2020-11-05 Item 1.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting November 5, 2020.
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of November 5, 2020, was
called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Vice-Chairman Lisa Holland.
Members Present: Commissioner Lisa Holland, Commissioner Bill Cassinelli,
Commissioner Andrew Seal, Commissioner Rhonda McCarvel and Commissioner
Steven Yearsley.
Members Absent: Commissioner Nick Grove and Chairman Ryan Fitzgerald.
Others Present: Adrienne Weatherly, Andrea Pogue, Bill Parsons, Alan Tiefenbach and
Dean Willis.
ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE
X Lisa Holland X Rhonda McCarvel
X Andrew Seal Nick Grove
_X Steven Yearsley X Bill Cassinelli (Joined at 6:53 p.m.)
Ryan Fitzgerald - Chairman
Holland: Good evening to everyone. Welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission
for November 5, 2020. We are doing a joint virtual and in-person meeting. So, thanks to
Commissioner Seal for being there in person for us, while some of the other
Commissioners are here on Zoom. On your screen you should see Commissioners who
are present for this evening's meeting, as well as some of our staff are at City Hall,
including the city attorney, our city clerk's office and some of the staff from our Planning
Department as well. Everybody else that is participating -- there might be some of you at
City Hall, but others might be on Zoom and you can observe the meeting. We will be able
to see that you are here, but your ability to talk and be seen will be muted while the
meeting is -- is happening. During the public testimony portion of the meeting 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 during the time you are called and the clerk will
run that presentation for you and they can also assist with bringing up a slide from another
presentation if you need it, so just go ahead and ask. If you are just attending and want
to watch the meeting you are certainly welcome to just watch on the city's YouTube
channel, which is at meridiancity.org/live. And we will open up each item individually and,
then, start with the staff report. Staff will report their findings on how the item adheres to
our Comprehensive Plan and Uniform Development Code. After staff has made their
presentation the applicant will come forward and present their case and respond to any
staff comments and they will have 15 minutes to do so. After that becomes finished we
will open up the floor for public testimony and, then, give the applicant a chance to
respond as well after that. Once public testimony is open this evening, the clerk will call
the names of people who have signed up to testify on the website. You will be unmuted
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 5,2020 5
Page 2 of 34
at that point in time and we will call on you individually and remember to state your name
and address for the record for us and you will have three minutes to address the
Commission, unless you are representing a larger group, like an HOA. After that time we
may ask you for any questions for clarification. Once you are done they will mute you
again and you will no longer have the ability to speak. Once all those who have signed
up in advance are called, I will invite any others who would wish to testify and if you wish
to speak on a topic you may press the raise hand button in the Zoom app. You can wave
at Commissioner Seal at City Hall or if you are listening through a cell phone or landline,
you can always press star nine to be unmuted and wait for your name to be called. If you
are listening on multiple devices make sure you mute those devices, so that you don't
experience feedback and everyone can hear you clearly and we won't be able to take
questions until the public testimony portion, so if you have a process question during the
meeting you can always e-mail cityclerk@meridiancity.org and they will attempt to help
you address the question as quickly as possible. So, with that we would like to call the
meeting to order officially and we will start with a roll call, Madam Clerk, if you wouldn't
mind.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Holland: Great. Thank you. Just trying to get the agenda loaded back up here again.
One second. Clicked too many things on my screen. We have a few items on the agenda
tonight. The first is to adopt the agenda. Can I get a motion to adopt the agenda as
presented?
Seal: So moved.
McCarvel: So moved.
Seal: Second.
Holland: Got a motion and a second. All those in favor? Hearing none opposed, motion
passes.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT.
CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item]
1. Approval of the October 22, 2020 Planning and Zoning Commission
Special Meeting Minutes
Holland: Next on the agenda is the Consent Agenda, which is the approval of the October
22nd, 2020, Planning and Zoning Commission special meeting minutes. Can I get a
motion to approve the Consent Agenda?
Seal: So moved.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 5,2020 6
Page 3 of 34
McCarvel: Second.
Holland: Okay. Got a motion and a second. All those in favor. Hearing none opposed.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT.
ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item]
Holland: We will move on. Items moved from the Consent Agenda.
ACTION ITEMS:
2. Public Hearing for Oakwind Estates Subdivision (H-2020-0093) by
Engineering Solutions, Located at 5685 N. Black Cat Rd.
A. Request: Preliminary Plat for 94 single family lots, 92 townhome
lots, 26 common lots and 3 common driveway lots on 24.54 acres.
Holland: To Action Items and the first item on our agenda is the public hearing for
Oakwind Estates Subdivision, H-2020-0093, by Engineering Solutions, on Black Cat
Road and we will begin with the staff report.
Tiefenbach: Good evening, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. Alan
Tiefenbach, Associate Planner with the City of Meridian. This is a request for a
preliminary plat and a development agreement modification. Let's see if I can get this to
work for me here. So, it's a preliminary plat for 94 single family lots, 92 townhome lots,
26 common lots on just a little less than 25 acres. As I said, it also includes a modification
to the existing development agreement, which designates the property for multi-family
and self storage. Give you just a bit of history on this. In 2008 this property received
annexation approval for a large master planned residential development at the time called
Oak Creek. In 2013 the subject property was rezone to the R-15 zoning district as part
of the Ultra North Subdivision. So, this 24 and a half acre property is part of a much larger
295 acre property. So, this subject property, as I mentioned, was approved for multi-
family on the north side and self storage on the south side. The self storage was only to
be customarily incidental to the residential, so it can't be a standalone self storage as a
primary use, it was only to serve the residents of that subdivision. The DA was amended
at the time to allow this. In 2018 the multi-family portion of this property, about 16 some
acres, was proposed to be rezoned to R-8 to develop single family detached. This was
another amendment to the development agreement to remove that multi-family
requirement. This went to the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission
recommended approval, but it never made it to the Council and since has been withdrawn.
That said, the Oaks North plat and the DA for the Oaks North are what still governs this
property. Here are the maps just to sort of show you what -- what is recommended for in
the future land use map is medium density residential, zoned R-15. This is the -- the red
lines represent properties that are being developed presently now and yellow represents
anything that's actively in hearing. So, I will talk a little bit about this plat. Again, as listed
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 5,2020 7
Page 4 of 34
above there has been several rezonings and DAs relating to this property and as part of
the -- as I said, the Oaks North plat. Excuse me. And the property is about 24 and a half
acres of the -- almost 300 acres of the Oaks North plat. The northern 17 and a half acres
is presently zoned to allow multi-family of between eight to 15 dwelling units per acre.
The southern seven, almost eight acres is zoned to allow self storage. This preliminary
plat includes a new development agreement to allow single family -- I'm going to use this
one, because I think it's easier to see this colored one. So, this preliminary plat would be
-- would include a development agreement to allow single family on the northern half and
townhouses on the southern half. The single family would be on lots of approximately
3,000 to 5,000 square foot. The townhouses will be on lots of between 2,100 and 3,200
square feet. The proposed street network stubs two streets, Cherrybrook Drive, which is
here, and West Milano -- or excuse me. And West Daphne Street, which is here. And
those connect to Trident, which you can see here. North Trident terminates up at the
North Oaks and terminates down at McMillan to the west. This proposal would not provide
direct access to the arterial, nor would it increase the number of access points to that
arterial now. There are several internal roads, which you can see here, is Avilla and
Milano and also there are -- there is an alley that you can see here. So, the townhouses
are alley loaded. ACHD has commented that Marysville Street and Palustris, I think it's
called, Avenue, that's these two streets here, are rather long and they are recommending
traffic calming for these streets. That's one of the conditions of approval. And when we
talk about traffic calming we are not saying speed bumps or road signs, ACHD is talking
about things such as islands or narrowing it or doing more curves -- design elements to
actually slow down traffic on those areas. I want to mention that the staff report mentioned
that the applicant would be required to construct curb and gutter along with McMillan.
However, it's been clarified that McMillan is an arterial and curb and gutter is not required.
Another thing I want to clarify is that there was some confusion between the preliminary
plat and the landscape plan. The preliminary plat showed that there would be five foot
sidewalks built along McMillan. The landscape plan scaled out to be ten foot sidewalks.
It's actually five foot sidewalks and if you look to the -- to the Oaks North to the east the
sidewalks there are also five feet. So, the sidewalk would tie at the proper width. Finally,
I guess I want to mention that the UDC states that residential development along the
McDermott Road from Chinden to 84 is required to provide noise abatement and that
would be here and that noise abatement would be by constructing a berm or a berm-wall
combination. It has to be at least ten feet above the centerline of McDermott Road. As
a condition of approval staff's recommending the applicant submit a landscape plan which
meets those requirements prior to City Council. This development proposes 16 -- almost
17 percent of qualified open space. That's almost twice of what they are -- they are
required to provide. This includes several grassy areas that are bigger than 50 by 100.
That includes pathways. You can see one here. You can see pathways here. There are
pathways running along here. There is pathways running along with the townhouses.
