2020-06-04
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting June 4, 2020.
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of June 4, 2020, was called
to order at 6:00 p.m. by Commissioner Lisa Holland.
Members Present: Commissioner Lisa Holland, Commissioner Bill Cassinelli,
Commissioner Andrew Seal, Commissioner Rhonda McCarvel, Commissioner Nick
Grove and Commissioner Patricia Pitzer.
Members Absent: Chairman Ryan Fitzgerald.
Others Present: Chris Johnson, Adrienne Weatherly, Andrea Pogue, Bill Parsons, Joe
Dodson, Sonya Allen and Alan Tiefenbach.
Item 1: Roll-call Attendance
__X___ Lisa Holland ___X___ Rhonda McCarvel
__X___ Andrew Seal ___X___ Nick Grove
__X___ Patricia Pitzer ___X___ Bill Cassinelli (6:06 p.m.)
________ Ryan Fitzgerald - Chairman
Fitzgerald: All right. Well, with that I'm filling in as chair tonight. My name is Lisa Holland.
But good evening, welcome to our Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for April
16th, 2020. We are bringing this to you via Zoom and we are just going to take a couple
seconds to explain how it's going to work first. So, on your screen you should see all the
Commissioners who are present for the evening's meeting and we also have on the call
staff, as well as representatives from the city attorney and our city clerk offices and we
also have staff from our Planning Department on the call as well. Everybody else that's
on the line are on Zoom as attendees and you can observe the meeting and we can -- we
know that you're there, but your ability to talk and be seen will be muted. During the public
testimony portion of the hearing you will be unmuted and able to comment. If you have
previously sent in a presentation for the meeting it will be displayed on the screen and the
clerk will help you run that presentation. The clerk will also help assist with bringing up
slides from another presentation if you need it. So, just please ask. If you just want to
tune in to watch the meeting we encourage you to watch the live stream on the city's
YouTube channel, which can be accessed at meridiancity.org\\live. And when public
testimony has opened the clerk will call the names of those who signed up to testify on
the website. You will be unmuted and I will call on you individually to speak. Please state
your name and address for the record when it comes time and you will have three minutes
to address the Commission. After that time we may open it up for questions for
clarification and, then, once done you will be muted and no longer have the ability to
speak. Once all those of you who have signed up in advance are called on by any others
who wish to testify -- and if you want to speak on a topic you are welcome to press the
raise hand button in the zoom app or if you are listening through a cell phone or landline
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 2 of 66
you can press star nine and unmute yourself and, then, wait for your name to be called.
If you're listening on multiple devices, like a computer and a phone, please make sure
you mute those devices, so we don't have feedback and everyone can hear you clearly.
And note that we can't take questions until the public testimony portion. So, if you have
a question or a process question during the meeting, please feel free to e-mail the city
clerk at meridiancity.org and they can attempt to help you as quickly as possible. So,
hopefully, that makes sense and thanks for joining with us, even though it's not the way
we are used to doing things, but we are getting more used to it and getting better at it.
So, at this time I would like to call to order the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning
-- Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for the hearing date of April -- or sorry. Did
I say April 16th originally? I did. I was reading off the script if you couldn't tell. Sorry
about that. For the date of June 4th is the date that we are today and we will start with
the roll call.
Weatherly: Thank you, Chairperson Holland. I'm sorry, I'm starting a little bit confused
right now. I just got an e-mail from Bill Cassinelli that says that he is trying to dial, but he
is muted as an attendee, so I'm just trying to decipher which attendee he is. Do you want
me to try to connect him before I call roll or would you prefer I call roll so you can move
on?
Holland: No, we can wait for -- for Bill to get tied in here. If he can find you.
Weatherly: Go ahead, Chris.
Johnson: I was going to say there was a phone caller in, but now there is nobody by
phone. So, if he's calling back in I will be watching for that. But there is not -- currently
not -- there is nobody by phone at the moment.
Seal: I see him as one of the panelists.
Johnson: That's Bill Parsons, but --
Seal: Oh. Sorry.
Pogue: Is he trying to do audio only?
Weatherly: Yeah. He's calling in. I believe he is traveling from out of state right now. He
said he would try to call in if he could, which sounds like he's trying to do, but I'm not sure
if it's working. I e-mailed him back to see if I could get in touch with him again.
Holland: I think we could take role and if we manage to get him on the call we can just
state on the record when he joins us if you would like. Or if he tries to call back and we
can still wait a minute here.
Weatherly: Okay. Thanks for your patience.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 3 of 66
Item 2: Adoption of Agenda
Holland: Thank you for that. So, the first item we have on the agenda is the adoption of
the agenda, noting that there is just one item that is going to be open for request for
continuance and that is public hearing for Teakwood Place, H-2020-0006. They are
requesting a continuance to July 16th, so we won't be opening for public testimony tonight
on that application, but, otherwise, the agenda sits as stands. Can I get a motion to adopt
the agenda as presented?
Seal: So moved.
Pitzer: Second.
Holland: Okay. I have a motion and a second. All those in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Item 3: Consent Agenda \[Action Item\]
A. Approve Minutes of the May 28, 2020, Planning and
Zoning Commission Special Meeting
Holland: All right. We will move on to the next item, which is the Consent Agenda, which
is just the approval of minutes from the May 28th, 2020, Planning and Zoning special
meeting. Can I get a motion to approve the Consent Agenda?
McCarvel: So moved.
Seal: Second.
Holland: Okay. We have got a motion and a second. All those in favor? Any opposed?
Motion passes.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Item 4: Action Items
A. Public Hearing Continued From May 7, 2020 for Teakwood
Place Subdivision (H-2020-0006) by Hesscomm Corp., Located
Approximately ¼ Mile East of S. Eagle Rd., Fronting on E.
Victory Road
1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 7.35 acres of land with an
R-8 zoning district; and,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 4 of 66
2. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 28 building lots and
5 common lots.
Holland: So, at this time we already kind of walked through a little bit of the public hearing
process, so I'm not going to go through that again, but just to summarize briefly, we are
going to start with a staff report on each item and, then, we are going to allow the applicant
to share for up to 15 minutes on their application and answer questions, give us their
presentation. After they are finished we will open up the floor for public testimony. If you
would like to testify tonight you are welcome to message the City Clerk's office, so that
they have you on that list or raise your hand when it comes to that time and we will let
you know when that is and you will have three minutes to address us and, then, we will
allow the applicant to close before we deliberate and if there is anyone representing an
HOA and we have the ability to -- I don't know that we will have this situation, but if we do
have someone here representing a larger group and wants to cede time for several people
in the audience, we can give them a little bit longer to speak, but, otherwise, I think we
will move on and start with public hearing item for Teakwood Place, H-2020-0006, and at
this point the applicant has requested a continuance to July 16th of 2020 and since this
is their request it would be up to them to pay for the renoticing requirements for that
application, so just noting that. If you would all like to hear from the applicant on why they
would like a continuance we could certainly ask for that, but I think they just had a few
more things to work through before they are ready to come to us. So, if anyone wants to
make a motion to grant that continuance, noting that the applicant would be responsible
for any fees with renoticing that would be great.
Seal: Madam Chair?
Holland: Commissioner Seal.
Seal: Move to continue file number H-2020-0006 to the date of July 16th, 2020, per the
applicant's request, who will be responsible for all renoticing.
Grove: Second.
Holland: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor? Any opposed? Motion
passes.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
B. Public Hearing for Gracie Fighting Academy (H-2020-0054) by
Ia Falo, Located at 149 S. Adkins Way
1. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for an indoor recreation
Facility located within an existing building on 1.26 acres of
land in the I-L zoning district.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 5 of 66
Holland: So, next we will move on to the public hearing item for Gracie Fighting Academy.
Weatherly: Madam Chair?
Holland: Oh.
Weatherly: Sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt. I just wanted to note for the record that
Commissioner Cassinelli joined the meeting at 6:06.
Holland: Great. Welcome, Commissioner Cassinelli. I think he is there. So, we will
move on to Item B, which is public hearing for Gracie Fighting Academy, H-2020-0054,
and we will start with the staff report.
Dodson: Thank you, Commissioner Holland, Members of the Commission. Can you guys
hear me well? Okay. Always got to check with this stuff. All right. Let's start. So, the
first item actually being heard tonight is Gracie Fighting Academy. The request before
you is for a conditional use permit for an indoor recreation facility located within an existing
building and the I-L zoning district. The applicant is proposing to lease a tenant space
with an existing -- within an existing building and operate a Jiu Jitsu academy, which if
you don't know is a form of grappling martial arts. Staff was provided with their proposed
summer schedule that shows the intended hours of operation for this business. According
to the schedule a vast majority of the business hours will be during the evening hours,
Monday through Friday, between 5:00 and 8:00 p.m. Oh. Really 5:00 and 9:00. Their
last class is at 8:00. The schedule also shows some one-on-one training at noon each
day as well. The applicant intends to have short Saturday morning hours as well with the
last hour, noon to 1:00, being reserved for more of the instruction training. Within this
same building there is another martial arts studio, the Dojo. The Dojo received conditional
use permit approval and CZC approval in 2011 for this use and related improvements.
The CUP approval did not restrict the operational hours beyond those listed within the
specific use standards. This business has similar hours of operation on Monday through
Thursday and is closed on Fridays, but also has one less class on Tuesday evening. The
Dojo also has Saturday morning classes with one hour classes reserved for each age
group, juniors, kids, and adults, going from approximately 9:15 a.m. to noon. So, similar
hours to this application, but less. These types of uses, you know, indoor recreation
facilities, usually have staggered hours of operation that are offset from other nearby
industrial or commercial uses, as is the case for this application. Staff does not foresee
additional impacts by this tenant in the proposed use, other than additional evening
parking being used. The applicant has already received building permit approval for this
suite after staff signed off on the certificate of occupancy in error in the recent months.
This building does house other commercial users and one light industrial user, an HVAC
company. The subject site and existing building provide 49 parking stalls. In addition, all
nearby industrial buildings appear to be a smaller scale and house multiple tenants aimed
at low impact use. There have been no reported issues of parking at this location. The
two other known uses within this building appear to have normal operating hours during
the standard work week and show the proposed hours of operation of this application will
rarely overlap. The two local streets that abut the site, East Piper Court and South Adkins
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 6 of 66
Way, are at least 35 feet wide, allowing for on-street parking on both sides. Staff has
calculated approximately 360 linear feet of street frontage directly abutting the site, so not
on both sides, just the ones abutting the site, and those could provide for approximately
15 additional on-street parking spaces. Therefore, staff believes the available on-street
parking and existing 42 parking stalls is more than adequate parking for the proposed use
and subject site. Due to the fact of the proposed use is within an existing building and no
site or exterior building modifications are proposed, a certificate of zoning compliance will
not be required and no additional site improvements are going to be required. They were
already covered in 2011 with the previous CUP and CZC for the existing indoor recreation
facility for the Dojo. So, in short, staff does recommend approval of the proposed
conditional use permit pursuant to the conditions in my staff report and I will stand for
questions. Thank you.
Holland: Thank you. Appreciate it. Any questions for staff?
Grove: Madam Chair?
Holland: Commissioner Grove.
Grove: Joe, with the staff's error does that mean that they have been operating recently
or -- or have they not yet started operations?
Dodson: Commissioner Grove, Members of the Commission, as far as I know they have
not been operating. I believe they were -- honestly don't know how they got down this
path of actually applying for the CUP, I do not remember completely, but the Coronavirus
kind of stopped them from opening, but they did do their TI, they have already had
approval on that, but from my understanding they have not been operating. They have
been waiting for this to go through, so they have been -- they have been good on that
front.
Grove: Thank you.
Holland: Any other questions for staff? Hearing none, do we have the applicant available
to speak with us?
Johnson: Madam Chair, he is in the meeting room now. I'm unmuting, if it allows me.
The applicant is in the room.
Holland: Thank you. Appreciate it.
Falo: Yes, I am --
Holland: We can hear you. Yeah. If you wouldn't mind just stating your name and
address for the record, we would love to hear from you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 7 of 66
Falo: Sorry. Yes. My name is Ia Falo. My address is 1287 North Stonehenge Way,
Meridian. 83642. The facility address is 149 South Atkins Way, Meridian, Idaho, 83642,
as well. My main purpose for being here today is the request for the conditional use
permit for an indoor recreation facility located within that existing building on 1.26 acres
on that land on 149 South Atkins Way. My main purpose is -- first off I'm a business
owner and a professional -- professor for jujitsu, which is a martial arts discipline. The
main purpose of my business is just providing self defense that does not involve striking,
along with fundamental exercises and body movements to keep all my students safe and
healthy. I felt that I would fit well in this building and area, because of the nature of my
business and what all the other surrounding businesses are providing. For instance, there
is a karate school in suite 101 on the building that we are talking about, the 149 Atkins.
Also a dance school at 195 Atkins and a CrossFit gym in 345 Atkins as well. All of which
are providing personal training and fitness to the community. Our hours of operation, as
said before, are predominantly from 5:00 to 9:00 p.m., a time in which most industrial, as
well as commercial businesses are closed. Therefore, the traffic produced by our
customers will not take place mostly in the nonbusiness hours and will keep the area from
being overly congested. Customer parking should be of no concern as there is simple --
there is ample on-site parking provided on the parcel of 149 Atkins. My students and I
would also have no problem parking out on the street of South Atkins Way or East Piper
Court, given the corner lot nature of the parcel and allow use of the city street to park on.
Regarding the City of Meridian's Code, 11-4-3-2, I will be complying and won't cause any
issues, because of all my business activities will take place indoors. There is only one
other business operating during the time at which I am operating on the same property.
There would be more than enough room for everyone to park. With there being two
martial arts academies also on this facility operating on this facility, it would bring an influx
of prospective propriety to the area. Our main hours of operation are from 5:00 to 9:00
p.m., as stated before, Monday through Friday, and Saturday from 9:00 to noon. The
only time the facility would be used other than those hours would be for a private lesson,
as said before, at like noon or I accommodate their time frame -- time schedule. Each
private lesson will last for one hour and generally scheduled for time of convenience. I
would hope that each business would feel that we will, as a business owner, would
provide a variety of services that would help the community, as well as each other. A lot
of the businesses in the area around add value to each other, since they can be used to
improve or help one another's clientele, furthermore bringing more business to each of
those surrounding businesses, causing growth and stability. Thank you.
Holland: Thank you very much. Any questions for the applicant? No questions. Thanks
for taking a few minutes to be with us this afternoon or this evening and in sharing with
us kind of what you're looking to do there.
Falo: Thank you.
Holland: Madam Clerk, do we -- do we have anybody else signed in to testify?
Weatherly: Madam Chair, we do not.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 8 of 66
Holland: All right. And I am assuming -- I'm not sure if you have got any other comments
you would like to make, Mr. Falo, but certainly if you do you're welcome to make any
closing comments you would like before we deliberate.
Falo: No, ma'am. Thank you for listening.
Holland: All right. Thank you. With that can I get a motion to close the public hearing for
Gracie Fighting Academy, H-2020-0054?
Pitzer: So moved.
Seal: Second.
Holland: Got a motion and a second. All those in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Holland: I'll just say, you know, it's -- it is an industrial area, but it's kind of a mixed use
flex industrial area that's got a lot more commercial in it than it does industrial, so I don't
see any concerns with where they want to put their facility and, you know, there is an
indoor soccer stadium close by, there is a lot of other health related activities. It looks
like a nice -- nice shop. So, in my mind I don't see any big concerns with it, but certainly
opening it up to all of you for discussion.
McCarvel: Madam Chair?
Holland: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: Yeah, I think this sounds like it's a good fit, especially with the other things
that are already there, and I don't have an issue. I would support it.
Grove: Madam Chair?
Holland: Commissioner Grove.
Grove: I will echo both of you. It seems like a good fit for what is already there and would
complement this -- the surrounding area.
Holland: Commissioner Seal or Pitzer --
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
Holland: Oh. Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: Oh, good. You can hear me. I wasn't sure. Yeah. I'm -- I'm on board, fully
support it, don't see any -- any issues.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 9 of 66
Holland: Commissioner Pitzer or Seal, either one of you have a comment or a motion?
Pitzer: I'm not opposed to that and I would make a motion if you would like or,
Commissioner Seal, would you like to go first?
Seal: I have a -- I just echo what everybody else has. So, this seems to be a good fit.
Good area. Glad to see more of these things coming into the community. So, if
Commissioner Pitzer -- Pitzer wants to make the motion I -- I will move out of the way.
Holland: And just one reminder. This is a conditional use permit, so we are the deciding
body, so when you make your motion just note that we are giving them approval to move
forward.
Pitzer: Thank you. Madam Chair, after considering all staff, applicant, and public
testimony, I move we approve file H-2020-0054 as presented in the staff report for the
hearing date of June 4th, 2020, without any modification.
Seal: Second.
Holland: I have got a motion and a second. All those in favor? Any opposed? Great.
Hearing none.
MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT.
C. Public Hearing for Landing South (H-2020-0005) by Jim
Jewett, Located at 660 S. Linder Rd.
1. Request: Rezone of 2.43 acres of land from the R-4 to the R-
8 zoning district; and,
2. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 11 building lots and 2
common lots on 2.27 acres of land in the proposed R -8
zoning district.
Holland: We will move on to the public hearing for Landing South, H-2020-0005, and we
will begin with staff report.
Allen: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. The next applications
before you are a request for a rezone and a preliminary plat. This site consists of 2.27
acres of land. It's zoned R-4 and it's located at 660 South Linder Road. Adjacent land
use and zoning. Single family residential properties surround this site, zoned R-8, and R-
4. This property was annexed in 1994 without the requirement of a development
agreement. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is medium density
residential, which calls for three to eight dwelling units per acre. A rezone of 2.43 acres
of land is requested from the R-4 to the R-8 zoning district for the development of 14
residential dwelling units, consisting of a mix of single family residential detached and two
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 10 of 66
family duplex dwellings at a gross density of 6.16 units per acre, consistent with the
medium density residential future land use designation. A preliminary plat is proposed
consisting of ten building lots and three common lots on 2.27 acres of land in the proposed
R-8 district. The minimum lot size proposed is 4,004 square feet, with an average lot size
of 6,305 square feet. Duplexes are proposed adjacent to Linder Road with single family
residential detached homes on the eastern portion of the development. Access is
proposed via the extension of an existing stub street, South Spoonbill Avenue, from
Joshua Street from the north boundary of this site, which ends in a cul-de-sac. Two
common driveways are proposed off the cul-de-sac for access as shown on the plat. No
access is proposed or approved via Linder Road. There is an existing emergency only
access off site to the north via Linder Road. Off-street parking is provided in accord with
UDC standards. Two on-street parking spaces, as well as four spaces at the ends of
common driveways, for a total of six spaces are available for guest parking, in addition to
the parking pads provided on each lot and those spaces are shown as the red dots there
before you. Staff is concerned that there may not be adequate on-street parking for
guests and area for trash receptacles on trash day. However, the UDC does not have
standards for on-street parking. The Kennedy Lateral runs along the north boundary of
this site and has been piped. The pathways master plan depicts a ten foot wide multi-
use pathway along the frontage of this site adjacent to Linder Road. However, because
there is an existing sidewalk that is in good condition in this area, the Parks Department
is not requiring it to be constructed at this time and is only requiring an easement for future
construction of a pathway. A 25 foot wide landscape street buffer is required along Linder
Road. Because this site is below five acres in size the qualified open space and site
amenity standards in the UDC do not apply. An open space exhibit was submitted that
depicts .37 of an acre of common open space consisting of the street buffer along Linder
Road and the area along the northern boundary where the Kennedy Lateral lies. No
amenities are proposed. Wrought iron fencing is proposed to be constructed at the back
edge of the street buffer along Linder Road and along the Kennedy Lateral easement.
Concept building elevations were submitted for the homes proposed in the development
as shown. Single family detached homes are a single story in height with stucco finish
and stone veneer accents. Duplexes are two stories in height with a mix of vertical and
horizontal siding. The duplex structures are required to comply with the design standards
in the architectural standards manual. Written testimony has been received from Chris
and Candace Johnson and they are requesting Joshua Street is allowed to extend to the
west and connect to Linder Road as the permanent access, instead of emergency only,
or at the very least that construction traffic is allowed to use this access for development
of the subdivision and that a no outlet sign be installed at South Tylee Way where it
intersects Waltman Drive to notify drivers the street dead ends to prevent unnecessary
traffic on the street. Second, written testimony was received from Jeff Bolen. He is
requesting a direct access via Linder Road as well for this development for access to this
development and on that note staff did reach out to ACHD to see if an access via Linder
Road would be allowed and they said it would not as it does not meet district policies.
The site does not have sufficient frontage to meet spacing requirements from Gander
Drive to the south and Pintail Drive to the north. With the proposed development factored
in traffic volumes on Gander Drive are anticipated to be well below what is allowed on a
local street. Kenneth Scott Grapatin submitted written comments. He has concerns
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 11 of 66
pertaining to the continued provision of irrigation water to his property, which currently
runs through the north side of the proposed project and accessibility of the ditch for repairs
and cleaning. Lastly, Josh Beach, the applicant's representative, submitted comments in
response to the staff report. They are in agreement with the report, except for conditions
3-B and 3-C. They request the modification to 3-B to delete the first sentence and add:
The applicant shall comply with standards listed in UDC 11-3B-10C-5 and prior to City
Council should coordinate with the city arborist on mitigation and shall provide planning
staff with an updated landscape plan showing caliper inches proposed to be removed and
caliper inches replaced. The second portion there, the 50 inch caliper silver Maple on
Linder Road is required to be retained on the site and protected during construction.
Unless required to be removed by ACHD is proposed to remain. And that exact wording
is in your hearing outline. Staff is amenable to this change. And condition number 3-C,
they would like that condition deleted, which it -- it requires mitigation calculations to be
included on the landscape plan and the calculations table based on the city arborist
inspection in accord with UDC standards. A total of 67 caliper inches of trees is required
for mitigation and that -- that relates to the aforementioned condition. They were -- I didn't
really speak to I guess what they were deleting. That condition required them to provide
an additional 67 caliper inches of trees within common areas in accord with UDC
standards for mitigation. So, they wanted 3-C deleted. Staff does not recommend
deletion of this condition and recommends instead that the specific caliper inches to be
mitigated is updated based on the updated mitigation plan to be provided by the applicant
before the City Council meeting. Again, that language is in your hearing outline. Staff is
recommending approval with the conditions in the staff report. Staff will stand for any
questions.
Holland: Thanks, Sonya. Any questions for staff? No questions from staff. With that --
Grove: Madam Chair?
Holland: Commissioner Grove.
Grove: Sorry. I was trying to find my notes. So, yeah, question on the right of way. Is
the right of way that is proposed, that includes planning for the expansion of Linder and,
then, does that also include the spacing for the -- of a pathway?
Allen: Yes. The pathway, Commissioner Grove, Madam Chair, will be located within the
street buffer along Linder Road.
Grove: When the road is expanded?
Allen: Yes.
Grove: Okay. Thank you.
Holland: Any other questions for staff? Hearing none, I believe Josh is here to represent
the applicant. Do we have Josh online? There he is.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 12 of 66
Beach: Should be. Do you see me there maybe?
Holland: We do. Hello, sir. How are you?
Beach: I'm doing all right. How about yourself?
Holland: Doing good. If you wouldn't mind stating your name and address for the record,
we would love to hear from you.
Beach: You got it. Josh -- excuse me. Josh Beach representing JLJ or Jim Jewett.
Business address is 2030 South Washington Avenue, Emmett, Idaho. So, as Sonya
mentioned, this is a -- an application for a rezone and for a preliminary plat. It's fairly
straightforward. We have -- we have got -- if I can figure out how to move to the next
slide here.
Johnson: Josh, you might have to accept control first. It says you're waiting. Now it
shows you -- you got it.
Beach: Hey, there we go. Perfect. Basically, the same slide you just saw from Sonya
showing the lot count there. One thing I did want to mention initially is that the -- the
thought here was there the -- there are duplexes that are located up against the Linder
frontage in that street buffer there and as I was asked or referred to there will be a
sidewalk constructed on there when ACHD widens the road and those -- those eight units
or those four lots there will have their front doors facing Linder Road to kind of break up
that -- that -- that face and to make some -- some visual interest there along Linder Road.
Essentially, it's just one giant wall of fencing all the way to -- all the way to Franklin there.
So, that was one of the thoughts. One of the other thoughts was that it will increase the
likelihood of, you know, those residents utilizing some of the facilities there at the
Peregrine Elementary School and/or accessing some of the commercial businesses, both
north on Franklin and, then, Ten Mile as that continues to grow and design with
construction. If I can move this here again. So, I put in here -- Sonya mentioned that
there -- there is not a requirement that we -- we have an open space -- we have open
space as the property is under five -- five acres in size. We are proposing -- I think it's
around 17 percent has Sonya mentioned. It's the buffer along Linder and, then, there is
a -- as well as -- as well as that there was some -- some landscaping along the Kennedy
Lateral there on the north side. But, again, no -- no -- no amenity proposed. So, these
-- these architectural elevations were in Sonya's presentation. We also are showing you
a photo of what that -- what that structure will look like. Those duplexes are very nice
quality construction. You can kind of see where the -- where the two doors -- front doors
are, instead of right -- kind of to the side a little bit and, then, the other one is straight on
with the four panes of glass in there and they are -- they are very attractive and it actually
looks like a single family home from the -- from the front, so -- so, that's nice. So, bear
with me. And, then, you saw -- yeah. Same -- same elevations that Sonya had there.
Sorry, it's got a delay. Ending it for me. Really, the only thing I wanted to mention was
this: So, earlier today I sent Sonya an e-mail in response to the staff report and I -- I will
only touch it once. Awesome. So, there is a silver maple there as you can see on the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 13 of 66
Linder frontage. We are not proposing to remove that and we will leave that there. I -- I
believe that it is likely in the right of way, but we will not be removing that as part of -- as
part of our project. And, then, one of the things I wanted to mention was in -- in regards
to the specific caliper inches required by the city arborist, is I believe based on his
assumption that we will be -- we will be removing all of the trees and so I wanted to make
sure that that condition -- there was some flexibility in discussion with -- with him, so that
we can come up with what that number is and so I'm comfortable, you know, having the
condition in there that we mitigate, because that's -- that's a -- a code requirement, but
we are going to try to keep as many of the trees as we can and, you know, obviously,
some -- some will have to be removed and, then, we will -- we will work with the city
arborist at that point and, you know, come up with that calculation and so, really, I really
have no concern with the condition, other than the specific caliper inches that -- that are
being requested that we mitigate for, which may not end up being the actual total. With
that I guess I don't -- I don't have any other -- any other comments, unless you have any
questions for me.
Holland: Thanks, Josh. One question I have got. So, surrounding this site you have got
some R-8, but also some R-4 densities kind of backed up to it. Did you consider any
other layouts that might have a little less density and more towards the R-4 type format?
Beach: No. And this is -- mostly because this is -- this is the product type that -- that we
have selected here and it fits within the Comprehensive Plan, so I guess I didn't -- didn't
have any concerns at least initially with that. You know, there is R-8 directly across Linder
from -- from this property and, you know, the proposed density is -- is not -- not significant,
you know, we are below six, which is pretty smack in the middle of what would be allowed
in that Comprehensive Plan designation, so -- are there other thoughts as the way you're
-- you're asking that -- the question there or --
Holland: Yeah. And, you know, we can certainly get into it more when we get into more
discussion, but one of my concerns looking at it -- and something that's come up quite
frequently when we have Commission meetings is with some of these cul-de-sacs, it gets
tough when you have got so many different homes sharing the access for trash collection
or for just having cars, you know, coming in and out of tight cul-de-sacs when you have
got more than six or seven properties that are tied into it. So, it's always a little bit of a
concern. I know this is a tough in-fill piece, because you can't access off of Linder Road
directly and ACHD is not going to allow for that. But just was wondering if you had
considered some other layouts that might be a little lower density, but bigger -- bigger
space product.
Beach: For sure. This is not the first layout we have -- we have -- we have -- we have
looked at here and we have actually lost -- believe it or not lost one lot already to kind of
help with that, but it -- you know, it's -- it's one of the things where it feel like it meets the
-- meets code. It's -- it's -- it's the product that we like. It's a product that, you know, what
-- it's -- aside from the several duplexes that are there on that west side, the -- all the
single family homes match what is constructed, you know, by -- by Mr. Jewett himself on
the Nursery Subdivision just -- just north of this. So, it's going to tie in nicely with -- with
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 14 of 66
existing -- existing construction and the neighborhood and, you know, there is on-street
parking, but, you know, as you said, that -- we will have to figure out how to make the --
if the concern is the trash receptacles, which -- which I -- is what I'm hearing, that's --
that's something that we can definitely address, you know, with bringing those to the end
of the -- end of the common driveway, obviously, so they can be picked up. But that's --
you know, that's once a week and it's for a few hours in the morning. So, I guess -- I
guess that's -- that's my response.
Holland: Okay. Thanks, Josh. Any other questions for Josh?
Seal: Madam Chair?
Holland: Commissioner Seal.
Seal: In -- in looking at the layout was -- have you given any thought into possibly putting
a pathway that connects in between -- it looks like Lots 58 and 59, you know, and
providing --
Beach: Yeah. Get that -- get that connectivity out to Linder Road. That's the idea. Now,
obviously, because the garages are going to be facing internal and the front doors will
face out on Linder, we -- we need to be able to get folks to their -- to their front door. So,
that -- that's -- you know, functionally for those -- for those units there, as well as, you
know, the rest of the neighborhood and, you know, the Nursery Subdivision and on back
into Mallard Landing, this, in addition to the -- the emergency access just north and the
Nursery Subdivision will help with that pedestrian connectivity a lot, especially once the
highway district widens the road and eventually builds a bridge over -- over the freeway.
Seal: So, you will be putting a pathway in between Lots 58 and 59?
Beach: I believe that is the location, yes.
Seal: Okay. It's -- it's not depicted anywhere. And, then, is there going to be a pathway
-- some kind of pathway that is in all the -- all this common area that connects everything
together as well?
Beach: On the north side of --
Seal: Right. Yeah. The north side -- north side and the west side of the subdivision, if
there was something that could at least kind of connect that together to make, you know,
maybe a walking path or some kind of amenity here.
Beach: So, there -- there is a walking path on -- on the north side of the property along
the Kennedy Lateral that was constructed with the Nursery Subdivision, so -- so, that's
already in place and it's just another, you know, ten feet north of our property boundary,
if even that far. And then -- yeah. So, the west side that will -- those residents will have
access to their -- to their property from the front door, but a lot of what gets constructed
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 15 of 66
on Linder there, which is going to be up to -- up to the highway district and their timing
and widening the road and -- and -- and all of that, if that answers your question, but --
yeah. So, there -- there will be some connectivity on the west and there already is on the
north I guess.
Seal: I -- okay. I mean my question was I'm -- I look at all these like they have to stand
on their own. So, that means saying that it's in another sub doesn't answer that question
for me. So, there -- there is probably something in there, but, then, to have to cross over
the lateral and go use somebody else's facility, takes them out of what you are proposing
here.
Beach: Okay. So, I guess practically speaking, in my mind, it does not make any sense
to parallel a pathway on -- on both sides of the -- of the ditch and there is -- there is --
obviously, there is -- there is -- Jim Jewett actually has a -- has a comment if somebody
wants to turn him on as well, but -- but, yeah, that's -- that's -- that's the idea is -- I
understand what you're saying, that, you know, they need to, quote, stand on their own,
but I guess that doesn't make any sense to me, so --
Holland: Mr. Clerk, can we -- can we get Jim on? There he is. Hi, Jim. If you wouldn't
mind stating your name and address for the record that would be great. And it looks like
you're on mute. There you go.
Jewett: Good evening, everyone. Jim Jewett. 776 East Riverside Drive, Suite 204,
Eagle, Idaho. So, this is a new one for me, these Zoom ones, so I hope I perform okay.
Holland: You're doing just fine.
Jewett: So -- so, this is a continuation of our existing Landing No. 13, which is to the
north. This plat will actually annex to that HOA and be part of that -- part of the common
area or part of all of the HOA functions. So, it's -- it's not a standalone. We didn't build
the pathway along the Kennedy to not only serve of the current phase, but other phases
within Mallard Landing, as well as this space. That's why we have the Mallard Landing
logo there, because we are annexing to that subdivision. That subdivision in total is 450
some homes, has pocket parks, has some other recreational amenities to it, so we do
have the existing pathway. On our common space along our north boundary it will
connect seamlessly into that common area. So, we won't be separated from a fence.
The only fence we propose will be from that -- a new common area to our lots. So, it will
be a seamless meld into that existing common area. I do believe when ACHD improves
Linder Road they will put in the ten foot pathway that will connect to our pathway. So, we
will have that in connectivity. I don't think anybody's in favor within those jurisdictions of
me building anything now that they would simply just tear down. We will just use the
existing sidewalk. We will connect the sidewalk or pathway I'm proposing between the
two units that the other Commissioner mentioned, those two lots, we will connect that
pathway over to the existing sidewalk and that sidewalk is currently connected to the
pathway we built in the -- the Landing No. 13. To answer the other question about lot
sizes, you know, we went back and forth with staff on -- on this configuration and we did
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 16 of 66
lose a lot and reconfigured to try to meet everybody's criteria. This is a continuation of
the same product we have in The Landing. Same lot size. Same product. There was
some concern about parking. We showed those -- those six defined parking spots and
-- sorry, my TV came on. We also -- I have also talked with Sonya about -- for the four
duplexes providing a trash receptacle instead of cans for those -- those rentals. So, I
think that would alleviate the concern about the trash receptacles being put out. We
would have one enclosure for those four buildings or eight units. I think I may have
addressed all the Commissioners' questions that -- that Josh may not have. If there is
anymore I will be happy to answer.
Holland: Thank you, Jim. I do have one more question, too. So, on the -- the homes are
going to be facing Linder is what it sounds like and it's a wrought iron type fencing, so
that's kind of open. Is that what I heard?
Jewett: Yeah. So, the -- the thought process there was to give a different streetscape,
other than always looking at the back of a house. So, we would put the front of the
buildings, which you saw in my existing buildings that shows there and they would have
a sidewalk coming from the front door out to the existing sidewalk and future pathway
and, then, there would be wrought iron fence with gates at each one of those sidewalks
entering the house. So, it's more of a row house look, more of a downtown feel is what
we are trying to create.
Holland: Okay. My only concern with that -- I like the concept, because I like the look of
that, but Linder right here is kind of a sleepy road right now, but at some point in Meridian's
future that road is planned to go over the interstate as an overpass and it will become a
little bit more like -- probably what Locust Grove looks like today. Do you see any
concerns with that as, you know, the road gets widened and developed out?
Jewett: Well, certainly. We would have additional concerns with how pedestrians would
cross that road and how children would cross that road. Currently right now they cross
several times a day for the different classes going on at the elementary school. So, I am
assuming that ACHD would address that issue with crosswalks and some signage that
will allow for that pedestrian crossing. Our buildings are set back quite a bit, because we
have the additional right of way that we are giving to ACHD. Then we have the 25 foot
landscape buffer and, then, we have a setback to our buildings. So, we are set back
considerably far and we would orientate these people's yards to the side and so the front
would just be more of that front appearance like you would see at Harrison Boulevard or
some of the things in Boise in the north end you might see. So, I really think that that's
just a different concept and they are still there -- they are driving and the parking would
be in their garages, which would be accessed from our internal street. So, I think that all
of it will come together in cohesion once all the final pieces of ACHD comes together.
Holland: Thanks, Jim. Any other questions for the applicant?
Grove: Madam Chair?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 17 of 66
Holland: Commissioner Grove.
Grove: I'm looking at this and I have some of the same concerns that staff mentioned in
terms of parking -- off-street parking. Is -- is that something that you are -- have concerns
with or going to address more fully?
Jewett: So, is that a question for me?
Grove: For either you, Jim, or Josh. Not sure who.
Jewett: I will go ahead and try. If somebody could pull up the -- the map that shows the
parking that would be helpful for me. But Sonya did discuss this with me at both the pre-
app and in subsequent conversations that the city is becoming more concerned with on-
street parking and so that's why we specifically addressed it and we addressed it by
identifying two different parking spots at the end of both common drives that are
technically off street, because they are on the common drive, not on the public street and,
then, the product with any lot you have a driveway and, then, you have some limited area
for on-street parking down the driveway. So, we have identified those in that area.
Unfortunately, the rest of the -- the street as -- it has either fire hydrants and/or driveways,
which people can't park in front of those, but we have provided, for example, on the
duplexes, two parking spots per side, so eight -- four parking slots per lot on those and,
then, on any residential lot they would have -- their two behind their garage as well. I
think that overall parking can be an issue. I think there has to be some regulation
internally within the subdivision and the HOA to eliminate permanent people using that
and not just visitors, because the intention is it's for visitors. I think from our point of view
it's hard for us to plan for that, not knowing who our -- who are specific buyer will be. We
know generally what our buyer would be and that buyer is going to have two trucks -- two
vehicles and, generally, if they build their garage -- like my guys sometimes do -- they
park outside their garage, which, then, eliminates some visitor parking. I don't know if
there is a perfect solution to that. I think we have done the best we can by providing the
two per common driveway at each end and the two that are identified in. There, obviously,
are additional parking on the next -- our phase to the north. Against our common area
there is additional parking there that's not being utilized, but we didn't use it in this
calculation, because we are looking at this zone. Currently we don't have a parking
problem in our existing phase and we have -- I think just two lots left to build on in that
phase. Maybe three. And we have not -- we do have some on-street parking, but we --
it's -- it's mainly because of the construction right now, not the homeowners. So, once
the construction gets done, then, we don't have construction trailers and construction
vans parked overnight there and it alleviates a problem.
Holland: Thanks, Jim. Any other questions? Follow ups?
Seal: Madam Chair?
Holland: Commissioner Seal.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 18 of 66
Seal: Just touching on the construction piece of this where there -- there is some curbside
there, is there -- I mean would you be willing to build this out to where the construction
does come in off Linder Road until, you know, such time as you have to seal that off for
the -- the last duplex let's say?
Holland: Commissioner Seal -- before you answer that, Jim, I think the ACHD wasn't
going to allow them to have that access, unless I was wrong and staff has a different
opinion there.
Seal: Well, just -- just for the construction piece of it while they are -- before occupancy,
I guess, is what I would -- not that I want to provide a way to work around regulation, but
I mean that is a really -- that -- to me looking at the concerns of the folks around there, to
have all the construction traffic go in and out would be not -- not pleasant.
Jewett: So, let me -- and I -- construction related traffic is always an issue in a multi-
phase development and we do our best to try to limit that. We try to provide a construction
entrance. I really don't see why ACHD would not grant us a construction entrance,
specifically when we are building the subdivision and probably temporary during the
construction, but I couldn't guarantee that, but until they build Linder Road out I believe
they would allow us that construction entrance and I will certainly ask for it and I will do
every effort I can to accomplish that. I think it's a wise idea. I do recognize the
construction traffic -- whether this homeowner just doesn't always know -- and we always
endeavor to try to figure out a way.
Holland: And, Sonya, did you have any opinions on that from staff's perspective? Would
they be able to have a construction access?
Allen: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, that is an ACHD decision. I do think
it would be a good idea to certainly pursue that with ACHD.
Holland: Thank you. Any other questions before we open up for public testimony?
Pitzer: Madam Chair?
Jewett: I would --
Holland: Hang on, Jim. Will ask Commissioner Pitzer for her comments first and, then,
we will open it back up to you.
Pitzer: Thank you, Jim. So, these lots that are fronting Linder, so they have a sidewalk
that goes from -- around the building to the front or -- I'm not quite clear on how they
access -- or their -- or their company or their guests access their property without going
through their garage. Could you help me understand that?
Jewett: Yes. So, their front doors would face either directly into Linder or to the side and
we are proposing to put a sidewalk down between Lots 58 and 59, so a visitor coming in
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 19 of 66
or somebody that's even not necessarily a visitor, somebody coming to locate them for
whatever reason, the address, could -- we would have signage there that they could walk
out to the sidewalk and find the front door. If it's a direct guest that they know they are
coming, they would park in their driveway and go through their side gate. So, there would
be a side gate in their side yard that would lead to the front door as well. It's -- it's a little
bit of a twist from what is more prominent in like a north end or more urban area and it's
a concept that's well accepted in those areas and I know that the city would like to see
more of that urban development and I think that it will be well received here, although it's
different, and I do understand that and I do appreciate your question and I hope that I
have answered it for you and so we will have the sidewalk, we will have signage
identifying so people know how to get there.
Pitzer: Okay. So, sorry, follow-up question. So, there is a sidewalk that goes between
58 and 59. Not necessarily a walk path, but a sidewalk. Then it comes to the front of the
property and, then, does another sidewalk, then, go to Lots 57 and 60?
Jewett: So, the sidewalk would go from the extension there of Spoonbill Avenue and
would extend to the sidewalk on Linder Road and, then, each unit would have a sidewalk
that would connect from their front door to their front porch to Linder Road. So, along that
stretch you would have nine -- to visit you would have nine sidewalks going from the
sidewalk on Linder Road to their front porch and, then, one going between Lots 50 -- I
think it's 58 and 59 that would access the cul-de-sac.
Pitzer: Okay. So yeah. So, there is kind of like alley loaded --
Jewett: Right.
Pitzer: Okay. All right. Thank you, Jim. I understand. Thank you for the clarification.
Jewett: And I would like to address one more thing on -- on the construction entrance.
When we built The Landing No. 13 and we had that emergency access that goes out onto
Linder Road, just coming off that cul-de-sac just to the north of this project, we had a lot
of people cutting through the subdivision from the existing Mallard Landing going right out
of our emergency access, specifically motorcycles, because they could go right through
the bollards. So, we successfully stopped that. So, there is that potential problem with a
construction entrance that people use is it to cut through. So, we -- we would -- we would
certainly gate it and make it secure, so that our superintendents would open it up in the
morning and close it in the evening, so that we would not have the cut traffic and I think if
I did all that I think I can be very successful in convincing ACHD the merits of that for the
construction related entrance.
Holland: Thanks, Jim.
Seal: Madam Chair?
Holland: Commissioner Seal.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 20 of 66
Seal: I had a follow up. And, Jim, thank you for answering the questions and being willing
to work with ACHD like that. I really do appreciate -- appreciate that. So, just -- just a
question on the pathway as it pertains between 58 and 59, that will change the
requirements for the fencing along there -- more a question for staff. Since it's going to
be a -- basically a public walkway there is going to have to be privacy fencing in there; is
that correct?
Allen: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, so let's back up for just a second
here. So, if -- right now we don't have a pathway connection between 58 and 59, so if we
are going to require a pathway in that location that needs to be in your motion for a change
to the plat and the landscape plan and a minimum 15 foot wide common lot needs to be
provided in order to provide a five foot pathway or sidewalk and five feet of landscaping
on either side. And, yes, there are fencing -- fencing is required to be constructed by the
developer. The -- the code doesn't really restrict fencing when it's visible from public
streets, though that would be visible from both Spoonbill and Linder Road.
Holland: Thanks, Sonya. Did that answer your question?
Seal: That did and I just -- like I said in talking through that and them being amenable to
it, I just want to make sure that all that was out on the table before we go down that path,
make sure that they are -- they are still willing to do that, because it's going to eat up a
little bit of landscape in there.
Allen: Yeah. Thank you. And if the applicant is in agreement, again, there needs to be
conditions in the staff report as I stated. Thank you.
Holland: Thanks, Sonya.
Seal: Thank you.
Holland: Jim, did you have a --
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
Holland: Hang on just one second, Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: Okay.
Jewett: Yeah. I apologize for not sending in a revised plan. This is something we have
decided at the last go around on this and it just didn't get into the plan. So, that is my
fault and I did not warn Sonya it was coming on that pathway. So, we will make our
modifications to the plat before City Council and we totally are acceptable to a condition
that that be added.
Holland: Thanks, Jim. Commissioner Cassinelli.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 21 of 66
Cassinelli: Yeah. Jim, can you address the -- the size of these units, the square footage?
What's -- what's the average? What's the max?
Jewett: So, are we referring to the duplexes or the homes?
Cassinelli: Yes.
Holland: Both I think.
Jewett: Both of them. Okay. So, the single family homes range -- we have some product
in the 14 to 15 thousand square foot range and we go up to about 18, 19 hundred square
foot range without going to a two story and on these lots we didn't feel that we wanted to
put any two story product here because of the adjacent neighbors. We wanted to keep it
all single level. If we do put a bonus room in, we will do a bonus facing forward only and
that would take us up maybe 2,100 square feet. The duplexes are a three bedroom, two
and a half bath per side, two story townhouse style and they -- one side is roughly 1,550
square feet and the other side is roughly 1,600 square feet. These are intended to be for
the people who want to live in a residential neighborhood, but be a rental and not have
ownership. So, that's why our square footage garage side and everything is comparable
to our homes, it's just an option other than either home ownership or home renting.
Holland: Commissioner Cassinelli, do you have a follow up?
Cassinelli: Okay. And -- I do. Based on -- based on the square footage of the -- of the
duplexes there is -- you dimension there is four parking spots per side; is that correct?
Jewett: There is a two car garage per side and, then, a two -- minimum two car pad per
side. Some of them have a little bigger --
Cassinelli: Okay.
Jewett: -- pad, because our design is a set back garage. So, one could potentially have
four parking spots behind the garage, but they would be stacked.
Cassinelli: Okay. Now, I know in a rental -- addressing the parking and that's where I'm
going with the square footage, the size of these and parking, renters most likely will fill
the garage with -- as a storage unit and park -- park on the pad, but I think there, you
know, might be enough. A little concerned there, but thank you for addressing that.
Jewett: And I can't touch on that is, again, I think that's an internal management issue
that we have been approaching with a lot of our rentals in not allowing that condition. So,
if somebody is going to come and live and have two cars and they want to put a lot of
stuff in their garage and have both their cars out, we are highly discouraging that. I don't
know to the extent that we can require them to park at least one car in the garage, but we
are highly discouraging that that be what they do -- is how we are approaching some of
the apartments, too, is that people will take our apartments with a garage, put all the junk
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 22 of 66
in the garage and take up extra parking in the parking lot and it's more of a management
issue that I think more managers got to get on board about addressing people and how
they -- how they store and how they park.
Holland: Thanks, Jim. I think it might be good, if the Commissioners don't mind, taking
a break from questions to open it up for public testimony and, then, come back for more
discussion, if that's all right. Madam Chair, do we -- or, Madam Clerk, do we have any --
anybody signed up to testify?
Weatherly: I'm sure we have one person signed in, but did not indicate a wish to testify.
Holland: Okay. If anybody would like to testify at this point, if you wouldn't mind just
hitting the raise hand button on the attendee panel. It looks like we saw one hand there.
And we will bring it in to -- to speak. And we have got about three minutes for you.
Ockerman: Madam Chairman?
Holland: Yes, we can hear you. If you wouldn't mind stating your name and address for
the record that would be great.
Ockerman: Sure. Jeanette Ockerman. 2070 West Waltman in Meridian. So, just a few
comments about it, probably the same of what everybody else is saying. My concern
would be the density, along with the parking. I live west of this and I have noticed, you
know, in the denser areas where it's the R-8 the parking seems to like trickle out into other
neighborhoods, because there is inadequate room for guest parking and the reality is
most people put their stuff in the garage, park in their driveway, and, then, there is no
room for anyone else. So, I feel like that is a concern, especially with the duplexes and
they are facing Linder Road, that, to me, is encouraging parking out on Linder, which isn't
a very good idea for guests and people, because right now Linder is the outlet for all of
the subdivisions in that area. So, it is fairly busy. I wouldn't call it a sleeper road, I would
call it a fairly busy road for our area. And, then, my other comment was the green space
and I can see that you have it around the edges, but there is really no like area for people
to be with, you know, their kids to play or dogs or whatever. It's just the outer landscaped
area, not a park area. So, those would be my comments for it.
Holland: Thanks, Jeanette, we appreciate you being here and being available to ask
those questions. Madam Clerk, is -- is there anybody else that's indicated an interest to
speak?
Weatherly: Madam Chair, at this time I do not see any other hands raised.
Holland: Okay. We will wait for just a second. If anybody needs to hit star nine to unmute
themselves or raise their hands, we will wait for just a second here to see if there is
anyone else that would like to speak. This is when we need Chris's Jeopardy music.
Hearing none, we will go back and let the applicant address some of those concerns and
continue our discussion.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 23 of 66
Jewett: Thank you, Madam Chair. So, I think we have discussed the parking. I don't
know what -- how much more to address that other than what I have already said. As far
as the common area, you know, we do have that common area to our north that is
adjacent to our existing common area in the previous phase. We did build a pathway that
goes to the east that eventually ends at a park or close proximity to the pocket park, which
is -- is quite large. People like to walk there all the time, take their dogs, exercise. So,
that amenity is there. We do have the elementary that's across the street. I don't really
see why anybody would park on Linder Road. There is -- there is a no parking strip on
Linder Road. There is just two lane traffic right now. With the widening I'm assuming it
will all be marked as no parking and I -- I would see that no different than like a Harrison
Boulevard. You don't park in front of your house on Harrison Boulevard, you park in the
alley or on the sides. So, I -- I don't see that being an issue. And I think I may have
addressed their questions. So, with that I would stand for any additional questions.
Holland: And, Jim or Josh, if you want to make any other closing comments you would
like to make at this point and, then, we can start deliberating and asking more questions
if we have them. Any other comments you would -- either one of you would like to make?
Jewett: I'm good, so -- how about you, Josh?
Beach: Yeah. I'm set. It sounds great.
Holland: Okay.
Allen: Madam Chair?
Holland: Yes. Sonya.
Allen: Excuse me. Staff is a little concerned that if we put the pathway in between those
two lots that we were discussing earlier that they could still meet their minimum
dimensional standards for the lot size. Each dwelling unit requires 4,000 square feet. Is
that going to be an issue, Jim?
Jewett: I would have to pull up the plat, but I thought we had some extra square footage
yet. I didn't know it was going to be 15 -- the 15 times a hundred and something. I would
have to do the calculations if somebody could pull up a plat. I don't have one in front of
me. I could do the quick math on it. But, yes, the minimum lot size it would have to be
8,000 square feet and we have -- we have tried to maintain that. Okay. And I can't read
those. Sorry.
Allen: I just want you to not commit to anything that you can't fulfill, so --
Jewett: So, can anybody read those square footages of those lots for me? I can't read
them.
Allen: Give me just a second and I will bring that up.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 24 of 66
Jewett: I got it here. So, we have got 8,000, 8,000, 8,300 and 80 -- so, the one that will
go down long is at 8,374. So, we have 400 square feet and it's 138 feet long. A hundred
and thirty-eight times 15 -- I'm pulling up a calculator.
Holland: Nothing like doing the math while you've got 30 people watching you.
Jewett: Oh, my gosh. Put me under the spot. That's 2,000 square feet. So, yes, Sonya,
you raised a very good point and you wouldn't allow that to be in an easement; correct?
You would -- but if it's not -- if it's not a public pathway, if it's just a private pathway for
those particular residents, it wouldn't necessarily have to be in a common lot and just in
an easement.
Allen: Well, it should be in a common area. I doubt private homeowners are going to
want folks -- you know, traffic going through their property and did you say -- is there
going to be side fences -- side yard fences constructed?
Jewett: Oh. Well, yes, we would -- we wouldn't -- yes. We would put fences. But, again,
this was to give those residents access to theirs. It necessarily wouldn't be for the other
ones, because the other people saw the pathway that we have constructed along the
north boundary. It's more of a convenience for those specific guests and/or residents that
want to seek their front door from their back door. So, I don't know why it necessarily
would have to be a common lot, it could -- it could be an easement and just a concrete
sidewalk that would simply have a signage on it with all the addresses. This is something
we discussed with the Fire, if you recall, Sonya, by having some identification so that
people would know how to reach somebody's front door and so that's where this came
from.
Holland: So, Jim and Josh, I'm going to just make a couple comments real quick. So, I
think there is a couple of things here to me that make me lean towards wanting to continue
the application. A couple of those being, one, adjusting the sidewalk and making sure
the plat's correct, but for me I'm still a little bit worried about the density in this pocket with
the way that it's configured. You know, I -- I understand it's a -- it's a complicated in-fill
project. It's on the end of a weird bulb out street that kind of connects in and not
something we typically see and I think you have -- you have done a lot of due diligence
here in trying to design a nice plan and I'm not opposed to the duplexes, I think it's really
nice to have a diversity of product and certainly need more duplexes in the community
and I like the way that you're thinking with trying to be innovative in how lots face Linder
to kind of make it look more open. I -- I would lean towards -- you know, if it was me
designing the site -- and I know I'm not designing the site, this is your project, but I would
lean towards wanting to see more of an R-4 type fit here where there may be a few less
lots and give more people, you know, a little bit more space between each other in there.
Even if you did a duplex style in there around that bulb out -- and I would certainly open
it up for the other commissioners to talk about it, too, but I almost wonder if you would be
willing to look at a couple other design options and bring it back to us and so with that I'm
going to request that the Commission just kind of leave it open for conversation, instead
of closing the public hearing for deliberation, so that we might be able to brainstorm and
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 25 of 66
work with you on it a little bit and ask some more questions. So, if you don't mind, Jim
and Josh, give us a few minutes and maybe deliberate with each other first and, then, we
will open back up to you with some questions, if that's all right.
Jewett: Certainly.
Grove: Madam Chair?
Holland: Commissioner Grove.
Grove: Is it okay if I jump in for a second?
Holland: Please do.
Grove: Okay. I'm kind of echoing what you said. I -- I would tend to agree that I would
like to see a -- a different take on this. I like a lot of the aspects of it. I like the duplex. I
like opening onto Linder. I like that look and feel. But I think that it does need to have
that path piece and if that's not there and it's going to eat up two thousand square feet
like I -- I don't know how that lays out with what's currently on the site plan and I keep
going back to the parking street configuration and I have a -- I have a lot of concerns with
how that is laid out. I'm not opposed to the -- the density. I could just -- I'm not a fan of
how it's laid out and how it's going to function once the product is in. So, I -- I would be
in favor of requesting a continuance if -- if the applicant is open to that idea.
Holland: Other Commissioners that have comments? I know Commissioner McCarvel
and Commissioner Cassinelli, I can't see your faces, so --
Seal: Madam Chair?
Holland: Go ahead, Commissioner Seal.
Seal: Question for staff. I know we have talked about this kind of being a -- you know,
another phase of -- of The Landing and my question is -- and I'm -- you probably can't
answer this on the spot, but if we have a continuance it would be nice to know if -- if you
took the -- the different pieces of this as in phases and you added this into it with the
common area, does that still make the entire area of development within standards for
open space or would this require more or less or something along those lines? I'm just
trying to piece it all together in my -- in my mind as far as how it fits as a project.
Allen: Madam Chair, Commissioner Seal, Commissioners, I -- I do not know that answer
off the top of my head. That is something that we could ask the applicant to provide,
though, if you decide to continue this project.
Seal: Okay. Thank you.
Pitzer: Madam Mayor?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 26 of 66
Holland: Commissioner Pitzer.
Pitzer: I -- I don't have a problem with the -- with the -- with the duplexes, but -- but the
density overall on -- on this -- on this amount of acres is -- maybe I'm not -- not even
seeing it's the density, but the shared drives where you're having one, two, three -- three
homes off of each shared drive, the parking with -- I just -- I mean someone's going to
come in with a big truck and block one way and someone's trying to get out and I can just
see tempers flaring already and the -- I think it needs a different configuration on here. I
just see so many issues I'm almost -- I almost don't know where to start, but some of them
have been clarified for me, but I still have an issue with that long shared drive and -- and
-- and the parking.
McCarvel: Madam Chair?
Holland: Commissioner McCarvel. Or was that --
McCarvel: Yeah, I would be support --
Holland: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: Yeah. I would be in favor of continuance and want to see something with just
a little more workable configuration. I agree. I think trying to live in this once it's all -- it
may -- I -- yeah. Trying to live in it once it's all done I think it's going to be a challenge.
Holland: One additional comment I have, too. I -- I really appreciate you working to put
in some extra parking stalls, having six extra designated parking stalls, but having them
at the end of that kind of private drive -- well, private drives already are hard to get in and
out of. I think there could be some challenges with people needing to reverse all the way
down the common drive to get back out once they are parked. So, just another thought
there to consider for you. Commissioner Cassinelli, did you have comments?
Cassinelli: I -- I, too, would be in favor of seeing a little rework and it may require dropping
-- even bringing the density down a little bit. Not that I'm super opposed to -- what they
have done and in-fill would -- you know, every time we -- we talk about in-fill we know the
pain and how difficult it can be. So, you know, you -- you do what you can get as creative
as you can, but that said I would -- you know, I would be in favor of a continuance as well.
Holland: Okay. Do we have any other specific questions you would like to ask of the
applicant from the Commission? You're all pausing. I would just say I don't know, Jim or
Josh, if you have any comments on what we have just deliberated on. I would be happy
to open up to give you a couple minutes to kind of respond, but I think the -- the sound of
the Commission is that we would be leaning towards requesting a continuance to look
into a couple of things, one being the pathway between Lots 58 and 59 and seeing how
that kind of configures itself. Maybe asking you to reconsider the density. I would ask
you to look and see if you could find something a little closer to R-4 or R-6. Maybe just
something that would eliminate a couple lots and kind of help with some of the transition
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 27 of 66
issues we are having here. And, then, I know some of the internal circulation was -- was
a challenge as well for the Commission. So, would you be open to looking at doing a little
bit of reconfiguring and coming back to us?
Jewett: So, let me try to address this one at a time. First of all, I have no objection to a
continuance. I only ask that we would have clear guidance of what you would like me to
do. Now, having said that, the first thing I need to -- R-8 is the only zoning that would
allow the duplexes. R-4 would not allow that. That's one of the reasons for asking for the
R-8 zoning, because that's the only zoning that would allow those. Secondly, because of
how this in-fill is shoehorned in and I'm not allowed access onto Linder Road, there is not
a whole lot of different configurations and we have to use common drives. Either that or
just have long, skinny lots or just some dysfunctionality in the lots. So, either have -- we
are going to have a dysfunctionality somewhere and we worked with staff quite diligently
on different aspects. We worked with ACHD. We had a different configuration when we
started. ACHD didn't like it. We worked through that and we finally arrived on this
configuration, which did lose one lot to suffice that. So, I don't know what we could do
internally in design, other than the street we have. So, the next thing is -- is, okay, how
do you configure it without the common drives? Then you just end up with longer and
skinnier lots, which I don't know if that's more desirable. It just -- it just -- and I don't think
losing -- you would not be losing one lot, you would be losing considerable because of
that. So, I don't know how to really -- to reconfigure it anymore than we already have
without having additional considerations from ACHD with -- an access off of Linder would
certainly change things, but that's been already testified that that's just a no go with them.
It is an in-fill. It is shoehorned into what -- and these are all comparable to the lots I have
that we are driving in from. They are all very comparable to those. So, I don't know. To
go to R-4 zoning means I lose the duplexes, then, it changes everything. I -- again, I don't
know how to reconfiguration the roads. Private drives are part of the code. They are
allowed. We have met all the criteria of them. So, I guess I would ask for some additional
insight of exactly -- knowing that additional information -- outside of trying to figure out
that pathway connection between 58 and 59, which I will work on and I will get done, I
don't know what else -- what other kind of configuration other than just simply changing.
Holland: Well -- and I think that that might be what we are asking is that you might
consider changing the model you have got here. As much as we like some elements of
it, I think it's -- it's a tough -- it's a tough in-fill project on a two -- two and a half acre -- not
even two and a half acre site. You know, one thought just looking at the top of mine --
and, again, I'm not an engineer and I'm not a site planner, but, you know, potentially
looking at doing -- maybe you have got two sets of duplexes on the top part of the drive
in and, then, you put a couple of your home sites on the bottom to round it out a little
better. So, you do, you know, four duplex units and two residential units and see if that
helps with the bulb out. But I don't know what that looks like until it's sketched out, but
that's just a thought.
Jewett: Yeah. Trust me when I say we have looked at a lot of different configurations
with this over the time we have been working on it -- and I don't know how I could change
the -- the road configuration. It would just be changing lots. And, quite frankly, we will
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 28 of 66
just wait if that's going to be the end result. We will wait. We are not in any hurry. So, if
it's a matter of just time, I just don't think that financially it makes sense to do anything
less than where we are at. We have put a lot of thought into this design. It works. It's --
it's within the code and I think that we have worked beyond the code to try to accomplish
some of the concerns that I know the city has and I think we have always worked towards
that. So, aside of just saying like lose a common drive and configure the lots, I don't know
what else I could --
Seal: Madam Chair?
Holland: Commissioner Seal.
Seal: Just -- I mean just kind of as food for thought, I look at this as far as the parking
and circulation -- and I mean the -- the only thing I can offer is imagine, if you will, because
there is, you know, thousands of mobile services that come in and they all come in and
they all have a -- you know, a trailer attached to them. Imagine something like that coming
into this -- this area and needing to do business in there. It's almost -- to me that almost
wouldn't -- wouldn't work or would -- you know, like some of the other Commissioners
commented, that -- that's going to cause some heated debate, because they are going to
have to park somewhere. So, that's -- yeah. In looking at the circulation of it, I mean
people are going to be people and -- and I'm very sympathetic to -- to everything that you
guys have to look at and be concerned about here. So, I mean if -- if people use their
garages as garages and not for storage and didn't have, you know, their buddies come
over and park on the street, it wouldn't be an issue and, unfortunately, we kind of live in
-- in those times. But I'm more concerned with, you know, the element of what happens
when like a service vehicle needs to come in, you know, even a -- you know, an appliance
repair person, something with a trailer, they are -- they are just going to have issues with
not only getting in and out, but with parking as well. So -- and -- and I know you asked
for clear direction and that's -- that's the clearest direction I can think of is how -- how can
you successfully accommodate something like that into this just to make it, you know, a
better community overall. And, again, I really like -- I like what you have done for an in-
fill project. There is a lot going on in here for a really small space. You know, the fact
that you're willing to -- to, you know, work to provide that path to make -- you know, make
all of that work is commendable, it just -- you know, again, I'm just thinking about the
roadway conditions and the circulation and just, you know, imagine, if you will, somebody
coming in there with a service trailer to try and provide some type of service. Hopefully
that's helpful.
Jewett: It is. Thank you, Commissioner Seal. But -- but I don't know how I can change
the road configuration outside of removing the common drive that goes to the east and if
I move the common drive I can probably come up with a design that has five lots in it
instead of six and they would be a little bit more irregular shape, a little deeper. I mean if
that's the direction you want me to go I can certainly go down that path, but if you're asking
me to somehow come up with a different configuration for Spoonbill Avenue, I don't know
-- I don't know what I would do and that's why I'm looking for the insight. If you want me
to create a different circulation pattern on the street, what might that look like.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 29 of 66
Holland: And, Jim, for me I think if you were to remove that access drive that kind of goes
to the east with the -- the way those other lots are off of that -- that shared drive there,
that would fix a lot of things for me. Again, I would have to see it, but you're probably
right, you would have to remove a lot and just make them a little bit more regular shape
to fit it in there. That's what I see as just a different configuration if you can and maybe
-- maybe lose one or two lots there to see if -- if we can make it feel a little better in here.
Allen: Madam Chair?
Holland: Yes, Sonya.
Allen: If I may, I just wanted to clarify the record. The applicant stated that duplexes --
two family duplex dwellings are prohibited in the R-4 district. They are actually a
conditional use, but that would require 8,000 square feet per unit. So, 16,000 square foot
lots.
Holland: Okay. So, that's certainly something for you to consider. You know, if you
decided to do that we could probably -- Sonya, I don't know if they could put a conditional
use request in if they did come back with an R-4 with some of these duplexes. Is that
something that could be possible still?
Allen: Yes, Madam Chair, we could just continue it out so that the noticing requirements
for the conditional use permit could be met. I'm not sure the applicant would be in
agreement with that. But I just wanted to clarify the record that it is a conditional use in
the R-4.
Holland: Thanks, Sonya.
Jewett: And -- yeah. So, you would take my four lots and make them two and so you
would have -- and that just -- really doesn't fit -- fit the model for us. And, again, I could
-- I could keep the configuration, I could -- would take the existing cul-de-sac and pivot it
slightly to the east, lose the common drive and reconfigure those lots and probably end
up with five lots, maybe four, and, then, that -- by moving it I get a little extra room in the
duplex lots to accommodate that common lot between those 58 and 59, with a net loss of
one, but I lose the common drive and I think I can accomplish that for the Commission.
But if they are looking at me going to an R-4, I think that just -- that just -- well, first of all,
an R-4 I think it's an 8,000 square foot minimum lot and 16 duplexes. I would lose two
duplex lots and I would probably lose two of the single family lots and, then, it just
becomes financially not feasible to do. I currently have two rentals on the property now.
I would just stay in that configuration and just -- and not develop it right now. So, I guess
what I would be looking for is direction -- if that's sufficient enough change for you to move
forward on that. And if it's not, then, I guess that's a decision -- I'm not comfortable going
back and doing something I can't do. I hope you understand and respect that. You know,
everything has to financially model. Not that we have to get rich on everything, but it does
have to financially make sense and losing that significant -- like two duplex lots does not
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 30 of 66
make financial sense. Right there I think it's -- it eliminates the feasibility of the project
before we even start.
Holland: Thanks for your feedback, Jim. I appreciate it. For the Commissioners I think
-- it would alleviate my concerns if -- if that was -- if they were to remove that common
drive and reallocate kind of that cul-de-sac coming in to adjust for the -- the walkway to
Linder Road, as well as eliminating one or two of the lots on the east side and
reconfiguring those. That would help me a lot with the way that this looks. But I don't
know what your thoughts are and if somebody would like to make a motion saying
something similar to that and giving him really specific advice. Commissioner Grove.
Grove: Madam Chair, I have a question and I don't -- I'm not -- still new to all this a little
bit. So, what would -- what -- what would it look like instead of going R-4, really leaning
into the R-8 aspect of this and reconfiguring with additional duplex units, rather than single
family homes? Does that significantly change the product layout and would that allow for
let's say a larger cul-de-sac or something of that nature that would encourage more
spaced out driving and parking area, but retain some of the density that is included with
this site layout?
Jewett: Commissioner Grove, that actually was one of our considerations going in, but
we felt a need to -- to add some buffer between ourselves and those existing residential
houses and I -- we went with these single family single level homes as a good buffer to
the two story duplexes. So, I will -- yes. So, the answer to your question is, yes, that
would work and we could change things immensely. It just -- you open up a different set
of -- of issues that I don't know specifically I'm comfortable with that right at this point in
time, because all my neighborhood meetings and everything and I had them with my
neighbors has been based on what I have proposed. So, if I did that I would have to go
back to them and make sure I get their feedback first, which I'm totally okay with doing,
but, again, I just would not -- clear direction from the -- from the Commission on that's
what they want me to do. And I would also like to -- to state that I do really do appreciate
the interaction with the Commission. I think it's all positive and I think it's all for the right
reason and I do appreciate it all.
Pitzer: Madam Chair?
Holland: Go ahead, Commissioner Pitzer.
Pitzer: Yes. I would like to entertain a motion to close the public testimony.
Holland: Commissioner Pitzer, if we are planning to continue the application we have to
leave it open.
Pitzer: Okay. Thank you.
Seal: Madam Chair?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 31 of 66
Holland: Commissioner Seal.
Seal: Just question for the applicant. I mean is it -- is a continuance in your mind helpful
at this point with -- with what you have been given or -- because what you kind of noodled
around seems like something you could come back with already and -- and, you know,
hit us with and we might all go, yeah, that might work a little bit better and I think just, you
know, the overall circulation of it is kind of what it comes down to and trying to ease those
concerns.
Jewett: Commissioner Seal, I -- if it's losing the common drive and reconfiguring those
lots to be an R-4 style lot, I would -- I would be completely in agreement to a continuance
to do that. So, basically, I would still ask for an R-8 zoning, so the duplex could be allowed
at their current configuration, but the other lots would be an R zone -- R-4 size lot. So, if
that -- if that's a stipulation that comes out of this, I can agree to go and reconfigure that
and do a continuance to accomplish that. So, I would take those six 4,000 square foot
lots and I would create however many R-4 lots I could create -- create out of it and lose
the common drive. The one common. The other common drive it suits the duplex and
it's only accessing the duplex. So, I would ask that one remain.
Holland: I think that would be reasonable for me and everybody else.
Seal: I would agree and, Sonya, is that something that they would have to get a
conditional use in order to accommodate for those to have an R-4 sizing standard or is
that something that would fit into the R-8 with what they currently have? Well, with what
would be designed into what they have I should say.
Holland: Before Sonya answers, I think, you know, if they are looking for an R-8
designation they can go bigger, they just -- it gives them the ability to have the duplexes
at the smaller size lot. So, I think that they would still be okay. But I don't know if we
have minimum standards, Sonya, if that would work if they did that.
Seal: Yeah. I just -- considering there is a difference between the R-4 and the R-8 I just
want to make sure that we are not, you know, asking him to do something with those
single -- single occupancy, you know, in the R-4 standard that can't be accommodated
when it's, you know, technically an R-8, if that makes sense.
Jewett: And I don't know if -- where Sonya is, but that's the purpose of the DA. So, within
the DA you would condition that the lots not be smaller than an R-4 size lot and so that's
how you would accomplish that and we have done it before and it's -- it's for specific things
like this where if something fits in one zoning, but you want a lot size that fits in another
zoning, they have used the development agreement as the tool.
Allen: Madam Chair?
Holland: Go ahead, Sonya.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 32 of 66
Allen: I'm sorry, I was speaking earlier, but I was on mute, so I was right here with you.
But you guys all have it right. I mean the applicant, what he just said is correct, you could,
you know, restrict it further through the development agreement. Bottom line is if you're
doing duplex in an R-4 district it requires a conditional use permit. Either way you go,
depending on what zoning district you go with, it has to meet the dimensional standards
of the district at a minimum. If you increase the number of units beyond -- I don't think
we are thinking that, but if -- if we do, then, that would require renotice beyond what they
have already got, so --
Holland: But I think what they are talking about doing is deleting a couple of lots and
making them bigger.
Allen: Yeah. Just saying if they went the other way and did duplexes all the way around,
if that would, by chance increase their unit count then -- or lot count I should say, it would
require renotice. Thank you.
Holland: Thanks, Sonya. I don't know if anybody feels comfortable making a motion with
some of those suggestions.
Jewett: I do.
Seal: Madam Chair, we would need to know a date that we would be able to do the
continuance to.
Holland: I was just about to ask Sonya. Sonya, I know we -- we probably will not be
having a meeting on July 2nd and the next one after that would be July 9th or the 16th.
Are either one of those good options?
Allen: One thing real quick for the applicant to ponder. I would need revised plans at
least ten days prior to the hearing date we choose. So, keep that in mind.
Holland: With that we could look at August 6th, too.
Allen: Yeah. Just make sure we don't cut it too close on time to give the applicant time
to revise and staff time to review.
Jewett: For us it would -- would take a couple weeks at the most. So, any day in July or
even early August -- I think you look at your schedule to see how busy you are and we
would fit whatever one is least busy, I guess, to make it easier.
Allen: July 16th would work, if that works for the applicant.
Jewett: It works for me.
Seal: Madam Chair?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 33 of 66
Holland: Commissioner Seal.
Seal: I move to continue file number H-2020-0005 to the hearing date of July 16th, 2020,
so that the applicant work with -- can work with ACHD to provide -- or to possibly provide
a consistent -- geez. Sorry. Construction entrance off of Linder Road until initial
occupancy. So, the applicant can also work to provide a pathway between Lots 58 and
59 that complies with all city code, including fencing standards, and to work to possibly
reduce density or modify the design to improve parking. That they provide -- or they
provide the revised plot to city staff ten days prior to the hearing.
Holland: Commissioner Seal, one more question for you. Do you want to add an addition
to the extent of what the applicant has suggested of creating those lots on the east side
and removing that common drive to be more of an R-4?
Seal: Yeah. Well, I -- I mean I put it in here to work to possibly reduce the density or
modify the design. I mean I want to give him as much leeway as possible. I like what
he's saying and I think we have given him enough direction to accomplish that, so --
Holland: I just know he requested some specific direction, so maybe it's just adding --
following the direction of what the applicant proposed during the hearing.
Seal: Right. So, essentially, work to possibly reduce the density by following the
instruction given at the Planning and Zoning meeting to improve parking, internal
circulation and provide the east lots with a -- more of an R-4 designation status. Would
that accommodate that?
Holland: I have a motion. Do I have a second?
McCarvel: Second.
Holland: Mr. Grove.
Grove: Question, I guess. Sorry. Would it be -- it's not an R-4 status, this would be an
R-4 sizing, would that -- do I understand that correct?
Holland: That's correct.
Grove: Okay.
Pogue: Madam Chair? Andrea Pogue.
Holland: Yes. Andrea.
Pogue: There was discussion regarding the sidewalk and whether it would -- it fits and
the applicant indicating he needed to make that work. Did that want to be included in the
motion?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 34 of 66
Holland: I believe that Commissioner Seal had that in the motion.
Pogue: Did he address that? Thank you.
Seal: I did.
Holland: All right. Any other discussion? I have a motion by Commissioner Seal and a
second by Commissioner McCarvel. If you wouldn't mind, Madam Clerk, would you take
roll on this one.
Weatherly: Absolutely. Let me -- I was not prepared for that.
Holland: Just since we have got a couple people on the phone it's hard to tell what they
are -- what the yeses or no's are.
Weatherly: I totally understand.
Roll call: Seal, yea; McCarvel, yea; Pitzer, yea; Grove, yea; Cassinelli, yea; Holland, yea;
Fitzgerald, absent.
MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Holland: All right. Thank you, Jim and Josh, we appreciate you working with us and we
look forward to seeing you in July.
Jewett: Thank you.
D. Public Hearing for Villas at Twelve Oaks East (H-2020-0014) by
Jim Jewett, Located at 115 S. Linder Rd.
1. Request: Annexation of 6.63 acres of land with a TN-R zoning
district.
Holland: Okay. With that we will move on to the next item on the agenda, which is the
Villas at Twelve Oaks East, H-2020-0014, and I think we may see Jim again here pretty
soon. We will go ahead with the staff report first.
Allen: Thank you, Madam Chair. Give me just a moment here. All right. The next
application before you is a request for annexation and zoning. There is also an
accompanying modification to the existing development agreement on the adjacent
property to the west, which does not require Commission action. This site consists of
6.63 acres of land. It's zoned R-1 in Ada county and it's located at 115 South Linder Road
on the west side of Linder, just south of West Franklin Road. Adjacent land use and
zoning. To the north are commercial uses and a fuel facility zoned C-C. To the south
and east are single family residential uses zoned R-4 and to the north on the east side is
undeveloped commercial land zoned C-N and to the west is multi-family zoned TN-R,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 35 of 66
which is currently in the development process. A development agreement exists, as I
mentioned, on the property to the west that is proposed to be amended to include the
subject property. That property is underdeveloped by the -- under development by the
same developer. The commercial future land use map -- excuse me -- Comprehensive
Plan future land use map designation for this property is commercial. The applicant
requests annexation and zoning of 6.63 acres of land with a TN-R zoning district for the
development of eight multi-family structures containing a total of 64 apartments units at a
gross density of 13.94 units per acre, consistent with the commercial future land use map
designation. Multi-family residential developments are a principal permitted use in the
TN-R district. There is an existing home on the property that is proposed to be retained
and used as an additional rental or manager's unit. The site plan depicts access via the
extension of a driveway from the west boundary of this site and via South Linder Road.
A pedestrian connection is required to be provided to the north to the commercial
development for interconnectivity by an existing access easement. This property is
planned to develop as a subsequent phase of the multi-family project currently under
development on the adjacent property to the west and will share common open space
and site amenities. The overall project exceeds the minimum qualified open space and
site amenities required by the UDC. A ten foot wide multi-use pathway is required along
the north side of the Ten Mile Creek from the east to the west boundary of the annexation
area and within the street buffer along Linder Road in accord with the pathways master
plan. The 25 foot wide landscape street buffer is required along Linder Road. Conceptual
building elevations were submitted that are the same as those being constructed in the
Villas of the Twelve Oaks project in the earlier phase to the west. The design of all
structures in this development are required to comply with the design standards in the
architectural standards manual. Because the development agreement already exists for
the property to the west, which, again, is the developer of the subject property, a
modification to the existing agreement is requested to incorporate this property in the
agreement, rather than require a new separate agreement for this later phase. The
applicant requests the removal of the existing development agreement provision that
requires an eight foot tall concrete wall to be constructed along the subject property's
west boundary. The wall was previously required to buffer the previous rural residential
use on the subject property. With the proposed development, it's no longer necessary as
the project is proposed to be integrated as one develop -- as one development with shared
common areas and amenities. Written testimony has been received from Josh Beach,
the applicant's representative. They are in agreement with the staff report, except for
Condition B-1-2, which requires sewer to connect to the north in accord with the master
plan, rather than to the west as proposed. The Public Works Department has re-
evaluated the applicant's proposed sanitary sewer routing, as well as previous e-mail
correspondence with the applicant on the topic of routing, and finds that the current
proposal is acceptable. Therefore, staff recommends the following language to replace
that currently in Condition B-1-2. The applicant shall be responsible to determine whether
adequate capacity exists in the receiving sewer system, including two lift stations, to
accept the additional flow from this development. If upgrades are necessary, the
applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with said upgrades. Staff is
recommending approval per the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 36 of 66
Holland: Sorry. I was talking, but I was on mute. Any questions for Sonya?
Seal: Madam Chair?
Holland: Commissioner Seal.
Seal: A similar question to the last. If -- if you take in all the square footage and everything
and the open spaces by the addition of this, does it make the entire project within the
required parameters of open space?
Allen: Madam Chair, Commissioner Seal, Commissioners, yes. Commissioner Seal,
there is an exhibit in the staff report that demonstrates that the overall common open
space and site amenities are in excess of UDC standards.
Seal: Okay. Thank you.
Holland: Okay. With that it looks like we have got Josh and Jim back to join us again. I
know they are having a fun night with us, so thanks, gentlemen, for joining us again
and --
Beach: You tried to kick us out a few minutes ago, but we didn't leave, so -- yeah. So,
you know, Sonya covered it pretty well. It --
Holland: Josh, I'm sorry, would you say your name and address for the record again.
Beach: I apologize. Josh Beach. 2030 South Washington Avenue, Emmett, Idaho. So,
as Sonya said, this is, essentially, we are adding to an existing development agreement
with a further concept plan showing eight multi-unit buildings with an additional 64 units
with associated parking and garages and there is here on -- move to the next slide here.
Okay. There we go. So, there will be an access out to -- out to Linder Road and, then,
that will -- this -- this -- this project here, in contrast with what has been approved with the
previous phase, does not have any duplexes. This would be an all multi-family, with the
exception of that one unit that -- where the existing home is would either be a rental unit
or an office, depending on which direction the applicant decides to go. We -- we are
providing some open space in this phase and I have got a slide a couple away from this
that kind of details that, as I believe your staff report does, but you can see that there is
also -- we connect a significant stretch of the multi-use pathway from Linder to connect
to the -- the existing Twelve Oaks project there just -- just to the west. I can't figure out
how to -- this is just -- just a zoom in of the -- the actual site that we are talking about in
contrast to the -- the overall development, which includes, as I said, the -- the other phase
of Twelve Oaks. And I think, you know, one thing I wanted to mention was typically when
we are working through a -- a project like this, one of the things that comes up is -- is
parking and so in addition to open space, doing an overall calculation, the same thing
was done with the parking and the -- I believe there is an additional 21 parking spaces
-- just including the -- the apartments for -- for both projects there is an additional 21.
Now, that doesn't include the multi -- or the -- the duplex parking, because, you know, I
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 37 of 66
don't think those folks would object to folks that are renting the -- the apartments to parking
in their driveway, as well as the commercial. So, I didn't include those. And so, you know,
we are not at the bare minimum, we have got an extra roughly 20 parking spaces to
accommodate guest parking. So, this is -- this is a slide that kind of shows you what we
got going in terms of overall parking spaces, open space, the number of buildings, you
know, these -- these -- these open space numbers are not broken down into acreage or
percentages -- or I guess it is a percentage there, but it's not an acreage, but -- but that
still gets you to -- you know, obviously, with -- with multi-family projects there is -- there is
another section of code that requires some additional -- your -- your -- your private 80
square feet of private open space per unit and, then, depending on the -- the size of those
units there is also a requirement for some additional open space. But as Sonya said, we
-- we meet that requirement independently and, then, together as well, so -- so, that
shouldn't be a concern moving forward and, as I said, you can see here -- hopefully on
the next slide, if it ever decides to move forward here, is kind of highlighting the section
on multi-use pathway that -- that -- that we are going to be constructing with this project
that will connect to what's -- what's under construction and will be constructed soon just
to the west as part of the -- the other phase of Twelve Oaks and so there will be a very
good connection there, again, for residents further south on -- on Linder to include, you
know, some of those subdivisions that we were just talking about in a previous application,
they will be able to, you know, walk up Linder and bypass Franklin quite a bit and maybe
get out to some of those businesses that are out there or will be constructed on -- on
Franklin, which -- which is the idea. So, these are -- these are similar, if not exactly the
same as those buildings in Twelve Oaks. These are actually of Twelve Oaks. I went up
there and took some photos of the buildings, you know, that are now built and they are
very attractive quality construction, you know, there is -- there is some -- some side
elevation -- that top left photo is of the -- of the garage is -- is kind of the side of the garage
and there is some nice elements there to kind of make those attractive and, then, the --
the garage building is just next to that, as well as the -- the two story buildings, which are
-- again, were approved by staff. They meet design standards, so I have every -- every
belief that, you know, the -- the buildings that we are building in -- in this phase would
also meet that. So, that -- that should also not be a concern. I guess I don't -- I don't
really have much else to -- to say beyond that. I know there was a -- this is -- it's a
successful project. You know, those -- those -- those are very attractive buildings out
there. I'm not -- I don't see any concerns in terms of parking. Open space is ample. You
know, there is quite a bit there, even if -- you know, there is already the several amenities
within the first phase and the amenity that we are adding now for the ten foot multi-use
pathway just -- just adds to that and, you know, I think it's going to be a nice project and
going to be a benefit to the area that, you know, needs -- needs some -- some excitement
and some growth. With that I will stand for any questions and that's all I have got today.
Holland: Thanks, Josh. Hey, Josh, on the Twelve Oaks East, I know there was one
rendering that kind of showed a three story building. All the ones proposed for the east
that we are looking at right here are just two story buildings; is that correct?
Beach: So -- and you referenced west; correct? Yeah. Those -- there are two three story
buildings in the previous phase, but in this phase there will be just two stories.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 38 of 66
Holland: Okay. Thank you for clarifying. I appreciate it.
Beach: Correct.
Holland: Any other questions for Josh -- or Jim I know is on the line as well.
Seal: Madam Chair?
Holland: Commissioner Seal.
Seal: Just a quick question. There is a -- the commercial spaces to the -- the north of
this -- and I know they have -- just because I have driven back there a couple times --
they have dumpsters along that. How does that align with where these apartment
complexes are? Are they -- did you guys try and match that up with where the drive aisles
are? Are they going to be, you know, right by some of the apartments?
Beach: Yes. If we go back to --
Seal: -- the wind kind of blows that way.
Beach: Right. So, there is a -- there is a concrete wall that separates the -- kind of the
commercial property to the north end, this property, and we will have to -- we will have to,
you know, cut a hole in that. But, you're right, there is some -- there are some dumpsters
back in that area. Now, I walked the site the other day and we will have to -- we will have
to coordinate that and make sure that, you know, obviously, that -- that all works in terms
of getting pedestrians through there and we can definitely, you know, have discussion
with that property owner to the north as to where they -- they have their dumpster. Now,
whether or not we can require them to move anything is another question, but we can --
we can definitely have those -- have those discussions. But you can see -- and I need to
go back a couple of slides I think here probably so you can see what I'm talking about.
You can see -- I don't know how to use the mouse, but you can see between some open
space on that north side and where the parking -- basically it looks like a common
driveway. You can't really tell that it punches through, but that's the general location just
-- just -- don't know how to describe that. You can probably see what I'm talking about.
But there is a -- a couple of lines going north that will be where the -- can you see the
mouse on the screen there?
Seal: Yeah.
Holland: Yeah.
Seal: Yeah. Just -- just below the E and N in open.
Beach: You got it.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 39 of 66
Seal: There is going to be one there and, then, below the T on amenities it looks like
mostly another one there.
Beach: No. No.
Seal: No.
Beach: So, just between the E and the -- yeah. The E and the N in open is where the --
the cross-access is. There -- there is not a cross-access --
Seal: Okay.
Beach: -- on the other -- on the other side further east. It's just -- just that -- just that one.
Holland: And there won't be --
Beach: So, it -- go ahead.
Holland: Sorry. I was going to say there -- there won't be a drive access, it's just a
pedestrian access; correct?
Beach: That's correct. That's correct. So, with the pedestrian access, then, that becomes
a -- it's not as -- as -- obviously not as wide, but we would have to coordinate with -- that
property owner provided a cross-access and we are going to be providing the same thing.
We will -- we will coordinate that and -- and get that accomplished there in figuring out
where that needs to be and -- and making sure that it makes sense in terms of, you know,
getting pedestrians back and forth. Because that -- City of Meridian -- and as most of you
should make that -- make an effort to connect properties together and in this case it would
be just pedestrian. But that goes a long way when you have got a -- a gas station there
with, you know, snacks. There is also a restaurant and a coffee shop in that -- and several
-- there is a bar in that -- in that strip mall anyway and so the idea is to get folks back and
forth without having to go out on Franklin and Linder.
Holland: Good place to get a hard shell coated dip cone.
Beach: There you go.
Seal: Yes, it is. Yeah. And, again, my concern was just where the -- the placement of
the dumpsters are and how that's going to -- you know, how that lines up with all the
apartments, if it's going to be in real close proximity they are probably not going to -- it's
not going to be a pleasant experience some days.
Beach: Ninety-five degree summer day. You never know. Yeah. No. So, we can work
with that. I think there is a very -- kind of a -- from what I remember looking at that
easement, it's pretty defined in terms of where the cross-access is. Sometimes it's
anywhere on the whole border of the property you can -- you can have a cross-access
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 40 of 66
and I will have to look into that, but I'm fairly certain it's a pretty specific -- maybe Jim can
-- can speak to that if he remembers. But I believe that's why it's placed in that location
is because that's -- that's the -- that's where it's legally recorded and located is -- is right
there.
Seal: Okay. Thank you.
Beach: Yeah.
Holland: Any other questions from the Commission? All right. Madam Clerk, do we have
anyone signed in to testify?
Weatherly: Madam Chair, we have one person signed in to testify -- or one couple signed
in to testify. That's Chad and Norma Herron.
Holland: Great. If you guys can let them through and, then, we will -- we will let Jim and
Josh close after we take some public testimony. And if you are joining us and you want
to speak, just state your name and address for the record and, hopefully, we will have
you patched over onto this side soon.
Johnson: Madam Chair, I cannot locate those couple in our attendees. So, if they are in
if they can do the raise hand. I don't see anyone with that name here. I do see -- well, I
did see a raised hand, but, then, it went away.
Holland: If you could raise your hand and leave it up there so we can grab you.
Johnson: It's coming in now, Madam Chair.
Holland: All right. Are you with us? It looks like they have patched somebody over, but
if you can hear us and wanted to state your name and address for the record -- make
sure you're not on mute.
Herron: All right. How about now?
Holland: We can hear you.
Herron: Okay. Great. My name is Chad Herron and we live at 1767 West Greenhead
Drive, which, basically, we have one outlet onto Linder. I don't know if the complex is
going to have an outlet that faces the east, but we have, essentially, four streets
converging within a space of 150 feet, plus the gas station as -- as well. So, our concern
is the amount of traffic flow that's going to be coming into a very confined space. There
is no outlet other than the Greenhead Drive for this whole part of the neighborhood.
Whitestone Estates has only one entrance and one exit. Now, during the school session
that road is very hard to access as it is now and I know that Mallard Landing also has that
problem. So, I'm not certain what can be done, but I would like it to be addressed,
because people come into Whitestone Estates looking for heaven knows what, but they
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 41 of 66
-- they do a lot of turning around in here in the middle of the road and, then, they -- they
just head out back onto Linder and either go north or south. But we are concerned about
all these roads converging in a small area and, then, if there is an emergency vehicle that
needs in here or we need to get to work, we are in sort of a congested situation.
Holland: Thank you, Chad. I appreciate you -- you being here and voicing your concerns.
Herron: Thank you.
Holland: Are there any questions for Chad? Thank you, Chad. I appreciate it.
Herron: You're welcome.
Holland: Madam Clerk, is there anyone else that would like to testify or anybody else
want to raise their hand in the participant room?
Weatherly: Madam Chair, at this time I don't see any raised hands.
Holland: Okay. We will do the awkward Jeopardy pause here for another minute, just to
make sure that everybody's had a chance to speak if they would like and you can hit star
nine to unmute yourself or you can raise your hand on the Zoom panel. Seeing none, I
think we will open it back up to the applicant if they would like to close and address the
questions of Chad and Norma for us.
Beach: So, I will jump on that. Let me turn my camera back on I guess here.
Holland: Welcome back, Josh.
Beach: Yeah. So, if I heard correctly there -- there is some concern with the folks
traveling on Greenhead, which is just to the south and that -- that road goes -- goes east-
west there and there is a -- the thought is that we could somehow control traffic through
-- I guess I fail to see what -- what we could -- what the concern was that we could solve
there with -- with -- with what he was -- was asking. Did I -- did I miss something there?
And not to say that we wouldn't attempt to, I just -- I just don't see what -- what we could
do with -- with our proposal that would -- that would change the traffic flow. Is his concern
that we do have an access?
Holland: Josh, I think the concern is that you're connecting the -- the Twelve Oaks West
and East and giving an access off of Linder and I know that they have also got an access
off of Franklin there.
Beach: Yes.
Holland: Their concern is having that access on Linder adds some congestion to Linder
and some of those other neighborhoods that exit off of there in close proximity. So, I don't
know if you have got any comments that you want to pass on from what ACHD has told
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 42 of 66
you or about how you think traffic flow could work within the site, but I think that's what
they were asking for.
Beach: Yeah. No, I don't -- I don't have a lot -- I guess I don't have a lot of comment on
-- on how we could improve that. You know, we -- we definitely want the access to Linder.
That helps with, you know, traffic flow in and out of the subdivision. Now, you know,
anybody knows that when -- when there is construction or when -- when residences are
built, traffic flow does increase, you know, not -- not to the extent in this case that it was
a concern of the highway district. Linder -- Linder is an arterial road and that's -- that's --
you know, we definitely bank on that -- that one connection there will help residents in
Twelve Oaks get in and out of the subdivision easier, especially if they are trying to go
south or north for that matter and so that's -- it's beneficial for us. Now, I -- I'm sympathetic
that folks get lost and get turned around when they are -- when they are trying to go
somewhere where they are not familiar with, they end up turning -- turning in where they
don't want to be and have to turn around. You know, that does increase traffic in that --
in that -- in that neighborhood. But -- but I don't -- I don't know what the impact is from
folks that are living in -- in, you know, this -- this -- this project and on the off occasion
somebody does make a wrong turn and it meant to go somewhere else or to our project
or something, that they will turn around, but I don't -- I don't -- without knowing, you know,
that specific concern from that resident how often that happens it -- it's probably, in my
mind, pretty minimal in terms of -- you know, people actually have to turn around, but --
but that is a -- you know, it is a concern to the neighbor and -- and we can -- we can, you
know, do whatever we can to help folks know where they are going. We are going to
have addressing and signage out there along Linder so that folks can see that before they
-- before they get there and, hopefully, won't have to turn around. We will -- we will just
-- should be -- it should be a pretty easy left-hand turn in when you're coming south and
you will see it, but, again, it is -- you have just turned, so you won't be up to speed quite
yet anyway. So, I think that -- that should be a -- should be an easy concern to -- to
address I should say.
Jewett: Madam Chair?
Holland: Go ahead, Jim.
Jewett: So, I would like to offer a few other comments as during the design stage of this,
you know, we looked at not having an access -- access onto Linder Road and just using
our cross-access easement with Harks Corner, the commercial area, with our existing
access on Franklin Road and our additional cross-access to the Twelve Oaks commercial
area in the middle, which gives us three. So, we have three access points now and after
meeting the staff, Fire, Police, it was determined that the best solution was to make an
alignment with the existing street across to the east of us on Linder, because with ACHD's
improvement of Linder they will restrict our access to a right-in, right-out and so it is going
to drive a little bit more traffic to Franklin that wants to go a certain different direction,
because we do have an uncontrolled access on Franklin left-in and right-in -- left-in, right-
out. So, we did put a lot of consideration and it was just decided this was the best,
because in the end it was going to be a right-in, right-out only. So, there is -- really, it's
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 43 of 66
going to have minimal impact on our neighbors. With the widening of Linder Road in four
lanes, obviously, the traffic's going to flow smoother, it's going to go all the way across
the freeway. I mean I -- I drive down that road every day to my subdivision and so I do
recognize school traffic. Haven't had for a while, but it is a factor. It does slow down. So,
we always are concerned about how we affect our neighbors and because of our
additional access points and the fact that it is only a right-in -- will only be a right-in, right-
out at some point in the future, I think our impact will be minimal. Also, I would ask --
Sonya, do you have an aerial, because I will point out exactly where that dumpster is if
anybody wants to know. It is directly north of one of our buildings and that dumpster does
have a tendency to be a little bit unsightly at times I have to admit. My office used to be
right across from it in that complex. I have addressed that with the current property owner
there and they are working to make some changes to that dumpster to make it more
suitable. We have a dumpster in our commercial area as well. It's unused right now.
And there might be some sharing with some of them to allow some alleviation of some of
that impact on that dumpster -- would have less of an impact on these future apartments.
But if there is an aerial I could show you exactly where that dumpster is.
Holland: It looks like they are trying to get one for you. And are there any other questions
from the Commission for the applicant while we are waiting for them to load that up for
us?
Jewett: Yeah. I see the aerial now. So, if you will look at -- oops. So, if you see where
it says Cornerstone Auto Repair, just the word Cornerstone, directly above that to the
northeast you see a building. The dumpster is directly to the east of it right on the other
side of that concrete fence.
Holland: I think they are trying to zoom in and move it up for you.
Johnson: Jim, you should see a pop up asking you to control the screen. Do you see
that --
Jewett: Okay. A tap here to control the screen. Okay. So, now I can move it?
Johnson: You are correct.
Jewett: There is a delay.
Holland: There you go.
Jewett: So, do you see where it says Firehouse Pub and Grill, directly to the east of it is
where the dumpster exists. Our access point is several stalls down from it, but there is a
building directly south of that dumpster. You can see the dumpster now pretty clearly.
Thanks for whoever is running the mouse. I can't. So, you can see there is a tree and,
then, the dumpster is directly to the west of the tree between the building and that -- that
tree there. That's it.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 44 of 66
Seal: It looks like there is some further to the -- to the east as well. Those -- the ones to
the east were my main concern and, then, knowing that there is that one by the Firehouse
was also --
Jewett: The one to the east -- I haven't really paid attention to those, to be honest with
you. It's never been an issue to anybody. I know those have had a tendency to get
overfilled and kind of be unsightly and a little messy, because there is a couple restaurants
in there and there is only Arctic Circle in this other one.
Seal: Okay. It was just a concern -- I mean as far as how those line up if you're, you
know, trying to, you know, play out in that little bit of open area or something or you have
your windows open in the morning and, you know, that smell wafting in, that could be
rather unpleasant.
Holland: But you do also have a donut manufacturer there, so --
Jewett: That is true and you should see the line in front of them some mornings going to
get those donuts. There is a drive-thru right there.
Holland: All right. Jim or Josh, do you guys have any other closing comments you would
like to make?
Jewett: I don't, unless there is any questions.
Beach: Yeah. I don't have anything else to add.
Holland: Okay. Any other questions from the Commission? Seeing none, I would
certainly entertain a motion to close the public hearing, so we can move to deliberation,
unless there is other questions you would like to ask.
Seal: Madam Chair?
Holland: Commissioner Seal.
Seal: I move we close the public discussion for Twelve Oaks East, H-2020-0014.
Holland: Okay.
McCarvel: Second.
Holland: I have got a motion and a second. All those in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Holland: All right. Thanks, Josh and Jim. We will deliberate and I think you might be
moved to the attendee side. But thanks for being with us and spending a good amount
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 45 of 66
of your evening with us. We appreciate it. Commissioners, the floor is yours for
deliberation. Anyone want to go first?
Grove: Madam Chair?
Holland: Commissioner Grove.
Grove: I think it makes sense with connecting what is already being built over there. I
have driven by that going to the transfer station a few times. It looks good and it makes
sense in terms of putting apartments that are close to two major roadways, with Franklin
and Linder, especially knowing that Linder -- the intersection is going to be widened and
also eventually have connectivity to south Meridian with an overpass at some point in the
future and also just its proximity -- this proximity to the Ten Mile interchange and the
growing Ten Mile district that's taking place, makes -- makes a lot of sense and especially
if we can get the -- that walking path to -- to help connect, you know, that one mile block,
if you will. So, I don't see any major concerns with -- with this. It makes sense to me.
Holland: I will add my comments, since not everybody was jumping up and down to make
comments yet. I think it -- you know, when I first saw it I always get sad when somebody
wants to take commercial and turn it into multi-family, but at the same time where multi-
family works best is as a transition between residential and commercial use and so I think
it's a -- it's a well thought out design. It incorporates well. I appreciate that they are all
two story units, instead of three story, and kind of towering there. It looks like it will tie in
pretty nicely with the -- the west concept there. I think having the access off of Linder be
right-in, right-out should hopefully help ease the public comment that we received about
concerns onto Linder. It's certainly always hard when there is another development that
ties in, but I think a lot of people will use Franklin for that full access, instead of Linder,
especially as Linder gets improved. The applicant has made a request to change one
minor thing with the development agreement. I didn't see any big -- any big concerns with
what they were requesting there, but I would agree with staff to use their language that
they have provided in whatever motion that we put forward, but we don't have to -- we
don't have to give any actual comments on that development agreement, but if anyone
wants to make a comment we certainly can. So, it doesn't have to be included in our
assessment to City Council level thing. Commissioner Seal, any comments?
Seal: Madam Chair, yeah, I mean the only thing -- I didn't see -- it seems like there wasn't
a lot of detail that was included in -- in some of this, but it's -- it's kind of hard -- a lot of
times we will get, you know, multiple elevations or presentations as far as what open
space looks like. So, you know, noting the staff comments that, you know, essentially,
the open space and the development to the west is going to accommodate all that I will
kind of overlook it. I do like the fact that there is enclosed garages that are included with
this. Hopefully, they don't get -- you know, people being people, again, hopefully they
don't get used as storage. And, then, you know, people are parking everywhere else, so
-- but I have no issues with it and I mean it's kind of nice that it's going to tie into the
business there. It is in the Ten Mile corridor area where, you know, we are trying to get
more of the -- you know, the higher density developments to go in, you know, to kind of
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 46 of 66
help get people closer to the -- to the freeway and have that -- have that traffic closer up
there. The right-in, right-out off Linder Road should help with the traffic. I'm almost
concerned about all the traffic going the other way, simply because, you know, if you're
going to go -- if you want to go out to Meridian Road or even Ten Mile and you're
unfettered off of Franklin, that's probably the route that you're going to take. So, hopefully,
that doesn't become a concern with the residents in there. But considering they are all
going to be part of the same HOA standard that will probably help them eliminate some
of their own problems in the future if they have them. But I have no issues with it.
Holland: And, certainly, if you had comments, too, about -- I know the concrete wall was
a -- a big part of where that pathway is. I think they are going to be required to punch a
walkway through there. But if we need to make a comment that they work to make sure
that that's aligned in an area that's not adjacent to a trash dumpster and we certainly
could.
Seal: Okay. Yeah. And it's -- I mean it's more just looking at -- I mean the aerials on it
compared to where everything is on this, it's -- you know, they are kind of limited as to
where -- where they can put this. I mean they would have to start moving buildings around
to accommodate some of that. So, hopefully, they can just work with some of the vendors
to, you know, accommodate some of that shared space, whatever that might look like.
So, I don't want to get too involved in trying to tell them where to put a dumpster I guess,
but it is a concern.
Holland: Other comments?
Pitzer: Madam Chair?
Holland: Commissioner Pitzer.
Pitzer: Yes. My -- I have no objection to this. I do understand the concerns of the
neighboring subdivisions where they have three or four streets coming out onto Linder
already and the traffic this is going to create, that I see that Linder is going to be -- you
know, once that gets widened and -- and they have a turn restriction, I think a lot of their
fears will be alleviated. I, too, was concerned that I couldn't see any amenities with this,
but I think they explained that that's going to be part of the neighboring subdivision. So,
I have no objection to this. I think, actually, they did a very nice job in putting through
access to the commercial and I think it transitions well.
McCarvel: Madam Chair?
Holland: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: Yeah. I would -- I'm in support of this for all the reasons all the other
Commissioners have elaborated on, so I won't restate them.
Holland: Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 47 of 66
McCarvel: But I would be in support of this.
Holland: Commissioner Cassinelli, if you have any comments or certainly anyone wants
to make a motion.
Cassinelli: The only -- my only thought and concern is that there will -- I mean that there
is -- you know, they put the extra parking in, but that would be -- you know, I'm in -- I'm in
support of it, other than it almost seems to me like you can never have almost too much
parking, but they definitely meet and exceed the requirement. That would be my only
comment. It's not a killer for me.
Seal: I'm starting to think that Bill was a -- he was a skateboarder in his past life. He likes
all that extra parking out there. All that -- all that flat space.
Cassinelli: Not that I love concrete, I just know how much it gets used.
Holland: All right. Well, the floor is open if someone would like to attempt a motion here.
Seal: Madam Chair?
Holland: Commissioner Seal.
Seal: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend
approval to the City Council of file number H-2020-0014 as presented in the staff report
for the hearing date of June 4th, 2020, with the following modifications: That for condition
B-1-2 the applicant shall be responsible to determine whether adequate capacity exists
in the receiving sewer system, including two lift stations, to accept the additional flow from
this development. If upgrades are necessary the applicant shall be responsible for all
costs associated with said upgrades.
Holland: I have a motion. Do I have a second?
Grove: Second.
Holland: I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All right. All those in favor?
Any opposed? Motion passes.
MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT.
E. Public Hearing for Chukar Ridge (H-2020-0025) by
Investment Analytics Group, Located at 4005 N. McDermott
Rd.
1. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 63 buildable lots, 8
common lots and 5 other lots on 15.42 acres of land in the
R-8 zoning district.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 48 of 66
Holland: We will move on to the final item and, then, to hopefully wrap up our evening
here. So, we will start with the staff report for Chukar Ridge, H-2020-0025.
Tiefenbach: Good morning -- or good morning. Good evening, Commissioners. Alan
Tiefenbach, planner with City of Meridian. Chris, can you load up the PowerPoint for me,
please? Thank you. All right. So, this is the Chukar Ridge preliminary plat. You can
look at this -- the property is located at the southeast corner of McMillan and McDermott
Road. You may remember a couple of years ago, Commissioners, you approved this
prime -- well, you recommended approval on an annexation of 108 acres, which included
the Owyhee High School that is just directly south of where you see the subject property.
The subject property is zoned residential eight. Chris, would you, please, move onto the
next screen. So, this is a request for a preliminary plat consisting of 63 buildable lots and
eight common lots. Again, like I said, this property was annexed and zoned in 2018 in
what was known as part of the Owyhee High School annexation. So, this annexation,
like I mentioned, included a little over a hundred acres, which is the site of the future
Owyhee High School and the particular piece that we are talking about is 15 acres, but
this was part of this annexation. There was a development agreement that also applied
to this particular project. The school district was required to build several roads, which I
will talk about in a minute, and that was required as part of the development agreement.
Two of these roads -- one of them was a north-south road and the other was an east-
west road. And, again, I will give you an example here in a minute. But these were --
these were intended to be the primary access for this development and these collectors
will feed traffic out to McMillan Road and the property is about 15 acres. Mostly flat.
There is a canal -- if you look right into the north, running east and west there, you can
see the -- the McFadden Drain and that runs across the entirety of the property at the
northern border. This property also includes a three -- roughly three and a half acre piece
of property to the east. That is what is shown there as phase two. That is that large
parcel over to the east there. This particular property is being set aside for future
construction of State Highway 16. The lots as proposed are at least 4,000 square feet in
area, which that meets the requirements of R-8. Chris, would you move to the next frame,
please? So, this was a -- this is an exhibit that the applicant prepared for us to sort of
demonstrate the way that the access would occur. The primary access to this
development would be from a north-south collector. That's what you see there in the
orange and that collector is being required to be built as the Owyhee High School
annexation. It's presently under construction. So, the southern part of that collector down
to Ustick is being built by the high school -- or by the school district. They are also building
the orange east and west that you see there, as well as the red that you're seeing going
north and south right to the property. The northern part of that orange collector will be
built by the Gander Creek Subdivision. They finished their final plat. They are getting
ready to pull building permits, so they would be starting construction very soon. So, the
applicant proposes also to use an access easement for a second access. So, this -- this
project is more than 30 lots and as you probably know, any project that has more than 30
homes has to have a secondary point of access. That's what you see there in red. That
is actually the McFadden Drain. There is an easement that runs across that drain. The
applicant is proposing -- and I will show you -- you will be able to see that in a minute from
the landscape plan. The applicant is proposing to use that drain as their access. It's
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 49 of 66
important to note that ACHD -- they have not provided any final comments on this project.
They mentioned that their meeting is not until June 10th and the Planning Commission is
going to have to decide if they are okay with moving forward on this development without
formal comments. I will mention that I did contact the planner with ACHD today just to
see sort of if they could give me any preliminary feedback on this plat and her response
was that she did not notice any major issues. There wasn't any deal killers. There may
or may not be some little tweaks that could probably be fixed before City Council, but,
again, she didn't see any showstoppers. Can you move onto the next screen, Chris? So,
this is a -- sort of a better example of the way that the interior access is going to work.
So, all of what you see there in orange is what the applicant is building. You can see the
green over there to the west. That is the road that is eventually going to be built by the
Gander Creek Subdivision development and what you see in red there is the McFadden
Drain. Originally the applicant proposed -- so, this will be the secondary access. Again,
this is required for more than 30 houses. The applicant originally proposed to take a
gravel access road up to that drain and, then, to go eastbound out to McDermott Road
for the secondary access. The issue with that is, obviously, this is eventually going to be
State Highway 16 when they build that and access to the east is going to be cut off.
Knowing that, the applicant is now proposing a westbound access and that westbound
access would come along McFadden Drain, it would connect into that future right of way
being built by the Gander Creek Subdivision and, then, they would either go south or they
would go north. The Fire just -- Fire has looked at this and they are okay with it. They
haven't expressed any issues with this. We are adding a condition of -- we are
recommending a condition of approval on this that no more than 30 houses can be built
without a permanent secondary access. I have talked to the applicant about that and the
applicant has not expressed any concerns with that. I think they are amenable to that.
Next one, please. So, this is the landscape plan. This landscape plan proposes a central
open space area with about a little more than ten percent of usable open space. This
was quite a discussion point between staff and the applicant. There was a few other
iterations of this that we didn't think were particularly usable until we arrived at this. So,
first, as I mentioned, this sets aside almost three and a half acres to the east as that large
blank piece that you see there, that particular piece of property is set aside for expansion
of the State Highway 16 and you will look that there is a buffer that's being provided. They
are required -- under the Uniform Development Code they are required to provide a 35
foot buffer against any entryway, which is what the Highway 16 would be. In addition,
there also -- they are also going to be putting in a berm there. That's one of our conditions
of approval. A berm or a fence or a berm or a combination of a berm and fence is one of
the requirements of our UDC. In the center there you can see that they are doing sort of
like a central area and this central area is what's going to be comprising sort of a pathway
loop. If you could move onto the next slide, please, Chris. I think this sort of demonstrates
the way that their -- their -- their -- their open space is going to work. So, there is -- what
they are doing -- if you look at what's blue over there all the way onto the east, the blue
is asphalt and that's going to connect into their sidewalks. So, the sidewalks are what
you see there in green. The blue would be a concrete pad -- path with landscaping on
either side of it that would run up that buffer for Highway 16. Part of that blue line you
see there would connect across the driveway back to the other -- to the other sidewalk
and what you see in orange would connect up to the McFadden Drain. The purple there
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 50 of 66
-- they -- they can't do a lot of improvements with that, because the -- the irrigation district
won't let them do much more than gravel and maybe some vegetation. We are still waiting
to hear on that. But they will bring it back through what's known as Lot 25. That's that lot
up at the north. You can see the pink line there running north and south. At staff's
recommendation the applicant is going to put a ten foot landscape buffer on either side
with a five foot concrete path, as well as an access way for fire access. That purple line
will come down until it hits that orange line that you see there in the middle, that will also
be a paved path. This will create a loop that's roughly about a quarter of a mile. So, if
you were to go around this -- this loop that would be about, yeah, give or take about a
quarter mile. As this conceptual pathway plan resulted in discussions it came about over
time with staff and the applicant, but we don't have a final landscape plan that actually
shows how this is going to be put together. Staff and the applicant have already talked
about this and they are willing to have this exhibit together before it goes to City Council.
So, staff has recommended this as a condition. Staff has also recommended that this
revised landscape plan show where the seating areas and some of the more passive
recreational areas would be, so that we can make sure that we actually have some
qualified amenities there for a sitting and for recreating. So, with that I guess I would --
that would conclude my presentation, unless you had any questions, Commissioners.
Holland: Thank you for the overview. I have one question and it's related to the ACHD
report. I know we -- they are having their hearing on June 10th, but I believe staff has
already talked with ACHD about what they expect out of that hearing. Could you talk to
that for a couple minutes, sir?
Tiefenbach: Yes, ma'am. Again, the -- the only thing that they have given us so far is
that they do not think that they are going to have any major issues with this. I talked to
the planner today on e-mail a little bit and she said that if anything -- that anything that
she's going to be recommending would be pretty minor and she thinks that there is not
going to be anything -- it's not going to be a big enough deal that it can't be something
small that can be fixed before it goes to the City Council. But that's about as much as I
know at this point, Commissioner.
Holland: Thank you. Any other questions for staff? Hearing none, I think we will open it
up for the applicant to come and speak with us. Thanks, Alan. And as you're joining us
-- I think they just moved you over. Make sure you're not on mute and if you can state
your name and address for the record.
Adams: Good afternoon. Good evening. This is Matt Adams. I'm at 462 East Shore
Drive, Eagle, Idaho. Thanks for having me today. Everybody hear me? Loud and clear?
Holland: We can hear you.
Adams: Excellent. Excellent. All right. Well, first time I have worked with Alan and we
had a good process. So, thank you, Alan, for that. I'm really excited about this project. I
have been able to work on the Owyhee High School and several projects around this area
and I got -- become a pretty good acquaintance with Bob and Judy Spriggel, who owned
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 51 of 66
this property, and it was kind of a dream come true for them to be able to sell it for
development and retire. So, we are celebrating Bob and Judy's retirement tonight, not
just a new housing development. The size of these lots and the size of the homes fill a
niche market for affordability that Meridian is in -- terribly needs right now. Not everybody
can buy a half a million dollar house and so having homes in the two -- low two hundreds
and the 200s is very desirable for the city. A couple quick things I want to cover. I do
want to clarify the ACHD issue really briefly. We have got -- we received an e-mail from
Paige Bankhead, who is a Planner II at ACHD, as she stated that the Chukar Ridge Sub
will need to get a commission action item due to the modification of the master street map
collector, since it will not be connecting to McDermott because of the ITD right of way and
future Highway 16. So, the matter that is before ACHD -- the fact that the state's building
an expressway and their mid mile collector will no longer go through to McDermott, ACHD
did a staff report and reviewed this project during the annexation process. So, the -- the
hearing, my understanding, is not applicable to the actual pre-plat that is in front of you.
I want to reinforce some of the things that Alan talked about. Is it possible for me to share
my screen?
Johnson: Madam Chair, Matt, give me one moment and we will give you that access.
Holland: Thanks, Chris.
Adams: So, I'm going to show a rendered land -- landscape plan that we put together,
so you can get a sense of how much open space we have on this project.
Johnson: You should be able to do that now.
Holland: And, Matt, if you would just make sure that the clerk's office and the planning
office has a copy of whatever you're showing for the record that would be great.
Adams: Absolutely. Thank you. I did e-mail this to Alan earlier today and I will work with
Alan to make sure that happens.
Holland: Thank you.
Adams: So, you should see on your screen now. Oh, maybe --
Johnson: Matt, sorry to interrupt. I did get that. I apologize. I didn't remember getting
that. I got a pdf earlier from you. I'm sorry, I completely forgot, but we have got it now.
Adams: Not a problem. So, if you can all see that, it's just a rendered plan -- a standard
kind of a marketing board and it kind of enhances or shows in a little bit more detail the
open space. We are excited that we have -- we have this layout to the central open
space. It's kind of equidistant for all people. We have also got that really wide and heavily
planted buffer on the east edge, along the ITD right of way and as you can see on this
exhibit, we actually show where the roadway is set to occur. So, we have a large planted
buffer and, then, there is a pretty good distance before you get to the road. We are also
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 52 of 66
-- I know that the code does not allow the McFadden Drain in its condition to be
considered qualified open space, but I think we all understand the quality of a space like
that for, you know, just to see the baby ducks in May or to be able to take a walk and not
have anybody living directly behind you is awfully nice. The house is 12.5 feet from the
fence. So, this is a great -- great attribute to the community and we still meet the open
space requirement, even though we do not count the McFadden. The last one on open
space, we have a high school next door to us with an open campus. It's not fenced. That
large eight acre field that will be directly to the southwest. And, then, we are going to
have a -- an elementary school to the west of us and West Ada always keeps those open
and they have play equipment and soccer fields, et cetera, et cetera. So, we got a great
product here. We have worked back and forth to make sure that we have access and we
are really excited about this -- this project. I want to very briefly -- and, then, I will be done
-- I'm going to stop sharing if you don't need that. There is some specific conditions in
the staff report I want to make sure everybody understands we are agreeable to.
Condition -- these are the planning conditions. 1-B. We agreed to provide the permanent
secondary access to the north or the south prior to constructing more than 30 homes. So,
our plan is to get started. We would stop at 30 if we couldn't get the secondary, but our
plan is to negotiate the secondary access this year with how fast things are moving to the
north and the south of us. Condition 1-C, we agree -- Planning would like us to add a ten
foot landscape buffer on the west edge, so that when the future street is built on the school
property we don't have homes with our street -- both on the front and the back fence, front
yard, backyard. So, we are going to add a ten foot wide landscape buffer on that west
edge. That's not a problem at all. Increases our open space numbers. And, then,
condition 2-A, we agree to make sure we have the berm built up on that east edge, helps
for separation from the island. And, then, condition 2-E talks about landscaping the
McFadden Drain easement. We have no problem with this. The one reason I bring it up
is we -- generally Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District does not allow any kind of landscape
irrigation within their easement, so they are kind of funny, they say you can plant lawn,
but you can't irrigate it, which is -- obviously, we are not Portland. It would have lived two
weeks ago for one week. So, we are going to work through that with Alan. We do not
want it to be a poorly maintained area, but city zoning ordinances and codes already
require that we keep our weeds mowed. Note we have a nice space, so we are going to
work through that specific item. So, with that I will just take any questions you may have.
And, then, if we do have something specific that I can't answer, we do have Brady Lasher
with the developer group available, if he can answer questions as well. Excited to see
you guys. I haven't been in front of P&Z for a while and I got to stay at home and so it's
even better than normal. Thank you.
Holland: Appreciate it. Any questions for Matt?
Pitzer: Madam Chair?
Holland: Commissioner Pitzer.
Pitzer: Yes. Hi, Matt. Thank you for being here tonight. Liked the presentation. Can
you tell me what amenities are going to be in that open space or is it just grass?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 53 of 66
Adams: Yeah. That's a good point. So, we have kind of two open spaces; right? We
have the central area and, then, we have the area on the east edge. In both of those we
have nice open lawn space in case you do have littler kids that can't go over to the school,
right, to kick a ball or play catch or throw a Frisbee. But our main amenity package for
this development is the pathway system. So, we have all these different loops and
pathway connections and, then, at this -- at the scale of these drawings we could not
show it and we were still working with Alan on it. This -- the owner plans -- or the
developer plans to install seating, benches, and that type of feature along the pathway.
So, it will be -- it's a walking, strolling, jogging and sitting amenity package.
Pitzer: Follow up. So, what's your -- you said your price point on this is going to be in the
200,000s.
Adams: Yeah. This is -- I mean, you know, this is a similar product to what we have seen
like at Ustick and Locust Grove and other parts of town. By keeping the unit a little smaller
you're able to still have nice finishes, good product, we keep the price down. Now, we
don't know the price the day these are built, but historically this type of unit was in the low
two hundreds.
Pitzer: Okay. Which brings up my question with age group. I -- and how big are the
homes?
Adams: That I don't know.
Pitzer: The square footage we don't know. But if we are keeping to that price point, I'm
thinking there is probably going to be a lot of young families. You have the elementary
school coming in, but before they get elementary school age there is no tot lot or -- or
anything like that that you're -- that you're planning; am I understanding --
Adams: That's correct. Yeah. We are focused on the pathway system and not a tot lot
system.
Pitzer: Okay. Thank you.
Adams: You're welcome. Thank you.
Holland: Matt, one thing we have talked about quite a bit as a Commission is -- it seems
to be a more common design trend lately for these common -- or these shared drives
accessing four lots off of one shared drive that connects them with the public street. I
always have a little bit of a concern with it, just because -- I mean for personal reasons I
would never buy one that's on a -- on a common drive like that, because I hate the access
going in and out of it and trying to figure out how to turn around or, you know, if you pull
in forward and you got to back back out or whatever it is, it's just a little tougher to
navigate. And trash enclosures can be a challenge, even though it's only once a week,
people put their trash out in the morning and they don't take it back in until night. When
you have got four different houses putting out one or two trash cans you can just get kind
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 54 of 66
of congested and limit roadway access. So, that's my -- my biggest concern with that.
But I don't know if you have got any comments related to that. It's just a comment I
frequently have related to those shared drives. It's not my favorite thing to see those.
Adams: Commission Chairman -- Chairperson, that's a great comment, actually. So,
really quick -- I'm texting with Brady. So, I have got some more information for you. The
houses will be 1,400 to 2,000 square feet. So, you can see out of 1,400 square foot we
can really be effective with the price point and just on that -- not to take up too much time,
but I have a son who is 26 and he could never move back here and buy a home, which
is, you know, hard for a dad to think about, but when you do have some opportunities like
this it makes it possible. On the shared driveway -- so, I agree with you. It matters what
kind of vehicle you have, you're either sunk or you might be able to make some of those
turns; right? We actually -- I was unable to get it prepared for today, but when we add
the ten foot landscape strip on our west edge, we are considering redesigning that corner
to ease that and have a maximum of two lots if we have a shared driveway at all in that
corner. So, we are looking at changing that. On the northeast corner, we do have a
shared drive to two lots. We would like to keep that, because it is also the -- the public
access to get into another point of access into the pathway system. I think it's a good
comment and the one in the center it does have basically three lots. So, it's kind of that
tough spot that you talked about. We will take a look at it. I know we have an opportunity
to do some plat modification, because I need to get Alan's comment in and we will see if
there is a way we can ease some of those spots. Thank you for that.
Holland: And, then, one other question I have for you, too. I know in the future use map
this area and the area to the south of it was kind of designed for mixed use regional
planning. You guys are already zoned R-8, so we are just considering your plat right now,
but just wondering how -- how -- what kind of transition fencing or -- or whatnot you have
got between your property line and the property to the south of you. Is there going to be
fencing kind of buffer space there?
Adams: That's a good question. Thank you, Chair Person. So -- so, the -- that south
edge right now -- as you know when you go in with your construction documents that's
when you designate fencing. So, right now we have not -- I have not had a detailed
conversation with the developer on that specific thing. Now, generally, on the back of
homes we do a vinyl product -- a six foot high vinyl product. I will say that to the south --
I have been in contact with that developer and so it probably is appropriate to note that
they plan on -- that -- in that MU zone they are going to be able to follow it a lot more
closely and they are planning single family, some like duplex style stuff, as well as some
commercial and it is a lot more of a mix, like the MU is desiring, and they plan on putting
a similar product back up to these homes, so that there is a good transition from Gander
Creek to Chukar Ridge into that next parcel to the south. But long answer to your
question. Short answer is right now typically vinyl six foot, but we haven't had those
detailed questions or discussions.
Holland: Thanks, Matt. Other questions for Matt?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 55 of 66
Grove: Madam Chair?
Holland: Commissioner Grove.
Grove: Thank you for this. I am always happy when we can get a product in that comes
in at that lower price point. That is a -- always a big concern of mine that we don't have
enough home ownership options in that lower price point. So, I appreciate that product.
The -- the concern that I have is -- I haven't seen a timeline for the elementary school that
is mentioned. Is that something that you are aware of? And, then, I will have a follow-
up question I guess with that.
Adams: Yeah. Thank you, Commissioner Grove. Good question. So, I do work with
Joe Yochum over at West Ada a lot and he and I have discussed this. This area set up
for an elementary school. He generally plays his cards pretty close on that and two years
ago when we started working on the high school he said that this elementary was ten
years out. That's really hard to predict. I would not put stock that it's exactly eight years
out now. It's very unpredictable. It's all based on growth and, then, the ability to pass a
bond. But the -- the actual word we have heard from the district is -- would have put it
eight years out from now.
Grove: So, my follow up to that is similar to Commissioner Pitzer and that with the schools
being somewhat of an unknown and being able to lock in -- you know, this isn't a situation
where, you know, we have Pleasant Valley going in not too far from here and we know
that that is in. This is an unknown in terms of when. I don't -- I see the -- the lack of
amenity for this population without the selling point of having a schoolyard to go play in
that you have mentioned for eight to ten years. That -- that concerns me. Is that
something that you would be willing to address by adding in additional open space in that
central area to accommodate an addition of some sort of amenity for those families?
Adams: Yeah, Commissioner Grove, thank you. You know, when we were working out
this plan, we -- we had considered a tot lot. That is a pretty standard piece. Very popular
with the young families. And we had considered it in that central largest space. We
started to get pretty excited about the pathway loops, but if this Commission thinks that's
an integral piece for success of this project, I don't think -- we would not object to that.
We can -- we can work with that and, honestly, we -- the one thing we didn't do a good
job of is showing you -- you know, like Commissioner Pitzer asked, too, what are the
amenities, because you can't see them. So, we didn't do a good job of showing you that
and I think, yes, they would be open to a tot lot if needed and I think we need to -- when
we get to Council we need to show -- do a better job showing what our amenity package
is with the pathways, the seating areas, and, then, potentially the tot lot.
Grove: Thank you. I think you -- if we could see more of that, that would be very helpful.
I mean walking paths are great, but as a ten year old kid running around the
neighborhood, a walking path is not the same as somewhere to play. So, taking that into
consideration would be helpful.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 56 of 66
Holland: All right. Any other questions before we open up for public testimony? Hearing
none, Matt, we will be right back with you here in a few minutes. Madam Clerk, do we
have anybody signed in to testify on this one?
Weatherly: Chair, we do not.
Holland: Okay. Anybody that's sitting in the attendee panel, if you would like to speak
on this application and want to hit the raise hand button or hit star nine, we would be
happy to hear from you. An awkward pause, but it doesn't look like there is anybody
making movement there. Going once. Going twice. Gone. Okay. Matt, we are back
with you again. I don't know if you have got any additional comments. You want to make
a close.
Adams: Thank you, Chair Person. Not really. I did -- I got confirmation from the
ownership group. They are -- they are into the tot lot idea if that's what we need to do to
be successful. So, I think that's great. This was a fun meeting. I think -- I always love
meeting with the P&Z Commission, because it's a little more relaxed and especially if you
go last, because everybody is just shot and it is what it is at 8:54 p.m. Thank you.
Holland: Thanks, Matt. Matt, the other question -- so, on the shared drive you mentioned
that you might be reconfiguring the way that that kind of looks for that northwest corner
of the development. Is that something you would feel comfortable if I -- if we requested
that there is no more than three homes off of a shared drive?
Adams: Yeah. Commissioner Holland, I think we could probably make that work. Yes,
we would definitely do everything we can to make that work. And I think specifically in
that corner, since we have already started looking at it and adjusting that, I -- we would
be comfortable with that. Absolutely. Thank you.
Holland: Any other questions for Matt before we close the public comment period?
Hearing none, thanks, Matt. I would be open to taking a motion to close the public
hearing.
Seal: Madam Chair?
Holland: Commissioner Seal.
Seal: I move that we close the public hearing for Chukar Ridge -- for Chukar Ridge, file
H-2020-0025.
Pitzer: Second.
Holland: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor? Those opposed? None
opposed.
MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 57 of 66
Holland: Thanks, Matt, again. We appreciate you being here. And, Commissioners, it's
up for comment. And if -- Chris, if you wouldn't mind putting that plat back up for us, so
we can look at it. I think the landscape one was nice to look at here.
Cassinelli: Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli.
Holland: Commissioner Cassinelli, go ahead.
Cassinelli: I guess there is silence, so I will go ahead and start. I would have to agree
with a couple of my fellow Commissioners that I think this is going to cater to a younger
age group and the elementary school is a ways off and it's -- it's all based on -- on growth
and development. It could be eight years. It could be ten, 12 years, we don't know. So,
I would like to see that, but I would -- I would not want to see -- I live in -- living in a
neighborhood with pathways I think it's a phenomenal amenity to be able to kind of
meander throughout your -- instead of just walking on sidewalks. I really enjoy that. So,
I would rather see them lose maybe the seating areas, because I don't -- you know, I don't
just sit around my neighborhood. Take advantage of the -- you know, my kids were
younger, the tot lots and -- and in the pathways. The kids can ride their bikes on the
pathways or skateboard or whatever. So, I would kind of echo the comments earlier.
And, then, the only other thought I had here was previously when we looked at -- and I
don't -- I don't remember which one it was, but a subdivision south was -- we went back
and forth I remember over a height requirement I think of the -- the berm and the fence
fronting highway -- the future Highway 16 and I would just kind of ask staff if -- if we could
meet the same height requirements. Again, I don't remember which -- which subdivision
that was, but if that's uniform to where we get -- I think we went over the minimums, if I
-- if memory serves. But I think it -- just look at that, make sure that that's uniform along
Highway 16.
Holland: Alan or Bill, could you -- or Alan or Bill Parsons, could you help clarify Bill
Cassinelli's question there about the area between the buffer and the future roadway?
And I can restate --
Tiefenbach: Bill, I probably would let you weigh in on this one. I think she's asking about
-- the buffer and the berming and fencing to tie into the one to the south. I'm not sure
which one that is.
Holland: I remember which one -- I don't remember exactly which project it was, but I
remember when we had a project that was looking at going off of either Chinden or off of
this, we had asked for additional buffer requirements or height requirements to give a
better shield to the neighborhood. I think that's what Commissioner Cassinelli is talking
about.
Parsons: Correct. That -- that project is just to the south --
Cassinelli: That's correct. That's --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 58 of 66
Parsons: Yep. That -- and that project was Gander Creek South and I can look at -- I
can look at the condition of approval for the pre-plat and see what you guys had
recommended. I believe you wanted a taller berm than what code required, but let me
get that information for you and, then, chime back in.
Holland: Thanks, Bill.
Cassinelli: Thank you, Bill.
Holland: Yeah. I would -- I would echo Commissioner Cassinelli's concern there. I --
living next to a freeway and if you're going to have a house backing up to it and the nice
pathways there, it would be nice to have a little taller berm than maybe what UDC
standards requires, just to help with some of the sound mitigation of traffic there. I would
also agree, I think I would like to see a path -- or not a pathway, I think I would like to see
a tot lot or another amenity added to the package. I love the walkways, too. It's one of
the biggest reasons I chose the neighborhood I live in, is because I love the pathways
that go through it. So, I think that, you know, it's not undersold on me that's a great
amenity to this, but I think just adding a tot lot would make it that much better. Any other
Commissioner comments?
Seal: Madam Chair?
Holland: Commissioner Seal.
Seal: I kind of get the feeling that this isn't quite ready. So, that -- I may be the outlier
here, but -- I mean we are -- I get concerned when I don't see reports from -- from ACHD.
I mean preliminary conversations, nothing on file, says we may not have any problems,
but we might. So, I just -- I hate to move forward without something in concrete from
them, no matter where it's at. So, the open space -- I mean to design this without any
kind of amenities -- I mean that seems to be more of an oversight than anything. So, you
know, hopefully, something can be done about that. But, again, it just gives me the feeling
that it's not quite ready. You know, the secondary access not coming through, you know,
the ability to only do 30 lots, just some things like that, I just -- I don't know that this is
ready for prime time at this point in time. So, you know, with schools coming in, that's
great, and I think it's good that it has a walking path, but, again, there is a school right
next to it that has lots of -- lots of space to do walking and running and all that stuff on
and, you know, living close to a school with a -- you know, living in a subdivision with
walking paths and living next to a school that has areas to do that is -- is nice on both
fronts where the grade school isn't going in to provide, you know, amenities for younger
families, which the subdivision would attract, seems to be something that should have
been caught in the beginning, so -- and, personally, I would like -- you know, outside of a
tot lot it would be nice to see like, you know, we have seen some of the subdivisions do
climbing boulders and -- and different things like that. I do like that the -- the open space
is centrally located and provides a little bit more -- a little larger area for the kids to run
around. It's a little more protected, you know, instead of -- instead of putting it all on the
end caps, so that part of it I do like. But, again, to me it just -- you know, I mean I would
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 59 of 66
almost think a continuance or something along those lines, just so we can get all the
information put in front of us so we can provide, you know, better feedback for City
Council, so they don't have to wade through everything we are supposed to wade through
before it gets to them. So, just trying to function on what we are supposed to be doing
here as a body. So, it just seems like we don't have a lot of information to provide, you
know, good -- the amount of feedback to the City Council that we should for this. That's
just my thoughts on it.
Parsons: Madam Chair?
Holland: Go ahead, Bill.
Parsons: So, I was able to pull up that -- that project and it looks like the Council approved
a six foot tall berm with a six foot tall wall for a total overall height of 12 feet along the
state highway.
Holland: Thank you, Bill. I appreciate it.
Parsons: You're welcome.
Holland: So, Commissioner Seal, to go back to your comment, so I think a few of the
things we have talked about is enhancing that berm requirement. They are conditioned
to only do up to 30 homes until they have got that secondary access fully committed.
They mentioned that they would be willing to reduce the number of lots on the shared
drive and they might be doing some reconfiguring on that northwest corner and that they
would be willing to do the tot lot. If they had those four conditions and had a requirement
to revise their -- their drawings before it went to City Council and revise their preliminary
plat, staff -- would that make you feel comfortable enough or do you think there is still
other things they need to work out besides those things.
Seal: That's -- that's a great question. So, personally, I -- when things come in at the last
minute and it -- to me it just doesn't seem complete. I -- I feel like we haven't had enough
time to evaluate it in it's -- you know, as fully as it needs to be evaluated, so -- I mean we
can try to predict the future as far as what may or may not happen, but, you know, I'm --
I'm more -- I like to see -- I like to see it in writing and I like to see what people are saying.
I like to see how it's actually going to play out. So, you know -- and, again, that just has
-- to me it has an unfinished feel to it. So, that's -- that's just where I'm at. You know, I
mean I -- I may be the outlier in that and that's okay, I just -- I -- I feel like it's -- this is --
to me it has a rushed feel. Like -- like everything was kind of -- you know, everything's
being done at the last minute. I'm -- that's the -- that's the feeling that I get. I guess if it
was homework that's the way it would feel. So, it's just not quite all there, you know, and
I mean if it's -- if it's missing detail because of something that's going on around it, that's
one thing, but this is missing detail because it's missing detail. It's missing, you know,
components that should be presented by the time it gets to us.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 60 of 66
Holland: And specifically, Commissioner Seal, the -- the components you would be
looking for if you were to ask for a continuance, just so we would be clear.
Seal: Detail on the open space amenities, what they are going to provide, how they are
going to provide it. You know, obviously, there -- we have talked about having them
reduce the amount of homes off the shared drives. Having a detailed report from ACHD
is the big one. And, then, you know, the other things we have talked about as far as the
berm and -- and things like that. And the berm is something we brought up tonight. So,
I don't know that that one really falls in line with it, but it's -- you know, again, it just kind
of goes into -- it just has an unfinished feel to me.
Holland: Commissioner McCarvel, do you have any comments? I don't think we have
heard from you yet.
McCarvel: Yeah. I mean I have got the same concerns everybody else did there,
especially with those amount of homes on the shared drive. I'm kind of -- I -- I like the
pathway system, but, again, as with everybody else, I would like to see what other
amenities they had in store. So, I'm not so sure that all this isn't accomplishable before
they get to City Council, but, yeah, sitting here as it is, it needs -- it definitely at the
minimum needs conditions.
Holland: Yeah. Well -- and one note, too, I believe per UDC code, they are only required
to have one site amenity, which they do meet with the pathway system and their bench
system. But we certainly have it in our prerogative to make a condition that they would
need to have a second site amenity, because we don't feel the first one is adequate
enough. So, I'm not sure where we are at, because it sounds like we have got at least
one Commissioner wanting to lean towards continuance. I'm not sure where the others
are at on that. If you choose to go that direction we would have to reopen the public
hearing. So, just remind -- remember that before someone makes a continuance motion.
Commissioner Grove.
Grove: I understand the concerns. I do think that we -- I think we could condition this
and still move it forward, because I think we are all kind of in agreement on -- for the most
part in terms of like the shared drive limits, the addition of an amenity to that -- most likely
the central space. I personally would like to see, you know, something maybe a little
more than a tot lot, just in terms of like -- a little more substantial based on what I think
the potential people moving in would meet, but I'm open to whatever that is. But I agree
with Commissioner Seal, the ACHD piece is definitely a big one, but I don't know, I think
-- I think we could condition this and still move forward with the necessary conditions. I
don't know exactly how to word all those, but I think that I would be in favor of moving in
that direction.
Holland: And I think with the ACHD thing we can just make a recommendation that it
doesn't go to Council until that final report is done and a final hearing is done and that the
applicant has indicated where the secondary access will come through on a revised plat
before Council comes in. I think that might be the way you condition it. I know I can't
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 61 of 66
help you make the motion this time, but I can help you at least run through what we can
consider there.
Seal: And, Madam Chair, I will -- I mean --
Holland: Commissioner Seal.
Seal: I will be kind of bluntly honest here. So, if -- if this was -- and I mean we have seen
some presentations here in the -- in -- in the past that kind of make us all go, wow, that's
amazing and for those I'm willing to kind of do whatever it takes to help -- you know, help
foster those along, because they are good for our community overall. This one I just have
the sense that it's meeting the basic requirements. There is -- there is nothing to this that
makes me go, wow, this is a neat piece of property that's really going to enhance our
community, other than the fact that it has low price housing in it. So, to me it's -- number
one, it's lacking in, you know, substance and it's late to the party. So, you know, again, I
mean if -- if it showed me something that made me think, wow, this is something that I
really want to get behind and I want to try to help foster, then, I would probably be on a
different page with it. But, again, it just -- it doesn't have that, so --
Parsons: Madam Chair?
Seal: -- again, we can push it -- we can push it through with -- with everything that's in
there and it will meet the minimum, but, again, that's all it's going to do and -- and I -- I'm
getting to the point where as much traffic and as crowded as -- you know, as crowded as
we are all starting to get, I would like to see things go above and beyond, instead of just
meeting the basic requirements.
Parsons: Yeah. Madam Chair?
Holland: Go ahead, Bill.
Parsons: And I -- I always appreciate the -- the Commission's discussion on these
projects, because, as you know, we are looking for premier and we are looking for
communities that -- that have their own identity and have that -- the right open space, the
right amenity package, but I just want to remind the Commission tonight that this is simply
a preliminary plat before you. It's not a rezone. It's not an annexation. So, really, what's
within your purview this evening is whether or not it's compliant with the Comprehensive
Plan, which it is, and whether or not they meet the dimensional standards of the code and
meet the minimum open space and site amenity requirements. In our staff report staff
has laid that foundation for you that we believe they do with some conditions. So, right
now it's -- it's not within your purview to change -- if you want to limit the lots or to have
them work with us to modify access off the common drives. That's -- that's appropriate.
But what we can't do is make them do more open space and more amenities than what
code requires, because, again, this is just a pre-plat and the purview tonight is just to
make sure it's consistent with the comp plan and consistent with code and what we have
indicated to you this evening is the project before you meets the minimums and that's
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 62 of 66
what we were tasked to do this evening. So, I just wanted to bring the conversation back
to what the purview is on this pre-plat. There is a development agreement on this site.
The zoning is in place as part of that annexation. It was always envisioned for single
family detached development that you see before you and that's why -- what we have to
deal with. So, the applicant's complying with the development agreement. They are
compliant with the Comprehensive Plan. And, again, they are -- they are complying with
the minimum code requirements. Thank you.
Holland: Thanks, Bill. Appreciate your insights there.
McCarvel: Madam Chair?
Holland: Go ahead, Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: Yeah. I think -- I mean I would be comfortable moving it forward with
conditions. I feel like the applicant was with us in the spirit of what we were -- in our
discussions and questions during the presentation, so I would feel comfortable moving
forward with -- with the conditions to happen before Council.
Holland: And I -- I would agree and, you know, I -- I think with Bill's comments in mind,
too, we can certainly ask them to consider an additional amenity, but they -- because it's
not an annexation we don't have as much room as we do when it's just a preliminary plat
that we are looking at. So, we have to be careful just to make sure that we are making
comments related to how the plat fits in with the Comprehensive Plan. I don't know if
anybody wants to try and take a stab at a motion on this one. It's a fun one.
Pitzer: Madam Chair? I just -- I just want to put in my two cents I guess. The -- the
pathways I think are okay. It's an amenity and I love the one that we have here, but I'm
in a subdivision where everybody's 16 years old or more and so that's what we like to do,
because we are -- we are putting in a subdivision that has -- as he says is -- is more price
effective or eaveless homes from the elevations that I have seen -- I have seen and it
doesn't seem to come across in the presentation that we are getting, but we are solely
going on -- is this the best thing for Meridian or is it just fitting in the comp plan, and that's
all we're looking for is -- is the bare minimum, then, this meets the bare minimum, but I
just -- I -- I agree that it's premature, but I do think that we can condition for -- you know,
condition for -- for the approval.
Holland: Thanks, Commissioner Pitzer. Do we need to recap what we have talked about
on what to include here? I think one of the -- the recommendations we had was on the
-- having a six foot tall berm and six foot tall fence for the boundary between future State
Highway 16 and the subdivision. Asking the applicant to revise their plat to not have more
than -- or to work with staff to not have more than three lots off of a shared drive. We
would ask them to consider putting in an additional amenity package for a tot lot or
something similar. I don't think we can require it, but I think we can request them to
consider it and, then, the other thing would be to make sure that the ACHD staff report
and recommendations were finalized with showing where that secondary access will
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 63 of 66
come through before it goes to Council. Those are the four things that I have on my list,
but I don't know if anybody else has others. I will pause and see if anybody would like to
make a motion, since I cannot do that.
Cassinelli: Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli.
Holland: Commissioner Cassinelli, go ahead.
Cassinelli: I just -- on the ACHD, is there anything that we can further put a condition in
there to -- I mean it's hard without -- without it going there yet and seeing their -- their
recommendation and their -- you know, any conditions they have -- and I agree with that
point with -- with Commissioner Seal. If there is something in there that causes all of us
-- or some of us concern -- I guess my question is what -- you know, what kind of a
condition can we put in there on ACHD's conditions? Does anybody have a thought on
that? That would -- maybe that's part of what Commissioner Seal has a concern with.
So, that's -- that's my question is how do we -- how can we condition that, not just that we
get their approval, but --
Holland: Bill, one question for you. Bill Parsons, one question for you related to
Commissioner Cassinelli's question there. Is there the ability to condition that if
something comes back from the ACHD report that would require substantial
reconfiguration of this plat, that it would come back to the P&Z Commission before it goes
to City Council again? Do we have that ability?
Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I don't think you want to do that.
If that's the case, then, we just continue it out and wait for ACHD would be my
recommendation. But what Alan alluded to is he reached out to ACHD -- anytime that
they have changes to their master street map that has to go before their commission. So,
that's really the formality here. It has nothing to do with the internal street network. This
-- this project didn't even require a traffic study. So, all of those collector roads that are
being constructed with the high school are going to be able to handle the capacity out of
this subdivision. What's going to be tricky is getting that secondary access because of
the limited connectivity in the area. So, my recommend -- what we have done in the staff
report to try to give you some assurances is we put a condition of approval that they
comply with all ACHD conditions of approval. That's something we recommended as --
as a Planning Department condition, just to make sure if there are some revisions that we
get those captured prior to City Council. The applicant was made very aware at the
beginning that we feel comfortable with the size of this product that we could probably get
past Planning and Zoning, but at no point are we going to be heard at City Council until
we have ACHD's comments and so they were aware of that. They were comfortable with
that recommendation and they were comfortable with the condition of approval that they
comply with all of ACHD's conditions. So, I think we have you covered, but, again, it's
certainly within your purview. We -- I don't disagree with Commissioner Seal, I -- with
him, I want all the information for you. You're making a decision. That's been our -- our
goal from day one is getting you all the information, so you can make the best decision
for our community. But in this particular case, again, I feel very comfortable with what
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 64 of 66
ACHD is doing and moving this forward to City Council with -- and holding them up until
we have their comments as part of the City Council hearing.
Holland: Thanks, Bill. With that -- and I agree -- you know, looking back at what ACHD
is evaluating, it's really just that connection point to McDermott with the road, because it's
going to be eliminated at some point the future and I think that's really all they are
evaluating there -- or the main thing they are evaluating. So, it probably won't make a
huge impact on the internal site development here. So, I don't know if that changes
anyone's perspective, but we have got an option for one of two motions, either a motion
to move it forward or a motion to reopen the public hearing for continuance. So, I will
leave it with you all on where you want to go with that. But I think I -- I would be in favor
of trying to move it forward to Council with some of the conditions we have talked about.
Grove: Madam Chair?
Holland: Commissioner Grove.
Grove: All right. I will take a shot at this.
Holland: Go ahead, sir.
Grove: All right. Let's see. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I
move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number H-2020-0025 as
presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 4th, 2020, with the following
modifications: That the applicant construct a berm and fence both of six feet on the east
side of the development. That the applicant work with staff to limit shared drive to a max
of three houses and that we have a request to add an additional amenity to the site. Did
I get everything? Because the ACHD part is already in the staff report; correct? Okay.
Holland: We have a motion. Is there anyone that would like to second that motion?
McCarvel: Second.
Holland: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Madam Clerk, would you mind polling
-- polling the Commission on this one.
Weatherly: I sure can, Madam Chair.
Roll call: Seal, nay; McCarvel, yea; Pitzer, yea; Grove, yea; Cassinelli, yea; Holland, yea;
Fitzgerald, absent.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT.
Holland: Thank you, Madam Clerk. Appreciate it. So, the motion passes and it moves
forward to City Council with conditions. I know we will need one more motion before we
close, but there is also one more thing I need to ask of the Commission. Looking at the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
June 4, 2020
Page 65 of 66
calendar for moving forward, originally, we have a regularly scheduled hearing for the
date of July 2nd and staff had reached out to us asking if -- what our availability and
quorum would look like, but at this point it doesn't look like there is anything on the
schedule for the July 2nd meeting and we have passed the noticing requirements at this
point to include anything on that date. So, there will be a special meeting on the 9th, but
in order to do that staff would just like to see us make a motion to cancel the July 2nd
meeting and plan for a special meeting on the 9th, if someone would be willing to make
that motion.
Pitzer: Madam Chair, I make a motion that we cancel the July 4th meeting and have a
special session for July 9th.
Holland: Can you clarify that motion to say cancel the July 2nd meeting, not July 4th.
Pitzer: Sorry. July 2nd meeting. That we cancel the July 2nd meeting and have a special
meeting for July 9th.
Holland: Thank you, Commissioner Pitzer. Is there a second?
Seal: Second.
Holland: All those in favor? Any opposed? All right. Motion passes.
MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Holland: I just need one more motion.
Cassinelli: Most of the fireworks are going to be --
Holland: What was that, Commissioner Cassinelli?
Cassinelli: I was -- I was going to say most of the firework shows seem like they are
getting canceled. We could probably go on the 4th.
Holland: We might be our own fireworks show.
Cassinelli: Madam Chair, I move to adjourn.
Pitzer: Second.
Holland: All those in favor?
MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Holland: All right. Good night all.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
June 4,2020
Page 66 of 66
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:25 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
6 118 12020
RYAN FITZGERALD - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED
By Lisa Holland, Vice Chair
ATTEST:
CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK
By Adrienne Weatherly, Deputy City Clerk
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 18,2020— Page 70 of 276