- if it's rentals versus people
purchasing -- seniors purchasing, that's a different story. But this stub street right here is
very important to me, because in the Comprehensive Plan -- how do I go back? I don't
know what I did.
Holland: Bill, can you click back two slides for her. One more.
McKinley: One more. Yeah. Thank you. So, in the Comprehensive Plan they have a
provision to put a road right through my front yard that goes as a frontage road right
through I-84 that would -- that would connect and go right here. So, if our neighborhood
were to have a meeting with the developers, we would -- we would want to make sure
that there would not be any stub roads out this direction, because we do not want to be
annexed into the city. We do not want to be -- we want to remain R1 and this has been
a big contention as -- as Mr. Parsons probably is very well aware of and as he stated --
he stated that -- you also stated that there were empty lots. Could you, please, tell me
where the empty lots are? When you made your -- when you made your statement you
said that there was empty lots to the west.
Parsons: Sure. No, ma'am. I just to the north. I said the north had single family residents,
but to the east were the vacant lots and the single family residents.
McKinley: Okay. Okay. All right. All right. I misunderstood then. I thought you meant
-- so, anyway. So, my public testimony is that -- is that we were not -- we weren't -- we
weren't -- we were not given any kind of notification that this project was being done at
all. We weren't notified and -- and if this is to be approved this evening at least some of
us in here that we would like to be notified and we would like those stub -- the stub roads
removed in the plans and we want to make sure that -- that the -- this -- this portion here
-- oops. What -- this -- this -- why does it keep doing that? I'm trying to -- this -- this --
this portion right here remains open space and not a road, because we don't want a road
here through our subdivision and we do not want these -- this stub road here. That affects
our house.
Holland: We are past time and I really appreciate your --
McKinley: All right.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2020
Page 39 of 50
Holland: -- your comments and --
McKinley: Do you have any questions?
Holland: I will answer a couple of -- of the questions that you had. So, if you are located
on the -- the west side of the Locust View Subdivision --
McKinley: I'm in Locust View Subdivision.
Holland: Correct. So, they have -- whenever there is a development that comes forward
they have certain noticing requirements they have to meet by code. So, they are required
to post signage on their sites and they are also required to do a 300 foot radius of the
proposed property -- proposed development boundaries. So, it's likely that you were
outside of that 300 feet, which is probably why you didn't receive any notification.
McKinley: Well, they are only -- we are all one acre parcels. So, there are 60 -- there is
63 parcels in -- in this square.
Holland: Right.
McKinley: There is 63. So, when they say that they have notified our subdivision, that's
not true. And when he says that they were working with our subdivision that's not true
either.
Holland: They are required to hold a neighborhood meeting for anybody that receives a
postcard within the 300 feet.
McKinley: We did -- they did not have any -- they did not have that.
Holland: Well --
McKinley: There was no neighborhood meeting.
Holland: I appreciate your comments.
McKinley: Thank you.
Holland: Thanks for being here. Is there anybody else that would like to testify? Please
come forward.
Rennison: My name is Pat Rennison and I live at 990 Mustang Street. My backyard is
adjacent to this development and I have written a letter in support of them. It is true that
people on the west side were not sent the cards, only the Mustang Street, we are the only
ones that received postcards for this and they have had two meetings and some of us did
attend -- on Mustang Street we did attend those meetings and so that has -- also Ryan
and Glenna Newby that are about three doors down from Mrs. McKinley, they sent out a
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2020
Page 40 of 50
news e-mail that this was going to happen tonight and several people have come tonight
in support of this subdivision. We are happy and we do agree with Mrs. Newby, though,
that -- Mrs. Newby. Oops. Mrs. McKinley that that stub street we do not wish that to go
through and we don't -- eventually I know that was in the Comprehensive Plan, we have
been very active for over a year now since February 12th of last year of not having a
through street come through our subdivision. Because at this point we are a contained
subdivision with only the one street in period and it has made it a very cohesive
neighborhood. We have four families that are three generations in our neighborhood,
where the children have grown up, their children have married, come back and are now
raising their children in the neighborhood and that is one reason we don't want it to be a
thoroughfare. So, thank you very much.