There is also a central park, I guess you could call it, that includes like an outdoor picnic
area. It also includes -- let's see. Hold on here. The applicant has provided building
elevations, which I will show you here. These building elevations overall staff thinks to
calling it good, but we did have concerns with these elevations, in particular the length of
these roofs. If you look at this roof here -- we can start with that one. We believe that
that roof should project across the home. We also had some issues with the length of the
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 5,2020 $
Page 5 of 34
roofs of these townhouses. We thought that these roofs should be broken up better. If
you look at our architectural standards manual you will see that you can't have roof lines
longer than 50 feet without having some kind of variation in the roof plain, so that was our
recommendation. We also believe that these little roofs pitch elements that you see here
should be carried around on the -- along the face of the townhouses. A condition of
approval of the staff report was that the applicant revise these elevations prior to Planning
Commission. I received some revised elevations today. This is what you will see. Overall
I think staff supports the ones on the bottom. We still think the ones on the top should
probably include some kind of elements above the garage door. We would prefer the roof
or something like that be carried. If you look at the two on the bottom we think that they
did a very good job of that. There is the roof continuing across on the bottom left. You
can see they did like a -- like an exposed timber frame or trellis type elements above the
garage door on this one. Moving along to the townhouses, they have since broken up
these roofs. You can see how they have broken up the lengths of these roofs. We
certainly like that. Similar to the elevations of single family, we think that these --the little
pitch elements of these overhangs -- there should be something above the garage door,
whether they want to do another overhang like that or whether they do some kind of
exposed timber frame, we think there should be some added visual relief. It would be our
recommendation, looking at these new elevations, that the Planning Commission
consider that and add that as a condition of approval. With that staff recommends that
the Planning Commission approve this. We think that it includes less density than what
was originally approved, but it still contains a diverse housing stock in terms of lot sizes,
house sizes, in detached and detached housing projects. Also the qualified open space
and amenities as proposed exceeds the minimum requirements. The amount of -- of
open space is almost double what is required. It's central to the development and there
is numerous pathways integrated into and out of the development. So, after -- so, with
that staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City
Council with the conditions as listed in the staff report and we still believe that there should
be conditions for more enhancements to the architecture on several of the houses, as
well as the townhouses, and I would entertain questions at this time.
Holland: Sorry, I was on mute. Any questions for staff from the Commission?
Seal: Madam Chair? Madam Chair?
Holland: Go ahead, Commissioner Seal.
Seal: Just a quick question here on the staff analysis, it's a little confusing. I think I
understand essentially what's going on, but in the -- in Item B here it says: However,
since the development agreement applies to the entire Oaks North and South, of which
this property is only a small part, staff believes it would be better to leave the existing DA
as is and create a new development agreement for this property. So, essentially, that
takes -- what that's saying is take just this property out of the rest of the development
agreement and leave that original development alone?
Tiefenbach: Members of the Planning Commission, Madam Chair, that's correct. We
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 5,2020 191
Page 6 of 34
would be removing this portion of the property out of the Oaks North development
agreement and this would be a new development agreement that would -- that would
apply to just this property, the 24 plus acres.
Seal: Okay. Thank you.
Holland: Any other questions for staff before we hear from the applicant? Hearing none,
I believe Becky is with us to talk on the application. And if you wouldn't mind stating your
name and address for the record, we would appreciate it, Becky. Thank you.
McKay: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, Becky McKay, Engineering
Solutions, business address 1029 North Rosario in Meridian. I'm hear representing the
applicant BB Living, which is a division of Toll Southwest. Hang on here. So, the -- the
property that you are looking at is that northeast corner of West McMillan and McDermott
Road. As staff indicated, there is approximately 24 and a half acres there. You can see
the previous phases that we have designed, recorded, or have submitted final plats and
designs to the city on. The project Oaks North is proceeding forward. Oak South is
completely built out now and so in this -- in this corner initially what -- what we had
anticipated is based on the environmental impact study that was prepared by Idaho
Department of Transportation for State Highway 16, phase two and phase three. They
had indicated that McMillan Road would go up over McDermott and so we had -- initially
when this was planned back in 2008 and came through as a pre-plat in 2013, that -- that
we would have an overpass and so we would have significant grade that -- that would --
McMillan would start rising and so we proposed a use that we thought would be
compatible with that, which would be mini storage that would service the Oaks
development in its entirety and, then, we had multi-family buildings on the remainder.
Over the past few years ITD has changed their plan and has submitted a new EIS to the
feds and they are going to have State Highway 16 go over the top of McMillan. So, there
will no longer be an overpass here and initially we had planned for a bypass of McDermott
Road to come through our site, then, we had this significant amount of right of way
allocated along the north and south part of McMillan Road to accommodate it and uses
that would, obviously, be able -- would not be negatively impacted by the overpass. So,
we kind of had to rethink our plans, because a lot has changed since 2008 and 2013.
This is the property that you can see. This is a view of the property from the west
boundary. As you can see it's relatively flat. We have Jump Creek Subdivision to the --
to the east of us. They come off of -- their access is off a Black Cat and off of McMillan
Road. They have a collector that connects to us, extending out to Black Cat, aligning with
the collector roadway in Bridgetower West. This was the original preliminary plat that was
approved in 2013 by the City Council. As you can see we have -- where is my -- have to
find it. There it is. So, we had this area that was going to be multi-family, R-15 apartment
type development. We did not have any specific site plan. It was just approved for a
certain number of units and, then, we had the -- oh, dang it. This thing gets squirrelly on
me. There we go. And then -- how come I always lose the cursor, Bill? There it is. Then
we had this mini storage here and as you can see here was the overpass as it started to
increase in elevation. State Highway 16 is west of -- west of McDermott about 300 feet
and -- I'm having technical difficulties. And, then, we had what we call the McDermott
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 5,2020 Flo]
Page 7 of 34
bypass -- that, then, McDermott would terminate and, then, bypass that overpass. So,
obviously, with the changes in the ITD plan, we had to rethink what was going to transpire.
So, this is -- this is what we came up with and one of the things that was, obviously, a
integral part of our Oaks North and Oak South project was the fact that we would have
diversity. Diversity in lot sizes. Diversity in different types of home -- housing products.
We had significant open space. We had pathways. And so we -- we took a look at this
and said, you know, what are we lacking as far as different product in the Oaks project.
Townhomes were one. Secondly were patio homes for like empty nesters on smaller
lots. We had our Garden product. We had our Woodland product. We had our
Countryside product. And so we wanted to, obviously, add another dimension for the
housing market in this project. This is the preliminary plat that you see right here. This
is an overall colored rendering of what you see. So, we -- we kind of took the project.
We have Trident, which is a collector roadway. So, I have no direct access onto
McDermott, nor to McMillan. All of our access is on our internal collector roadway Trident.
The number of vehicle trips proposed within this development are less than what was
anticipated and accounted for in the original traffic study that was done on the site back
in 2013. Ada County Highway District indicated that a new analysis would not be
necessary, since we have been widening McMillan Road 17 feet from centerline in both
directions, since we are north and south of McMillan, and we did construct a roundabout
at our primary mid mile continuous collector, Rustic Oak, which exceeded a million dollars
and so that -- that is -- has been constructed and is operational. So, what we looked at
-- and we worked closely with BB Living and their architects KTGY, who are specialists in
-- in this type of product, that the southern portion of the project that you see is
townhomes. We wanted to have a mixture of front load and rear load, so that we had
differing elevations. We have MEWs incorporated in the project and you can see that --
that some of the units are along a MEW. Some of them have front load. They all have
garages. They all have 20-by-20 carport or car pads in front and, then, we do have one
20 foot wide alley, so we have rear load. The primary entrance into the project is Daphne.
There it is. So, Daphne comes in right there off of Trident and we do have detached five
foot wide sidewalks along Daphne on both sides. So, we have a nice soft entrance. That
was a designated entrance. Meets all ACHD standards. All internal streets within the
project are proposed as public streets, including the alley will be a public alley. So, we
have a nice landscaped detached sidewalk coming into the project. Our primary amenity
is centrally located and you can see that -- I don't know where that arrow goes. There he
is. You can see our central amenity located at that location. So, it's easily available to all
residents, since we have pedestrian pathways that go both north and south within the
project and we have some pathways that go out to McDermott to the ten foot pathway.
So, we have significant amount of pedestrian interconnectivity. Up to the north of the
project we have the Creason Lateral, which was piped. There is a pathway along that
Creason Lateral. It runs from McDermott and all the way through our project connecting
to Jump Creek Subdivision, which is located on the far eastern boundary. Here is kind of
a blow up of the amenity. What BB Living likes to have is a significant gathering place for
their residents. They wanted to have an open lawn area and kind of a plaza area. This
plaza area has playground equipment. It has an outdoor full kitchen. It has barbecue
area. It has seating area. It has for -- for eating like a -- like a covered shelter and it also
has kind of a conversation pit area where they have a fireplace. So, they are -- they are
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 5,2020 Fill
Page 8 of 34
big on creating a community network and as staff indicated we significantly exceed the
minimum required open space under the ordinance with this development. One of the
reasons that we require -- requested an amendment or revision of the development
agreement is because the original development agreement that was tied to the overall
project in 2013 said that the density within this area had to be a minimum of eight dwelling
units per acre. Our gross density with the project is 7.58. So, we are under that eight
dwelling units per acre, which required that we modify the DA. Now, obviously, over the
past seven years there have been ordinance amendments. Things have changed. Some
of the conditions in the original DA we have already satisfied. So, we are in agreement
with staff to prepare a new DA for this 26 acres here or 25 acres. Sorry. So, that it's site
specific and that's pretty standard when we have these older DAs trying to retrofit them.
The code sections have changed. Other items have changed. Things that aren't
applicable to this, but are applicable to other areas within Oaks North, so -- so, that --
that's the reason that staff has -- has requested that the Commission provide a condition
to do a new DA for this project. This is kind of an example. I had BB Living from some
of their other projects that they built in California, in Arizona, Nevada. This is -- this is
their specialty. This shows you kind of an example of their shelter that they -- that they
like and their plaza areas where they take great care to, obviously, make it inviting and
landscaping. They have benches. They have picnic tables. They have a covered area.
As you can see here is an example of one of their outdoor kitchens. So, they have -- they
have barbecue areas, full kitchen areas. They kind of have a bar where the residents can
gather. They are sheltered and -- and can converse and -- and, obviously, enjoy living in
the project. This is another example where they have a plaza area. This one is not
covered. It has -- it has barbecues. It has picnic tables. Hard surface plazas. Bike
parking. So, they -- they want to, obviously, create an inviting environment for the
residents and here is an example of another project that they have done where you can
see they have --they have a central fire pit. They have the Adirondack chairs. They have
landscaping and -- to bring people together to enjoy the living environment. We did -- we
did get comments from the staff concerning our elevations. The architects have made
some revisions. These are not the final product. These are drafts. We did not have a lot
of time. Once we received the staff report we realized that -- that the staff had requested
revised elevations prior to Planning and Zoning Commission, not prior to Council. So,
therefore, the architects were under the gun to prepare these drawings and so these,
obviously, are breaking up that roofline in the townhomes where we have a continuous
roof there. This -- this kind of shows you another breakup where they are breaking up
and changing and modulating that roofline and you can see the same thing here. But,
like I said, these are a work in progress and so the client is -- is, obviously, considerate
of staff's comments and cognizant of the fact that the design review standards for the
multi-family townhome -- townhome type buildings require modulation and articulation.
On the single family dwellings -- I will wrap it up. Single family dwellings, we have
provided staff with some additional elevations, basically breaking up that, creating kind of
a porch, a little bit of more of aesthetic pleasing garage orientation and I will stand for
questions.
Holland: Thanks, Becky. Any questions for the applicant from the Commission?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 5,2020 F12
Page 9 of 34
Seal: Madam Chair?
Holland: Go ahead, Commissioner Seal.
Seal: Just so I have a better understanding of the entire layout of the Oaks North and
South -- and this relates to the Rustic Oak as it traverses through multiple subdivisions it
looks like. What -- how much of that will be completed before this segment goes in?
McKay: We had a meeting this afternoon with the developers of Prescott Ridge, Hubbell
Homes, to coordinate the timing of Rustic Oak. We have eight phases within Oaks North
that have construction plan approval. We have I believe three phases that are
constructed and recorded. We have phases four, five, six and seven that have been pre-
conned and are underway. Rustic Oak was extended with phase one approximately 700
feet short of the south boundary of Prescott Ridge and, then, they will build Rustic Oak
all the way to Chinden, so we will have a continuous mid mile collector, which was
intended, and on a master street map. Phase eight, which we do have construction plan
approval, and they will begin construction in the spring and complete next year. We will
bring that collector roadway within -- and utilities within 300 feet of Prescott Ridge and in
the meeting we had with Mitch Armuth and Don Hubbell this afternoon, they have agreed
that if Toll will -- will construct Rustic Oak up to that 300 foot point, then, they will extend
the sewer, the water, and the collector roadway up to their boundary and, then, within
their first phase Rustic Oak will go clear to Chinden. I think everybody's on the same
page. We also shared drawings, agreed on the transitioning of the lots, because they
had some attached product next to some of our larger countryside bigger lots that are 11
and 12 thousand square feet on our north boundary and initially when the preliminary plat
was approved in 2013 -- the reason those lots were so large on the north boundary is we
had like 15 acre and 20 acre parcels with existing homes and they wanted transitioning.
So, I did the transitioning and put our larger lots, our R-4 zoning along the north boundary,
but today we kind of worked with Hubble and -- and Ryan Hammons with Toll and -- and
Mitch Armuth and Don Hubble -- all agreed on appropriate transitioning, so that everybody
was happy and the timing of the collector roadway. So, it appears that our phase eight
will be under construction at the same time as their phase one. So, that continuous
collector will be built in 2021 .
Seal: And when do you see the occupancy and build out for Oakwind Estates?
McKay: You mean for -- for this project? We have it as two phases. We will begin
construction plans here shortly and I believe they anticipate trying to get, obviously,
underway shortly after we obtain Council approval and get the development agreement
signed and recorded. Then that would allow us to, then, submit our final plat and
construction plans. So, they would like to be underway I believe this winter and,
obviously, paving their first phase in late spring, early summer, and, then, going vertical
in the -- in the mid summer, late summer, and, then, they want phase two to be following
shortly behind that. The staff has requested that we build all of our perimeter buffering
along McMillan and McDermott with the first phase and we are comfortable with that.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 5,2020 F13
Page 10 of 34
Seal: Okay. And the reason I have asked the questions is because of the remarks from
ACHD in their final letter that are kind of pressing to have that Rustic Oak completed really
before there is occupancy in here and that's -- I mean essentially what --that's what I read
in the letter that they provided. So, that's why I'm trying to kind of press for -- is -- is that
-- is that going to be a reality?
McKay: Madam Chairman, Commissioner Seal, their intent was not that -- that it be
constructed prior to the occupancy in this development. I did attend via Zoom that ACHD
meeting and what Council -- or Commissioner Baker wanted to be assured that the
collector roadway would be connected up to Prescott Ridge, so that we could get the --
the additional mid mile collect established for the entire section to improve access for
emergency vehicles and to, obviously, take the heat off of some of the intersections along
the arterial, because we do have a continuous collector going from McMillan to Chinden
and from -- obviously from McMillan wrapping out to Black Cat and, then, from Black Cat
through Bridgetower West, which I designed, going out to Ten Mile. There was no
stipulation that our occupancies would be dependent on that being in place. It was a
recommendation, because that would be an off-site improvement and an exaction upon
this project, because this particular project has two points of ingress and egress and we
do meet the fire department regulations. We will be sprinkling the townhomes and
according to my conversations with Joe Bongiorno, the single family dwellings will also
require sprinklers, because we are at the five minute response and he indicated to me
that even with the continuation of Rustic Oaks up to Chinden, it does not change the
response time for Oakwind, but it does change the response time for Prescott Ridge. But
we are -- I think Bill has been, obviously, pursuing the -- that the developers get together
and do this in unison. So, that is what we are doing. We have come to an agreement
and I think that's -- that's a critical thing, that we don't stop 300 feet short of them. We
will allow them to build that sewer and water on that 300 feet and we will make up the gap
when we design -- or build phase eight, which is designed and approved and ready to go.
Seal: Okay. Thank you.
McKay: Thank you.
Holland: Becky, one other question for you. On the southern side of the development
where you have got the townhomes, the more dense product, I think my biggest concern
is about parking. I know a lot of times when we see these kind of things -- and I know I
saw a visual in the staff memo that showed where some parking areas would be kind of
on the northern side of it, but I worry about that shared drive aisle, that kind of chunk that's
in the middle there, that they don't really have a lot of extra parking and you are going to
end up having people parked in the alley or parked around there. Do you have any
comments about parking or some of those shared drives?
McKay: Yeah. Madam Chairman, we -- we did provide a parking plan for the staff,
because that -- that is -- is not a requirement, but it has been strongly suggested by the
staff when we do have narrower lots or we propose townhomes. So, all of our townhomes
will have a two car garage. They will also have a 20-by-20 concrete pad. So, we will be
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 5,2020 F14
Page 11 of 34
able to park four cars. And, then, we have provided a parking plan, which showed a
significant number of additional parking areas available. Now, Daphne has no front-on
housing and we only showed parking on the south side of Daphne. So, technically, you
could park on the north side of Daphne. All of our streets are a full section, 33 feet from
back to back, so we don't have any reduced street sections that would not allow parking.
With those common drives we -- we did show the parking along the end blocks where --
where guests could park. We have to sign those -- those 20 foot wide common drives as
no parking within those. I think we have between three and -- we have -- I think we have
one that has four units on it. We tried to minimize those. It was just kind of difficult. We
have reworked the site plan, both my staff and the architects, trying to minimize any of
the -- the joint driveways and trying to provide as -- as much interconnectivity and parking
as possible. As far as the single family lots, you know, those are --those are patio homes.
They will have two car garages. They will have a 20-by-20 pad and, then, on-street
parking will be allowed on both sides of the street. We don't have any -- we have end
block buffers, so there is parking at the end of the blocks without blocking a driveway.
So, I think -- I think we have demonstrated that -- that we can accommodate guests within
the project. Trident is a collector. There will be no parking -- there is no parking signs on
Trident until such time as it goes north and we have front-on houses.
Holland: Thanks, Becky. Really quick, I'm going to ask -- Adrienne, it looks like
Commissioner McCarvel got moved back to attendees. I think she had to call back in. If
you wouldn't mind moving her back over to panelist.
Weatherly: Commissioner Holland, I'm trying. We are trying to work out a technical
difficulty right now. I'm not able to move her over. So, I'm trying to work out if she can
log out completely and, then, try to log back in, if we want to wait for that for a second
while we lose our quorum and, then, regain it. I'm fine doing that. But, Rhonda, I can't
get you back in, so -- we can try to do a fresh reboot with you if you want to hang up
completely and try to get back in.
Holland: I will ask Andrea -- do we need to pause, Andrea, to have a quorum?
Pogue: It seems like it's taking a little bit longer than I initially thought, so I think we should
take a break.
Holland: Okay. Sorry about that, Becky.
McKay: That's okay. One thing, Madam Chair. We did have two neighborhood meetings
for the project. I had -- the first neighborhood meeting I had one individual show up that
had bought a home south of McMillan within our Oaks South project. The second
neighborhood meeting I had two residents that lived over off of Black Cat. They seemed
to be pleased with the project and were happy that we had eliminated the apartment
component and had gone to townhomes and patio homes. So, we did not --
Holland: Thank you for that.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 5,2020 F15]
Page 12 of 34
McKay: -- have significant opposition.
Holland: Have a little bit of technical difficulties. Thanks everyone for hanging in there
with us.
Seal: And, for the record, any delays are Bill's fault this evening.
Holland: It looks like we might have Commissioner McCarvel back. All right. It looks like
we are back to having a quorum again. So, welcome back, Commissioner McCarvel.
Was there any other questions for Becky before we open up to see if there is any public
testimony?
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
Holland: Go ahead.
Yearsley: On your -- you stated it earlier, but in the development agreement there was a
requirement for eight units to the acre. Is that the entire site or just the southern portion
of this project?
McKay: No, sir. Madam Chair. That was just for the -- the R-15 multi-family areas that
we had designated on the preliminary plat. We had three of them and in that -- in that
initial DA it was just applicable to those R-15 areas, that our minimum density would be
eight.
Yearsley: Okay. That's all I have. Thank you.
Holland: Thank you, Commissioner Yearsley. Any other questions? Hearing none,
Madam Clerk, do we have anyone signed in to testify?
Weatherly: Madam Chair, we do not.
Holland: Becky, we will bring you back up in a minute.
Weatherly: Excuse me, Madam Chair. I'm sorry. We do not have anyone signed in on
this project.
Holland: Okay. If anybody that is on the call would like to testify, if you want to raise your
hand on the Zoom panel or wave at Commissioner Seal and he will let us know if there is
anybody looking -- it looks like it's pretty quiet at Council chambers behind Becky, but --
Seal: Nobody in chambers.
Holland: Seeing none, Becky, do you have any final comments you would like to make?
McKay: No, ma'am. I think -- I think I have covered it all. I think we have a great project
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 5,2020 F16
Page 13 of 34
and it's going to compliment the Oaks North development and provide an alternative type
of housing that we don't have and the amount of open space and amenities is significant.
This project stands on its own. These residents will, obviously, be able to use the
pathways, clubhouse, pools, that are within Oaks North and Oaks South as part of their
amenities also.
Holland: Thanks, Becky. If there is no more questions for the applicant or for staff, can I
get a motion to close the public hearing for Oakwind Estates Subdivision, H-2020-0093,
and move to deliberation.
Seal: So moved.
Yearsley: Second.
Holland: I have got a motion and a second I believe by Commissioner Yearsley. All those
in favor? Okay. None opposed.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT.
Weatherly: Madam Chair?
Holland: Adrienne, was that you?
Weatherly: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you that prematurely. I will let you finish
there and, then, I will interrupt.
Holland: I think we have a motion and a second and all were in favor, so we have closed
for deliberation, but what's up, Adrienne.
Weatherly: My apologies. Commissioner Cassinelli is joining us at 6:52 p.m.
Holland: Thank you. Welcome, Commissioner Cassinelli. You are just in time for
comments. You want to go first? I'm just kidding. Anybody would like to go first on
making comments for the Oakwind Estates Subdivision?
Weatherly: Madam Chair, this is Adrienne again. I'm sorry, we are still having technical
difficulties on Zoom, so, Commissioner Cassinelli, I'm unable to promote you to have your
own ability to speak. If you would like to speak, please, raise your hand.
Holland: Got to love technical difficulties.
Weatherly: And that will be throughout the meeting, too. I apologize.
Holland: That's okay. I will just trust you to be my eyes and ears for Commissioner
Cassinelli when he wants to speak. Could we get the picture back of the landscape plan
for the Oakwind Estates? That may help for discussion. Since everybody else is jumping
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 5,2020 F17
Page 14 of 34
the gun to talk, I will just say I don't have any huge concerns with it. I like that they have
got the open space kind of in the central area. The biggest concern is kind of what I
mentioned, that whenever you have got the higher density products, like the townhomes
on the south side, parking can become an issue quickly for me on those. I also don't love
the shared drives when there is more than three houses sharing a shared drive for the
townhomes and I can't tell how many there are on that bottom right corner, but it looks
like there is at least four townhome units that will be sharing that common drive. Could
staff confirm that? I can't see that landscape plan very well.
Tiefenbach: Yeah. Sorry. Alan Tiefenbach. It looks like we have five townhouses
sharing that drive down at the bottom right.
Holland: Okay. Thanks, Alan. That would be one of my requests is that they would limit
it to no more than three on those shared drives. I just -- shared drives are always funky.
They don't work super well and, then, you have got people who try to do big turns and,
then, you get driveways that are blocked and people get mad and, then, it's hard with
trash enclosures and trying to get all the cars on the edge of the common drive, it always
seems to be a topic of conversation for the Commission. Those were one of my
comments, though. Anybody else want to go?
Seal: Madam Chair?
Holland: Commissioner Seal.
Seal: Yeah. Same thing. The shared driveways are definitely cause for concern to me
for similar reasons. They kind of cause their own traffic congestion on their own. One of
the other things is just -- I mean the -- the parking plan that was -- that was shown -- and
to me there just needs to be more parking in this -- you know, where the -- we have more
-- more homes. It would be nice to see, you know, possibly some reconfiguration that
allowed for more parking that was central to -- to the townhomes that are in this -- you
know, something that might even expand the MEW or something like that. It just seems
like there is -- you know, I mean, obviously, you want the density to be high, but with this
high of density and the lack of parking dedicated to each one of the residences, as well
as shared drives, you know, in here on the bottom of either side, I just see that there is
going to be -- you know, I think that there will be continual issues with parking and ability
to get around in here that could translate into, you know, emergency vehicles as well. So,
that's something that I would definitely want to see is just more dedicated parking in here
somewhere. Again, I'm not sure how they can accomplish that, but, you know, maybe
give up a couple of the residents, expand the MEW in the middle, get some dedicated
parking in there, something along those lines, as well as, you know, eliminating or
reorienting things to only let so many houses on the common drives and I think -- I think
your wording of no more than three is appropriate.
Holland: Thanks, Commissioner Seal. Yeah, I agree with your comment on parking, too.
It always makes me nervous. I would like to see more of a dedicated parking, because I
know what it's -- driving through some of these new townhome products that have the two
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 5,2020 F18
Page 15 of 34
car garages and two driveways -- while it gives four parking spots, people aren't parking
in their garages, they are putting stuff in their garages and parking on the driveway. So,
you just see kind of rows of cars, which is unfortunate.
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
Holland: Go ahead. Was that Alan?
Yearsley: Steven Yearsley. Sorry.
Holland: Oh, sorry. Commissioner Yearsley, go ahead.
Yearsley: You know, I come back to this -- there is -- there is two things major that I --
I'm concerned. I think you are -- you are -- you are right on with the parking. I even think
in the single family homes -- again, these are going to be very small homes, I mean the
lots are 3,500 square feet. You are going to have a mediocre sized home, very small
yard, they are going to have their garages full of stuff as well as -- so, they are going to
be parking on the street and in the -- on the -- so, I think overall the other -- the -- the --
the -- you know, the whole project I'm concerned about parking, especially with the
smaller lots that they have. The other concern that I have with -- given the small lots, you
know, they have 15 percent open space, but -- and I would prefer to see 20, just because
of -- there is -- there is no place for these kids to go. If they are -- if they have kids, you
know, because there is -- there is no -- no space at their house to actually go in their
backyard or maybe play a little bit in their front yard, but there really is no place to -- you
just -- there is going to be a sea of homes with no -- with very small yards. So, I would
prefer to see closer to 20 percent open space in this area as well.
Holland: Thanks, Commissioner Yearsley. Yeah, I always like it when there is more open
space than required and I know that they are meeting -- or they are exceeding the open
space requirement with the park and the pathways that they have in here. I don't disagree
that if you are living in that southern area you are just kind of in a row of homes and cars
and there is not really a lot of area for playing. So, I don't disagree with you there either.
Commissioner McCarvel or Commissioner Cassinelli, any comments you would like to
make?
McCarvel: Madam Chair?
Holland: Go ahead, Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: Yeah. I would definitely agree with the parking scenario. It just looks very
compact down there and, you know, with the landscape visual and everything it looks
pretty, but we know what's going to happen in real life and so I -- I would like to see a little
more parking somewhere.
Holland: Yeah. Commissioner Cassinelli, I know you love talking about parking.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 5,2020 F19
Page 16 of 34
Cassinelli: Yeah. I don't have a whole lot to add, since I'm jumping in late on this one,
but -- but those are the -- what's been said is -- you know, I would say -- I would just echo
-- ditto those comments.
Holland: So, I'm not sure if anybody has some suggestions on how we would form that
in a -- in a motion -- if we wanted to have them come back to us as a continuance and
come back with another concept or if we would rather just make some conditions that
sounds like there was agreement on eliminating the shared drive to no more than three,
but we would need to see some additional parking and ideally a little bit more open space.
Anyone's thoughts on that? Do we want to look at a continuance or are you happy to try
and put some conditions in there that can help guide that?
Parsons: Madam Chair?
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
Holland: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: I think -- I don't know if we need to hold it up for that. I think we can put some
conditions in the approval and move it off to the City Council for their review with those
conditions.
Parsons: Yeah. Madam Chair?
Holland: Bill, were you commenting?
Parsons: Madam Chair, this is staff.
Holland: Go ahead, staff.
Parsons: There is -- there is a couple of things that are at play tonight that I want you to
take under consideration is that what's before you tonight is a plat. What Council will be
acting on is a DA modification. So, if that's something that you want -- if these changes
that you want to see with the plat need to be incorporated as part of a recommendation
as part of the DA modification that Council will take action on, because under the code
just for a straight subdivision, the code only requires ten percent open space. So, it's
hard for this body to say provide 20 percent open space when they are already exceeding
what code allows. So, again, if that's something you want to see more parking, more
open space, loss of units, then, I would recommend that you include that as part of some
DA provisions that the Council could take under consideration. That will make them part
of the plat conditions.
Holland: Thanks, Bill. Appreciate that insight.
Parsons: You're welcome.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 5,2020 F20
Page 17 of 34
Holland: So, if anybody wants to take a stab at making a motion, certainly welcome to,
but it sounds like a couple of things we could do is move forward with recommendation
of approval of the plat and, then, make a suggestion that Council would take into
consideration a request to consider more parking and open space as part of the DA.
Seal: Madam Chair?
Holland: Go ahead, Commissioner Seal.
Seal: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend
approval to City Council of file number H-2020-0093, as presented in the staff report for
the hearing date of November 5th, 2020, with the following modifications: That the plat
be approved, but we are recommending for the DA that no more than three residents on
shared drives, that they provide plans for dedicated parking central to the townhomes
before City Council, and they work to increase the open space in the townhome area, as
possibly part of the parking.
Holland: We have a motion on the table. Is there a second?
Yearsley: I will second that.
McCarvel: Second.
Holland: Commissioner Yearsley seconded first. All those in favor? Any opposed?
Hearing none, motion passes.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
3. Public Hearing for Goddard Creek Subdivision (H-2020-0092) by
Conger Group, Located in the Northwest Corner of W. McMillan Road
and N. Goddard Creek Way
A. Request: Development Agreement Modification (Inst. #102012598)
to allow the development of an age restricted community consisting
of thirty-four (34) attached SFR homes instead of offices.
B. Request: A Rezone of approximately 5 acres of land from the R-4 to
the R-15 zoning district.
C. Request: A Preliminary Plat for 34 residential lots and 8 common lots
in the proposed R-15 zoning district.
Holland: All right. With that we will move on to the public hearing for Goddard Creek
Subdivision, H-2020-0092, by Conger, and we will begin with the staff report.
Parsons: One second, Madam Chair.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 5,2020 F21
Page 18 of 34
Holland: Whenever you are ready, Bill.
Parsons: We got to do some COVID disinfecting here while we switch staff members
here, so bear with us.
Holland: No problem. Thank you.
Parsons: The sign of the times here. Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the
Commission. The last item on the agenda this evening is the Goddard Creek project.
This property is located at -- on McMillan and West Goddard -- excuse me -- North
Goddard Street. This property was before this Commission several times over the last
couple of years and has quite a bit of history on it. The applications before you are a
rezone and a preliminary plat. Of course, concurrently submitted were also a couple
alternative compliance requests -- or an alternative compliance request, a private street
request, which is -- or which are -- which have been approved at the director level and,
then, of course, another development agreement modification in which this body could
add some DA provisions, but ultimately the Council will have the decision making ability
on that -- that application as it moves forward through the hearing process. The subject
site consists of 4.62 acres of land, currently zoned R-4 in the city and is located, again,
at the northwest corner of McMillan and Goddard Creek Way. The adjacent land uses --
we have to the west C-C zoning and a self storage facility. To the north we have R-4
zoning, although it is developed with a 170 unit multi-family development that was
approved with the Lochsa Falls PUD back in 2002. To the east we have the collector
street, Goddard Creek, and, actually, a common lot that abuts this property as well on the
-- along the roadway there that is owned by the Lochsa Falls homeowners association
and it's not part of this project. And to the south is, again, McMillan Road and, then,
across the street from that is Bridge Tower, which is R-4 and, again, single family
detached homes. There is a lot of history on this site. So, essentially, in 2002 this
property was approved as a use exception as part of the Lochsa Falls PUD process,
which allowed -- although it's zoned R-4 currently, it allows office uses to develop on this
site. There have been several attempts over the years to get something other than office
uses entitled on this property. In 2017 there was a conditional use permit for another
multi-family development on this site in which ultimately the -- the Planning and Zoning
Commission did recommend denial of the conditional use permit and after -- based on
that recommendation of denial they elected to withdraw that application prior to City
Council taking action on that and so, therefore, Council did approve the CUP for the
storage facility, the comp plan amendment to change it from the office to the mixed use
community designation that's currently on this property and, then, they also -- the Council
also approved the DA to remain in effect for this site, which allows the office uses. In
2019 the most recent applications -- was before you was the Goddard Creek Townhome
Subdivision and that project was endorsed by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Again, it was controversial. I remember it was a split tie vote, came down to three to two,
if I remember -- or some -- something to that effect. You guys felt it was a great project,
but it wasn't the right location. Ultimately it went to City Council. City Council heard the
neighbors, kind of reflected on the public record, like your guys' testimony, agreed that it
wasn't the right time for this project and, ultimately, denied that project. The primary
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 5,2020 F22
Page 19 of 34
difference between this project and that project at the time was that was a townhome unit
development and it had a total of 44 units. The plat before you tonight is -- is actually a
less dense project and it consists -- it lost -- it has ten fewer units and rather than two
story townhome they are proposing single -- single story -- single family attached homes.
You can see here this is something new that we are trying to provide for this body and
City Council -- is, essentially, staff is including maps as part of our presentations to you
that shows current roadway improvements planned in the area and what other
developments have been proposed within a couple mile radius of this proposed project.
So, that's what you see there. You can see -- if all of you have gone to the new Costco
you will see that Ten Mile has actually been widened to five lanes all the way up to
Chinden now, so that -- those road projects are nearing completion and, then, you can
see all the other preliminary plats that have been approved in the area, including some
final plats. So, again, just trying to give you a little bit more information as you guys
deliberate on applications and keep you informed as to what's been approved in the area
surrounding any future developments coming forward. So, again, here is the proposed
preliminary plat. Again, it's -- the applicant is proposing to rezone this from the R-4 zone
to the R-15 zone, which was consistent with the previous approval. Again, this is a 34
lot, 50 foot -- age restricted development is proposed for this site. As I mentioned to you,
it is a mixed use community on the Comprehensive Plan and typically we like to three --
we like to see three distinct land uses on a specific property. But given the fact that we
have storage, multi-family, and farther to the west some adjacent commercial
development -- commercial properties that aren't fully developed yet, staff believes
developing this with a single use as proposed still is consistent with that comp plan
designation and the proposal density on this particular project this evening is a gross
density that's 7.36 dwelling units to the acre, which falls right in between that density
range of six to 15 dwelling units to the acre in the Comprehensive Plan. Access to this
site is provided via a private street, which is -- on this map you can see it says West --
West Selway Rapids Lane and that was meant to serve as access for the apartments, but
also for the future office that was to develop. So, staff didn't really anticipate residential
developing on this site at that time when those apartments went in and so now we are
kind of stuck with a situation where we have a piece of property that is bound by an arterial
on the south side and a common lot on the east side where there is no real viability of
having a public street connection to this development and, therefore, the applicant is
proposing a private street as part of the development. Now, the UDC does try to
discourage private streets for single family developments, unless it's either a MEW
development or a gated community and neither one of those are proposed for this project
this evening. And the applicant has also submitted an alternative compliance to allow the
two common driveways off the private street, which have been approved by the director.
Staff has also conditioned -- because there is no gated community proposed for this site
and there isn't really room to provide adequate gates and separations per the code, we
have recommended a condition as part of -- a condition of approval as part of this project
that the applicant create some kind of -- go through the alternative compliance with their
final plat submittal and incorporate some kind -- some decorative entry features at both
of these entrance locations to almost mimic like it is a 55 an older or a gated community.
Let's just do it as a decorative entry feature, rather than having an actual gate to provide
access. Because this project -- this project is over 30 units the fire department will
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 5,2020 F23]
Page 20 of 34
required emergency access and that is proposed to McDermott Road here -- or, excuse
me, to McMillan Road here. So, they are meeting the fire department requirements. One
of the unique characteristics of this particular project is the applicant's ability to work with
the adjacent neighborhood. I think in the previous projects there was quite a bit of
opposition to both the townhome project and the previous multi-family project and so this
applicant was able to work with them. They made some concessions to the neighbors
where they were asked to make this an age restricted development, which they are
amenable to. The residents were -- were asked -- asked the developer to make -- limit
the height of these buildings to single stories, which they are amenable to, and, then, also
there is a real parking issue with the apartment complex in this development and so what
the applicant has gone ahead and done is they have provided 16 additional guest parking
here along the north side of the road here and then a --where West Selway Rapids comes
into the development they are actually proposing to widen that to add some additional
parallel parking along that roadway to offset some of those parking concerns that we have
heard from the neighbors in the past. So, I would just like to go on the record and
commend the applicant for stepping up and trying to make those concessions and try to
address some of those concerns they have heard with previous applications. This
development, as you know, is under five acres in size, so the UDC -- except for the 25
foot wide landscape buffer along West McMillan Road, there really is no requirement for
usable open space, but as you can see here the applicant is trying to include some
detached sidewalks and some parkways to count as some qualified open space and,
then, they are also providing a central open space and a covered picnic area for the
residents to use as part of this development. One of staff's recommendations is because
this will be an age restricted development or proposed to be one, we wanted to make
sure whatever -- and -- and the private streets -- and our private street standards don't
require sidewalks on -- on those streets, but the applicant is providing that on the internal
street section. We wanted to make sure that they enhanced the pedestrian connectivity
into the site by not only extending any sidewalks from the Selway apartments from the
north, but also delineate pedestrian walkways through the private roads to guide citizens
and residents to the use of that open space. So, in our staff report we require the applicant
to provide us a pedestrian circulation plan with their final plat application that shows an
interconnected pathway that comes off of McMillan Road, may be able to have some
crossings -- if you can see my cursor here -- have some crossings that ties into the
sidewalk that runs in front of the guest parking and, then, have another crossing that
heads east that ties pedestrians and residents to this open space and, then, also do the
same along the north boundary just to kind of get more of an enhanced pedestrian
connectivity and safety aspect to the development. The applicant did provide sample
elevations, so you can see here that there is a mix of siding materials and different
variations in rooflines. Some of these units are built throughout our community and been
very successful by the client. I would just let the Commission know that any attached unit
such as these requires design review from staff prior to getting buildings permit submittal,
so they have been conditioned to do so. Staff did look at the public record before the
tonight's festivities and we did note that there was one person that had sent written
testimony in. If you have had a chance to look at the public record you can see staff
actually responded in the e-mail and explained the merits of the development and it
seemed like we were able to gain -- change her mind of the development going from
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 5,2020 F24]
Page 21 of 34
maybe proposing a denial to -- or in support of what the applicant was proposing to do.
And staff also received an e-mail late this afternoon from the applicant in which they have
read through the staff report and they are in agreement with all staff conditions. So, with
that Planning and Zoning -- Planning and Zoning staff is recommending approval of the
rezone and the preliminary plat and we would humbly stand for any questions from you.
Holland: Do we have any questions for staff?
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
Holland: Go ahead, Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: Bill, the parking -- I have got a concern there. Let me back up just a little bit.
Did the -- did the applicant not propose a gated community? And -- and the reason why
I'm asking -- to me some of the parking -- I mean I like that they are adding in extra
parking, but the concern would be that every time we have looked at stuff in this area
here historically, the -- one of the biggest objections is the parking situation at the Selway
and how it spills over into -- it goes -- it -- it goes east of Goddard Creek -- I can recall a
lot of these comments. So, it seems to me that the parking that they are adding in --
what's to stop people from the Selway apartments using some of those spots?
Parsons: Yeah. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, there really isn't. I mean
the applicant has not proposed gates. Certainly they are going to have their own CC&Rs
and how they are going to control that. I think maybe the applicant should probably
address that concern. But from our standpoint and looking at this, these are private
streets, so, technically, they could restrict people from driving on them, not necessarily
West Selway Rapids Lane, because that's access to the apartments, but certainly
anything that connects into that in that loop road they can --they could sign that as private
property and not for useful for the apartment complex. So, that's something that they are
going to have to manage and determine how they are going to deter people from using
that parking area.
Cassinelli: Okay. Thank you.
Seal: Madam Chair?
Holland: Other questions for staff?
Seal: Madam Chair?
Holland: Go ahead, Commissioner Seal.
Seal: On the -- the loop road here, is there a -- is parking available on any of that or is
that -- it doesn't look like it's the 30 foot --
Parsons: Madam -- Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, there is not. It's -- it's
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 5,2020 F25]
Page 22 of 34
the minimum width of 24 feet per the city standard. So, they do not -- they are not -- they
are going to have to put up no parking signs to make sure no one's parking and blocking
that roadway for the fire department.
Seal: A follow-up question on that. On the shared driveway, as you said, they already
have director approval for the shared driveways? Does that mean that's something we
can't condition? Considering we just conditioned it on the last application.
Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, there is -- there is still a DA, so
there is still some -- some wiggle room there for you. All I'm stating is -- as far as driveway
access by a company driveway is allowed -- as open to that. So, if you wanted to restrict
the number of units, that's something you could do as part of a recommendation to be
included at a -- at a DA provision. But as far as allowing units to take access off a common
driveway, yes, the director has approved the two common drives.
Seal: Okay. Appreciate that.
Holland: Any other questions for staff? Hearing none, is the applicant here? It looks like
we have got Hethe Clark on.
Clark: Hi, Commissioners. Hethe Clark for the applicant. 251 East Front Street in Boise.
And I am going to turn on my little presentation here. Okay. So, as Bill mentioned, this
is a project that -- that I would say has kind of been through the wringer. It's got a pretty
decent history to it and that's always fun to kind of look back and see where things have
been and how they have gotten there. As Bill mentioned, this project is on -- off of
McMillan between Ten Mile and Linder. As you can see it's one of those last properties
on that square mile to develop and down the street from Rocky Mountain High School
and it's what I'm going to call the -- we will call it the big box shopping quadruple double.
It's got Walmart, Costco, Fred Meyer, and Winco all right in the immediate vicinity. Like
say, it's -- it's been through the wringer and Bill mentioned the history -- the previous
applications with the apartments and, then, the last iteration with the 44 unit project. P&Z
had recommended approval of that project and, then, it went down at Council due to the
-- as I understand it due to traffic and parking concerns. So, that's been a lot of what we
have tried to pay attention to. So, with this plan, again, it's a reduction from the prior
application of 44 units down by ten to 34. There is additional parking as Bill mentioned,
so in addition to the -- the two in the garage, two on each driveway, we provided 15
internal stalls on the south along Ap -- Ap -- Apgar -- that's easy for me to say. I have
struggled with that all day. Apgar. And, then, in addition, to kind of address what
Commissioner Cassinelli had mentioned, we did -- have provided an additional eight up
on West Selway Lane. That's in addition to widening that by eight feet. So, we have tried
to be very responsive to what we have heard as being that concern in terms of -- in terms
of parking in that area. We have proposed detached housing with single level, trying to
be responsive to the neighbors again. And, again, I think this is important, it's an age
restricted community. This applicant, the landowner, Schmidt Investments, has
experience with that and that will help to further address I think any of the concerns about
traffic and parking. With -- with age restricted communities you see less traffic generation
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 5,2020 F26
Page 23 of 34
and less need for parking. As you can see, you saw this -- Bill showed you some of the
attached product. Again, single level and two plus two on the parking on each unit. In
terms of neighbor interaction, I need to give some credit to Laren Bailey of Conger
Management Group. He did the -- you know, he put on the Kevlar and went to the
neighborhood meetings and talked to the neighbors. He did have -- had conversations
with those folks. There was eight people that attended the initial one. They did have a
follow-up neighborhood meeting to discuss -- or to look at the proposed elevations and a
couple people showed up to that one. Overall it's our understanding that the neighbors
have appreciated the concept of a senior living approach, you know, with the, you know,
associated reduction in traffic and with the belt and suspenders approach to adding
parking. We talked a little bit about some of the solutions that we have worked on with
staff, just to kind of help you know how this has gone and the collaboration that's gone on
there. So, again, we worked -- we worked with staff to arrive at an alternative compliance
approval for the -- for the private street and I think Bill's gone -- gone into detail on that to
a level that I don't need to really deal with that too much. I will just say that we are in
agreement with staff's recommendation of installing pillars and faux gates on the -- on the
entries. So, over on West Selway. So, they would be at each of the entries to the project.
Going along with that, we would be -- we will be installing the pedestrian amenities that
Bill mentioned. So, that includes the sidewalk connection at the western entry over at
West Selway. There will be pedestrian treatment there at each entry. Also down at the
shared driveway to McMillan and also at the -- the open area -- park area here on the
east. There will also be, as Bill mentioned, a sidewalk connection on the south to the
McMillan Road, a meandering sidewalk that you can see on the bottom of this drawing.
As I mentioned with parking, at an age restricted community, they tend to be over parked.
Again, we have provided the 15 internal parking spaces at West Selway Rapids Lane.
Again, we have committed to widening that lane to address any fire concerns. In
response to Commissioner Cassinelli's question, I think I -- my response would be very
similar to Bill's. We don't expect overparking through here, but it is private property. So,
if there is an issue, the -- this little HOA would be able to sign that and -- and help address
that. But, again, we don't -- we don't expect to have that type of problem. I'm trying to
keep this easy for everybody. So, on the staff report we are in agreement with the terms
and conditions of the staff report. We appreciate the work that Bill and Joe have done on
this. Appreciated Joe reaching out to the -- the public in response to the questions. This
does provide a variety of housing types in an area that already has a pretty abundant mix
of uses and we think it's -- it's checked all the boxes and we would ask for an approval
tonight. So, with that happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Holland: Thank you for that. Any questions for the applicant? I will actually start with
one question. So, I know that the neighbors seem to be happier about the age restricted
units, but it seems like we have been having a lot of age restricted units coming into
Meridian lately and I know for resale value it can be tricky, because it is only a limited
population that can buy those types of products. Are you set on having the age restricted
community?
Clark: Commissioner Holland, I would just say, yeah, that's the -- that's the model here
and, you know, it's -- my understanding of the market and I know that this applicant feels
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 5,2020 F27
Page 24 of 34
the same way, is that there is a really significant demand for age restricted communities
throughout the -- throughout the area. So, yes, that -- that is the plan and that has been
what we have discussed with staff and that's what we would proceed to do.
Holland: Okay. Any other questions for the applicant?
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
Holland: Go ahead, Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: Hethe, could you go to -- it looks like it's slide number five with the elevations.
Thank you. I'm going to -- I'm going to ask, only because we have been down this road
before with the applicant, are we talking -- are these all meant to have full eaves all the
way around the home?
Clark: Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli, this -- this is a different client. Not -- not
the same client. Not the same model. But -- and, yes, there are eaves on this model.
Cassinelli: Okay. Sorry. I'm just confused then.
Clark: That's okay. It's okay. It's a small community and I'm here a lot for, you know,
certain clients, so I get it.
Seal: Madam Chair?
Holland: Commissioner Seal.
Seal: Just a couple of questions on the -- since there is going to be faux gates in there,
will that be posted as a private drive? That will be posted is my question.
Clark: Madam Chair, Commissioner Seal, yes, that would be posted as a private drive.
Seal: The follow-up question to it is why not real gates, if you are going to go through
trying to make something -- doing something elaborate to provide that it looks like a gate,
why not just put gates in?
Clark: Madam Chair, Commissioner Seal, it really is a matter of room. You are going to
-- you are going to end up with stacking distance questions. You know, if those gates
would be opening in front of lots, they go internal, they would be opening up onto Selway
if they are external and it doesn't make sense. This -- the faux gates -- you know, they
are much more effective practically given the size constraints and they still I think convey
the --the point, which is that it's -- it's a private community, it's not a -- not a through street,
not -- not a place that, you know, folks are going to necessarily head into. So, we are
using visual cues, rather than the physical barriers.
Seal: Final question. Do you have any elevations of showing the park area with the picnic
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 5,2020 F28
Page 25 of 34
shelter, what that might look like? I mean I -- I tend to agree with what's in the staff report
where you have all of this going on and, then, you have a big open area and you are
going to put a picnic shelter in it. So, it seems kind of lackluster considering the -- what's
going in here.
Clark: Madam Chair, Commissioner Seal, I think we have a condition of approval to show
-- to show detail on that, if I remember correctly. And Bill might be able to jump in there.
But to -- I think that they asked for more detail on that when we come back at final plat
and I think that would be typical for that. I mean we are certainly open to the Planning
and Zoning Commission's recommendations on that, but-- and -- and we would be happy
to provide more detail as this goes, which -- as would be typical.
Seal: Okay. Thank you.
Holland: Any last questions for Hethe before we open up for public testimony? Seeing
none, Hethe, we will be right back with you. Madam Clerk, do we have anyone signed in
to testify?
Weatherly: Madam Chair, we do have some people signed in. Dan and Penny Fisher
are on the line with us. Fishers, one moment. And no one -- while I'm transferring them
over, Madam Chair, no one is in house, so we don't have anybody here to raise their
hand.
Holland: Okay. All right. It looks like what was labeled as Fishers is over on the panelist
side now, so if you wouldn't mind stating your name and address for the record and, then,
feel free -- you have got three minutes for us. And you will have to unmute yourself or
the clerks can help you with that, too, if you need. It looks like you are talking, but I'm not
hearing anything from -- from our side. Is that just me? Is anybody else able to hear
them?
Cassinelli: I'm not hearing anything.
Seal: Nothing in chambers either.
McCarvel: I don't hear him.
Holland: There -- there is an option. I'm not sure if you can hear us, but there is an option
that you can call in. It looks like you are still trying to talk to us, but if you go to the bottom
you can switch to using phone audio. Sometimes that helps if your computer is not
working. So, right down on the bottom left corner where it's next to the mute button, if
you click the up arrow, there is this option that says switch to phone if you want to try that.
But, I'm sorry, we are not able to hear you right now. Adrienne, is there anyone else that
we want to try while we are trying to figure out how to help these guys?
Weatherly: Madam Chair, Penny and Dan Fisher were the only two that signed up with
a wish to testify.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 5,2020 F29
Page 26 of 34
Holland: Looks like they are still trying to talk, but we can't hear them.
Weatherly: I'm going to try one thing, Madam Chair, if I could here.
Holland: Go ahead, Madam Clerk. I always hate when technology doesn't work with us
the way we want it to.
Weatherly: Penny or Dan, if you could try to talk again and we can see if we can try to
hear you. Madam Chair, I have tried all the tricks up my sleeve and we still can't hear
them in chambers either.
Holland: Yeah. I'm not quite sure what to do here either.
McCarvel: Yeah. I wonder if they are muted on their end.
Holland: And it's Penny and Dan, is that what you said?
Weatherly: Yes. Correct.
Holland: If you guys can hear us at all, if there is another way that you can call into the
meeting we would love to hear from you. Adrienne, do we have a call in number that they
can try?
Weatherly: We do have the number right here. Penny and Dan, the phone number to
call in is 1-669-900-6833. The ID number is 89068341242. 1 do see that you have the
ability to raise your hand, but you are unmuted, so you would be allowed to talk now and
we still cannot hear you. If you want to try calling in with the information I just gave you
we can try that way.
Holland: It looks like they hung up from there, so we will see --they came over to panelists
one more time.
Weatherly: Madam Chair, we are trying to pull out all the stops here to try to get them set
up.
Holland: Yeah. Dan and Penny, we still can't hear you. I'm sorry. Can you hear us?
You can hear us. Do you have the option to call in on the number that Adrienne gave
you? Okay. It looks like they are trying to call in, so we are just going to wait another
minute for you.
P.Fisher: Can you hear us now?
Holland: We can. And if you could go ahead and mute your computer, so that way we
don't get the feedback, that would be great.
D.Fisher: Sorry about that. Okay. Thank you for your patience. We really appreciate it.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 5,2020 F30]
Page 27 of 34
Dan Fisher. 2382 West Apgar Creek Drive in Meridian. And we are the -- we are the last
house on Apgar Creek before Goddard Creek. So, we are the closest house to the
development. Overall I like the 55 and older concept and I really appreciate that and think
that that's definitely headed in the right direction. My primary concerns are still parking.
I don't think that -- I think that the parking spots that are going to be on Selway Rapids
would be immediately gobbled up by vehicles from Selway. So, I don't -- I don't think that
that would make even a dent in the parking issue. My second concern is the back of the
unit that faces Goddard Creek and McMillan, they don't have any real detail to them, other
than some variation in colors, but there is no stone, there is no -- no real textures, no
beams, anything like that to make them a little more attractive. I think that that might be
a good idea. If you look at what was proposed and -- for the mini storage and, then, you
look at what was actually built, there is -- they are not even identifiable between what was
-- what we were shown in drawings versus what was built. It's horrible. The corrugated
steel right on the outside. The -- nothing stucco and cinderblock. It's one of the worst
looking mini storages in the city. So, I think we would really be benefited by sprucing this
up a little bit.
P.Fisher: My name is Penny Fisher. Also at 2382 West Apgar Creek Drive. One -- one
of the concerns that we do have, like Dan said, is -- is the parking. We do have the overfill
in front of our home and probably nine times out of ten it is not -- it's just from Selway.
So, I do worry if you guys require like the gated, that they would have to remove those
extra parking spots in the top and that was a very -- that was a selling point for a lot of the
people that we spoke with, is that would remove some of it. We like the 55 and older age,
because it didn't affect the school population and that was one of the big things. This
would be -- this would be 55 and older. We wouldn't have the worry of the overpopulation
of the school. We do feel like there would be less of traffic, but, again, the biggest concern
is the parking and, then, the --just making it fit over the aesthetics overall is -- we do like
the stone, like Dan said, but we want to make sure that it goes through and, then, if we
were to rezone it we want to make sure that there is a contingency that if this project for
any reason does not go through, that the zoning does not go through as well. But it was
the only contingent for this project and only this project.
Holland: Thank you, Dan and Penny. Are there any questions for Dan and Penny while
they are on the line with us? We -- we greatly appreciate you guys making the time to
join us tonight and sorry about the technical difficulties. Thanks for calling back in and
we are glad we got you back on the line. So, we appreciate your comments.
P. Fisher: Thank you.
D. Fisher: Thanks.
Holland: Adrienne, do we have anybody else signed in to testify?
Weatherly: We didn't have anybody else sign in with a wish to testify, Madam Chair.
Holland: Okay. It looks like there might be one other person in the attendee panel, but if
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 5,2020 F31
Page 28 of 34
they would like to testify now is the time to raise your hand. If not, we will hand it back
over to Hethe, if he had got any closing comments he would like to make. Hethe, it looks
like the floor is yours. Go ahead, sir.
Clark: Great. Once again for the record Hethe Clark. 251 East Front Street.
Representing the applicant. Thanks to the Fishers for your comments. Just to respond,
with regard to the appearance, the -- these are duplexes, so they will have to go through
design review. So, the city will have another bite at the apple to ensure that that -- that
everything looks appropriate. With regard to the -- I guess the -- the question of whether
the proposal would ride through with -- with any changes, I guess, in terms of who the
applicant is -- this is a -- a development agreement modification, which means that there
are conditions of approval that the zoning is tied to. So, if there was going to be a change
in the project there would have to be a development agreement or modification in order
to make that happen. With regard to the parking, I understand the concern. It sounds
like it's been something folks have been living with. When we are putting those additional
eight stalls and widening Selway by eight feet, we think that we are helping to address an
existing problem and not one that's created by this project, which we believe is going to
be adequately parked and is parked well in excess of what code requires. So, we have
the two plus two at each unit and, then, in addition to that, the 15 stalls on the south. So,
we are hoping that -- you know, to be a good neighbor on that front and help to address
the --the concern that Fishers have shared. With regard to some of the comments before,
I just wanted to circle back on those. With regards to the amenity, Commissioner Seal,
it's condition 3-A that I was trying to think of that requires us to come back with details of
site amenities. You know, a picnic shelter is a typical amenity for a 55 plus community. I
mean, obviously, you are not going to put a tot lot in, but, you know, appreciate the -- the
comments there and that's something that we will take to heart as we put together that
final list of site amenities at final plan -- or final plat. And, then, I did -- I -- this didn't come
up in -- in our conversation, but with regard -- I heard Commissioner Seal ask about the
number of lots on the common driveways. Just to circle up on that -- so, the maximum
-- as I understand code is six. There is only three on each of these. So, we have tried to
be mindful of that. I think that the -- the city is looking at a code amendment to cap it at
four. We would still be below that. So, we think that we are not only within the four
corners of the code as it exists, but as the -- the intent of future code amendments. So,
with that I think I have hammered this to death and I would be happy to follow up on
anything that you have got left.
Holland: Thanks, Hethe. Any final questions for Hethe before we move to deliberation?
Seal: Madam Chair?
Holland: Commissioner Seal.
Seal: Just in -- in looking at the drawings that are out here and -- I mean it basically
shows that there is four off the common drives. That's -- I mean that's what I'm looking
at and that's what I'm seeing. So, if it is just three, then, that's, essentially, what we are
aiming for is -- I mean just an overall reduction in the shared driveways, because they
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 5,2020 F32
Page 29 of 34
seem to be everywhere and they are always an issue no matter if there is just two of them
on there, so having three -- having more than three seems to be a really big issue.
Clark: Madam Chair, Commissioner Seal, if you can see my cursor, I'm not sure that you
can. But you can see that this -- I think would be what you are referring to is the fourth.
That would take access from the street. Same would be true down here on West Apgar.
So, those -- those actually take access from the street -- or take access from the common
drive.
Holland: Hethe, one follow up to that -- and I think one of the other challenges we always
see -- and I know it's only one day a week, but where people put their trash carts, because
that always tends to be an issue. They put them on somebody else's driveway and, then,
there is problems getting around them. Do you guys have another designated area for
trash enclosures or anything like that to try and help with the trash carts?
Clark: Madam Chair, Commissioner -- actually, just Madam Chair. So, the -- we have
talked to the -- the garbage companies about that and there -- there are solutions to deal
with that, so for a nominal fee folks can have it picked up at the door or at the garage, if
that ends up becoming an issue. Otherwise, it would -- it would be at the street as typical.
Holland: Yeah. I think that the -- that goes back to the challenge about the shared drives,
because I don't imagine the garbage company wanting to go all the way up the -- the
shared drive to go pick up carts, but --
Clark: Yeah. Madam Chair, in that case they go out to the street. So, folks would bring
them out to the street.
Holland: Okay. Yeah. I think that's -- that's where we always get back to the challenges
with common drives, because it just -- they stack up so quick on the streets, because
there is not really a good place to put them if there is not a driveway to put against them.
Clark: I understand.
Holland: Okay. Thank you.
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
Holland: Any questions for Hethe?
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
Holland: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: Hethe, on the -- on those eight spots up on Selway Rapids, are you kind of --
are you conceding those to the apartments?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 5,2020 F33]
Page 30 of 34
Clark: Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli, I don't -- I don't know how necessarily --
we are not -- not giving up ownership of those parking spaces by any means. They are
going to be external in many ways to the project and so I expect that there is going to be
lots of different folks, including folks from the apartments, that might use them from time
to time. We don't--what we are trying to do is to try to help alleviate the existing problem
there. We think we are going above and beyond by doing that. Saying that we are just
giving them up to the apartments I think that might be overstating it, but we are providing
additional parking there that might be used by them.
Cassinelli: Okay.
Holland: Any other questions for Hethe? Hearing none, thank you, Hethe, and I would
be open to a motion to close the public hearing for Goddard Creek Subdivision, H-2020-
0092, to move to deliberation.
Cassinelli: So moved.
Seal: Second.
Holland: Moved by Commissioner Cassinelli, seconded by Commissioner Seal. All those
in favor? Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Holland: All right. The floor is yours, Commissioners. Anyone want to go first?
McCarvel: Madam Chair?
Holland: Go ahead, Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: Our little map disappeared. I -- I tend to like what they have done. It seems
to be pretty night and day from things we have seen. They have, obviously, taken into
consideration a lot of the concerns of this area, including the eight external parking spots
and I think the additional parking close to where those shared drives are will be a big help.
All except for trash day and the addition of the sidewalks and everything and the -- I do
like the age restricted aspect to this, because it just reduces many of the concerns of
projects that have been in the past.
Holland: Thanks, Commissioner McCarvel. My comments in general -- I will jump in next.
I -- I like the loop itself. I remember we have talked about this specific lot many times and
it's kind of an awkward in-fill piece now the way that it developed and originally it was
supposed to be offices, but it doesn't really fit for office. So, I think what they are
proposing here makes sense. I'm not opposed to the way the development is. I
appreciate that they have done some extra parking. I appreciate the little pocket park
green space that they put in there. My biggest challenge is those common drives. I would
prefer to not see more than three houses sharing that and I know it -- even though that
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 5,2020 F34]
Page 31 of 34
fourth house is kind of on the edge of it, it still looks like it's part of that shared drive to
me, because it's connected to where that curb cut is. Because I don't know if there is
anything we can do to alleviate that, but it is always a concern to me, because I always
hate those shared drives. They just don't seem to function very well to me. My other
comment in general is I -- I really don't love all the 55 and older subdivisions we have
been approving, because there seems to be a lot of them and not that there is anything
wrong with having an age restricted community, but it does challenge the marketability of
those properties in the future if -- it gives a very narrow window of who could buy those
properties and what they could be reused for in the future if there is resale. So, it's always
challenging to me, because if our demographics change at some point and we end up
having a bunch of communities with 55 and older restrictions, it just seems like a
challenge to the market, but maybe that's a moot point and maybe there is more demand
for that than I know of. But that's just a general comment, not something I would feel to
take out of there, just something I wanted to put on record. Commissioner Seal, you want
to go next?
Seal: Yes, ma'am.
Holland: And you are muted I think.
Seal: No. I'm unmuted. I should be unmuted.
Holland: Okay. You are okay now.
Seal: I echo some -- some of your statements in there. I mean adding the extra parking
that -- to me that's above and beyond. I mean that's addressing, you know, directly a
problem that's been brought to their attention. So, I really appreciate that. I do like the
lay -- you know, the general layout of it. I'm -- I'm not a person that, you know, would
probably be looking for, you know, a townhouse type community. That said I can -- there
-- there is, you know, obviously, some demand for them, so -- especially kind of the
townhome communities that are, you know, more or less kind of maintenance free. So,
you know, the less common area kind of the better for -- for, you know, some of the 55
and older communities seems to be something that they -- they actually want, instead of
having, you know, huge parks and parkways and things like that. One thing I think they
could -- should definitely consider is like a central -- central trash collection site. I mean
that would make me feel a little better about the -- you know, the shared driveways that
are in there. Unfortunately, you know, one of the places I think it would land is possibly
where they have added extra parking spots. So -- so, I'm a little divided on that for sure.
You know, if there was a place to put, you know, central trash collection that could take
up a couple of parking spots, I think that would alleviate a lot of problems that they are
going to run into come trash collection days, so -- and those -- especially with the smaller
streets and not allowing any parking on them, to have all the, you know, the -- the trash
collection receptacles out there kind of presents some safety issues for me as we go
down that road. So, I mean I would -- I would like to have them consider central trash
collection and I still think that no more than three residents on shared driveways is --
especially considering, again, the density in here is more than fair.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 5,2020 F35]
Page 32 of 34
Holland: Thanks, Commissioner Seal. Commissioner Yearsley, Commissioner
Cassinelli, any comments?
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
Holland: Go ahead, Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: I -- I guess my biggest concern -- and I don't know how to address it -- is I don't
like private driveways. We -- so, actually, I'm -- I'm on the board of our HOA and we have
quite a few private driveways and they become quite an expense that they have to
maintain. You know, I'm not going to say we shouldn't have the private driveways, but I
would like to have them reach out to the homeowners association and at least provide
them some guidance on what they should be doing for maintenance and -- and storing
money away for future improvements as those roads, you know, deteriorate. So, that
would be my biggest concern and -- so, that's all I have.
Holland: Great comment. Thanks, Commissioner Yearsley. Any other comments out
there?
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
Holland: Go ahead, Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: Pretty much everything. I'm going to kind of echo what everybody else has
said, but I will just throw my comments out. I -- I kind of agree with you with maybe there
has been a lot of age restriction going in, but I -- but I -- from what I hear there is demand
for it and I think in this piece it -- it will help alleviate the -- the traffic. So, you know, there
is -- there is some places that I have seen around town where I think it really fits and I
think this is one place where the age restriction is a plus, because that's -- every time we
have heard -- you know, every time when this parcel has come up the traffic and parking
have been I think the number one things. If I can put a comment out there to maybe
address the -- the Fishers -- and I don't know if they have spoken at one or two of the
previous Planning and Zoning meetings. I think one time there was either two or three
story proposed units going in there and they didn't want three stories looking down in their
backyard. I think as far as -- you know, these are all single story. They are not going to
even see the back of the home. Maybe a patio cover or two, but, you know, most of it
won't be popping up above a six foot fence, you know, at the angle that they will have.
So, I don't think that that's an issue. The -- I'm in -- I have got the same concerns about
private -- not necessarily the private streets, those were great comments that
Commissioner Yearsley addressed. So, I think we do got to make sure that -- that there
is a -- there is a clause in there for the homeowners association to be well aware of -- of
what their -- what their requirements are. But those -- I think -- I -- the way I'm looking at
it and the way I see it, you can kind of spin it how you want. I'm counting four homes
each of those -- on those shared driveways and the other thing -- to comment on the --
with the trash, in a lot of -- in a typical single family development with shared driveways
there is a little bit more space on the homes that are up front, because they have got --
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 5,2020 F36
Page 33 of 34
you know, they have got a full -- a full width yard with just a -- with a -- with a driveway.
So, there is a little bit more room where you can put the trash receptacles. With the --
with the -- the attached homes here I think most of the frontage is going to be driveway
and there can be very little room to put those. So, that is a concern of mine as well. I
don't know how -- you know, short of having a -- a common collection area, how do you
-- how you deal with that? But I think that is going to be a problem once a week, every
week. And those are my comments.
Holland: Thanks, Commissioner --
Cassinelli: But in -- overall I'm in favor of it. I think it fits. Because it doesn't sound like
an office development has -- has come along and I think this is the best we have seen
yet. It fits. I think it just needs to -- it needs some tweaking. Oh. And one other comment,
too. I'm in agreement with Commissioner Seal, I would like to see a little bit something
more in that common area, given that 55 and over, and the picnic area is nice, maybe just
a -- just a thought, just a comment for the -- for the developer. Maybe like a -- even a
shuffleboard or -- or something else in there for the -- to give the residents something to
do.
Holland: Okay. So, just to recap the things we have talked about. Comments about the
private drive, that they should be putting in extra -- that they should put some resources
forward with the HOA towards helping with that and that would be a suggestion. I don't
know if that's something we can condition or not, but I agree with you, I'm not a big fan of
private driveways either. I'm not sure what we can do there, if we can make a condition
on that, but --
Yearsley: This is Steven. I don't know if we could condition it, but I would, you know,
appreciate the applicant to let the HOA-- give them some guidance, because I -- we have
-- before on Planning and Zoning Commission we have heard a lot of people talk about
their infrastructure failing within the HOAs and no one knows what they should be doing
to help make those last longer. So, at least providing some guidance, you know, from the
engineer to the HOA, it would be helpful. So, like I said, I don't know if it needs to be a
condition, but just have them, you know, if they would,just provide that guidance for them.
Holland: Any comments? The shared drives are a challenge it sounds like to almost all
of us, so I -- I would like to see us restrict the number of those or have a requirement that
they need to put in a parking -- or not a parking -- a trash enclosure. But I would rather
see the elimination of one or two of those lots on there to make it easier instead. I will
leave it open if anybody wants to try and attempt making a motion on this one.
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-2020-0092 as presented in the staff report
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. November 5,2020 F37
Page 34 of 34
for the hearing date of November 5th, 2020, with the following modifications: That no
more than three residences are allowed on shared driveways and that the applicant
consider central trash collection enclosure, because of the small width of the streets and
the common driveways.
Holland: We have a motion on the table. Is there a second or any discussion?
McCarvel: Second.
Holland: Okay. Motion and a second by Commissioner McCarvel. All those in favor?
Any opposed? All right. Motion passes.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Holland: With that I believe that's all we have got on the agenda, unless staff has anything
else. So, we have got one more motion for the night.
Yearsley: Madam Chair, I move we adjourn.
Seal: Second.
McCarvel: Second.
Holland: All right. Motion and a second. Any -- all those in favor? None opposed. Have
a great night all.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:01 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
RYAN FITZGERALD - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED
ATTEST:
CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK