2020-05-07 Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting May 7, 2020.
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of May 7, 2020, was called to
order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Ryan Fitzgerald.
Members Present: Chairman Ryan Fitzgerald, Commissioner Lisa Holland,
Commissioner Bill Cassinelli, Commissioner Andrew Seal, Commissioner Rhonda
McCarvel, Commissioner Nick Grove and Commissioner Patricia Pitzer.
Others Present: Chris Johnson, Adrienne Weatherly, Andrea Pogue, Bill Parsons, Sonya
Allen and Joe Dodson.
Item 1: Roll-call Attendance
X Lisa Holland X Rhonda McCarvel
X Andrew Seal Nick Grove
Patricia Pitzer X Bill Cassinelli
X Ryan Fitzgerald - Chairman
Fitzgerald: So, at this time I would like to call to order the regularly scheduled meeting of
the Meridian Planning and Zoning meeting for the date of May 7th and let's start with roll
call.
Item 2: Adoption of Agenda
Fitzgerald: Thank you, Madam Clerk. Just a quick rundown, see if we can run this
through real quick on how we are going to run things via Zoom. On your screen you will
see the Commissioners who are present for this evening's meeting. Also on the call you
will see city staff, the city attorney's office, and staff of our Planning Department will be
on the call to present and help us with the applications. Everyone else that is online on
the Zoom call are attendees. You may observe the meeting and we can see that you are
here. However, your ability to talk and be seen will be muted. During the public testimony
portion of the meeting you will be unmuted and able to comment. As we mentioned before
we are going to try to make sure everybody has the ability to be on screen if you would
like to be and so we will work with the clerk's office to take care of that. The clerk will run
the presentations for the applicant, any other presentations that were submitted by the
public, and, then, they will also assist with presentations if there is a need. Please raise
your hand via the bottom -- there is a -- kind of participant area. You can raise your hand
in the participant button down below that will allow you to raise your hand and ask the
clerk if there is a question, so we can stop and get you squared away. When public
testimony is open the clerk will call the names of those who have signed up to testify on
our website. You will be unmuted and the chair will call you individually. Please make
sure you state your name and your address for the record and we will give you three
minutes to address the Commission. I do believe we have one HOA at least that -- one
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 4 of 148
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
May 7,2020
Page 2 of 60
of the representatives to give them a full ten minutes to speak on behalf of Stetson
Estates. Once all the folks who have signed up in advance are called I will also open it
up to make sure we call on who -- anybody who else is wishing to testify that hasn't been
called in. If you do have an issue, as I said, raise your hand and, then, Chris will take
care of you. We will stop the meeting and make sure you are taken care of. If you are
listening on multiple devices, a computer and a phone, please, make sure the ones that
you are not using to speak through are muted, so we don't have an echo. And, then, after
we do close the public testimony we are not able to take additional public testimony -- or
public comment. Excuse me. It allows us to just -- to deliberate and make a decision
hopefully. And so with that we will move on to our first item on the agenda, which is the
adoption of the agenda. We don't have any changes on the agenda tonight, so can I get
a motion?
McCarvel: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: I move we adopt the agenda as presented.
Holland: Second.
Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as presented. All those in
favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Item 3: Consent Agenda [Action Item]
A. Approve Minutes of April 23, 2020 Planning and
Zoning Commission Meeting
B. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Good Apple
Taphouse (H-2020-0036) by Rob and Carmen Bienapfl,
Located at 1728 E. McMillan Rd.
Fitzgerald: Second item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. We have the approval
of minutes for the April 23rd, 2020, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and the
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Good Apple Taphouse, file H-2020-0036.
Any changes or things need to be pulled out for that? Okay. Hearing none, could I get a
motion?
McCarvel: So moved.
Cassinelli: Second.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 5 of 148
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
May 7,2020
Page 3 of 60
Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to accept the Consent Agenda as presented.
All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Item 4: Action Items
A. Public Hearing Continued from March 19, 2020 for Victory
Commons (H-2019-0150) by BVA Development, LLC,
Located at 130 E. Victory Rd. and 3030 S. Meridian Rd.
1 . Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 12 building lots on
16.74 acres of land in the C-G zoning district
Fitzgerald: Very good. So, moving to the first item on the Action Item agenda is a public
hearing that was continued for March 19th, 2020, for Victory Commons, file H-2019-0150,
and let's start with the staff report. Bill, do you want to take this one, sir?
Parsons: I do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. First item on the
agenda this evening is the Victory Commons preliminary plat. The site consists of 16.74
acres of land, currently zoned C-G in the city limits. There is two parcels as part -- and
they are being resubdivided as part of the preliminary plat this evening. One parcel's
address is located at 330 South Meridian Road and the other parcel is 130 East Victory
Road. You can see in the slide before you this evening in the future land use map, the
zoning map, and the aerial map, you can see on the FLUM's designation that this property
is commercial and on the zoning map it is currently zoned C-G, which is consistent with
that future land use map. Chris, if you want to go to the next slide, please. So, history
on this site -- or excuse me. I'm sorry, Chris. Could you go back one slide, please. So,
the adjacent land uses -- to the north we have office and residential, zoned L-O and R-8
and R-4. To the south we have residential. So, an R-15 and R-4. To the west we have
office, zoned L-O, and to the east we have residential zoned R-4 as well. History on this
particular property. It was annexed in 2003 and went through a combined preliminary/
final plat at that same time. It also received development agreement approval with the
original annexation in 2003. In 2019 the applicant brought forth a development
agreement modification that the City Council took action on and they, essentially,
replaced the original DA with a new DA that currently governs the site. In the last several
months the city staff has approved three administrative approvals on this site for an urgent
care facility, a retail paint store, and a flex building, which is all consistent with the concept
plan that was approved with that development agreement. Next slide, please. So, the
applicant is here this evening to discuss a preliminary plat consisting of 12 commercial
lots on 16.74 acers of land. You can see in this exhibit before you this evening that they
are proposing to develop it in two phases. The area highlighted in red will be phase two
and the --which is the southern half of the development and everything north of that would
be developed with phase one. You can also see that I have highlighted the proposed
access points for the development. I would let the Commission know that the access
point along Meridian Road, which is oriented towards the south of the slide, was re-
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 6 of 148
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
May 7,2020
Page 4 of 60
positioned from the northernmost portion of the project to this current location here and
that did receive city approval and ITD approval for that access to be relocated in this
location. It will also be designed as a right-in only access point. The applicant is required
to construct a center median in Meridian Road, along with providing a northbound
deceleration lane into the proposed development as part of ITD mitigation measures. The
access onto Victory Road, which is oriented to your east or the right-hand portion on the
slide is a full access to Amity Road. ACHD also provided comments on this application
and they stated that given the amount of trips generated for this proposed development
that the roadway is operated within operable thresholds as anticipated consistent with
their policies and, therefore, no additional road mitigations are required to -- or excuse
me -- East Victory Road. Next slide, Chris. The applicant is required to do landscaping
in accordance with UDC standards. So, for the landscape buffer along Meridian Road it's
a 35 foot landscape buffer, which is an entryway corridor and, then, along Victory Road
is a 25 foot landscape buffer and those -- the landscape plan that was submitted with this
application did not include the buffer requirement along Victory Road here. You could
see the southern half it's labeled as not a part, when, in fact, it needs to be revised and
included as part of phase two for this particular development and the applicant's
conditioned to modify their plan and include a 25 foot wide buffer along Victory Road.
The other -- as I noted previously in my presentation is this property does abut residential
uses along the northeast and east boundary of the site. The UDC does require a 25 foot
landscape buffer when you have commercial land uses -- or zoning up against residential
zoning. Typically that buffer is constructed with lot development. So, although the plan
shows it along the northeast portion, that will not happen until actual development occurs
on that development. If you also look at the eastern side of this project here, you can see
that the plat does not incorporate a 25 foot wide landscape buffer. The applicant has
been conditioned to do that on Lot 9, Block 1, and, again, that would happen with lot
development. Conceptual building elevations were not submitted with this application,
but they were provided with a development agreement that was recently approved by City
Council. Nothing to share with the Commission at this point, other than the fact that we
have approved -- again we have approved three CZCs for this site to develop three
buildings consistent with their phasing plan. That development is occurring in the
northern half of the development and they did meet -- their elevations that were approved
did comply with the architectural standards manual, the amended development
agreement, and the standards in the UDC. I also wanted to note to the Commission that
I had a chance to view the public record this evening and did identify that public comments
were provided on this application from Kurt Warner, Jeff and Pam Layton, and Jerry
Pollard. After reviewing that information it was clear that they were providing comments
on a project that the city has not even processed yet, so it looks like a neighborhood
meeting was held for the property on the southwest corner of Meridian Road and Victory
for some apartments, but, again, we have not had an application submitted. So, those --
the comments that were provided as part of that public record for this project aren't
relevant to the project that we are talking about this evening. The project that we are
talking about this evening does not have a multi-family component. It is all proposed and
slated for commercial development in the future and that is consistent with their concept
plan that was approved by City Council a few months ago. So, staff is recommending
approval of this applicant -- application as -- with the conditions in the staff report and I
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 7 of 148
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
May 7,2020
Page 5 of 60
would also note that staff did not receive any comments from the applicant, but all
indications are they are in agreement with the staff report as well. With that I will conclude
my presentation and stand for any questions you may have.
Fitzgerald: Thanks, Bill. Appreciate it. Any questions for staff?
Cassinelli: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: Bill, I have a couple. First of all, without seeing any elevations, can you give
us an idea -- are these all single story?
Parsons: Yeah. Commissioner-- Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Commissioner
Cassinelli, that's -- that's a good point that you bring up. If you had a chance to read
through the staff report -- and particularly the Comprehensive Plan section, we were
looking for compatibility with the adjacent residential subdivisions. There were some
neighbors that were opposed to the DA modification when it went forward, because they
were concerned about the buildings blocking their views and so as part of that process
the City Council did add a provision to the recorded development agreement that restricts
the height of the buildings on this site to no more than 35 feet. So, everything in here --
although could that be a two story building? Yes. But, again, the maximum height limit
in this particular development is restricted to 35 feet, consistent with a residential district.
Cassinelli: Okay. And another -- another question there. There is a -- on the -- I guess
it would be the north -- the far northeast corner of that parcel -- and I'm not sure off the
top of my head what phase that's in, but there is a path from the adjacent subdivision
there. Is that going to be a path to nowhere or there is -- will that be -- will that head out
to -- to Meridian Road somehow? Do you know where I'm -- where I'm looking at?
Parsons: Just clarification. Mr. Commissioner -- or Commissioner Cassinelli. Is it the
northeast corner or their north -- the northern portion?
Cassinelli: Repeat that.
Parsons: Is -- are you talking about northwest -- northeast portion of this site or just the
north -- northern area in general?
Cassinelli: Well, it's -- I would say it's -- can't really point on this. It's -- it's -- if we are
looking at this slide here it would be on the bottom left of that slide, which I think would
be the -- in the northeast corner. No. Further -- so, is that -- is the other parcel not part
of it or has that been -- is that the additional phase?
Parsons: Yeah. Commissioner Cassinelli, the -- the portion highlighted in red is the
phase two line.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 8 of 148
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
May 7,2020
Page 6 of 60
Cassinelli: Okay. So, then, I'm talking -- so -- so, if that's phase two, then, phase one --
where you are at right now with your -- your pencil, go to -- go up above that just a little
bit. So, when you get over to there -- right about there there is a path coming in from --
from there. There you go.
Parsons: Perfect. Yes, I -- so, Commissioners, Commissioner Cassinelli, yes, as part of
that DA amendment that was required to be extended into this development and ties into
the pathway network along Meridian Road.
Cassinelli: Okay. Thank you.
Fitzgerald: Additional questions for staff?
Seal: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal.
Seal: Just a quick question on the phasing in the -- essentially how the -- the two access
points to it. Is there a condition -- struggling to find where -- there is a condition to,
essentially, make sure that those two come through and meet in the middle? Or the
access is granted from either one of them? I mean is there -- I guess my concern is that
phase one goes in and it's, you know, two or three years down the road and there is still
only that one access point and all of a sudden we have all these businesses in there. So,
is there something in there that basically requires that that second access is granted as
part of phase one?
Parsons: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, there is a requirement in the staff report
in a development agreement to get cross-access with the entire development. So, the
way it's structured now staff is supportive of the phasing plan as proposed by the
applicant. The Fire Department is going to determine whether or not a secondary access
is going to be needed based on the square footage that develops on the site and also if
you -- if Chris can go back to the presentation and go back to the plat, slide number two
of the preliminary plat, the developer also has a cross-access with the C store along --
and so there will actually be two access points to Meridian Road with the first phase. It's
just that -- that letter-- that later access to Meridian -- or Amity may or -- excuse me. To
Victory may be a little bit longer, but it's still -- there is still dirt road and if the Fire
Department needs emergency access the applicant owns the property, so they have the
ability to make that happen.
Seal: Okay. Thank you.
Fitzgerald: Any additional questions for staff?
Holland: One more question, Mr. Chair.
Fitzgerald: Go right ahead.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 9 of 148
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
May 7,2020
Page 7 of 60
Holland: Bill, the caveat that you mentioned about landscaping buffers needing to be
adjusted, I'm assuming we capture that in the staff report and we wouldn't need to include
that in a motion; right?
Parsons: That is correct. Yeah. The recorded DA actually requires a landscape buffer
to happen along Victory Road with the first building on the site and that's currently under
construction. So, the applicant's going to have to get the plan amended and get it to staff
pretty quick, so they can get that built per their development agreement.
Holland: Thanks, Bill.
Fitzgerald: Any additional questions? Mr. Wardle, welcome, sir.
Wardle: Good evening. Can you hear me?
Fitzgerald: Yes.
Wardle: All right.
Fitzgerald: Please give us your name and your address for the record and the floor is
yours, sir.
Wardle: All right. So, I'm Geoffrey Wardle, I am counsel for the applicant on this
application. My address is 251 East Front in Boise. We are glad to be here in front of
you. I think Bill did an excellent job of describing what -- what we have proposed and --
and the background. We think the background of this site is -- is pretty important. So, if
you could click to the next slide. In 2003, 2004, as he indicated, it was annexed into the
city, was zoned C-G with a development agreement. The development agreement and
the zoning at that time were consistent with the then existing Comprehensive Plan, which
had designated the area for commercial development. The DA was amended in 2006 to
make some technical changes to some of the design elements, because the original
developer of this had a western theme for the entire project and in conjunction with that
2006 amendment, the original Mussell Corner Subdivision was platted. So, if we can
move on, we had modified the development agreement from the original 2004 and 2006
through a process that we went through with the City Council last year and that was done
primarily for two reasons. One, to eliminate the requirement for western themed
construction and, two, to modify the site plan. In 2019 a new development agreement
was recorded reflecting the changes for what, essentially, is a replat and a redevelopment
of the remainder of the Mussell Subdivision as Bill outlined. In that development
agreement significant conditions of approval were imposed addressing the issues of
height, addressing the issues of screening, the buildings and mechanical systems located
on the buildings and addressing the issues associated with connectivity to the
neighborhoods to the east. Next slide, please. The modified site plan contemplated and
was approved as -- as depicted, with the intention that the first phase of this project have
a variety of retail components and flex office, flex light industrial uses. As Bill indicated,
essentially, if you look at this site plan, the northernmost building is an urgent care for
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 10 of 148
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
May 7,2020
Page 8 of 60
Saltzer Medical Group. That is under construction and both a CZC and building permit
were issued. A -- the paint store that he discussed is the southernmost building there on
the left against Meridian Road. And, then, we have initiated the application for the first of
those flex buildings, which is the northern -- the northern element. Next slide. So, with
that modification we replaced the prior 2004 and 2006 development agreements as to
this portion of the property. We modified the site plan. As Bill indicated, we modified
access, because historically there had been access in that project at the extreme north
of the property and we worked with ITD and with the City Council on getting that modified
to the right-in, right-out that you have heard described farther to the south and we also
eliminated the requirement that it be western themed. Next slide. So, this preliminary
plat is in furtherance of the development agreement. It implements the site plan that was
reviewed and approved and attached to the development agreement and is a
resubdivision of Lot 2, Block 2, and Parcel A of the original Mussell Subdivision. The
original Mussell Subdivision is how the C store and other retail services that are located
there at the corner were constructed approximately ten, 12 years ago. Next slide. As Bill
indicated, the intention is to develop this in two phases. The first phase is the
northernmost piece. As Bill indicated, one of the original conditions -- or one of the
conditions from the 2019 development agreement modification was to connect the micro
path that exists currently from the subdivision to the east down through the property and,
then, onto the path system that exists adjacent to Meridian Road. That is conditioned
and is being constructed right now -- or will be constructed as part of the construction of
the urgent care, which is occurring right now. So, that pathway connection will be
completed this summer with the completion of the urgent care. As Bill also indicated --
go ahead. Next slide. Ultimately with this -- with this plat we are dealing with 16.74 acres
of land. It's a C-G zoning district. It's been a C-G zoning district for nearly 15 years and
we are proposing 12 new building lots with the northernmost piece upon Meridian Road
and the south located against Victory. When we come back with that southern piece
there will be some additional work that we have to do with staff, because the planning
associated with that didn't happen. But, again, there were condition -- I mean the ultimate
planning as to what structures are going there has not yet occurred, but in the
development agreement process we agreed and kept elements of the prior project,
including the existing landscaping and existing landscaped pond, as part of that element.
Next slide. Currently the northern most parcel -- the northern most lot -- what will be the
northern most lot is an urgent care for Saltzer Medical Center--for Saltzer Medical Group.
With that the access and the other improvements on Meridian Road will be completed.
The second retail use is just to the north of the existing retail portion of the prior Mussell
Subdivision improvements. Next slide. We are generally in agreement with the
conditions of approval. We agree with Bill that we need to make those modifications to
address the issues that have been done. We also agree that the conditions that have
been proposed by staff are consistent with the development agreement and are ready to
move forward with that, are in the process, once we are done with this preliminary plat
process, we will come back with the final plat for phase one and move it forward. Next
slide. So, conclusion, property is already zoned C-G. Those decisions have been made
by the City Council over the course of three development agreements in 2003, 2006 and
2019. The proposed buildings and the uses that we have outlined and that have been --
that are under construction or have been approved already with CZCs, are consistent
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 11 of 148
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
May 7,2020
Page 9 of 60
with your existing code and comply with the UDC requirements and we request approval
of this preliminary plat as conditioned and recommended by staff and with that I will stand
for any questions.
Fitzgerald: Thank you, Mr. Wardle. Any questions for the applicant?
Seal: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal, go right ahead.
Seal: Just a quick question on -- if I remember the piece of property right where the
existing residents -- residences are, kind of on the -- the northeastern side of the
subdivision, that is actually elevated from the piece -- from the property you are
developing; is that correct?
Wardle: That's correct. The property to the northeast is elevated and it sits on the other
side of an irrigation facility that has been tiled and that there is a fairly wide buffer there.
Seal: Okay. Thank you.
Fitzgerald: Additional questions for the applicant? Well, thanks, Mr. Wardle. We
appreciate it. We will come back to you if there is public comment and let you close, sir.
Madam Clerk, do we have anyone on the line that would like to testify on this application?
Weatherly: Mr. Chair, we had one other person sign up besides Mr. Wardle and that's
David Wyler.
Fitzgerald: Okay. If we can plug Mr. Wyler in.
Johnson: Mr. Chair, this is Chris. I do not see him in the attendee list, unless he is calling
in by phone. So, if you are in here, Mr. Wyler, if you could press the raise hand button or
if you are on your phone press star nine, we can identify who you are and get you able to
speak.
Fitzgerald: Hearing no -- Chris, can you give me a check on whether you are hearing
anything?
Johnson: I'm hearing nothing, Mr. Chairman.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Is there anyone else that would like to raise their hand via Zoom or hit
the star nine and click in that we would like to -- if you would like to testify on this
application. Hearing none, is there any additional questions for the staff or for the
applicant?
Cassinelli: Mr. Chair?
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 12 of 148
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
May 7,2020
Page 10 of 60
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: Bill, I'm not seeing any -- this is for staff. Bill, I'm not seeing any specific
numbers for parking. Are we -- are we -- where are we sitting at that? Are we just at the
minimums? Can you give me an idea on that?
Parsons: Yeah. Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. Certainly don't have any
numbers for you on parking. This app -- this particular project is zoned C-G, so as we --
we have discussed many times at the hearings, parking is always based on square
footage of commercial structures and so that's being developed and looked at when they
come in for staff level approval. We don't get into the weeds on what the parking count
is for a development when we are doing a subdivision approval. All we are doing at this
point is just creating parcel lines to allow the applicant the flexibility to change ownership
and sell off parcels as users come forward. And, again, staff is looking at that when there
is actually a use proposed for the site. So, I don't have any specifics for you at this time,
but all I can tell you is we have approved three buildings for the site and they wouldn't
have gotten approval if they didn't meet the minimum parking standards.
Cassinelli: Okay. Thank you.
Fitzgerald: Any additional questions? Mr. Wardle, do you have any additional comments,
sir? Do you want to close or -- do you -- are you good?
Wardle: We are good. Thank you very much.
Fitzgerald: Thanks, sir. Well, if there is no additional questions or comments, can I get
a motion whenever it's appropriate?
Holland: Mr. Chair, I move we close the public hearing and move to deliberation.
Seal: Second.
Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on H-2019-0150.
All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Fitzgerald: Okay, team, what do we think? Anyone want to take a -- take a shot?
Seal: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal.
Seal: I will throw something out there. I'm -- I really have very little to say about it. I
mean it looks like an appropriate use of -- of the land. I'm happy to see that there isn't
going to be a lot of school aged kids coming out of this. Some businesses. Looks like
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 13 of 148
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
May 7,2020
Page 11 of 60
they have taken care of their access points and providing what's needed for the Fire
Department to safely access as everything gets developed. So, I really see nothing in
here that's concerning to me.
Fitzgerald: I think I'm in agreement. Absolutely.
Holland: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland.
Holland: I like that there is a right-in, right-out on Meridian, because that was one of my
biggest concerns originally is that just Meridian Road is tough getting in and out of from
the highway, but I think they have done a nice smart site plan here. I would much rather
see commercial along this corridor than a bunch of multi-family or another housing
complex. I think it's a smart use. Seems to match what we have got in the comp plan
and I think really it's more of a formality for them to get the preliminary plat just so that
they can go off and subdivide the pieces of space, sell them off, and build them. So, I'm
-- I don't see any big concerns.
McCarvel: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: Yeah. I agree. I like that this is -- developing this commercial, I'm just -- I
guess wondering where I'm going to go get my trees now.
Fitzgerald: Yes, ma'am. Mr. Cassinelli, do you have any additional thoughts, sir? I think
I'm in agreement with all that's been said.
Cassinelli: Yeah. I'm -- no, I'm -- I'm -- I'm in agreement as well.
Seal: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal.
Seal: I will just throw out a motion here. After considering all staff, applicant, and public
testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council file -- file H-2019-0150 as
presented in the staff report for the hearing date of May 7th, 2022.
McCarvel: Second.
Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to recommend approval of file number H-2019-
0150, Victory Commons. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 14 of 148
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
May 7,2020
Page 12 of 60
B. Public Hearing Continued from April 2, 2020, for Teakwood
Place Subdivision (H-2020-0006) by Hesscomm Corp.,
Located at 1835 E. Victory Rd.
1 . Request: Annexation and Zoning of 7.35 acres of land with
an R-8 zoning district; and,
2. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 28 building lots
and 5 common lots.
Fitzgerald: Mr. Wardle, thank you for being here tonight. Good luck, sir, and we will see
you soon I'm sure. Moving on to the second item on the agenda, we have a public hearing
that was continued from April 2nd for Teakwood Place Subdivision, file number H-2020-
0006, and let's kick it off with the staff report. Joe, are you taking this one I believe?
Dodson: Yes, sir. That is correct. Sorry. I had to unmute myself there. Good evening,
Commissioners. Glad to be here. The project before you -- this is for Teakwood Place
Subdivision, for annexation and preliminary plat. As you can see on these maps, the
future land use zoning and aerial, we do have -- no. Wait. I did not correct those. That
is my fault. That is not the right pictures. I could have swore I did that. I apologize. Next
slide. The request before you is for annexation and zoning of 7.35 acres of land, with a
request to rezone the property R-8, and a preliminary plat consisting of 20 building lots
and four common lots to be built in two phases as proposed. For vicinity, this is near the
corner of Locust Grove and Victory Road. It's to the east of Locust Grove, just to clarify.
The gross density is 3.95 dwelling units per acre and the net density is 5.64 dwelling units
per acre, with the minimum property size in this development being approximately 4,900
square feet, with an average lot size of approximately 7,342 square feet. According to
the submitted plat, all buildable lots appear to meet the UDC dimensional standards for
the R-8 zoning district. The first proposed phase will provide all public streets and 24 of
the 28 proposed building lots. Access is proposed via extending an existing local street,
East Fathom Street, in the neighboring subdivision to the west, which is Tradewind
Subdivision, and that is the only access -- the only normal access into the property. An
emergency only access is proposed with phase one as well and they will connect the
extended local street, East Fathom Street, to East Victory Road and it is right along the
western boundary of the property. North on this preliminary plat is to the left of the screen.
The entry and access into the development will be via extensions of five foot attached
sidewalks on local streets. The micro pathway that runs next to the emergency access
road and connects to the front of the improvements on East Victory Road is also
proposed. Additionally, a small section of ten foot multi-use pathway is proposed to be
constructed on the Eight Mile Creek in the northeast corner of the property and will
eventually connect with the large open space near the center of the development. The
-- to be clear, the Eight Mile Creek is not on this property and so there is no discussion
regarding keeping it open or anything like that. It's not on their property. The applicant
is proposing to keep the existing home, some of its accessory structures, and its existing
access onto East Victory Road until phase two development and, then, an additional four
building lots will be developed with accesses onto the local street within the development
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 15 of 148
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
May 7,2020
Page 13 of 60
and not onto East Victory Road. In addition, the applicant is requesting that the existing
home does not connect to city services. Staff is not supportive of the phasing plan as
proposed. Staff recommends the development be constructed in one phase and the
applicant amend the plat to include the existing residence on its own lot and block in the
subdivision and require the home connect to city utilities with a new access to the
proposed extension of East Fathom Street or remove all of the existing structures
identified as phase two and develop the four additional lots as proposed. A minimum of
ten percent qualified open space meeting the standards listed in UDC 11-3GF-3B is
required. Based on a proposed plat of 7.35 acres, a minimum .74 acres of common open
space -- qualified common open space should be provided. The applicant is proposing
approximately 52,737 square feet or 1. 2 acres of open space or 16.47 percent, consisting
of a ten foot multi-use pathway, common lots with open space, and half of the arterial
street buffer to East Victory Road. The applicant's open space exhibit labels 42,000
square feet of that 52,700 square feet as qualifying, which is approximately 13.13 percent.
The open space is proposed to be available across both phases, with most provided in
phase one. However, staff notes that the open space calculation does appear to duplicate
area. It appears to include the paved emergency access and does not remove the paved
area from the temporary cul-de-sac that does not count towards any open space,
qualifying or not. And that temporary turnaround, as you can see, is off -- was on the
north side of the proposed entrance to the east. After removing redundant open space
and the paved areas on the common open space lots, staff calculates approximately
29,600 square feet or .6 acres and 9.25 percent of qualified open space, which is below
the minimum required ten percent. Staff removed the area for the temporary cul-de-sac
proposed on one of the common open space lots and the 30 foot wide emergency access
easement area from the open space. I did this because the emergency access easement
is not shown to be landscaped per UDC requirements and, therefore, staff does not find
it appropriate to include this area in the qualified open space. If the applicant were to
pave 20 feet of that 30 feet -- 30 foot easement as required for emergency access and,
then, landscape the five feet on both sides of it per UDC standards, that area could be
added back into the qualified open space calculation. In addition, if the required
temporary turnaround is flipped and placed on the south side of East Richardson Street,
and on one of the adjacent buildable lots more open space would be available to the
residents in this subdivision immediately. The temporary turnaround also does not have
to be a cul-de-sac, it could be a hammerhead type turnaround that would only make one
lot unbuildable until the road is extended, rather than two with the temporary cul-de-sac.
Staff recommends this change because there is little guarantee to the city that the
property to the east will ever develop and, therefore, little guarantee that the temporary
turnaround will not become a permanent turnaround and the development loses out on
that open space. Approximately 4,800 more square feet of qualified open space would
be added to this project with the recommendation regarding the temporary turnaround.
Following this recommendation and the landscape recommendation regarding the
emergency access, approximately 9,200 more square feet of qualified open space would
be added, making a total of 38,834 square feet, exceeding the minimum ten percent
required by code by approximately 6,000 square feet and staff has added conditions of
approval within the staff report for all of these comments regarding open space and
phasing and access. The applicant did respond to the staff report regarding this open
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 16 of 148
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
May 7,2020
Page 14 of 60
space and provided another revised open space exhibit. They removed some of the area
on the emergency access and they also added more open space to the large open lot in
the center, but that still does not address staff's concerns with phasing and the temporary
turnaround. But I do want to note that to the Commissioners. Next slide, Chris. Thank
you. The applicant also provided staff with conceptual elevations of the proposed single
family homes. The single family homes are depicted as mostly single story, with a variety
of finish materials, stone, stucco, brick, lap siding and combinations. Some homes are
also depicted with extra large garage spaces for at home RV storage. All single family
homes appear to meet design architectural standards. Upon review of the density
proposed use and the submitted elevations and request for the R-8 zoning and the density
proposed meet the future land use designation of medium density residential. There was
also multiple submittals of written testimony for this subdivision. Most of those dealt with
the single access point to the property being from the west and through Tradewind
Subdivision. Most of the concerns were, obviously, about increased traffic, safety, and
that--you know, the standard concerns regarding that. We did have some other concerns
regarding the multi-use pathway in the northeast corner of the property, but, again, that
is -- that is not going to be -- or impede on the Eight Mile Creek, because it is going to be
well outside of its easement and the Eight Mile Creek is not on this property. So, the
applicant cannot do anything with that. In addition, there is some concerns with pathway
connection to the subdivision to the south. The resident Mike McClure from the Tuscany
Subdivision stated that he would hope a connection could be made from their subdivision
to the south to this one. However, their existing pedestrian pathway is too far to the east
and does not abut the area of this property that is owned by this owner. It is actually a
different owner. So, unfortunately, that is not something that staff could condition. Overall
staff does recommend approval of the requested annexation and zoning with the
requirement of a development agreement and approval of the requested preliminary plat,
but only with the conditions of approval noted in the staff report. And with that I close my
presentation and will stand for questions. Thank you, Commissioners.
Fitzgerald: Thanks, Joe. And just to be clear, the -- the conditions you have written are
for approval. There is a lot that are there. Just to make sure we are clear, there are a lot
of things -- pieces, parts that are adding up to this.
Dodson: Agreed. Yes. I do recommend approval, but only with the conditions listed.
Staff does not support a multi-phased project at this time.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you for the guidance. Any questions for staff? Commissioner
Holland, you are muted.
Holland: Yeah. I know. I realized that. One question for staff. With the cul-de-sac the
way that it's laid out, it looks like there is a lot of different lots on that cul-de-sac. Were
there concerns from the Fire Department or were there any requirements put in the staff
report -- and I'm sorry if I missed this -- related to no parking on the street for that cul-de-
sac?
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 17 of 148
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
May 7,2020
Page 15 of 60
Dodson: From what I remember there is no specific conditions. However, that is a
standard comment made by Fire that, yes, that -- that entire cul-de-sac is going to be no
parking and that -- that does lead to the -- the standard concerns that we always have
with trash pickup and -- and parking in general on the street. But there is not a specific
condition regarding that, no, ma'am.
Holland: Thank you.
Fitzgerald: Any additional questions for staff? Hearing none, is the applicant with us?
Johnson: Mr. Chair, he's on his way in. He's coming into the panel list now.
Fitzgerald: Thank you, sir. And, Chris, who is that? Who is the applicant? I'm sorry.
Johnson: Dan Lardie is joining us.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Dan, I see you pop up there. If you will unmute yourself and, please,
introduce yourself and provide your address for record and the floor is yours, sir.
Lardie: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, Dan Lardie. Leavitt and Associates. 1324 1st
Street South, Nampa. 83651 . So, this evening before you -- first -- first let me say thank
you to Joseph. I know it's been kind of an interesting road, but he's been -- he's been
helping us out and we have been working back and forth on this particular project and we
finally made it to -- to hearing. So, with that -- let's see. So, the next slide, please, Chris.
So, I won't restate the staff report to you, but some key points on there. You know, the
proposed -- the proposed land use does -- does meet the -- the future land use map and
the comp plan. It is -- it's 28 lots total, with 24 being developed in the first phase. So,
with a little bit of history on that -- next slide, please. So, the -- the homeowner has lived
there -- and they live on the front there off of Victory. I can see their home -- I don't know
if I'm pointing or not, but up front along -- between the creek and the subdivision along
Victory. They have lived there since the 1990s. They have watched the ground develop
around them and now they have wanted to take on less responsibility and they want to
exercise their private property rights and develop their ground without being uprooted
from where they are. They have come to enjoy Meridian and their location there. They
prefer it. So -- which is the reason why we -- we are asking for the phasing request. The
phasing request allows the homeowner to live in their home because they enjoy it. The
majority of the project, again, will be phased in phase one. The homeowner would like to
continue to live on the oasis that they have -- that they have grown to love in -- there in
Meridian. The homeowner's driveway -- and they would like to maintain that driveway.
They are already in the park -- they are already in the traffic count for ACHD's traffic count
on this particular sub. They are not going to increase until they develop phase two and
phase two will take access off of the internal roadway. ACHD has granted of this
allowance. Also about the turnaround. The turn -- the turnaround on the -- the one that
heads to the east -- originally we had shown that as a hammerhead turnaround and we
submitted that to ACHD and ACHD did not allow the hammerhead turnaround, even
though it is what we discussed with staff originally. ACHD said, no, they don't believe that
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 18 of 148
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
May 7,2020
Page 16 of 60
that's going to be -- going to be developed anytime soon, so they would prefer that it be
a cul-de-sac turnaround. Next slide, please, Chris. Thank you. So, this is an exhibit just
showing the current phase or what we propose is the phase line -- and the buildings are
in red. The home is to the east with a garage and a shop as an outbuilding, with the
driveway connecting out to Victory. That's what their hope is is to have that stay like that
until phase two develops and phase two -- when phase two develops they will probably
vacate the home and, then, we will probably raze the home and all the structures on there
and perform the platting before -- plat the land as we see -- as you see before you. Next
slide, please. So, this is the revised open space exhibit that Joseph had alluded to in his
-- in his discussion. We have got -- we got staff's report and, then, we started looking at
it and flipping that cul-de-sac to the south, it encumbers those two building lots there,
which is probably too big of a burden to ask for the developer to -- because that basically
renders those two lots unbuildable and unusable until that road ever goes forth. It
connects to the east. And per the staff report they believe that it's not ever going to extend
to the east or make that connection. At least not for some time. This -- next slide, please.
The next slide is just the table that's on there. That way you guys can actually see it. It
was hard to read on the other slide. So, total acreage is 7.35. The open space is still
17.36 percent, but the qualified open space we would like to reflect that it's 11.14 percent
and, then, we have provided a clarification on the calculation there for staff. With -- with
that we would prefer that it get -- it get -- that if it does get approved this evening that we
do staff -- that we -- we make some modifications to the staff report and I sent these into
Joseph and they are not in record. It's a -- and I guess I should have put them in the slide
or here, but it's actually per Section 8 -- 8-1-B. We would like that to be -- request the
phasing as planned and Part C, existing home to remain with current utilities until phase
two develops. E. Closing the existing driveway to be -- excuse me. Existing driveway to
be closed with development of phase two. A ten foot multi-use path to be constructed
with the development of phase two. Major improvements to be constructed with phase
two and, then, the qualifying open space, 11 .14 percent. And, then, Part 8-A-2A,
temporary cul-de-sac is okay as shown, instead of incumbering the two buildable lots to
the south. And, then, 8-A-4A, temporary cul-de-sac okay as shown. With that we could
accept the approval -- or appreciate the approval of the staff report and that if those could
get modified that's what we request. Next slide, please. So, this is a picture of the
frontage of our property along Victory Road. This -- this is -- Victory Road is already --
so, that construction sign off in the distance, that's the -- that's about the edge of our
property and this irrigation structure that's up close to us, that's our western boundary.
So, this -- Victory Road has already been widened to its full width -- to its proposed full
width and there are mature trees up front and I just thought maybe you should be -- you
would be interested in -- in seeing that particular picture. I appreciate your time this
evening. I -- I appreciate your consideration for approval. With that I will stand with any
questions.
Fitzgerald: Thanks, Mr. Lardie. Is there questions for the applicant?
Cassinelli: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli, go right ahead, sir.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 19 of 148
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
May 7,2020
Page 17 of 60
Cassinelli: Dan, I didn't--didn't see a whole lot in ACHD's approval with regards to access
off Victory. Obviously, long term they are not allowing it, yet we have got access from the
-- from the north side of Victory. What were your conversations with ACHD to ultimately
have access -- not just for the existing residents, but for the subdivision in general to
Victory?
Lardie: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Cassinelli, the ACHD staff was supportive of not
having any internal access out to Victory and they stated that clearly in their staff report,
except for the fact that they would allow this driveway to remain until the development of
phase two. They said that the traffic was so limited and such little impact that they didn't
see a need to request the closure of it at this time, being how it's still the only -- the single
home that's accessing Victory.
Cassinelli: All right. Thank you.
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland?
Holland: I was just trying to -- I was trying to capture all of the requests that the applicant
had on modifications that they would like, but I'm loading the reply that they had to staff.
I think all those are written in there if I remember right. But I may come back and ask you
to recap that for us, just to make sure we don't miss what you were asking for, so we can
have it written down to discuss.
Lardie: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, thank you. I can surely address that again.
Fitzgerald: Thanks, Dan. Additional questions? Dan, I do have one. I -- the concern I
have on the -- the temporary turnaround, I understand you went to a hammerhead look
on that. The challenge I have is when we -- when we take away -- when we phase this
out the -- there could be a long-term impact for not having open space if we decide to
never do phase two. Can you comment on that? Because I think that's our -- or at least
my concern is we are going to lose control of it from the city side after this is -- you know,
phase plan goes in, we don't have control or have, you know, ability as a city to track that,
it never gets built out and there is -- then there is no real common area for the residents
in phase one.
Lardie: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Fitzgerald, the majority of that lot is already open
space and, yes, it does -- it only gains you 4,800 square foot of open space by when that
-- if that hammerhead ever -- or that roadway ever connects through and we -- and we
can recapture that cul-de-sac. The majority of this open space is in phase one. It -- it
doesn't have the -- the pathway connection, you are correct, out to Victory or the multi-
use pathway that is on lot -- it's really hard here -- I think that's Lot 5 or 6. But the
easement it will be grant -- or the easement could be granted there across that property
currently without -- without ever platting it, if that was -- if you so necessitate.
Fitzgerald: Thank you. Any additional questions for Mr. Lardie? Dan, we will come back
to you and let you close after public testimony, if that works.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 20 of 148
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
May 7,2020
Page 18 of 60
Lardie: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Fitzgerald: Thank you, sir. Madam Clerk, do we have individuals who would like to
testify?
Weatherly: Mr. Chair, yes, we do. The first one signed up -- I know she was on earlier.
We were having a hard time seeing if she's still connected, but that's Beth Williams. Beth,
if you are here can you raise your hand?
Williams: Hi. This is Beth Williams and David Andrus. We own 1975 East Victory and
we are the property to the east.
Fitzgerald: Go right ahead, ma'am.
Williams: Can you hear me?
Fitzgerald: Yes, ma'am. Go right ahead. Thank you.
Williams: My name is Beth Williams and David Andrus. We own the property to the east
at 1975 East Victory. We have the Eight Mile Creek and the road is dead ending into our
property. The questions that we have -- and our concerns are -- as I hear they say -- you
know, about our property and wanting to access our property and whatnot eventually
down the road, which I'm curious about and I think he just stated something about
requiring an easement on our property, which I'm hoping is not correct. But why we only
called in was to find out what the -- what the builder was going to do and if he was going
to build a berm behind our--you know, behind -- in between our property and the property
that he is constructing.
Fitzgerald: Ms. Williams, we will see if we can have the applicant address that in his
closing comment. Was there anything else you wanted us to be aware of?
Williams: I'm curious about how the road is going to dead end and who is going -- who is
able to access that road --
Fitzgerald: Okay.
Williams: -- when it dead ends.
Fitzgerald: Perfect. We will have him -- we will have Mr. Lardie address that when he's
closing his comments.
Williams: Great. Thank you.
Fitzgerald: Thank you, ma'am.
Weatherly: Mr. Chair, next we have Sandy Blaser.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 21 of 148
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
May 7,2020
Page 19 of 60
Fitzgerald: Ms. Blaser, are you with us yet? I see you.
Blaser: Yes. Thank you. This is the first time I have used Zoom, so --
Fitzgerald: You are doing well. We are all newbies as we grow through this. So, thanks
for your patience. Please introduce yourself and your -- state your address for the record
and the floor is yours, sir.
Blaser; Thank you. My name is Samuel Blaser. Or Sandy is my nickname. I reside at
3370 South Como Avenue. We are on the western abutment to the proposed
development and you have my -- a copy of the basic letter that I did. I did send in an e-
mail letter that you have for your records there. Two major concerns. The major concern,
of course, is Fathom. All of us that are in Tradewinds -- we have like approximately 40
-- 41 homes and we didn't expect to be subject to a situation where we are going to have
traffic that's total for almost 78 homes. So, that's a major concern for quality of life for us.
And the -- the other concern I have, which I think has been mitigated by the elevations, is
that I recommended or would like to see that whatever homes are on Como, most of
which are single story -- we have some two story -- that the homes on the Teakwood
development sort of mirror that -- that type situation where we have a single story abutting
to a single story on Como and there is a two story or a higher elevation that it -- that it
backs up to the two story homes on Como and those are really the only two concerns that
I have.
Fitzgerald: Well, we appreciate you being here tonight. Thank you for sharing your
concerns with us and we will have the applicant address that as well.
Blaser: Thank you.
Fitzgerald: Thanks, sir.
Blaser: Take care.
Fitzgerald: You, too.
Weatherly: Mr. Chair, last on our sign-up list is Patrick Thacker.
Fitzgerald: Mr. Thacker -- we heard from him earlier. Is he back on?
Johnson: He is now in the room. He may just now be hitting his unmute.
Thacker: Yeah. Can you hear me now?
Fitzgerald: Yes, sir. Mr. Thacker, we can hear you. Please state your name and your
address for the record and the floor is yours, sir.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 22 of 148
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
May 7,2020
Page 20 of 60
Thacker: Okay. My name is Pat Thacker. My address is 1033 West Newfield Drive,
Eagle, Idaho. I am an Idaho native and I represent the sellers, the people that want to
retain the phase two property and continue to live there. Mr. Chairman and
Commissioners, thank you very much for allowing me a little time to speak. The owners
are in favor of the project. They do want to see it go through. They are longtime residents.
They have lived in Idaho for years. I have known them for over 30 years myself. They
are getting on in years, but they do want to continue to live there and continue to have a
couple of their old mares and one of their shops. They are going to give up the barn and
a lot of the property and so their -- their concerns are the plat that we were looking at with
the open space is a little bit different than we were expecting to see. The Block 2 area
that's open space that goes around the partial cul-de-sac that everybody's worried about,
on the plat that we are -- we are -- we were working on with Mr. Hessing, we were
assuming that part was all included in phase two. So, that would be one issue. Now, the
sellers might be willing to accept the plat as proposed. We -- I would have to talk to them
and see if they -- they would be willing to give up that, because the way that currently is
that was going to be pasture and the fence was going to go along the edge of lots one,
two and three and, then, go around that cul-de-sac back over to the east to where Williams
and Andrus live. So, that part was going to be included in the preliminary plat that we
were expecting to see tonight. But we -- we might be able to work that out with the
developer, depending upon what is needed, but the main concern is that the remaining
open space that's needed that is on phase two, that that would not be required for them
to develop in any certain amount of time. They are -- they are moving on towards 70
years of age and I don't know how long they want to live there, but they want to live there
as long as they can. So, we would not want that to be a condition of development that
they have to develop within a certain amount of time. They also do want to keep their
existing driveway. They would like to keep their well and septic, although we are willing
to entertain issues as far as city services. I also spoke with Gary Inselman with Ada
County Highway District and I do know that he was -- he had no problem with them
keeping their driveway and when I spoke with ACHD they didn't want sidewalks on Victory
Road along the parcel that they are keeping, because they already just finished that, there
is a bunch of irrigation boxes and pipes along there and nobody could really figure out
how to mitigate those current issues for the irrigation systems that are in place for a lot of
the downstream players. So, those would be some of our concerns that we would want.
But we are in favor of the development. They have lived there since the '90s, but they
have been long -- you know, in fact I think Skip is a native. I believe Vickie is as well and
they have been friends of mine for well over three decades.
Fitzgerald: Mr. Thacker, can I ask you a quick question? I think the -- the concern I have
is -- with a couple things you mentioned is what -- it sounds like there -- there may be
disagreement or confusion with the -- who is -- who is developing the property and the
people who are selling it and the open space is a big deal for us, one. And, then, two,
when we annex something into the city, that's our one shot to get people to connect to
the city sewer and pay their piece of that and I know that's something you always want to
do, but that's -- this is our one opportunity to do that. So, I think the challenge we are
going to have is we don't have an opportunity to take a second run at that and so kind of
when you develop in-fill like this, you kind of got to do it all at once and you kind of got to
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 23 of 148
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
May 7,2020
Page 21 of 60
bite the bullet and go and so I understand the wanting to keep the house and we do that
a lot, but there is other pieces you kind of got to balance out.
Thacker: Okay. Yeah. You know what, they -- they would be willing -- because we have
talked to the developer about it and he was very -- very cooperative that if we have to he
-- he will -- he would help us and we would be willing to hook up to city services. So, that
would not be a -- something where we would put our pick in the ground and say, no, we
won't do it. That is something we would be willing to go along with.
Fitzgerald: Okay.
Thacker: So far we have had a real good relationship with the developer and the
engineers and I know sometimes -- especially lately it's been so hard to have meetings
where we can meet face to face and kind of work out issues and I was -- I didn't get to
the staff report as soon as I want and I hadn't seen this particular -- we had -- we have
had five or six different conceptual drawings and the current one is one of the ones we
had seen, but we were --we have gone back and forth on different portions, so that Block
2 that I believe is of Lot 4, we are also willing to make some compromises there for open
space and I know that when I spoke with the developer he was -- he was also willing -- I
haven't had enough time to talk to Dan. I know he's been busy and I have been busy.
But I know the developer was willing to go ahead and, you know, if they had to pave and
landscape that emergency exit and, then, maybe if we could modify the way Lot 4, Block
2, is for the open space for phase one, maybe we could take up part of that park that is
on -- that goes behind Lot 1 and 2 -- you can see where phase one and phase two -- that
line -- the very easterly most line that goes between -- it runs east and west, but it divides
phase one from phase two. If that line were continued straight out to the center of Lot 2
and we could grab that portion for phase two and leave the rest of that for phase one -- I
mean we have been working with the developer quite well. So, we would be willing to,
you know, work on some of those issues to satisfy both the city and the developer.
Fitzgerald: Appreciate that. Thank you. Any additional questions? Hearing no --thanks.
Really appreciate you being here.
Thacker: Can I -- can I -- can I just bring one -- one more thing up? On that open space,
if we can work out some sort of a compromise there, the one thing we do want is we don't
want a limitation on how soon the Richardsons would have to move or-- or develop phase
two, because they have lived there a long time, raised a lot of dogs and horses and babies
there, and so that's -- you know, it's their home and in the last, you know, like five years
they have spent a lot of money on a remodel, so it's a pretty nice house and it's pretty
specific for what they need in their -- you know, as they get older.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you very much. We appreciate that.
Thacker: Thank you very much for allowing me to speak.
Fitzgerald: Madam Clerk, do we have anyone else wishing to testify?
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 24 of 148
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
May 7,2020
Page 22 of 60
Weatherly: Mr. Chair, no one else has signed up, so I suppose we are at the point if we
do have anybody in the waiting room that has their hand raised.
Johnson: Mr. Chair, we do have Sandy Blaser.
Blaser: Yes. I just wanted to add just one additional comment that I didn't -- I didn't state
on my first time if I could.
Fitzgerald: Yes, sir. Quickly.
Blaser: Okay. I -- I agree that it should be a -- it should be planned as one phase rather
than phase one and phase two. I also really don't understand why we can't have -- why
ACHD is against having access -- having access to Teakwood from Victory Boulevard. I
just don't understand it. There are a lot of single family homes and small plots further
east that have access to Victory and I don't understand what their concern is. We are not
-- we are only talking about 28 or 30 homes and if we keep Fathom buttoned up we won't
have access out of-- out of Victory on their property. So, it would only be the homes -- it
would only be limited to the homes on their development. So, that's -- that's the only other
comment I wanted to add to my statement.
Fitzgerald: Appreciate it. Thank you, sir.
Blaser: Thank you very much.
Fitzgerald: Chris, did we have anybody else who raised their hand on that process?
Johnson: Mr. Chair, you have not.
Fitzgerald: Okay. With that is there any other questions for staff right now before I give
the -- Mr. Lardie a chance to close? Hearing none --
Dodson: Commissioner Fitzgerald?
Fitzgerald: Go ahead, Joe.
Dodson: Thank you, sir. Commissioner Fitzgerald, Commission, I just wanted to clarify
to both the representative of the sellers and to the Commission regarding this open space.
There have been multiple renditions of this open space exhibit and Dan has worked
tirelessly with me in order to try and get something that we would be willing to approve.
We are working to try and get more open space in phase one, because, again, we don't
know how long it would be until phase two. If there is a second phase, you know, in order
for that to develop, but I can assure you that staff is not supportive of taking further open
space away from -- from phase one -- as again -- and that is reiterated by the
representative for the sellers that it's probably not going to be anytime soon. So, having
that temporary cul-de-sac and, then, less open space on that lot really doesn't leave a lot
for these residents, because that other open space lot on the western portion is a drainage
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 25 of 148
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
May 7,2020
Page 23 of 60
lot, so it's not going to be really conducive to kids playing and kicking balls around and
things like that and, then, the one on the north is going to have a pathway in it, which,
again, more pedestrian foot traffic, rather than actual open space to be used. So, I just
wanted to reiterate that and -- and, hopefully, the representative of the sellers does
understand that this is one of many renditions that we have had and I apologize that it
hasn't been relayed to you, but we have been working to try to get this right for everybody.
Thank you.
Fitzgerald: Thanks, Joe. And, Dan, I think as we are preparing for -- to let you close I
think one of the concerns I -- and I will not speak for all of our Commissioners, but getting
everything finalized before we get here, because we don't want to act as your intermediary
between your seller and -- and what is final in front of us, so I will let you go ahead and
close, but I think there is some concern there that we are still in not final phase of what
we are seeing. So, in regard -- especially in regards to the open space issue.
Lardie: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, thank you. I was surprised to hear that the
representative of the seller was on this evening with the -- with the quote that he had. I
-- I was under the impression that my client had worked this out with them, had showed
them this and was very clear on what was needed or at least what the city had been
requiring. So, I do understand the reason to get things finalized before it gets to you,
because decisions are important. With that I can address Ms. Williams' concerns. No,
we are not planning on building a berm along the eastern boundary. There is a slightly
-- the lots will be slightly elevated from -- from the current situation, especially at the
roadway. So, the roadway would stop short and it would grade down to her property. So,
the road would be about four foot shorter and give us a chance to get back down to natural
ground on her side, maintaining all our drainage on our side. And let's see. So -- and
road access -- so, the road access -- again, ACHD will require us to plant a barrier and
place a barrier at the end of the road with a road -- a sign that says this road will be
extended in the future at some point in time. When that will be I'm not sure. The -- and,
then, Mr. Blaser's comments -- so, the traffic -- I apologize, I don't know what to do about
the -- the access out to Victory Road and Fathom is our only access. Fathom is the
access that this particular property has. It was granted by ACHD. I can't change ACHD's
mind as far as trying to get us access out to Victory Road. They were very -- they were
-- they were lenient enough to allow us the access to the existing driveway, because it is
already there. Let's see. The last one -- oh. And the proposed homes that -- so, the
elevations that were shown in the -- in the staff report are the homes that they are planning
on building or -- or at least similar in kind. They will maintain the Planning and Zoning --
they will make sure that they meet the ordinance for height restrictions in this zone. R-8.
I don't have it in front of me. I'm trying to remember what the height restriction is at this
particular location, but they are not going to build any skyscrapers. With that I can stand
with any questions.
Holland: Mr. Chair? And I know you're on mute, but if you mouth to me -- one of the
questions that was brought up was whether -- and I know you were talking about height
and differences of how they would align, but I think the question was can you pair the
single family homes with single family homes and the two story homes with two story
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 26 of 148
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
May 7,2020
Page 24 of 60
homes to make sure that they are compatible? And I'm sorry if you already said that, but
could you help kind of capture that for us again?
Lardie: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Holland, the homes -- again, you know, it's -- it's
not -- it's not normal. I mean it's not required in the ordinance for them to be paired
together. Most of these homes will be -- I believe will be mostly first -- or single story with
possible bonus room over the top. So, the height restriction -- or the height restriction is
-- is provided by the zoning ordinance and, you know, if-- if you wanted to put something
in the -- in the development agreement that would restrict their height further, I would
assume that would be your prerogative, but, you know, the homes that we are building,
they are -- they are going to be similar in kind. I don't know how to -- I don't know how to
go forth and tell people they are restricted to build a two story home next to a two story
home or a one story home to a one story home and I don't know the avenue to do that.
Does that help?
Holland: Thank you. I wanted to make sure that we addressed the question that was
asked, so I appreciate the follow up there.
Lardie: Okay.
Holland: One more follow up if I may, Mr. Chair. So, it sounds like there still might be a
little bit of a disconnect, which I know our chair mentioned here, too, between the seller's
representative and -- and the developer and I'm wondering if we should explore a
continuance for you, so that you can work out some of those things about, you know,
phasing and where the open space exists, because as we mentioned -- and I know open
space is a big deal for us and planning for it at some point in the future that is undefined
doesn't work very well when you have got an application like this in play. So, I don't know
-- I just wanted to get your thoughts on that.
Lardie: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Holland, if a continuance is -- is -- is valid, I would
certainly probably appreciate that more and I know my client would probably appreciate
that more than a denial at this particular point in time. No one likes -- no one likes denial.
Johnson: Mr. Chair? This is Chris.
Fitzgerald: Go ahead, Chris.
Johnson: Mr. Thacker, the representative for the homeowner, has raised his hand a
couple times. I know you have gone to the applicant, which closes that, but I wanted to
let you know he did have his hand raised in case you wanted to address -- allow him to
address you.
Fitzgerald: Fellow Commissioners, is that kosher? I mean I -- what I don't want to turn
this into is --we are negotiating --we are going to act as an intermediary. That's not what
I want to do. So, if we need to continue this thing out and let everybody go to the table
-- I know it's not easy right now that we can't be together, but we want to make sure we
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 27 of 148
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
May 7,2020
Page 25 of 60
are providing the best recommendation we can for City Council. So, what's the will of our
Commission? Because I -- I'm -- I'm leaning towards the fact that we are not done. We
are -- this has got some issues. I think Joe is concerned. I think there is some -- there is
some issues to be worked through and so instead of spending more time spinning, I would
rather either request a continuance and move this thing back to the -- the parties and let
them talk through it and, then, bring us back a final decision. My concern is that we are
not there on open space, we are not there -- I'm concerned about the road. I think there
is some cul-de-sac concerns, too. But what is the will of the Commission?
Pogue: Mr. Chair, this is Andrea Pogue from Legal.
Fitzgerald: Yes, ma'am.
Pogue: I would say that I would recommend the course of action you just proposed versus
allowing further discussion. That's just my input.
Fitzgerald: I'm -- that's where I'm leaning, but I want to make sure that my fellow
Commissioners are there.
Holland: Mr. Chair, I would agree. I think -- I don't want to open it back up and have a
discussion back and forth between the applicant and the client, so I think it would be better
to let them kind of spend some time working that out and come back to us with a solid
plan of what they would like to move forward with.
McCarvel: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: I agree. I think this just isn't quite ready yet.
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal, Commissioner Cassinelli, do you have any additional
thoughts?
Seal: Mr. Chair, I'm in agreement that it's -- it's not quite ready. I would like an opportunity
to have a few additional comments after the open hearing piece is done, but I think at this
point --
Fitzgerald: That's why I keep it open, so if you want to throw those in now I think it's --
because we will continue it and not close the public hearing, so --
Seal: Okay. Mr. Chair, just --just in looking at the -- I mean along with the other concerns
that are there, the phase two to me just has a very very unfinished feel to it. It just looks
like there was kind of some lines that were drawn on the map -- on the map to show that
maybe something will happen there in the future and it doesn't speak well to how things
are going to transition. The great big long -- big lots back there don't -- they just don't fit
in with the rest of it. So, I'm scratching my head on how -- how well that will work. I mean
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 28 of 148
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
May 7,2020
Page 26 of 60
the other part of this is there is nothing preventing them from just selling that piece of
property outright or willing it to somebody or something along those lines. So, I'm very
concerned about that transition into a phase two if they did do it in phases to begin with.
So, I just -- I think there is a lot of work left to do on this application.
Holland: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland.
Holland: If I can add a couple more comments. I would agree with Commissioner Seal's
comments there. I -- phase two looks a little bit funky to me as well and I think it would
be cleaner if they just made it one lot with the existing home that's on it and tie it in with
the subdivision as staff recommended and put it as one phase and if they decide to sell
that house at some point in the future and raze it for future development, they would come
back with another plan at that point in time.
Fitzgerald: Agreed.
Cassinelli: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli, go right ahead, sir.
Cassinelli: Yeah. I'm in support of a continuance as well and a couple of comments. I
have actually -- a couple of questions for Joe if I might. Joe, is -- what -- is there a
maximum allowable number of lots? And, if so, what is that? From one -- off a one
access. Because we have got one access point and it could be indefinite off of Locust
Grove.
Dodson: Commissioner Cassinelli and Commission. The limit, from what I understand it
for Fire, is 30 homes. However, this is -- this was not stated outright to me, but I'm using
some deduction here. The emergency access out to Victory Road is why that is there in
order to allow more than 30 homes off of the singular -- singular access through the
Tradewind Subdivision.
Cassinelli: Is there a -- is there a limit, though, even with -- not from -- not from the Fire
standpoint, but just from a development standpoint, based -- based on regular traffic. I
mean we have got that emergent -- that emergency access is there, but, again, that for
-- for Fire, but I'm just -- I'm talking about for regular -- from a regular traffic standpoint.
Dodson: Commissioner Cassinelli, Commission, I do not honestly know that off the top
of my head if there is a limit. I believe there are limits to whether or not there are a number
of homes -- if it's a -- one cul-de-sac, so to speak. So, it was just a straight cul-de-sac.
In our subdivision code that I just pulled up it does say cul-de-sac streets may serve a
maximum of 30 dwelling units. However, where that street begins and where it-- it is kind
of a question mark here, you know, because technically if we are doing just the -- the
entire subdivision, then, we are under that 30 homes, because as soon as you get into
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 29 of 148
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
May 7,2020
Page 27 of 60
the Tradewinds you have additional streets. So, we are walking a fine line there. Just
wanted to be clear on that.
Cassinelli: Okay. And the other -- the other issue I have if -- if -- assuming that we
continue here, if-- I would like to see some additional information, because I don't -- from
ACHD the only traffic studies they have are on -- the only numbers they have are -- are
Victory. We are not even accessing Victory here. There is nothing on Locust Grove. So,
if you could encourage -- reach out to ACHD and the next time we see this have -- have
some information on Locust Grove that would be helpful. If you could, please.
Dodson: Commissioner Cassinelli, absolutely. Understandable on that one. That makes
sense. Thank you.
Cassinelli: Thank you.
Holland: Mr. Chair, one other thought for consideration.
Fitzgerald: Absolutely. Go right ahead.
Holland: My only other concern looking at this way out the way that it is is the cul-de-sac.
It just looks like an awful lot of homes based off of one cul-de-sac and I know we always
have issues when we look at trash enclosures and where is everybody going to put their
-- their carts. People will park on the road even if there is signs that say don't park on the
road in cul-de-sacs. It just tends to be a challenge. So, I don't know if you are -- you are
reconfiguring and looking at things, I might ask you to consider looking at how that cul-
de-sac is laid out and see if there is a way it could be reconfigured to have a few less
homes off of just a big cul-de-sac entrance.
Dodson: Commission, if I --
Fitzgerald: Any additional comments? Sorry.
Dodson: No worries. Commission, this is Joe again. May I offer another --
Fitzgerald: Yes. Go right ahead, Joe.
Dodson: This is more to Ms. Beth Williams' comment. I'm just wanting to --when it comes
to development and providing a stub street to a property -- I apologize, my laptop is -- all
right. The -- we are stubbing it, we would -- it's proposed as stubbing to her property and
I think her question was more in concern that somebody else is going to develop her
property and just to be clear for everybody on that, that her property could not be
developed until such time that she were to develop it or sell it off. So, just wanted to be
clear for that and there would be a barrier there that people would not be able to drive
through her property and, then, also to clarify for her, the easement that he was speaking
to -- that Mr. Lardie was speaking to was regarding the multi-use pathway that is on this
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 30 of 148
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
May 7,2020
Page 28 of 60
property and not her property. It is -- it is on this property along the open space and along
the Eight Mile Creek. Just --just wanted to clarify that for her.
Fitzgerald: Thanks, Joe. I think that's important. I appreciate that. My next question to
you is going to be really not very fun. When do you want to do this again? I -- Dan, are
you still on?
Lardie: Yes, Commissioner. Yes, I am.
Fitzgerald: I would guess that you are going to want this as soon as possible. Our -- our
calendar is crazy, so is it first available is what you are thinking, Dan?
Lardie: Unless you have something sooner, Mr. Commissioner.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Dan, I hope you got what we were -- kind of the gist of the statements
that are coming around. Do you have any questions?
Lardie: I do have one comment, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Holland, the cul-de-sac-- you
know, the code actually requires a certain amount of frontage along the cul-de-sac. I
know -- I know what you are talking about as far as the parking and we try not to commit
-- or create any hassle, but they do all -- all those lots do meet the dimensional standards
set forth in the code. Not that that helps any.
Holland: You know, one thought to consider, if I may, Mr. Chair. I have seen some cul-
de-sacs where they bulb it out a little bit bigger, so that they can put kind of an island in
the middle for some parking. That might be something to consider that would be helpful,
if there is a way to -- I don't know, just kind of reconfigure that a little bit if you are looking
at the layout. Just a thought. I mean it's just a suggestion, but we will be excited to see
what you come back with us.
Lardie: Commissioner Holland, thank you for your input. I really do appreciate it.
Holland: Thanks.
Fitzgerald: So, Joe, with that information in hand, when do you think, looking at your
schedule and the schedule of our upcoming meetings and special meetings -- so, we
have got stacked up, when is the next available time frame we can be adding this to the
list?
Dodson: Right. I mean it depends how much you want to bury me or not. I have two --
Fitzgerald: That's not my intention.
Dodson: Understood. Yes. I have two on the June 4th already. I have two on the June
17th already. Or 18th. Or whichever one that next is, so -- and, then, I have also
additional meetings every week of May and into June. So, we are very busy. I don't --
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 31 of 148
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
May 7,2020
Page 29 of 60
don't know if doing it now or later is going to make that big of a difference for my workload.
I do have, I admit, two conditional use permits on the 4th. So, I guess adding this to then
would be easier than bumping it to the -- the next one, which has some bigger projects.
Fitzgerald: Any other special meetings? Do we have anything going on the 27th? Is that
the next meeting?
Dodson: The 28th? Yes, I also have two on that one.
Fitzgerald: Okay.
Weatherly: Commissioner -- or sorry. Chairman Fitzgerald, on the 28th there are,
actually, five hearings scheduled for that evening already.
Fitzgerald: Let's don't do that.
Weatherly: Yeah. There is actually, to be frank with you, Chairman, none of your
meetings have less than four hearings through June 18th.
Fitzgerald: Yes. So, Commissioner Holland is going to lead and I'm going on vacation.
Is that what I just heard?
Holland: It sounds like we are going to have some late nights.
Fitzgerald: Yeah. Exactly. So, Joe, I mean do we have on the 4th -- Madam Clerk, do
we have four on that day?
Weatherly: Yes, Mr. Chair, you do. So, this would be number five if you added this one.
Fitzgerald: So, we have two conditional use permits that Joe's got and, then, if we added
this one to that?
Weatherly: Yeah. You have got a conditional use permit, a rezone, and a preliminary
plat and annexation and another annexation and preliminary plat as well.
Fitzgerald: I'm feeling sick. Sorry.
Weatherly: No. I'm sorry. My bad. That last one was for June 18th. So -- yeah. So,
you have the conditional use permits, then, the rezone with a preliminary plat and, then,
an annexation.
Fitzgerald: Is everybody okay with moving it to the 4th? Get this thing moving down the
road.
Holland: Mr. Chair?
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 32 of 148
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
May 7,2020
Page 30 of 60
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland.
Holland: I move to continue file number H-2020-0006 to the hearing date of June 4th for
the reason that the applicant work with the client and the landowner on finding more
appropriate open space balance, reconsider the phasing, take a look at the cul-de-sac
and some of the other items discussed tonight.
McCarvel: Second.
Seal: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal.
Seal: Do we need to close the public hearing before we make the motion?
Fitzgerald: We keep it open.
Seal: Okay. Thank you.
Fitzgerald: Thanks for the clarification. So, I have a motion and a second to continue file
number H-2020-0006, Teakwood Place Subdivision, to June 4th Planning and Zoning
meeting. All those of the favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Fitzgerald: We appreciate you being here, Dan. Thanks very much and we look forward
to seeing you on the 4th.
Lardie: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Have a good evening.
C. Public Hearing for Cedarbrook Subdivision (H-2020-0012)
by Toll Southwest, LLC, Located at 4185 S. Linder Rd.
1 . Request: Annexation of a total of 118.58 acres of land with
R-2 (9.48 acres), R-4 (65.45 acres) and R-8 (43.66 acres)
zoning districts; and,
2. Request: A Preliminary plat consisting of 330 buildable lots,
38 common lots and 4 other lots on 118.58 acres of land in
the proposed R-2, R-4 and R-8 zoning districts.
Fitzgerald: You, too. Okay. Anybody need a break before we go into the next one?
Because I would guess it's going to be long. Good? Plow forward? Okay. I'm going to
turn it over to -- as we open the public hearing on the next item on our agenda, which is
H-2020-0012, Cedarbrook Subdivision, and, Ms. Allen, it's all you, my friend. Are you
ready to go?
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 33 of 148
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
May 7,2020
Page 31 of 60
Allen: Yes, I am. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The next
application before you is a request for annexation and zoning and a preliminary plat. This
site consists of 118.5 acres of land. It's zoned RUT in Ada county and is located at 4185
South Linder Road. Adjacent land use and zoning. There are residential -- excuse me
-- rural residential agricultural properties consisting of five acres and larger lots and
parcels, zoned RUT in Ada county. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map
designation is medium density residential, which calls for three to eight dwelling units per
acre. Summary of the request. Annexation of a total of 118.5 acres of land with R-2
zoning, which consists of 9.48 acres. R-4 zoning, which consists of 65.45 acres. And R-
8 zoning, which consists of 43.66 acres, consistent with the medium density residential
future land use map designation. A preliminary plat is proposed consisting of 330
buildable lots, 38 common lots, and four other lots on 118.58 acres of land. The minimum
lot size proposed is 4,828 square feet, with an average lot size of 9,814 square feet. The
gross density is 2.78 units per acre, with a net density of 4.4 units per acre. This
subdivision is proposed to develop in seven phases and that phasing plan is shown on
the plat that's included in your staff report. Access is proposed via one collector street,
West Cedarbrook Drive, and two emergency only access driveways from Linder Road.
Two stub streets are proposed at the north and one stub street is proposed at the
southwest boundary of the site for future extension in accord with UDC standards. Each
phase of development is proposed to have two accesses for emergency services. The
access from the north from Victory Road will be constructed with the first phase of
development per the emergency access plan approved by the Fire Department. The
existing roadways in this area are rural in nature. There are no roadway improvements
planned in this area until between 2031 and 2035 when Linder Road is planned to be
widened to three lanes from Amity Road to Victory Road and the Amity-Linder intersection
is planned to be reconstructed. Linder Road between Victory Road and Overland is
planned to be widened to five lanes and the Victory Road-Linder Road intersection is
planned to be reconstructed between 2021 and 2025. The proposed development falls
within the interim southwest sewer phasing plan as developed by the Meridian Public
Works Department. As such it will require the construction of a temporary sewer lift
station, trunk line, and pressure sewer force main at the expense of the developer. This
will not be constructed as a city project. The applicant has proposed an alternate location
for the lift station and Public Works has no issue with their proposal in principle. However,
the applicant shall be responsible to construct trunk lines sewer back up to Linder Road
and along the Linder Road frontage. Qualified open space is proposed in excess of the
minimum ten percent required by the UDC. A total of 20.74 acres or 17.5 percent is
proposed consisting of a large central common area with a pond, linear open space with
pathways, common areas greater than 50 feet by 100 feet in size. Parkways along streets
and collector and arterial street buffers. Site amenities are proposed in accord with UDC
standards from the quality of life recreation and pedestrian or bicycle circulation system
categories. A swimming pool and clubhouse -- excuse me -- pool house, a multi-use
sports court and picnic area next to a large pond containing benches, a covered shelter
and picnic tables, are proposed with the first phase of development and a pocket park
with play structures consisting of faux logs and boulders is proposed on the other large
common area in the third phase. Next slide, please. The staff recommends an additional
amenity is proposed -- excuse me -- provided consisting of children's play equipment,
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 34 of 148
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
May 7,2020
Page 32 of 60
such as a climbing structure, slide, swings, etcetera. Pathways are proposed through --
through this site as shown on the pedestrian plan on the right. Two ten foot wide multi-
use pathway connections are proposed from the sidewalk along Linder Road that merge
in the central common area and continue one to the north boundary along the collector
street. Internal pathways are proposed for interconnectivity and detached sidewalks are
proposed throughout the development adjacent to streets, with tree lined streets. The
Calkins Lateral crosses the northeast corner of this site. The applicant is proposing to
leave it open and improve the area as a linear open space with a pathway. Fencing is
required to be installed to deter access to the waterway, unless the applicant can
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the director that the waterway serves as or will be
improved to be a water amenity as defined in the UDC, in which case fencing may not be
required. Fencing is not proposed around the large pond. If the Commission and Council
determines this presents a safety hazard, a condition requiring such should be added.
Sample photo elevations of the types of homes planned to be constructed in this
development were submitted as shown. Homes are a mix of one and two story units of
varying sizes for the variety of lot sizes proposed. Building materials consists of a mix of
finish materials with stone and brick veneer accent. Staff is recommending the elevations
proposed on the right for the homes on the 40 to 45 foot wide lots are revised prior to the
Council hearing to include more design elements and materials to provide a higher quality
of design. Because Comprehensive Plan policies address providing a variety of housing
types to avoid any one housing type in a development and to provide more options to
meet the financial capabilities of future residents, staff is recommending a variety of
housing types. For example, attached duplex and townhomes added to the proposed
single family detached are provided. Only single family detached homes are proposed
within the development. The applicant has submitted a concept plan for a mix of attached
and townhome units. Next slide, please. As shown consisting of 24 units at the northeast
corner of the development, resulting in an overall increase of some more units and an
increase in density from 2.78 to 2.82 units per acre. There have been several letters of
testimony submitted on this application. I'm just going to read through those. They were
kind of submitted within the last couple of days -- several today, so I'm just going to hit
the highlights of those so the Commission's aware of those. First letter was received from
Julie Langlois and there were also letters from Clark and Michelle Robinson and Wayne
Martin and Jimmy Lin. They -- they all have roughly the same concerns pertaining to the
following issues. Protecting their right to farm, raise livestock, process their cattle and
enjoy the view shed. Capacity of various schools with all the previous developments that
have been approved, but not yet constructed in this area. Inadequacy of existing
infrastructure to handle more development in this area, with no plans to widen Linder --
Linder Road in the near future, which is a two lane rural road -- roadway with four way
stops at nearby intersections, which they believe is inadequate to serve existing traffic,
let alone traffic generated from already approved, but not yet constructed development
and the proposed development. Inadequate transition and lot sizes to adjacent five to ten
acre rural residential properties. They request a greater transition in lot sizes to one half
to three quarters of an acre in size, with a four and a half to five foot tall rolling berm with
fencing at the bottom of the berm on the Cedarbrook side on the boundaries adjacent to
Rock Ranch and Stetson Estates, with landscaping on the berm consisting of a deciduous
tree and an evergreen tree every 60 feet with a maximum height of 15 feet, with three
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 35 of 148
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
May 7,2020
Page 33 of 60
shrubs between each tree. Specific species requested in her -- in the letter. A letter from
Kenzie Ward. She has similar concerns as those previously noted and requests the
following: A greater transition in lot sizes at a minimum one half to one acre in size. A
greater setback along Linder Road, so that when the road is expanded in the future there
will still be enough green space and landscaping to keep the rural feel of the area and
reduce the impacts on landscaping. Traffic concerns, school capacity concerns, and
belief that it's not an efficient way to expand the city's infrastructure with the project's
location on the fringe of the city. A letter from Paula Connelly. She shares the previously
mentioned concerns pertaining to not enough transition in lot sizes to adjacent rural
properties and inadequacy of existing roads to handle more traffic against the eventual
stub street to the west on the adjacent property to the north discussed in the ACHD report.
Letter from Brian Connelly, concern pertaining to the timing of this development,
balancing the growth with the state of the economy, requests the Commission and
Council consider if it's the right time to add 330 more homes to the 1 ,055 already approved
in this area or if we will have too many houses on the market and create another housing
crisis, in which homes sit vacant and are a target for crime and vandalism. A letter from
Dennis and Judy Radford. They are not opposed to the proposed single family residential
detached homes, but they are not supportive of townhomes or duplexes. Letter from Tina
Dean. She believes the proposed project is leapfrog development and will require
additional costs and infrastructure and that it would make more sense for the city to
develop out from current developed areas to build the transition and is inadequate to
adjacent rural properties and will deny adjacent existing residents the opportunity to
continue practices they currently enjoy. Concern that the lack of buffer proposed will
affect the well being of livestock and other animals. She feels there is demand and ability
for the developer to provide one half to one acre lots of the transition to rural property
properties and feels because this is a request for annexation that the developer has an
opportunity and a responsibility to meet a higher level of expectation in regard to
amenities for its residents, as well as protecting current property use in this area. And,
lastly, a letter from Therrin and Amy Robertson. They request one half to three quarter
acre lots provided adjacent to the entire border of their property. A berm planted with
shrubs between each tree and the maximum amount of trees for best health. Types to
be determined at their discretion. And fencing constructed on top of the berm. The center
of the berm to be on the property line with a maximum of ten feet from the property line
with an understanding the adjacent maintenance would be theirs, since it will be on their
property. Staff is recommending approval of the project with the requirement of a
development agreement for the provisions in the staff support. Staff will stand for any
questions.
Fitzgerald: Thanks, Sonya. I appreciate it. Any initial questions for staff?
Seal: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal.
Seal: The pond that's going to be -- that's depicted, is that something that they are going
to create or is that based on something that's already there?
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 36 of 148
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
May 7,2020
Page 34 of 60
Allen: Mr. Chair, Chairman, it is a pond that they will create.
Seal: Okay. Thank you.
Fitzgerald: Additional questions, Commissioner Seal? Anybody else? Okay. With that
is our applicant ready to go?
Durtschi: Yes, I am ready. Hello and good evening.
Fitzgerald: How are you?
Durtschi: Really well. Thank you so much.
Fitzgerald: Thank you for joining us. Please state your name and your address for the
record and the floor is yours, ma'am.
Durtschi: Absolutely. Thank you again. Hello and good evening. For the record my
name is Sabrina Durtschi and I'm here on behalf of the applicant Toll Southwest, LLC.
My business address is 3103 West Sheryl Drive, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. Next slide,
please. And this evening we are so excited to present to you via Zoom our application
for annexation, zoning, and preliminary plat for Cedarbrook Subdivision. And behind me
I have a wonderful team tonight to help support me in this endeavor. Adam Capell, Toll
Brothers and Land Development. Ryan Hammons in our forward planning. And the lovely
Deb Nelson will be available during the Q&A. Next slide, please. First I would like to tell
you a little bit about Toll Brothers. We are an award winning Fortune 500 company that
purchased Coleman Homes back in 2016. We are proud of our Idaho division. While we
are a national builder, we consider our Idaho division a local company that employs local
residents. But Toll also hires local contractors, consultants, and hires local vendors to
build their communities within the valley. I also want you to know that Toll Brothers are
not land developers. What we are are community builders. Land development is just a
small component of what we do. Our end result is to build beautiful homes and
communities that individuals and families love to live in. We are not just developers
looking for quick approvals to flip the development. Instead Toll is committed from the
very beginning of initial design to the last house being sold. Next slide, please. The pride
of ownership can be seen in our site plan for Cedarbrook. Since Sonya did such a great
job detailing our project within the staff report, which, by the way, we are in complete
agreement with and her presentation, I will not sit here and regurgitate everything that
she previously covered. Next slide, please. What I did want to cover and as Sonya has
mentioned, is that we are designated as medium density residential. One thing I did want
to note is that this piece of land has gone through two Comprehensive Plan updates with
the same medium density residential designation. But the one thing that has changed
was the area to the west of our site. As you are aware, the residents of Stetson Estates
heavily petitioned to change the low density designation within your new Comprehensive
Plan. This change within the plan greatly influenced our layout and zoning requests. Not
only do we want to honor the City of Meridian's new Comprehensive Plan for our proposed
project, but we also want to harmoniously transition our medium density residential to low
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 37 of 148
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
May 7,2020
Page 35 of 60
density residential to match our neighbors to the west. Next slide, please. As mentioned
we wanted to honor the updated comp plan with zoning that fits the area, but also provides
transition. Therefore, we determined that not one zone would work for the entire site.
Instead we felt three zoning designations for this area would be the most appropriate.
And as Sonya noted, 9.49 acres will be designated for an R-2 that's adjacent to the
property to the west and shown in pink. We will, then, transition to 66.45 acres of medium
density R-4 that is in purple and, then, 43.66 acres to R-8. That's in green. We feel that
this is an appropriate transition from low density to medium density, then, to the approved
subdivisions east of the property that I will touch on in my next slide. I would also like to
note that within all of our three zoning designations -- and we are not asking for any
exceptions or variances, we are going to be meeting the zoning requirements for each
zone. Next slide, please. In this slide we really wanted to highlight that transition from
our development application into the approved existing subdivision. You can look at the
R-2 transition -- transitioning to the R-4, then, to the R-8 and we think that it blends
perfectly into the approved subdivisions to the east of us. Next slide, please. The other
item I wanted to highlight is that really this site is in the center of the valley. It's minutes
from everywhere. The Ten Mile interchange has really transformed this area making, it,
again, minutes from your downtown core, eight minutes -- ten minutes to the Nampa-
Garrity interchange, 17 minutes to downtown Boise -- or to downtown Boise and minutes
from -- to anywhere in Meridian. Next slide, please. Timing. After approvals we are
estimating to begin in 2021 . Paving the summer of 2021 . And homebuilding starting
around that same time. We don't estimate first occupancies to be until 2022 early. Next
slide. Thank you. Utilities. Pressure irrigation. We have a private system with sufficient
water rights. Water will be consistent and meet the standards of the Meridian water
master plan and water is in Linder and sewer is consistent with the Meridian wastewater
master plan. Next slide. Thank you. Within each community that Toll Brothers builds,
open, usable space is extremely important. It sets our foundations for our community
amenities, pathways, and interconnectivity that makes our community special. Here in
Cedarbrook we have designated 20.78 acres, 17.5 percent, equally distributed open
space for our community. This can be seen in our main common area, our pocket parks,
but also in the landscape islands and detached sidewalks that we have throughout the
site. Next slide, please. Extensive coordination has been done with all outside agencies.
We have had -- held multiple pre-application meetings with the City of Meridian to hone
in on the perfect site plan. We have also met with the school -- for West Ada. We met
with Meridian police. We met with Meridian fire and we have coordinated and worked
with ACHD and we were in full agreement with their staff report. Next slide. Thank you.
We also have provided extensive community outreach with the surrounding and adjacent
neighbors. We have held three neighborhood meetings. We had two last year and one
earlier this year. We have also worked closely with our adjacent neighbors. And the map
shows in red all the neighbors we have personally reached out to. This outreach includes
meeting with the majority of the surrounding neighbors on the project to address our
project and their individual needs in person. Some of the neighbors address concerns
with their view shed. We hired a consultant to take pictures of each neighbor's backyard
and view and, then, produce renderings of how the development will impact their view.
We sent out the renderings to the neighbors for feedback and worked closely on their
individual needs concerning mitigation. Next slide, please. Here is an example of one of
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 38 of 148
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
May 7,2020
Page 36 of 60
the renderings that we did. This is for the Lin property. And it shows you our community
built out, landscaping, but what it also shows you is that it doesn't impede their view shed.
A lot of the homes -- adjacent homes are at a higher elevation and we are a lower, so --
but this gives you a great example of the communication that we have had with the
adjacent neighbors. Next slide, please. Excuse me. One of the things that -- after we
assessed everyone's comments and concerns from the neighborhood and individual
meetings we had, we were able to commit to the following mitigation measures.
Transitional density was a topic during our neighborhood meetings and that we want to
address and we feel like we have with the R-2 zone. These are transitional estate lots
that range from 16,000 to 24,000 square feet. Dark sky lighting was a priority for the
neighbors and something that we are providing. We had several stub roads the neighbors
were concerned about, including that mid mile collector at the northwest -- northwest
corner of our site and those have been removed. Separation was a big concern of the
neighbors and we have committed to increasing our rear setbacks in the R-2 zone from
15 to 30. So, we are going to be doubling our rear setbacks. One of the things that wasn't
very popular was the white vinyl fence that we proposed in the renderings and the
neighbors really didn't like it, so we have committed to doing a wood style privacy fence.
And, again, we are committed to reducing our homes to two story homes in locations that
would impede our neighbors view shed. Next slide, please. Our pathway connectivity
and walkability are a priority for Cedarbrook. As seen in our pathways exhibit, red shows
a regional pathway that is going to be dedicated to the City of Meridian. Yellow shows all
of our detached sidewalks that we have throughout the site. And the blue shows the
internal pathways owned and maintained by the HOA. We closely coordinated with Kim
Warren at the City of Meridian on these pathway locations to ensure that they meet the
City of Meridian's long term regional pathway goals. We have 4,600 feet of regional
pathway being designated, plus 3,000 feet of the HOA pathway, for a total of 7,600 feet
provided in our project. Also the pathway located in the northeast section of the site is
along the Calkins Lateral. We have requested a waiver to leave that -- this lateral open
to allow it to be a water feature adjacent to our pathway system. Next slide, please.
Cedarbrook will meet and exceed the City of Meridian's amenity requirements by
maximizing all the ample open space by incorporating the following. Of a pool, a pool
house, a main playground, sport -- sport court, pocket parks and benches along the
pathways. Next slide, please. Here is a beautiful view of the pool that we will be providing.
Next slide, please. Another great shot. Can't wait for summertime. Next shot, please.
And here is some more additional renderings. Sonya did mention in the staff report that
she wanted to see us incorporate an additional playground and we are more than happy
to accommodate that requirement. Next slide, please. So, now I would like to address
our wonderful product types. Cedarbrook will offer a wide variety of housing opportunities
from starter homes to larger estates. This one here is the garden collection and it will be
within the R-8 zone. This will range from 1 ,200 to 2,500 square feet. These homes will
offer functional living space and design. Next slide, please. The Woodland collection will
be -- a lot of it you will see in our R-4 zoning. This housing option will range from 1 ,600
to 2,900 square feet. This collection specializes in open floor plans and quality
craftsmanship. Next slide, please. And our Countryside collection. These will be -- you
will see these homes in our R-2, our estate homes. This offers a larger home ranging in
2,900 to 4,500 square feet. The Countryside collection embodies elegance and luxury
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 39 of 148
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
May 7,2020
Page 37 of 60
with top of the line finishes. Next slide, please. And this is our single family townhome
attached. Again, Sonya's staff report recommended we provide an additional residential
product type to our site. So, we were able to incorporate this attached townhome within
our northeast corner of the property. We feel that this is a great location and a great
addition for our project. Next slide. And that brings me to the end. Again, we are so
excited to be able to present this to you guys this evening. We thank you for all your time
and thoughtful consideration and respectively request a recommendation of approval to
Council and I will stand for questions that you may have. Thank you.
Fitzgerald: Thanks, Sabrina. We appreciate your presentation. Are there questions for
the applicant?
Seal: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal, go right ahead.
Seal: I will ask on the pond again. Is the pond something that you guys have your heart
set on?
Durtschi; Chairman, Commissioner Seal, I believe, yes, we do need to have the pond.
It's going to be for irrigation purposes, as well as aesthetics. We do understand the
concern of safety and we -- in our ponds that we have built in Meridian and throughout
the valley we have what's called a safety bench on all the ponds. These are five feet --
or a foot down and five feet wide. So, it's like a step down, so that if a kid did fall in the
pond they are safety precautions. It's not an immediate drop.
Seal: Okay. And, then, on the lateral is -- I mean are you guys -- it sounds like you are
wanting to leave that open instead of cover it. Can you -- I mean say as far as safety is
concerned there. Not that I wouldn't want to see that as part of the beautification, but I'm
always concerned when things like that are left open.
Durtschi: Chairman, Commissioner, I believe that we will -- we will finish that. It will be
open iron probably, I'm assuming, style fence. But, yes, for safety measures that lateral
we will have --
Seal: Okay. Thank you.
Fitzgerald: Additional questions for the applicant?
Cassinelli: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli, go right ahead.
Cassinelli: Sabrina, did you consider at all layouts with R-2 along the -- the full western
border, including that-- kind of that-- that half moon shape on the southwest abutting that
property down there off Amity?
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 40 of 148
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
May 7,2020
Page 38 of 60
Fitzgerald: Hey, Chris, can we go back to the slide, so we can have the plan in front of
us, so we can take a look at what Commissioner Cassinelli is mentioning? Thank you.
Durtschi: Chairman, Commissioner Cassinelli, we have not looked at that. We felt that
the R-2 -- that was a good transition point based on the comp plan and that was the
location we had ended the zone at.
Fitzgerald: Any follow up, Commissioner Cassinelli?
Cassinelli: That's all. Thanks.
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland, you look like you're getting ready -- ready to ask. I
will just give you -- no? Okay. Any additional questions right now? Okay. Sabrina, we
really appreciate it. Thank you and your team. We will come back to you with additional
questions and allow you to close.
Durtschi: That sounds wonderful. Thank you so much.
Fitzgerald: Thank you. Madam Clerk, do we have folks on the line I would guest to
testify?
Weatherly: Mr. Chair, we have four people signed up. The first of which is Annette
Alonso, speaking on behalf of a homeowner's association, the Southern Rim Coalition.
Fitzgerald: Okay.
Alonso: Yeah. This is Annette Alonzo. I'm at -- live at 2204 East Hyperdrive in Meridian
and I am representing the Southern Rim Coalition. I think that all of us agree that
annexation into Meridian -- it should be set at a higher bar and we need to ask is this
development good for the City of Meridian? Can it provide all the necessary services to
all of the residents and is just good enough a standard for approval. I just don't know that
that's right, a recommendation to City Council. First of all, I'm going to start with the buffer
to the estate lots on the south and the west property line and these lots -- the lots that are
bordering this are five to ten acre parcels and there has been a lot of discussion within
the city government and the necessity of the proper buffer zone and density transition
from these estate lots to the new higher density developments and in this situation we
believe it's appropriate to ask for a minimum of a half to one acre lots starting at Lot 14,
Block 4, which is down on the southern -- the southeastern portion of that, which pretty
much starts at one of the larger estate lots and running west and diagonally and, then,
north along the property line to the Stetson Estates and -- and, then, all the way north to
Lot 6, Block 1. 1 think that's what it is. At the far northwestern side. The neighbors we
have spoken to would also like to see a buffer berm and fencing along the property line.
In this instance, of course, vinyl fencing would not be appropriate and I heard Sabrina say
that they had changed that to wood. As sometimes the estate lots burn their fields and
vinyl fencing is just going to melt and we believe this is -- this should be discussed with
the landowners on the larger lots to decide what they want and apparently that has
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 41 of 148
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
May 7,2020
Page 39 of 60
already been covered. We hadn't seen that in any of the documentation yet. Density and
open space. The staff recommendation to increase the density to higher end of the MDR
is totally opposite of what the comp plan stakeholder survey and goals of the objectives
call for. The MDR allows for a large range of density and since this application is adjacent
to rural estate properties, the developers should come in at a low end of the range of the
allowed density and lot dimensions, but the high end of the open space and amenities.
That should be part of the appropriate transition and although this development meets
the minimum requirements for the City of Meridian, over ten percent for the open space,
there is -- there is really not a whole lot of space in that R-8 area for the children to play.
There is no open space within the R-8 whatsoever, but little triangular pieces that appear
to be at the end of where the lots were. If you will notice in that R-8 there is really no
open space within there -- within phase six or phase four. I'm sure they could walk down
to the pool, but in reality those are the ones that are going to be using that area the most
and -- and the pool is a nice amenity. However, it could only be used for four months of
the year and, then, that area is closed off. The pool deck and the pool are closed off. So,
in reality, for months that area is not going to be able to be used. The pond is also nice
in concept, although it is only -- the idea is it really is for irrigation. But the children can't
play on that and the pond itself takes up 25 percent of their open space and that's put in
the staff report. Let's see. It says -- let's see. Lose my place here. Meridian Fire report
states that current resources would not be adequate to supply service to the propose --
to the proposed project because of the risk factor which includes an open waterway.
Water rescue teams would have to be mutually aided from another department. I think
that's a major red flag for us here with -- obviously there is going to be a lot of children in
this development and I think that pond is a detriment where it's placed right now. It should
be placed -- if it's going to be used for irrigation purposes should be placed somewhere
where it can be fenced out of the way of -- of the children playing. Of course, the main
thing are West Ada School District. Our schools are in crisis due to severe overcrowding.
The school district has chosen not to hold the bond election for the time being, which
would have provided for the construction of the Blue Valley Elementary School near
Overland and Linder. This has been pushed out indefinitely and approving this
application at this time lowers the bar for educating our future leaders in Meridian. Grossly
overcrowded classrooms and busing students out of their neighborhoods devalues our
Meridian's quality of life and devalues Meridian's reputation. Other proposed new schools
in the area are not slated until 2024 to 2026. That's up to six years from now and that's
if the bonds are set forth and approved. This development, according to Joe Yochum
with the West Ada School District, which I spent a lot of time with on the phone and I
actually sent a report to City Council on this as well. It will add approximately 264 children
to the system and with the current approved new construction, which Toll Brothers pointed
out those new constructions, that is approximately 1 ,053 homes, not including this 334
homes. So, that's going to add -- right now the capacity of the schools -- the capacity
that's left right now without all these new developments coming on, there is a capacity for
649 kids between Mary McPherson, Sienna, Victory Middle and Meridian High and there
are 800 and some children -- 886 children proposed, including these. I don't know where
we are going to put these kids. I mean we are going to overcapacity our schools by 200
children after some of them are already over capacity? You know, I think -- you know,
we appreciate you guys allowing us to talk on behalf of the Coalition and it's not that we
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 42 of 148
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
May 7,2020
Page 40 of 60
disapprove of this development with some improvements to the plan, it's just, you know,
we are concerned citizens and I think it's not no, but it's not right now, and with this lift
station that-- this gravity station they are going to have to put in for the sewer, not having
a lift station there, I think crossing over Linder just creates a whole other can of worms
that I'm not sure the city wants to get -- get into. You know, I think in the staff report it
says that-- that with the master plan it says the slow progression -- I'm paraphrasing this.
The slow progress -- progression of city limits by discouraging fringe area development
and encouraging development of vacant or underutilized parcels currently within the city
limits and it says this is not a priority area for Meridian services. So, why would we
approve 334 houses when our schools can't handle it, our sewer can't handle it, we need
a lift station -- I -- I just -- I think it's too much at the wrong time. So, I appreciate guys
allowing me to speak and if you have any questions for me let me know.
Fitzgerald: Thank you, Mrs. Alonso. We appreciate it. Excuse me. Any questions from
--from Commissioners? Thank you, ma'am. We appreciate you being part of this tonight.
Madam Clerk -- who is next on our list, ma'am?
Weatherly: Mr. Chair, we have Julie L. representing Stetson Estates Homeowners
Association.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Julie, I see you are chimed in and, please, unmute yourself if you
haven't. Or maybe Chris can unmute you. There we go. Julie, can you hear us?
Langlois: Yes.
Fitzgerald: Okay. We appreciate you being here tonight and we know you are
representing an HOA, so we will give you a little bit of additional time. Please introduce
yourself and your -- give us your address for the record and the floor is yours, ma'am.
Langlois: Great. Thank you. Thank you to the Commissioners for -- for allowing us to
comment on this application. My name is Julie Langlois. I live at 3556 Rustler. It is more
than difficult to testify about an application that was still being revised today. As numerous
other resident neighborhood advocates have testified previously regarding other
applications, it is discourteous to your resident stakeholders to ask us to testify about
applications that have not been complete for ten to 14 days prior to a hearing. These are
land use decisions that will directly impact our neighborhood identities and our properties'
market values. An application that is a moving target leaves little time for residents to
thoughtfully review and discuss. However, this application has had glaring flaws present
-- flaws present in its every iteration, proving it is not worthy of annexation approval. The
ink is hardly dry on our new Comprehensive Plan, a plan that is -- that is the painstaking
result of stakeholder surveys, thousands of staff and steering committee hours, and the
city's sizable monetary investment. That guide to our future growth clearly states the
following pertinent Meridian goals and objectives. Preserve prime farmland within the
area of city impact to maintain rural character and provide opportunities for local produce
and continued farming operations. Encourage the continued use of land for farming near
area of the city impact boundaries to effectively transition from rural uses to urban. Slow
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 43 of 148
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
May 7,2020
Page 41 of 60
the outward progression of the city's limits by discouraging fringe area development and
to support appropriate agriculture operations within the area of city impact. We are here
tonight to echo those goals that are so important to the residents of Meridian as you
deliberate over whether this application supports those goals. We contend this
application does not support those goals and objectives and, therefore, it is not in the best
interest of the city to approve it. The Cedarbrook Subdivision is an enormous opportunity
to support the spirit and intent of Meridian's Comprehensive Plan and to manage growth
that will complement and enhance the quality and character of southwest Meridian, yet it
fails on several levels. Annexations are important decisions and we believe the timing is
wrong for this one. These 334 homes will tax our city's ability to provide services. We
also believe this development should complement and build on southwest Meridian's rich
rural culture practices and identity. This development should respect and enhance our
area's natural assets and resources by maintaining viewsheds, providing a generous
transition to neighboring rural properties, protecting our existing farm practices, like
processing cattle in our fields and by incorporating architectural elements that honor and
celebrate southwest Meridian's proud rural story. We believe this application should be
denied. However, should you consider its approval, the new Comprehensive Plan calls
for Legacy neighborhoods. This land use decision -- decision should require Cedarbrook
to be such a place. Let's avoid a cookie cutter development in southwest Meridian.
Meridian residents do not want to become Anytown USA. We honor pathways, open
space, amenities and gathering spaces. We love our rural ambience. This annexation
will be adjacent to rural estate property. So, we ask that you require appropriate transition
and landscape buffers, minimal lot ratios, generous lot dimensions, the highest standard
of open space, pathways, and amenities and rural or semi-rural gateway entrances.
Thank you.
Fitzgerald: Thank you, ma'am. Any questions for Julie? Not at this time? Appreciate it.
Thank you very much, ma'am.
Langlois: Thank you.
Fitzgerald: Appreciate you being here.
Weatherly: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Yes, ma'am.
Weatherly: Next we have Paula.
Fitzgerald: Paula, I see you. Maybe Chris can unmute you or you can unmute yourself.
Okay. The slide's up. Chris, can you unmute Paula, please. Thank you, sir.
Johnson: Yeah. I was doing three screens at once.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 44 of 148
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
May 7,2020
Page 42 of 60
Fitzgerald: I wasn't -- trying to -- rushing you. I apologize. Paula, thank you for being
with us tonight. We appreciate it. And, please, state your name and your address for the
record and the floor is yours, ma'am.
Connelly: Okay. My name is Paula Connelly. I live at 3878 South Rustler Lane, so I'm
part of Stetson Estates. If I can have the pictures -- they came out in different orders.
Can you, please, move them to the cows. Thank you. Good evening, Commissioners
and Planning Staff. Chairman. More than ever light agricultural practices are needed in
our country and in Idaho. No matter what new source you turn on meat shortages are
occurring as meat processing plants are shutting down due to the COVID-19 crisis. I
don't say this to scare people. I say it because it reinforces the lifestyle that I and my
neighbors wholeheartedly practice. It's what many of us have been doing for years, what
we have taught our children and what we will continue to do in the future. In an effort to
be a good neighbor to the houses that will be constructed behind us, I believe it is in their
best interest, as well as ours, to limit how much we affect each other. The question
becomes how is that best done? On the one hand there are property rights of the existing
owners in Rock Ranch and Stetson Estates. We want to protect our open air views and
our way of life, which creates noise from animals, dust from planting, plowing, and
harvesting crops, smells from fertilizing and what some would deem unsightly realities of
slaughtering animals in the field. Can you -- next slide. Actually, go two slides, please.
As you can see from my pictures, agriculture isn't for everyone, and I don't want neighbors
complaining about this, because I won't change my ways because there is a house behind
me. Of course the landowner behind us wants to protect his property right, so he can sell
his land for as much as he can and the developer wants to operate his business to make
money and build and maximize their profit. And then there is the city who would like to
expand their tax base and, in my opinion, that is a detriment to our agriculture in Meridian.
Here is my answer. If you want to protect the new neighbors from our dust and noise, I
would ask that Toll Brothers put in a minimum of a half acre lot against any five acre
parcel and one acre lot bordering anything ten acres or bigger, instead of the one third to
one half lots that they have on their site plan, of which I only counted four half acre lots.
It seems reasonable to have a one to ten ratio since our neighborhood is more fitting as
a rural estate than R-2. These are more proportional for their -- excuse me. These are
more proportional for their largest houses as well. They said that the largest ones would
be 2,900 to 4,500 square feet. Put that on a third acre lot and it's going to be eaten up
quickly. This affords a better visual transition in house sizes from our neighborhood to
theirs. It means more density on the east side of the development which allows a larger
tax base for the city that creates a proper transition to the existing neighbors. There will
be less lots affected from our dust and noise and the landowner can still sell his property.
I also want to dispute the notion in the staff report that there are no significant natural
scenic or historic features that need preserving. Can you move the pictures back to the
birds of prey? As you can see from my -- excuse me. This statement may refer to the
land, but it's the habitat the land provides that needs to be protected for the birds of prey
and wildlife it supports. As you see from my pictures we have hawks, kestrels, and owls,
which we have added nesting boxes for on our property. Putting in dense populations
throughout this area means less habitat for these animals. I respectfully ask that you
remand this application, so it can include one to ten ratio in lot sizes against the existing
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 45 of 148
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
May 7,2020
Page 43 of 60
properties of Stetson Estates and Rock Ranch. Perhaps even a few of those large parcels
can raise chickens and gardens and will rely less on markets for hard to find products
during this time of our crisis. The only other thing that I would like to highlight, because
it's the first time that it was seen tonight by myself, was the rendition that was shown of
the view shed was of the highest property within our subdivision. There are other parcels
-- or five and ten acre parcels that are on flat areas and so they are not going to be looking
down. In fact, directly behind my house the elevation goes up. So, those people behind
me will be looking down into us and it will affect my view shed more so than the one that
was shown and that also means that every October when the cows are killed out here
somebody's not going to be happy and I don't know what to do about that when they are
going to be looking into my backyard and I kill my cows. Thank you. I will stand for
questions.
Fitzgerald: Thanks for calling. We appreciate it. Any questions for Mrs. Connelly? Thank
you, ma'am. We appreciate you being here.
Connelly: Thank you.
Weatherly Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Yes, ma'am.
Weatherly: Last on the list we have Kenzie Ward.
Fitzgerald: Perfect. Kenzie, we see you. Can you hear us?
Ward: Yeah. I wasn't planning on speaking though.
Fitzgerald: Okay. If you -- do you -- any comments or you are good?
Ward: I agree with what Stetson Estates and Southern Rim Coalition and all that, like
same -- same comment, same concerns with Rock Ranch as well.
Fitzgerald: Can you -- just for the record can you say your name and your address for
the record just so --
Ward: Kenzie Ward. 4605 South Rock Ranch Lane.
Fitzgerald: Thank you so much, ma'am. We appreciate you being here and being a part
of this.
Ward: Thank you.
Fitzgerald: And with that, Madam Clerk, I think we are done with the list. Is there
additional folks that would like to testify on this application that haven't done so already?
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 46 of 148
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
May 7,2020
Page 44 of 60
Please raise your hand via Zoom or hit star nine and touch base with Chris, our clerk.
Madam Clerk or Chris, do you see anybody else?
Johnson: Mr. Chair, nothing yet. There are quite a few people in the attendees, but no
hands yet.
Fitzgerald: We will give it a couple seconds to look through that list. Is there any
questions for staff while we are making sure that everybody has a chance to make sure
they have been heard? Sonya, do you have anything you wanted to add? I saw your
name pop up. Do you have anything else you want us to be aware of?
Allen: No, Chairman Fitzgerald. I'm fine. Thanks.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you. So, Chris, I think we are good. If that's -- and I will let the
applicant close.
Seal: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Oh. Yes.
Seal: And this -- this is more a question that will be directed to the applicant. I mean they
said in the statement that, essentially, they had worked a lot with the -- the folks in this --
on the surrounding properties to make sure that they were coming up with something that
would be amenable to everybody, although I'm looking at all the public comments and I'm
looking at all the -- I'm just counting up the number of properties that are around it and
the number of people that are, essentially, against it in one way or another on these larger,
you know, farmstead, you know, development -- developed properties here and I would
just like to hear something about what it is that they are willing to do. I mean there has
been a lot of talk about putting in a berm and a fence and all kinds of stuff. So, I just want
to make sure that that's covered as part of this. I would also like to hear what they have
to say about increasing the -- the density of the lots or not -- or decreasing the density of
the lots, something into more, you know, half acre or above and how that would continue
along not only the western side, but also the southern side of the property all the way out
into Linder Road.
Fitzgerald: Sabrina, do you want to take it from there and I think this -- you switched
partners, so --
Nelson: Thank you, Chairman. Yes. I'm not Sabrina anymore. This is Deborah Nelson.
My address for the record is 601 West Bannock Street in Boise and I am also representing
the applicant this evening and Sabrina did not go far. She may get hooked in here to
answer any further questions or jump in. I just want to try to run through a few of the
items that we heard from the Commissioners and also from the neighbors. We did not
revise the application today, we simply were providing an option for the Commission to
have a look at based on the request that we received from Sonya in her staff report. The
application was submitted and complete and accepted, but we were happy to
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 47 of 148
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
May 7,2020
Page 45 of 60
accommodate the request from Sonya for additional housing types and that's been
presented to you as an option for your consideration. We -- I also want to address that
we heard some comments about the schools and in particular the representative from the
neighborhood association said they had met with Joe Yochum many times. So did the
applicant, met with Joe Yochum and made sure that he was comfortable with this
development and he said that he had no concerns. In fact, all of the schools show that
they currently have capacity. As you know from hearing all kinds of development
applications they don't always all have capacity, but as schools reach capacity and even
become over capacity is when the school district can begin looking at new opportunities
for schools. They don't build empty schools. And so in this situation where we are all
under the --the school district did not have any concerns. Mrs. Alonso also testified about
-- that we should be at the high end of the open space range and the low end of the
density range and that's exactly what we are. Only ten percent open space is required.
We are providing 20 acres at 17 and a half percent. So, it's definitely on the high end
with some very high end amenities provided in there. We are also at the low end of the
density range. Medium density residential calls for three to eight and we are under three
purposefully to provide that R-2 zone on the western side to lower the density and to
provide that transition that the neighbors are asking for. There was talk of a berm request
and a fence. The applicant has worked really hard with neighbors and they -- they have
gone above and beyond and they have reached agreements with neighbors where ever
they could, where ever neighbors were willing to work with them and particularly on the
western edge of the property where it was testified that there are some flatter lots -- in
fact, those are right along the western -- far western edge and those property owners, the
Robertsons and Rinehimers have agreed with Toll to put a berm right on the middle of
the property line. The fence would go on top of that to create even more height. That
fence would, then, fall right on the property line and they were happy with that
arrangement and Toll was happy to do that and Toll was also going to provide them some
landscaping for that that they would, then, continue to maintain. The request from some
other neighbors to put a berm on our side of the property creates problems with
stormwater runoff, with creating strips of common area -- areas that can't be maintained
easily or accessed. There is really no need for that, because the properties that are to
the southwest corner there are the ones that are elevated. They are at least 30 feet
higher than the development. They also get the advantage of having their homes that
are far setback from the property lines and Toll has agreed to double the rear setback
along all of those western and southwestern properties. And so with the distance that
you have from their large setbacks to our increased setback, these homes are two to four
hundred feet from each other. So, they are elevated and they have great distance apart.
So, a lower elevation, berm, and fence isn't going to do much for them. But, in any case,
the perimeter will be fenced. The applicant has done a lot of working with them about
dark sky lighting, limiting two story homes and the view sheds, all of the things that you
heard from Sabrina. There was discussion about continued right to farm. Of course we
respect the neighbors agricultural way of life to the extent they have it. Some of these
properties do. And Mrs. Connelly discussed that. Mrs. Connelly, however, lives to the
north of the property. Her property does not abut this neighborhood. So, while I'm sure
the neighbors would understand right to farm laws, that they are coming to this, they won't
be seeing the back of her property and those activities, because she's not immediately
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 48 of 148
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
May 7,2020
Page 46 of 60
adjacent. But certainly that is an understanding that those properties exist and that's why
we have created all the transition that we did here. There was concerned about property
values. These homes are going to be high quality. Even the low end of the range is going
to be in the high two hundreds, two hundred thousand range, all the way up to over
750,000, three quarters of a million dollars. That provides a really nice estate quality
product to be next to these larger estate lots that were developed in the county, providing
a high value base, creating a nice tax base for the city and also providing that much
needed housing. I think that Toll Brothers has really exemplified what's appropriate for
this type of large scale development. They have provided this nice design. They provided
all of these great amenities, centrally located open space connected by a network of
pathways. They are in a quickly developing corridor along Linder. They are surrounded
by other approved developments to the east that butt right up against this. This is the
next stage of development for the city and it's consistent with what you called for in your
Comprehensive Plan. It's providing that medium density residential, while also providing
transition to these existing county lots. And with that I think we would stand for questions.
Fitzgerald: Thank you, ma'am. Questions for the applicant?
Seal: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal.
Seal: I mean my question is -- is -- I mean are you at a firm no on providing larger lot
sizes against that? I mean I understand everything that you are saying, but it's kind of
been a long battle for the folks that have the --the properties there. So, I mean this is the
first time that we have heard from them as far as their concerns about what would be
developed and now we are seeing what is being developed. I just want to understand
your position on that.
Nelson: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Seal, the lots that are being provided here all along
the western edge and along that southern edge are all over a third acre now and there
are several along that corner that are over an half acre. The lots to their immediate west
are those that they have -- the developer has worked out arrangement for the berm and
the fence. The properties that are further to the south under what's shown there as phase
two have not raised objections here and their homes are also further back and they also
have the benefit of the elevation. I think you had asked earlier about whether they -- the
R-2 was considered there. It -- you know, certainly all of that was on the table when they
were thinking about this in order to meet the density that's requested in your
Comprehensive Plan, but also to provide transition where it makes sense. I think they
have done what they would. So, I guess to more directly answer your question, I think
these are the lot sizes they are proposing. Certainly that's within your prerogative to
request additional, but I think it is also important to understand where they have worked
out arrangements with neighbors and those that are really still vocal here on the corner
-- at that southwest corner are the ones that have 300 and 400 foot setbacks from the
homes -- in between their homes and the higher elevation and so, you know, adding a
different lot size below them is going -- is going to have very little impact. Those are also
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 49 of 148
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
May 7,2020
Page 47 of 60
the ones that we showed in the rendering where you could see their view scape is not
impacted and when you look at those houses that are down below it's hard to imagine
how a wider lot at that point is going to make much difference in that location. So, we
tried to be sensitive where that -- where it makes sense to be sensitive, but, then, still
provide the right density overall.
Cassinelli: Follow up, Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: Deborah, can you, with your cursor, kind of give me an idea of -- of the berm
that is being discussed, where that's going to -- where all that exists?
Nelson: I don't think --
Johnson: Mr. Chair, I'm going to attempt to turn control over, otherwise, you would not
have the person, so --
Cassinelli: Okay.
Johnson: Let me know -- you should be able to control that.
Nelson: Yeah. Thanks, Chris. It's the far western side where it's straight up and down
on the west side of phase five. Excuse me. Yes. Right here.
Johnson: Most of you have control of the presentation if you need to go to another slide
as your full presentation on the screen.
Cassinelli: So, Deborah, it's going -- that -- the portion of the parcel that is -- that is true
north and south, all those lots there in -- in phase five that are R-2, that's where the berm
will go?
Nelson: That's right. This is where there isn't -- right up -- down to about this property is
about where the line is at the -- the south end of the Rinehimers. The Rinehimers and
the Robertsons have had discussions with the applicant and were agreeable to put a
berm and -- on -- right on the middle of the property line or requested that and the
applicant is agreeable to that and to put the fence right in the middle on that boundary.
Down in this corner this is the Lins and the Martins and it -- this is where there is a great
deal of elevation change.
Seal: Sorry to interrupt, but I'm not seeing a pointer on the map.
Cassinelli: Neither am I.
Nelson: Okay. So, it's not sharing.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 50 of 148
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
May 7,2020
Page 48 of 60
Johnson: What I have done is I have sent a request for you to be able to control it and it
says it's waiting for you at the top --
Nelson: Oh. Okay.
Johnson: You control the screen and move the slides --
Fitzgerald: Try your cursor.
Nelson: Do you see that now?
Fitzgerald: I did a second ago. It disappeared.
Nelson: Okay. Is it changing the slides for you? Okay. And, then, can you see the
cursor now? Some yes, some no.
Seal: Yes, I see it now.
Nelson: Okay. I appreciate your patience and being willing to do this virtually by the way.
So, I was just describing -- so just in case you didn't see. So, here is where there will be
-- or where the applicant's been able to work with adjacent neighbors to put a berm and
a fence on top of that and, then, you come around this corner down to the southwest and
this is where you have got a great deal of elevation and as you come also further around
you have got property owners down here who have not objected or have been
comfortable or willing to accept the development. For example, you heard from the
Radfords in some testimony that they were supportive of the development. Their only
concern as of today was the -- they didn't want the new attached product, but they were
happy with it before that. So, you know, each -- obviously no one is excited to have new
development next to them, but I think a lot of them realize that this is what was expected
and planned here and so -- the other thing the developer did to be responsive to your
question about working with them is looking at the -- where they would put two story
homes and we are very cognizant to limit the two story homes down to single story where
they were in the direct view shed out from the physical house from each of those
properties. So, they have tried to be very specific to the -- the landowners where --
depending on the elevation, depending on their home location, depending on what their
particular requests were and to the extent that the developer could do it, then, they have
-- they have provided that accommodation.
Fitzgerald: Additional questions for the applicant? Mr. Cassinelli, did you have -- did that
give you a clear picture?
Cassinelli: Yeah. That is what I needed to know. Thank you.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Any additional questions?
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 51 of 148
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
May 7,2020
Page 49 of 60
Johnson: Mr. Chair, this is Chris. Just for notification purposes, you do have folks who
have testified previously raising hands. I know your practice is not that, but I did want you
to be aware so you could address that.
Fitzgerald: I appreciate that and it's -- it's our practice they get a chance to speak and,
then, we let the applicant close. That's how we do our normal process and we are going
to stick to that tonight. So, additional questions for the applicant? Any other questions
or concerns? Questions? Comments? Commissioner Holland.
Holland: Mr. Chair, I think one -- one quick question. Staff had mentioned they would
like to see a tot lot or some sort of addition somewhere and Sabrina mentioned that
Coleman --or that Toll Brothers is open to that. Do you know where that would be located
at by chance? Or whether they would consider replacing that?
Nelson: Yes. Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Holland, they will have -- now with the
addition of this playground, they will have a playground here and, then, they will be adding
a playground also to the larger park centrally. And here, of course, they already had the
pool and the picnic structure here and they will be adding a playground there as well.
Fitzgerald: And can you -- just in regards to -- you guys are moving the lift station to
where -- where is that location going to go? There was a suggestion on temporary
location. What's that? What's the plan? So, is there -- okay.
Nelson: Mr. Chairman, the temporary lift station will be up here in this location now and
that's still consistent with the city's overall sewer master plan. They just had planned a
lift station along here and rather than it being down here it is up in this location.
Cassinelli: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: Deborah, question on the pond. Since that's part of the irrigation I'm going to
assume that that will be -- that will be dry from October to April.
Nelson: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Cassinelli, they -- they will have a supplemental
well to keep that full.
Cassinelli: So, it will be -- it will be full year round?
Nelson: That is correct.
Cassinelli: Thank you.
Fitzgerald: Any additional questions for the applicant before we move on and close the
public hearing? Hearing none, Deborah, thank you for joining us this evening. We
appreciate it greatly.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 52 of 148
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
May 7,2020
Page 50 of 60
Nelson: Thanks very much.
Fitzgerald: And we will deliberate and see where we go from here. With that can I get a
motion to close the public hearing on this application?
Holland: So moved.
Cassinelli: So moved.
Seal: Second.
Fitzgerald: I have multiple motions and a second to close the public hearing on H-2020-
0012. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Fitzgerald: Somebody want to leap -- take a leap off, give us your thoughts?
Seal: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal.
Seal: I mean -- I will start with the positive, because I think the subdivision itself -- I think
they did -- I mean they were painstaking in what they have laid out as far as the transition
of homes. I like the amenities. I like the layout. I like the fact that it's well connected with
paths and fits into the community path plan as well. So, I mean there is -- it does have a
lot of things going for it as far as that's concerned. I would really really like to see this
land somewhere else and, then, I would have no problems with it. The issue that I have
is -- is the property that it butts up against and the long conversations we all had about
eliminating, you know, essentially, what is -- what would be a rural designation. So, this
piece of property in particular was one of them that was pointed out as far as, you know,
what happens when a subdivision goes in against this and our answer to that at the -- at
that point in time was, well, it will come before us and we will have control, you know -- or
not control. We will have our ability to say what we would like to see in there. So, as part
of that I know they have worked with some of the neighbors, but I mean if some of the
neighbors want, you know, a berm and a fence and lower density, then, I think what's
good for one neighbor is good for all neighbors personally. So, I think I would like to see
the R-2 extend down further, simply because I think those properties are going to be
around and even if they are not that's something that can just benefit everybody,
especially as subdivisions like this move forward and abut the properties that are the five
to ten acre lots and I think that's why there is people here whose property isn't right up
against this subdivision are adamant -- you know, are opposed to seeing it developed like
this, because, you know, they were told that, you know, we were -- we would help give
them a voice if something like this comes in. So, for me I just -- I don't -- I guess I would
help to lend a voice to the people that have the five to ten acre lots, because that's what
we said we would do and, then, we got rid of the rural designation and now we are down
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 53 of 148
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
May 7,2020
Page 51 of 60
to, you know, three to eight houses per acre here, which is -- you know, if it were my five
to ten acre lot it's not something that I would enjoy.
Fitzgerald: Thanks, sir. Additional comments?
Cassinelli: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: I would have to echo Commissioner Seal's comments. It was very well said.
I, too, would like to see R-2 extend along the southern -- the southwest border there. You
got -- right now it's proposed to be R-4 up against the low density. So, I would like to see
that transition. Just because that neighbor didn't comment doesn't mean that -- that that
shouldn't be done and perhaps if a berm needs to be extended -- I realize the applicant
stated that there was an elevation change there, but I would -- I would prefer to see that.
I know there was a comment earlier -- I forget who made it -- about possibly adding some
more open space -- I think kind of up in the northeast phase. What we are looking at
here, phase four and phase six, there is along that -- the lateral up top, but -- but nothing
kind of in the center of that. So, maybe -- maybe some added open space in -- in that. I
will reiterate, too, the -- the positives. It is well laid out. The -- you know, looking at the
future land use map you have got the -- the medium density sandwiched in between low
density. It is what it is. Those are my comments.
Fitzgerald: So, two quick things on that. The Radfords' property is the phase two, 2021,
gray property, and they did submit public comment. They said they are not opposed to
the Cedarbrook Subdivision. Just not -- they don't like the duplexes. So, just for the
record that's -- that's my understanding is that's their property right below that, if that --
Cassinelli: Okay. Still -- still transitioning from R-4 to the low density, which to me it
should -- a better transition is R-2 to that.
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland or Commissioner McCarvel, do you have any
comments?
McCarvel: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: I guess -- I don't have quite as much heartburn with the R-2 over there. That
is a pretty significant height difference. I just -- I'm not a fan of the attached home product.
I just think it's trying to cram too much difference into this space, but I guess my bigger
concern is -- is what -- all this is coming out of one entrance onto Linder Road and Linder
Road is -- it is just barely a farm road. I mean it's paved, but there is no -- it's two lanes
and I know just to the north of this there is -- there is kind of a -- there is a hill that blocks
the view, I guess, so the -- I mean the traffic -- they are coming -- coming at that. I mean
until that's improved I'm -- and I know we don't want to wait, you know, for development
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 54 of 148
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
May 7,2020
Page 52 of 60
out here until 2035, but there is a lot of development coming here and I'm -- I'm just hoping
that that was going to be addressed a little sooner, but all that traffic coming out onto
Linder, I didn't hear anything about, you know, a light or anywhere where this is meeting
up with other subdivisions, if there is a planned -- planned light or stop or -- it's probably
not -- it's the -- I don't think it's the mid mile, so it just seems like a lot of traffic coming out
of one spot there and that's cul-de-sac'd in a lot of places that doesn't anticipate a whole
lot of other connection. But overall I like the amenities. I like all the other -- the other
transition. I think it's well thought out, especially for the topography of what's there.
Fitzgerald: Hey, Chris, can you go to the plat that actually shows the connections? Thank
you.
McCarvel: So, we get one to the north eventually.
Fitzgerald: A stub to the southwest.
McCarvel: I guess there is two there.
Fitzgerald: Yeah.
McCarvel: Coming out on Linder. Thank you.
Fitzgerald: And this one -- I like the layout of this property. I think it's -- it was well done.
I think with the way they did the comp plan, the way they did the future land use map, we
have -- and this is the first one we are going to see like this, they put us in the middle --
medium density residential transitioning into rural and there is nothing in code that talks
about that specifically, which makes it not very fun for us. It's a -- we are going to have
this dilemma no matter what gets brought to us in this realm, so I -- but I understand
where you guys are -- the concerns that are out there. I do think -- one of the things I
think I would like to see -- and this is -- is -- these bigger neighborhoods -- or maybe all
neighborhoods -- in north Meridian a lot of the things they did were -- if they wanted
something to develop within this it's a little bit further out from where others are being
developed, they brought the sewer and they also brought the lights. They bought traffic
control. And that's something that I -- out there four lane stops in the next six months to
a year and a half isn't going to work and so that's something I think has got to be discussed
is -- is off site coordination of how we are dealing with traffic and so Linder and Amity
being right there, I'm not sure why ACHD is not asking them to put a -- either put a light
in or bond for it for later purposes, because that's -- traffic coming out of this subdivision
is going to add to that. So, that concerns me that we are not doing that. That happened
a lot with a lot of the neighborhoods -- the Bainbridge, the Paramounts, those kinds of
things that are happening in north Meridian. I'm not sure why we are not doing it in south
Meridian. So, that's just an initial concern just to think about.
Holland: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 55 of 148
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
May 7,2020
Page 53 of 60
Holland: I don't -- I don't usually go last, but I kept my mouth shut this time for a while.
You know, I think the applicant did a really nice job in laying out the -- the lots and the
way that the subdivision flows and the pathways and I like a lot of the amenities that are
there. It's challenging when you look at something that's 118 acres, because we are used
to seeing 20 acre projects that we are evaluating, not 118 acres. So, I think when you
look at it it does look like a lot, but when you actually zoom in on the size of lots they are
pretty spacious and most of them are low density, even though it might look like they are
a little more dense than they-- they actually are, because we are looking at a bigger piece
of land here. So, keeping that in mind, I think my -- my concern -- I would echo
Commissioner McCarvel's comment that having one main access in and out of the site
-- and it looks like there is a secondary access off of Linder, but I would also echo -- echo
our Chair's comments about signals at some of those major crossroads. Linder is
becoming a busier road and I know there is a community to the south that is also
developing rather quickly and a lot of people use Linder Road as another corridor to
commute on. There is not planned improvements from ACHD on Linder for a while, but
over time it will become a road that connects kind of Meridian from the north to the south
again, similar to what Ten Mile does and what some of those other roads do. So, I don't
know that I want to condition that they are responsible for the entire stoplight going in
there, but it might be something worth throwing out to Council to consider is -- is there
something that we should be thinking about related to signals that help with traffic flow
near the subdivision, because there are a few other neighborhoods around this that will
be developed. My other heartburn was -- I know when we were in the Comprehensive
Plan process I sat on the comp plan committee. We spent a lot of time talking about
south Meridian and -- and this area and we got a lot of heartburn, because we knew that
we were going to face challenges where medium density faced the rural and how do we
create those appropriate transitions and I know we -- we wanted to spend more time on
it to -- to really make sure we have a good plan in place, but I think we did the best that
we could in trying to make sure we had a cohesive plan that represented the interests of
the residents and citizens and opportunities for developers. So, I don't think we can
restrict them and say we don't want to see medium density here when it's medium density
is what it's planned for. I think they have done a very nice job of planning the low density
transitions between them. They -- it sounds like they have been talking with their
neighbors. There is certainly a lot of -- a lot of comments to consider and -- and things
that could be changed. I don't feel too much heartburn about the -- about making the full
stretch of the perimeter R-2. I think they have done a fairly reasonable job of providing
those transitions. I don't know that I agree with staff on wanting to put the attached
product in there. I see where they were coming from in wanting diversity of product, but
that was something that just kind of made me stop and go, uh, I don't know about that
one, because it's -- it's going to be medium density kind of all around it, along with low
density and I don't -- there is not a lot in the comp plan to provide for that higher step up
in transition there I don't believe. But I can't remember what's -- what's going in the north
-- northeast corner of that property and what it would abut to in the future. That's my
comments.
Fitzgerald: I -- I agree with all those comments. I think there -- I think we are probably
trying to shoehorn in something that may not fit and where this is especially in regards to
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 56 of 148
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
May 7,2020
Page 54 of 60
-- it just -- it's like an afterthought and I -- I think we are going to have challenges as we
start to transition and development is going to come this way and we have got to work out
how to do it. I do greatly appreciate the applicant going out and working with each of the
neighbors, talking to Joe Yochum, talking to the fire chief, talking -- like making that effort.
I greatly appreciate that, because I think it would make all of our lives a lot easier if that
forethought is brought to every project and we are not having to deliberate over it here.
So, thank you hugely for that. We appreciate it greatly.
Cassinelli: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: Commissioner McCarvel and I think you -- you alluded to it as well -- access
points onto Linder. I'm only seeing the one.
Fitzgerald: So, at the edge of the -- I guess 45 degree angle, it's right down below that.
Cassinelli: Down in the bottom?
Fitzgerald: No. Northeast before it takes out 45.
Cassinelli: Is that just -- that's an emergency access, isn't it?
Seal: That's an emergency access off a shared driveway.
Allen: Mr. Chairman? Chairman?
Fitzgerald: Yes, ma'am.
Allen: That is an emergency access driveway only.
Fitzgerald: Okay.
Allen: And there is also an emergency access south of the main entry as well.
Fitzgerald: And a pathway there?
Allen: Yes.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you for the clarification.
Cassinelli: While we are on that subject, Sonya, do you have anything that's showing
access into the -- to the other -- to the planned subdivisions to the east?
Allen: Across the street to the east of Linder?
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 57 of 148
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
May 7,2020
Page 55 of 60
Cassinelli: Correct.
Allen: I do not in my slides, but I believe the applicant had some slides that showed the
overall area and the developments that have been approved out there. I'm not sure
exactly which slide it was, though.
Seal: That looks like it.
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli, did you have a follow up there?
Cassinelli: Yeah. I can see it. Yeah. They are just -- there doesn't seem to be any
access directly. It doesn't look like that's being developed directly across the street.
There is a small parcel that's --
Fitzgerald: Yeah.
Cassinelli: -- being developed, so that doesn't -- that doesn't line up or connect up, so,
you know, I was just curious about that.
Fitzgerald: So, what are we thinking? You want to parcel it out? Is there -- I got the R-2
piece along the southwestern border. I think that's -- there was discussions around that.
Commissioner Cassinelli or Commissioner Seal, do you have a feeling on the multi-family
attached product, zero lot line up to the northwest, whether that is appropriate or not?
Seal: Mr. Commissioner, I agree with Commissioner Holland. I think that was the -- it
was a good attempt to throw in what was requested by staff, but looking at it -- it -- it just
-- I don't know that it fits. I think there is enough diversity in -- in -- in what's already in
there, you know, and, again, I think if they are going to do a berm with trees and a fence
along part of it that borders that, they should do a berm, you know, a fence and trees
along all of it and make it all R-2 and -- and, you know, come back with the biggest lot
size they are willing to give at this point, you know, and, again, that just comes from this
transition from a rural into this specific piece and knowing that, you know, whatever is
approved or disapproved here we are going to have to fight this battle, you know, more
times as -- as this land is developed. So, personally, I'm just looking to kind of put a stake
in the ground for--for what we are expecting them to do for, you know, the larger estates
that are there.
Fitzgerald: Appreciate that.
Cassinelli: And I said -- I -- I agree on the -- on -- on those attached units, that I don't feel
that that's -- that that's needed. But, again, it's exactly what Commissioner Seal set up.
I would prefer R-2 and -- and at least a berm on that angle piece, if that's necessary there.
Until you get to that -- the -- the height variance, then, a berm would not be necessary.
Fitzgerald: I think the height is on the angle.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 58 of 148
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
May 7,2020
Page 56 of 60
Cassinelli: On that 45 before it shapes --
Fitzgerald: Yeah. The height on the angle and, then, it shapes around, flattens back out.
That's the 400 -- the 350 to 400 foot with the -- with the higher elevation change and,
Sonya, you can correct me if I'm incorrect there, but that was my understanding. From
the applicant.
Allen: Mr. Chair, I -- I am not sure, so I will not confirm what the applicant said. Thank
you.
Fitzgerald: So, thoughts, folks?
Holland: So far to confirm what I have heard from everybody and I want to make sure we
are not missing something and I don't necessarily have to be the one that makes the
motion, I just want to recap what we have all said. I think the consensus was to remove
the attached product that's on the northeast corner and return that to single family.
Fitzgerald: Yeah.
McCarvel: Yes.
Holland: Another consideration would be to ask Council to consider whether there should
be some funding put towards a future intersection, stoplight, at Amity and Linder.
Fitzgerald: Yeah.
McCarvel: I think -- Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Yes, ma'am.
McCarvel: Correct -- somebody correct me if I'm wrong. Didn't I see where the actual --
the intersection at Amity and Linder was supposed to be a roundabout here like in --
Fitzgerald: Sonya, can you --
McCarvel: I know Ten Mile and Amity is going to be a big roundabout, but I thought there
was a smaller one for Amity and --
Fitzgerald: They are doing a lot out there, so it wouldn't surprise me.
McCarvel: I guess my -- my concern was more the condition of Linder itself. I mean they
have -- they have gone out there and it's farm roads and they have gone in and they have
tried -- you know, they have patched them and done the sewer lines and stuff and it's all
patched and rough and just -- as this all develops I would -- I would like to see Council do
whatever they can to push something forward to at least improve the condition of that
road.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 59 of 148
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
May 7,2020
Page 57 of 60
Holland: One more quick question to staff. Sorry, Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: That's always ACHD's issue, but I mean whatever we can do to --
Fitzgerald: Move them along.
McCarvel: -- forward a little, instead of waiting until 2035 with all this going in.
Fitzgerald: And there is no way they are waiting until 2035 out there. There is no way.
McCarvel: Yeah.
Fitzgerald: Sorry, Commissioner Holland, you got cut off. I apologize.
Holland: That's okay. I didn't mean to cut anybody else off. Question to staff. I don't
remember on that section of Linder -- is there already a median turn lane that would
access into this neighborhood?
Allen: Chairman, Commissioner Holland, no. It's just a rural two lane roadway.
Holland; Follow up to that. Are they required to add a turn lane as part of this
development?
Allen: I believe there was a requirement. It would be in the ACHD staff report, if you
would like me to look.
Holland: I just couldn't remember. I know I skimmed through it, but I couldn't remember
what was required there.
Allen: Yeah. I'm -- I'm pretty sure there was a turn lane required.
Seal: I believe a turn lane was required and they also required additional -- additional
recommendations along Linder to provide for -- as far as how the sidewalks were going
to be defined and the setbacks were going to be drawn.
Holland; I don't know if that helps Commissioner McCarvel, but I think there were some
conditions in there to help with Linder Road a little bit.
McCarvel: Yeah. I -- Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Go right ahead, ma'am.
McCarvel: Yeah. I think in general I'm in support of the overall design and the amenities
and everything else. I just -- I was not in favor of the attached home product up there. I
just think it's too much trying to cram in too many different things.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 60 of 148
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
May 7,2020
Page 58 of 60
Holland: I think the last big thing that we -- that we were all discussing was the R-2 that's
around the property line and if there was any modifications that we wanted to request
there. I know Commissioner Cassinelli and Commissioner Seal were -- it sounded like
you were leaning towards wanting to have some additional buffering or some additional
lot -- lot changes, but I wanted to stop and summarize what everyone else was thinking.
I felt okay with what's there, but I'm not opposed to having something else in there, too, if
the Commission feels like that's what we need to do.
Seal: I would like to see the -- you know, again, along the west and south boundaries
bordering the larger estates I would like to see the, you know, R-2 along that entire stretch,
as well as, you know, berm, trees, shrubs. Again, this is just--you know, this is something
that the people that have the larger estates asked what could be done if we didn't keep
the rural designation, what could be done when something like this happens against them.
So, you know, again, our answer was, well, we can help modify that in the future. So, we
had a lot of people that are asking for that, we are going to have people ask for it in the
future and I think it would be wise of us to recommend that to the city if-- if we go through
with an approval on this.
McCarvel: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: Didn't we -- didn't we have the testimony from the resident that lives up there
into -- his one house and I think it's -- they were okay with the R-2 -- or the -- what was
going in next to them and I think that house has been there a lot longer than the other --
those big five acre lots going down the west side.
Fitzgerald: That was the Radfords.
McCarvel: Yeah.
Fitzgerald: Their -- their comment was they are not opposed to the subdivision.
McCarvel: Yeah.
Fitzgerald: Understood it to be single family home, not townhomes or duplexes.
McCarvel: Yeah. I think that property was quite a bit up on a hill.
Fitzgerald: So, I understand where Commissioner Seal is going in his thoughts. I think
what is-- is challenging is we can't always see elevations when we are meeting with these
things and so having -- I mean putting things in place that are going to be of no use to the
people that are asking for it and -- or, yeah, people that are not asking for it, I -- I don't
want to just ask the applicant to spend money because it's not worth putting a line in the
sand. So, I get the balance, but I -- I -- maybe there is a compromise between the R-2
and the berming, because I think -- I don't want to take it -- I don't want to leave out the
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 61 of 148
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
May 7,2020
Page 59 of 60
fact that they did go meet with all those applicants -- or all those residents and say what
do you want us to do and so they are taking the initiative to go talk to those folks and they
are putting a berm where it's necessary along the agreement they have had on the
eastern -- or northeast border. So, I -- it's -- it's a balancing act for me a little bit. I
understand what you are saying -- I understand your point exactly. Just -- I would love to
have the elevation so I could say that there is already -- some of the mitigation already
taking place, but that would be my thoughts there.
Fitzgerald: I can't look at you and throw things or something. If I could like show someone
or -- do something. I can't make a motion, so --
Holland: I mean I could attempt to throw one out there. I just don't know if we -- if we are
ready or not, if anybody else wants anything else in there. Want me to try it? After
considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to
City Council of file number H-2020-0012 as presented in the staff report for the hearing
date of May 7th, 2020, with the following modifications. That the applicant would add the
playground structures as described in the Planning and Zoning meeting. That they would
remove the attached product that was presented for the northeast corner of the site and
return that to single family homes. That Council would consider whether or not there
should be some funding or partnership towards the future intersection improvements of
Amity and Linder and that they would -- as the applicant mentioned, they were going to
have increased widths behind the homes to create that transition on the south and west
perimeter and that they would fulfill that. I'm not sure how to word that.
McCarvel: Second.
Fitzgerald: Okay. I have a motion and a second to recommend approval of file number
H-2020-0012. Is there additional discussion before I call for a roll call vote?
Cassinelli: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: Could I ask Commissioner Holland to clarify that last --
Holland: You didn't like my language in that?
Cassinelli: No. You wanted to --
Holland: Yeah. Well, they -- I know that Deb Nelson at the end was talking about how
they had an additional buffer zone that they were putting in for all of the homes on the
boundary. That was beyond what code required and I can't remember what the number
was she used, that's why I stumbled there, because she gave a number of how far apart
the houses would be. Can anyone help me out there?
McCarvel: Additional setbacks as described by the applicant.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 62 of 148
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
May 7,2020
Page 60 of 60
Holland: Okay. Let's modify it to say that all the homes on the southern and west
perimeter would have the additional setbacks as described by the applicant.
Parsons: Yeah. Deb said 30 feet.
Holland: Thirty feet.
Fitzgerald: Is there a second or -- concur with the adjusted motion?
McCarvel: Second concurs.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Any other additional comments or discussion before we vote? Okay.
Madam Clerk, can you call the roll, please, ma'am.
Roll call: Fitzgerald, yea; Holland, yea; Seal, nay; McCarvel, yea; Pitzer, absent;
Cassinelli, nay; Grove, absent.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO NAYS. TWO ABSENT.
Fitzgerald: Thanks, guys. I appreciate Deb and the team. We appreciate all the input
for the community and from the Toll Brothers team. We appreciate you guys being here
tonight. With that we have one more motion.
McCarvel: Mr. Chair, I move we adjourn.
Seal: Second.
Fitzgerald: Thank you. Motion and a second to adjourn the meeting. All those in favor
say aye. Thank you all.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:06 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
5 21 2020
RYAN FITZGERALD - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED
ATTEST:
CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 21,2020— Page 63 of 148