Holland: Thank you. Appreciate it. Last call. Anyone else like to testify? We have got
one more hand in the back. If you wouldn't mind stating your name and address for the
record.
Valdez: My name is Barbara Valdez. I live at 2220 East Continental. I live in Locust
View Heights Subdivision. About the middle of the subdivision. I would withdraw my
letter of -- of approving of the subdivision based on the fact that this sub road would, as
Pat has said, destroy our subdivision. We indicated our approval for the subdivision,
because Cadillac Drive would not have been extended with this development. We were
unaware, either in the presentation or in our maybe failure to study the development, but
a stub road was included in it. It was not emphasized and I emphasized to developers
that we wanted to preserve our subdivision. No notice was made. No attention called to
the stub road, which was a major feature changing our entire subdivision. So, as much
as I'm able to approve of that subdivision or support it for environmental reasons, for
preserving stream, for construction of buildings themselves, I cannot support it because
of the effect on traffic, of quiet neighborhoods, and the fact that the diversity that's
represented by their piece, Woodbridge piece and our piece is -- would be lost and it
would become a victim of commercial development, which none of us really buffering one
another would benefit from.
Holland: Thank you. Appreciate it. Before the applicant comes back I might just take a
second to answer a couple of the questions that were -- were concerned here. One note
is having this development come in does not change the zoning of the neighborhood in
Locust View Heights and nor does it put a road through there. The stub road is something
that's typically required from ACHD and they certainly would have to -- this development
would have to meet whatever standards ACHD would require, but it's -- it's simply that it
would be a stub road that would end and the road would not go through unless there was
another redevelopment to happen. So, if the neighbors decided they wanted to stay in
their one acre lots, there would be nothing that would change that in the future, unless
they were to sell and a new developer would come in to build something there. So, just
wanted to put that out there. This doesn't mean -- putting a stub road there doesn't mean
that it's going to be a road that goes through Locust View Heights, it just means that if it
was ever to redevelop a hundred years from now, there would be the ability to have
interconnectivity with the road to the east. So, I just wanted to -- to point that out there
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2020
Page 41 of 50
as a comment. And I know I talked a little bit about the public noticing process, but
developments are required to do a 300 foot radius for where the postcards go to. They
do have to have their neighborhood meetings. They have signs posted on the property
saying that they are going to come forward for a rezone or for an annexation. So, it's
always unfortunate if you live outside of that boundary and you haven't heard about it, but
I'm glad you were able to be here today so you could share some of your thoughts with
us, so we appreciate that. With that I will ask the applicant to come back forward if they
would like to address any other further concerns, have other comments that they would
like to share with us. And if you wouldn't mind stating your name and address for the
record again we would appreciate it.
Garner: Yes. Jeremy Garner. 489 East Lockhart, Meridian.
Sammis: Clay Sammis at 133 Simpson, Ketchum, Idaho. I'm feeling horrible, actually,
because our proposal is exactly kind of what the -- what the neighbors at Locust were
talking about. We have a cul-de-sac currently in the southern portion -- if we could pull
up the site plan. I don't know if I go back one or forward. But there is a current cul-de-
sac not shown here in order to access our site. I have always represented -- we have
been representing that there is an extension of the right of way for extending the cul-de-
sac. We are trying to get it to be a hammerhead. ACHD -- to just elaborate on the deal
points with ACHD, they have just today agreed to do a cul-de-sac with a hammerhead
within it. So, the hammerhead meets the fire code, which we already worked out with the
building fire marshal and -- and, then, the cul-de-sac will meet ACHD. So, I, too, believe
a fence at the end and a little bit of landscaping right at the end, because of the
unforeseen time that this would be extended, if it would be extended when -- 30, 40 or a
hundred lots get purchased and a road gets put through all at once. Again, that's -- that's
where we landed. That's what I have always represented. So, we have extended our
cul-de-sac to access the houses on the west side of the property and I think, again, you
have already elaborated on a couple meetings we had and I believe my last statement
addresses my representation to Mrs. Valdez and, then, also for Mrs. McKinley. Do you
have any --
Garner: If I could just say as well, we -- we followed all the regulatory guidelines for
noticing through the whole process. So, I apologize if we -- if we weren't clear on -- on
any of that, but I think we have -- we have met those standards in our application process,
so --
Holland: Appreciate that.
Sammis: Do you have any other questions for us while we are here or --
Holland: Any questions for the applicant? No one's jumping up and down to ask
questions, so I think you guys are set.
Garner: Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2020
Page 42 of 50
Holland: Thank you. Appreciate it.
McCarvel: Madam Chair?
Sammis: Thank you very much. And, again, thank you for staff and Bill. I didn't get a
chance to -- to thank both the Commissioners and staff for working on this project with
us. And the neighbors. Thank you.
Holland: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: Madam Chair, I move we close the public hearing on H-2019-0127.
Holland: Got a motion.
Pitzer: Second.
Holland: Motion and a second. All those in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT.
Holland: Commissioner McCarvel, do you want to go first?
McCarvel: Sure. I love this. I think this looks like a great addition into this area. Kind of
just exactly what it needs. It is -- I know we have had some, quote, multi-family proposals
in this area before, but this is night and day from what was proposed a few years ago up
around the corner. Even though it's technically multi-family, I think it's beautiful. I think
it's in the right location. I love the amount of green space and close to everything. I mean
having senior living arrangements close to all the medical and a lot self contained as far
as activities and even a restaurant limits traffic even more going from back there. I do
think it is important. I -- you know, that street that is going to be a dead end street, but
preparing for what may happen 20, 40, 60, 80 years in the future. I think it's important to
keep those -- those ways open for potential, otherwise, you close everything off
permanently. But I love it. With the -- and with the open space and especially our Chair's
comments about putting in the -- that no lots face Wells, just for those exact future options.
Pitzer: Madam Chair?
Holland: Commissioner Pitzer.
Pitzer: I -- I agree with Commissioner McCarvel. I love this. I mean this is a great concept
plan, not only that it's -- it's close to medical. I think I want to move there myself. You
know, it's -- it's beautiful. I -- I -- as far as the stub street. Don't sell your property then it
won't go through. But, yeah, we need to plan for the future. But this is -- I -- I have no
negative comments for this project as I see it.
Holland: Thank you. Commissioner Grove.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2020
Page 43 of 50
Grove: I'm pretty interested in this. I mean, you know, sat through a lot of the
Comprehensive Plan, seeing the mixed use designation used, in particular in this fashion,
that fits with the dynamic around it in terms of other residential, commercial, hospital
roads. I -- I think this makes sense and it's well laid out, well thought through. I really like
how they have thought of the different aspects to make this function as an entire concept
coming in and I like the open space as well, especially along Five Mile Creek. So, I'm
definitely in favor of this project.
Holland: I would echo a lot of the comments made. I always like seeing mixed use
concepts and I like that there is a lot of amenities here. One thing Bill mentioned in his
staff report is that he would like us to give some specifics on what amenities and open
space we would like to see if this moves forward, because if they are -- the only -- it will
not come back in front of us as a plat, it will just be this development. So, that might be
something we want to consider. I would still stand on -- on not wanting to have any lots
face Wells, just for long term planning sake, but, again, I stand by the comments I made
earlier that there is no intention for that road to go through right now. There is no -- I
mean I don't see that road going through in even five to ten years, unless somebody was
to sell their lots and see something else come through there. It's not going to be
immediate. It's just planning for future in case that ever happens at some point. So,
again, same -- same comment, if, you know, those one acre lots stay in place there is not
going to be a need for a road to go through there, it's only in case that there would be a
development that happens at some point in the future, whether that's 50 years from now,
a hundred years from now, two hundred years from now. They could stay exactly the
same with no -- no changes there. So, I -- I always appreciate when we get comments
from the public. I want to thank you for the letters of testimony we got. I want to thank
you for the folks that have shown up here to wait it out with us until 8:00 o'clock in the
evening on a Thursday night. Overall I like the concepts as well. I like that there is lots
of walking paths throughout the neighborhood. It seems like an adequate transition from
residential that's there. It's not going to be a -- it's targeted at 55 and older, I believe, for
the entire development. So, it's not going to be a super active area with lots of kids
running around. It will -- it will be a quieter subdivision and I think it's a nice transition for
what's in the vicinity. So, with that -- I don't know how we quantify what amenities and
open space we want to see in there, but I know in the staff report there was a list of what
types of amenities are required in multi-family developments and some comments that
perhaps we could give a recommendation of how many of those we wanted to see come
forward.
Pitzer: Madam Chair?
Holland: I think Bill had a --
Parsons: Yeah. Madam Chair, Members of -- of the Commission, certainly you can do it
multiple ways. One is -- and I was hoping you would ask the applicant what they would
commit to, but you can open it up and ask what they are willing to commit to as part of
the record and we will move forward with that or you can look at the list there and say you
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2020
Page 44 of 50
like all of them or the ones that got to be there they have to be there and we can include
that in the development agreement.
Holland: So, yeah, I wish I had asked that question before, too.
McCarvel: Madam Chair?
Holland: Commissioner Pitzer. I'm sorry. Commissioner Pitzer I think had a comment
earlier, too.
Pitzer: Thank you. Madam Chair, can I ask Bill. Is -- is keeping the balconies and the
patios, is that something that we could put in as part of it?
Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, certainly. I mean the way the code
is written right now the multi-family units have to have a minimum square footage of
private patio or open yard -- some kind of front porch patio and it's 80 square feet. So, if
you want all the units to have that or comply with the -- right now the code -- the way I
have the DA structured says you comply, unless you go through the alternative
compliance. So, if you want to strike that from the DA provision you are welcome to do
that and I can tell you what DA provision that is and what -- and what to get rid of if you
don't want them to seek that.
Pitzer: Okay. And for the multi-story that -- that -- that holds true for the multi-story?
Parsons: Yeah. It would be for -- for -- all the units have to meet that standard.
Pitzer: Okay.
Parsons: The single family style and the apartment style. Let me look that up for you
really quick.
Pitzer: Okay. Thank you, Bill.
Holland: Thanks, Bill. Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: I would be open to opening the hearing again to -- some commitments from
the applicant on amenities and open space.
Holland: I would certainly entertain a motion if you would like to do so.
McCarvel: I -- so moved.
Holland: Motion to reopen the public hearing to hear just from the applicants on open
space. Do I have a second?
Grove: Second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2020
Page 45 of 50
Holland: Do I have a second.
McCarvel: I will second it.
Holland: You can't second.
McCarvel: I know.
Holland: It's seconded. All those in favor? Any opposed? Would the applicant, please,
come back forward and speak with us a little bit about open space.
Parsons: So, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, while the applicant comes
back up for some additional testimony, it looks like it's DA provision E and it would be
item number three, multi-family private usable open space standards. You would want to
strike that from that DA provision if you want them to comply with the 80 square feet.
Sammis: I could speak to the -- the open space, which I guess addresses -- really it's
intended for -- but I like the term open space, because --
Holland: Would you mind stating your name one more time just for the recorder. I
appreciate it.
Sammis: Yeah. No. Thank you. Clay Sammis.
Holland: Thank you.
Sammis: We -- we are near double the open space. So, we have taken some areas that
would normally be on balconies and created gatherings -- I'm going to speak specifically
to the apartments, because I believe we can meet the 80 square feet on all the cottages.
It's just the apartment, if you think of 80 square feet where you might have a four foot
deck -- that's a 20 foot long deck. I think -- we can't afford 20 foot long decks per unit.
We do have a deck per unit. So, we -- we can -- we can have a deck for each unit and
many of them are on the ground floor that -- that may spill out to become more than 80
square feet, but -- but I think the design in my mind reads well. It's broken up well with
balconies and we don't have an entire line of -- the whole frontage being balconies. So,
I -- I would ask you to consider allowing us to work with staff to come up with good design
and decks that work functionally for these seniors, but aren't, you know, four by 20 feet
long, because typically on this type of multi-story building you don't cantilever out or go
out, you know, ten -- ten feet for a deck. So, the other was on the amenities. It's probably
a number, because we -- I can't -- we won't commit to, you know, doubling the amenities,
but -- but just by the nature of the senior housing and our -- and our use and our 55 plus
and the way we have laid out this, that's what's going to separate us from the competitors.
That's what's important to us is fitness, the hiking trails for the outdoor, for just mindful
awareness and good health and -- and so including -- and typically we would have a spa
and salon and you can speak to -- the fitness center is its own building. So, yes, that's
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2020
Page 46 of 50
intended to be a fitness center and clubhouse for -- for the north. I know that we can meet
and exceed the amenities, but specifically which ones I would love some flexibility and --
Holland: Sure.
Sammis: Maybe it's a quantity that we are talking about.
Garner: Madam Chair, Commissioners, Jeremy Garner. 489 East Lockhart. Meridian.
Having been in the industry -- senior living industry and -- and knowing on an apartment
style, multi-family style complex like this, you will have a certain number of residents who
-- who don't want or would rather have the space inside per se than to have an actual
outside patio. But for those folks we have on -- on particular floors we will have
surveillance decks or -- or outdoor areas that they can actually go out and look over
certain parts of the area north of there. So, there will be public access to places in the
building where they can actually go out and look and not necessarily have one in their
individual unit per se and we would like the flexibility to be able to offer that. And, then,
as far as amenities go in order for us to be competitive I think we -- we go well beyond
what the requirements are in the development agreement -- or what's in the code currently
with what we are trying to offer here and I think the open space, obviously, is one that we
really feel strongly about. It kind of goes back to what our vision mission statement is for
-- for what we want Andorra to be and we really do feel very strongly about the fact that
there is a therapeutic concept to having outdoor space and to being outdoors and so it
really does play into what we want to utilize as our marketing strategies and having this
be a place for people to really want to be a part of.
Holland: And I think all of us see that you have got an interest in having really nice
amenities and a really nice subdivision or concept here. What would you feel comfortable
with on number of amenities that we would put in there? And I think it's just to have a
safeguard moving forward that things wouldn't change after it moves out of here.
Sammis: Offhand at six to eight.
Garner: Yeah. I think -- I mean if you are -- if we are calling like the spa, salon, the fitness
area, the, you know, outdoor pickleball, walking paths -- I think six to eight is probably --
I think we can exceed that, actually, but if you could keep it at that, then, we can really
probably work with you on that.
Holland: So, would you feel comfortable if we said we wanted to make sure we saw 20
percent open space and six amenities, that would be reasonable to you?
Sammis: We have always represented the way we understand the code to be, to hit like
20 percent. Not having done an exhibit I guess I can look back at the architects, you
know, and -- but -- but, again, they have done just the exhibit based on the site plan. So,
we haven't -- you know, for all the areas that count or don't count or -- and it's back to the
amenities. Like our amenities might be -- you know, might have 12, but you -- per the
code you might only call those eight. So, that's kind of where I'm -- I kind of -- I kind of --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2020
Page 47 of 50
I would want to say we can do near double, but to say absolutely we have 20, I mean
that's -- it's --
Holland: Sure.
Sammis: -- we should have ten percent cushion from what we have calculated, but I
would -- I would ask for something in between, if you could consider that, so we have a
safety net and we will strive for 20. We are currently sitting at 22. If it's calculated the
same way we did it, well, then, we made it, because we don't intend to peel back that
open space.
Holland: Great. Any other questions for the applicant? I think that's it. Thank you,
gentlemen.
Garner: Thank you.
Sammis: Thank you very much.
Holland: With that I need a motion to close the public hearing again.
McCarvel: Madam Chair?
Holland: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: Move to close the public hearing on H-2019-0127.
Holland: I have a motion. Do I have a second?
Pitzer: Second.
Holland: All those in favor? No opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT.
Holland: I think after hearing what they -- they said, I don't know that I need -- I feel like
we need to strike the DA -- E-3 requirement. I think letting them work with staff to find
packages that would be appropriate or -- it seems fine to me. Because I think having an
800 foot balcony on each unit seems like a lot --
McCarvel: Eighty.
Holland: That's what I meant. Eight hundred feet would be really a lot. That would be
quite some engineering, so -- I would love to see what that would look like. Yeah. Eighty
feet would be -- I would say let's just let them work with staff on the decking per unit,
because it sounds like their intent is to have a deck on each unit and have some other
viewing areas and I would much rather see larger --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2020
Page 48 of 50
Pitzer: Yeah. Madam Chair, I -- I agree. I was just concerned about another development
we went through and we didn't have anything in there and it was zero.
Holland: We could certainly look at putting a condition that says we would like every unit
to have a deck and leave that at that. I don't know that I even want to get that close. But
I would just say I would rather have them work with staff to find an appropriate solution
that meets code and creates a nice product.
Pitzer: I agree. I think if we follow the concept that we are looking I -- I would feel pretty
good about that.
Holland: Yeah.
McCarvel Madam Chair?
Holland: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: I agree. I think they know their market and I think working with staff and to
have some apartments -- I mean that just have -- maybe have more indoor space rather
than outdoor and use of the common and I agree -- the representation of this -- I think the
only reason to have to put in the number of amenities and open space is -- just to
safeguard. I think they are going to do a fabulous job and just since we don't get another
stab at this, then, I think that's the only reason.
Holland: And I struggled on whether or not we should put a percentage on the open
space. I said 20, because they have proposed 22.8, but, again, that wasn't calculated
with an actual plat, so I'm not sure what would count as acceptable open space. But, Bill,
if you have any thoughts there.
Parsons: Yeah. Yeah. My spider sense went off, so I figured I better chime in. Difficult
for 20 percent and I'm going to tell you why. It's because the calculations. There is a
ratio there and don't have all of those details yet, so I don't know if they are going to come
in at 18 percent, 15 percent, 22 percent -- it just -- it's -- it's up in the air right now. That's
why in the DA provision I said they just need to comply with code, because we don't know
what that number is. I don't know what's qualified as open space and what isn't at this
point. In the multi-family standards it has to be 20 by 20 and 400 square feet to count.
So, we are going to have to measure between each of the units and figure out what that
is. So, I don't want to commit to a solid number. All I wanted to do is just bring it to your
attention that we do have a higher quality development and -- and a very rich amenity
package for this development. We are talking a clubhouse, multiple sports courts, all of
those things meet the criteria of a multi-family development. I just don't want things to
happen where -- for example, we have -- we have an expectation for a clubhouse and all
of a sudden we are getting a plaza with a gazebo. That's not an equal life or like amenity
and that's happened and we want to make sure that doesn't happen in this particular
case. I -- yes, I have a -- I have worked with the developer, I understand their commitment
here, but I wanted something definitive. We are going to do a fitness facility. We are
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2020
Page 49 of 50
going to do a clubhouse. We are going to do a pool. We are going to do -- and they have
to do the pathway. They are going to do inter-connected walkways. I agree. They have
to do that. They want to link -- that's part -- part of the mixed use standards. You have
got to connect this development and make it integrated. I don't see that changing. What
I get concerned with is just watering down things once they start crunching numbers and
figuring the actual costs out and this -- like you said, this is a pretty -- pretty nice project
and if you guys are comfortable with what -- just saying as proposed, we can do that and
we can figure it out later and work with staff or work with staff -- or say even ten or 12
amenities isn't going to get it done for me. I mean I -- their concept plan calls out these
amenities and so I'm not sure where the salon and spa falls into that. To me that's just
more of a function of the use for -- for that. So, I don't know if I would classify those as
amenities per the multi-use standards or multi-family standards and open space
standards. But certainly all the other things that they are proposing I certainly would
classify as that. Again, the concept plan calls out those things. If you want to tie them to
that it's certainly within your purview. If you are comfortable with what I have, them just
complying with code, and we can work those out, I'm happy with that as well. I have got
it covered either way.
Holland: Thanks, Bill.
McCarvel: Madam Chair?
Holland: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: Bill, is saying some verbiage such as amenities and open space as
represented by the applicant, does that get you close enough to some teeth into this or
not?
Parsons: I don't want to get in a situation where staff has to go back to the public record
to figure out what your interpretation was. We need -- we need to have black and white
on these -- this development agreement, because we don't have another bite at the apple
unless it gets -- I mean, obviously, the agreement can be amended. What we can do is
moving forward to City Council the applicant can bring forward a more detailed list for
them to take under consideration. That may be the more flexible route to go at this point.
McCarvel: Okay.
Holland: And I think one thing we could do is, you know, with certain amenities that they
have listed here that we think are non-negotiables, so I would say I feel comfortable
saying we would like to make sure that they come back with at least six amenities,
including a clubhouse, a fitness facility, walking trails, open grassy areas and if we wanted
to name a couple other things, whether you want the restaurant, the pool -- I know
restaurants can be tough in a development like this, so I don't know that I want to
necessarily tie them to that. It could end up being that they just do a coffee shop there at
some point. Or, you know, maybe they find that a neighborhood store makes more sense
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2020
Page 50 of 50
for some of the residents -- some sort of convenience location. I want to leave that up to
their interpretation, too, but --
Parsons: Exactly. It could be a business center if somebody wants to run a business out
of there. You just don't know at this point. There is a -- there is a lot of options here that
they just don't know -- the market is going to drive that a little bit and they are going to
know that better than we will.
Holland: But I think if we want to be specific in including a couple of those things, I would
say making sure we have a clubhouse, fitness facility listed, connected walking trails with
open grassy areas, those are the ones that seem most important to me and that they
would have a minimum of six to eight amenities.
McCarvel: Madam Chair?
Holland: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: Do we have a thought on the amount of open space you want to tie this to?
Holland: I don't think so. I think you leave it to what code requires and have them work
with staff.
McCarvel: Okay.
Holland: Any other thoughts? I would certainly entertain a motion if someone wants to
try one.
McCarvel: Madam Chair?
Holland: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
recommend approval to City Council file number H-2019-0127 as presented in the staff
report for the hearing date of March 5th, 2020, with the following modifications: That no
lots -- with the addition of no lots facing Wells and that the open space meet minimum
code and close to represented by the applicant, along with six to eight amenities, including
clubhouse, fitness center, and trails with open grassy areas. To work with staff on the
remainder.
Holland: I have a motion. Do I have a second?
Grove: Second.
Holland: All right. All those in favor? Any opposed? Andorra Senior Living is moving
forward to Council. Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 5, 2020
Page 51 of 50
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT.
Holland: With that I believe we just have one more motion of the evening.
McCarvel: Madam Chair?
Holland: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: I move we -- we adjourn.
Grove: Second.
Holland: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor? Any opposed? All right.
Meeting adjourned. Thank you.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:25 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
_____________________________________ _____|_____|_____
LISA HOLLAND - VICE-CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK