2020-12-17 Item 1.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting December 17, 2020.
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of December 17, 2020, was
called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Ryan Fitzgerald.
Members Present: Chairman Ryan Fitzgerald, Commissioner Lisa Holland,
Commissioner Bill Cassinelli, Commissioner Andrew Seal, Commissioner Rhonda
McCarvel, Commissioner Nick Grove and Commissioner Steven Yearsley.
Others Present: Adrienne Weatherly, Andrea Pogue, Bill Parsons, Sonya Allen, Joe
Dodson, Alan Tiefenbach and Dean Willis.
ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE
X Lisa Holland X Rhonda McCarvel
X Andrew Seal X Nick Grove
_X Steven Yearsley X Bill Cassinelli
X Ryan Fitzgerald - Chairman
Fitzgerald: Okay. At this time I would like to call to order the regularly scheduled meeting
of the Meridian Planning and Zoning meeting for the date of December 17th and let's start
with roll call.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Fitzgerald: Thanks, Madam Clerk. The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the
agenda. I have -- the only item that we will be -- for those in the audience or on Zoom
that -- we will be opening Vicenza North Subdivision, H-2020-0108, to continue that only.
We will not be hearing that tonight. So, with that notification, can I get a motion to adopt
the agenda?
Seal: So moved.
McCarvel: Second.
Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda. All those in favor say aye.
Any opposed? Motion passes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Cassinelli: Hi. I'm here.
Fitzgerald: Hi, Commissioner Cassinelli. How are you, sir?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 5
Page 2 of 110
Cassinelli: Great. How are you guys doing?
Fitzgerald: I don't see your head. You are floating in --
Cassinelli: Yeah. I know. My --
Fitzgerald: We kind of see you. Madam Clerk, let the record show that Commissioner
Cassinelli joined us about 6:02.
Weatherly: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Fitzgerald: Yes, ma'am.
Weatherly: Just a thanks for letting me know.
CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item]
1. Approve Minutes of the December 3, 2020 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting
2. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Conner Square (H-2020-0107)
by Sarah Martz with SEM Consulting, Located at 557 W. Idaho Ave.
and 528 W. Broadway Ave.
Fitzgerald: Sounds good. Thank you. Next on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. We
have two items on the Consent Agenda. The approval of the minutes of December 3rd,
2020, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and the Findings of Fact, Conclusions
of Law for Conner Square, file number H-2020-0107. Is there anything on the Consent
Agenda that needs to be pulled out -- or not? If not I would entertain a motion to accept
the Consent Agenda.
Holland: Mr. Chair, I move we approve the Consent Agenda.
McCarvel: Second.
Seal: Second.
Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda as presented.
All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thanks so much.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item]
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 6
Page 3 of 110
Fitzgerald: At this time let me explain the -- the -- kind of the public hearing process for
this evening. We will open each item individually and, then, start with the staff report for
that application. The staff will report on the findings and -- regarding how the application
adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and Uniform Development Code, with the staff's
recommendations. After the staff has made their presentation the applicant -- applicant
will come forward, either in person or on Zoom, and they will have 15 minutes to provide
their presentation on why the application should be approved or recommended for
approval and, then, respond to any comments from the Commission. After that we will
allow the public testimony. So, we have folks possibly in person, in chambers, and, then,
also, obviously, on Zoom as well. We appreciate you guys being flexible as we continue
to do the work of the city by having this kind of dual platform world we are in as we deal
with response to the pandemic. So, as you have your time in front of the Commission we
ask that you -- a couple things. You have three minutes to make your presentation to the
Commission. Please don't go over issues that we have already heard. Focus on issues
that are important to you, but if we have heard it a number of times focus on issues that
might be new to you. We don't allow a second set of testimony from the same person.
So, take that three minutes you have and use it wisely. If there is an individual that is
here speaking on behalf of an HOA, we will give you some additional time to speak on
behalf of that HOA, because you are representing additional people, but we would ask
that those additional people don't speak as well, if you are covering their HOA, they don't
have the same issues that they bring up, so we would ask you to limit that. If there is
people you are speaking on behalf they don't speak as well on the same issues. After all
testimony from the public has been heard, the applicant will be given another ten minutes
to come up and respond to public testimony and answer any questions that we might
have and, then, we will close the discussion. At that time we will close the public hearing
and the Commissioners will have a chance to deliberate and, hopefully, either make an
approval or -- move for an approval or make a recommendation to City Council on a
decision on the application. So, with that as we deal with the public on -- public testimony
on Zoom, obviously, if you are in person we ask you to sign up for the hearing you want
to -- or the application you want to be heard on back in the back on -- on the iPads that
are back there. If you are on Zoom when the application comes up that you want to be
heard on, we would ask you to raise your hand via the Zoom application and we will get
you plugged in and so you can be part of the testimony.
ACTION ITEMS
3. Public Hearing for Vicenza North Subdivision (H-2020-0108) by
Bridgetower, LLC, Located in the Northwest Corner of N. Black Cat Rd.
and W. McMillan Rd.
A. Request: Rezone a total of 63.56 acres of land for the purpose of
rezoning 41.58 acres to the R-8 zoning district and subsequently
reducing the C-C zone from approximately 37 acres to 3.67 acres,
reducing the L-O zone from approximately 10.6 acres to 1.56 acres,
and increasing the C-G zone from approximately 13.2 acres to 16.76
acres.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 7❑
Page 4 of 110
B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 169 single-family
residential building lots, 6 commercial building lots, and 8 common
lots on 56.99 acres of land.
C. Request: A Modification to the Existing Development Agreement
(Inst. #:2019-055407) for the purpose of removing 76.58 acres of
land north of W. McMillan Road and west of N. Ten Mile Road from
the boundaries and terms of said agreement and enter into a new
one, consistent with the proposed development plan.
Fitzgerald: So, with that we would like to open the public hearing for Vicenza North
Subdivision, that's file number H-2020-0108, and Bill or Joe, can you give us an idea of
what -- what's the scoop with Vicenza and their request that it continue to January 7th.
Dodson: Mr. Chair, this is Joe.
Fitzgerald: Go ahead, sir.
Dodson: Absolutely. Yeah. The applicant's wanting to continue -- or really as a -- they
are requesting continuance per staff's recommendation. There was some public
testimony and phone calls that the neighborhood meeting did not occur in accord with the
UDC requirements. So, I have recommended that they hold another meeting and bump
them out a couple weeks to help alleviate any concern that they are -- that that did not
occur. They held their meeting on the 8th. So, they are in that ten day window right now
per city code for the formal application, which, obviously, is already in, but just to give
them enough time to respond to any questions and have the public have enough time to
participate in the process we are just requesting to continue them out two weeks -- three
weeks.
Fitzgerald: That's perfect. Makes total sense. With that background, any questions for
the staff? Could I get a motion to continue with Vicenza North Subdivision to January
7th, 2021, where we only have one other item on the agenda currently.
McCarvel: So moved.
Seal: So moved.
McCarvel: Second.
Seal: Second.
Fitzgerald: I have multiple motions and multiple seconds to continue Vicenza Subdivision,
file number H-2020-0108, to the date of January 7th, 2021. All those in favor say aye.
Any opposed? Okay. Motion passes. Thank you so much. We will see them on the 7th.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 $
Page 5 of 110
4. Public Hearing Continued from November 19, 2020 for Poiema Calvary
Chapel (H-2020-0095) by The Land Group, Inc., Located at 3727 E. Lake
Hazel Rd.
A. Request: A Conditional Use Permit to construct a new church facility
built in two phases to total 52,000 square feet and 320 parking
spaces at total build-out on approximately 7 acres of land on Lot 1 ,
Block 2 of Poiema Subdivision in the R-15 zoning district; and waive
the outdoor speaker system standards (UDC 11- 3A-13) to allow in
a residential district.
Fitzgerald: Moving on on the fourth item on our agenda is the continued public hearing
for Poiema Calvary Chapel, file number H-2020-0095, and I will turn it over to Joe for the
presentation. The staff report.
Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. Good evening. So, this
got continued from a month ago, from November 19th, in order to amend the CUP
request. My explanation of everything will be fairly quick and concise, because it's a fairly
simple application. The site is a lot and block within the Poiema Subdivision that was
approved earlier this year under H-2020-0035. The specific area for the CUP application
is for a new church facility and it can -- it's on approximately seven acres of land, which
is now zoned R-15. It directly abuts Lake Hazel. The conditional use permit request is
to construct a new church facility built in two phases to total 52,000 square feet and 320
parking spaces at total build out and the change, which is why we had to continue it, was
to include a request to waive the outdoor speaker system standards to allow them within
a residential district. Without getting too much in the weeds, the UDC restricts outdoor
speaker systems to be used within any residential district. Well, this use is being
proposed within a residential district and in that code section that allows Commission to
waive the requirement in order to allow the speaker systems. The applicant is not
requesting a blanket dismissal of the requirements, they are open to keep with the spirit
of the code and comply with the hundred foot requirement, but to any residential use and
that would only be occurring within the amphitheater here. So, they are going to be able
to easily maintain the hundred foot buffer. They just can't maintain it within the residential
district, because the whole property is reserved. So, I just want to make that clear. Phase
one of the site as seen here, is proposed with a sanctuary and the associated offices and
rooms to the east, some shared outdoor space and the outdoor amphitheater. It also
includes 155 parking spaces. Phase two includes a larger sanctuary, a few more of the
offices, and additional parking to total 320 spaces. The proposed parking, just for note
here, is three times the minimum required, which is 104 spaces based on the first floor
area of the proposed church. Code does not differentiate the different nonresidential
uses, so the minimum is one per 500. So, again, they are proposing about three times
what the minimum is. Access for the church site is via driveway connection to the new
local street proposed within the Poiema Subdivision. There is no direct lot access to Lake
Hazel, other than the emergency only access, which is required for both this application
and the subdivision, which is this here. The applicant is showing emergency access to
become a parking drive at full build out, which both planning and fire staff have approved.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission 191
Item 1. December 17,2020
Page 6 of 110
Because the proposed use is nonresidential, a minimum five foot wide sidewalk is
required adjacent to all buildings. The applicant is showing compliance with this
requirement. The staff has recommended an additional segment of sidewalk be added
in the second phase of development to be located around the western side of the outdoor
amphitheater. Basically add a sidewalk here along this parking and come back and
connect to the sidewalk here. Staff made a mistake in how the original condition was
written and has agreed with the applicant that it can be modified to be more clear. The
applicant will have that requested language for the Commission tonight. Again, the
proposed use is nonresidential. So, there are no amenity and open space requirements.
However, as discussed with the Poiema Subdivision, the 15,000 square foot open space
lot here is to be shared between the church and the residents. Its maintenance and use
have already been conditioned through that subdivision application and, therefore, there
is no need for Commission to act on that aspect, just to note to the Commission. The
applicant has submitted sample elevations of the proposed church and concept
renderings for phase one only. All nonresidential structures require administrative design
review and prior to obtaining building permits. The submitted elevations show a single
story structure with a maximum height of 35 feet -- or, sorry, 30 feet for any area to be
occupied and, then, architectural features up to approximately 35 feet, which are just
these few places. The overall site design appears to include stucco, some high end
siding, and stone. In addition, the elevations show both shin roof and more traditional flat
roof design, adding the architectural elements of the site. There appears to be adequate
modulation in wall planes as well, especially on the north elevation that faces Lake Hazel.
With all of these things noted, staff does recommend approval of the subject conditional
use permit application for this proposed church and the waiving of the UDC requirement
with the recommended condition of approvals. After that I will stand for questions.
Fitzgerald: Thanks, Joe. Are there any questions for the staff at this time?
Seal: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal, go right ahead.
Seal: Joe -- and I don't know if you are going to know this one off the top of your head,
but between phase one and phase two what's the difference in parking spots?
Dodson: It goes from 155 to 320. So, it's about 100 and -- what is it, a 125 more? Or
155 more?
Seal: Okay.
Dodson: About 165 more.
Seal: That's okay. It's late. I'm having trouble mathing as well.
Dodson: I hear you.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 Flo]
Page 7 of 110
Seal: Okay. And that -- the -- in phase one, the amount of parking spots that they have
is going to be an acceptable amount?
Dodson: That is correct. Yes.
Seal: Yeah. What -- what I'm getting at is just in case phase two just doesn't happen.
Dodson: Understood. Yes. Yes, sir. The -- phase one requires about half, because it's
about half the square footage.
Seal: Okay.
Dodson: So, phase one is proposing 155, but I believe the minimum required is like only
52, give or take, and, then, phase three -- or phase two, sorry, at full build out is 104
required and, then, they are proposing 320.
Seal: Okay. And, then, a follow-up question on that. The road that's going to be there
before the parking lot is put in, is that a paved road, a gravel road, how -- what kind of
road is it?
Dodson: Commissioner Seal, are you referring to the emergency access?
Seal: Correct.
Dodson: Okay. Yes. That's going to be a paved access and be constructed with the
Poiema Subdivision. It will be in there before the church site is even constructed. So,
they have to construct all these roads first, including the emergency access and it will be
paved per Fire Department standards.
Seal: Okay. One more question and I promise I will be done. The amphitheater looks
like it is actually facing out into the residential area; is that correct?
Dodson: It -- to be honest, I -- I don't -- it's this portion here. I think it's -- I think the stage
is in the wider portion, but I could be wrong.
Yearsley: The residential lots are to the west, Commissioner Seal.
Dodson: To the south and east here.
Yearsley: Or east. I'm sorry. The east and the south.
Dodson: They show landscaping along the edge here. I believe the applicant will be able
to better answer that, including the pastor of the church who is -- who is with us tonight.
Seal: Okay.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 Fill
Page 8 of 110
Dodson: I wish I had an answer. I'm sorry, sir.
Seal: No problem. Thank you.
Fitzgerald: Any additional questions for Joe at this time? Hearing none, thanks, Joe. Do
we have the applicant with us at this point? Tamara, are you taking this one?
Thompson: Mr. Chair, Tamara Thompson. Yes, I am. But my client wanted to say a few
words at the beginning. I don't know if --
Fitzgerald: Okay.
Thompson: -- he's on. We are not together. So, if he's available to start, otherwise,
can -- I can jump in if he's not.
Zachman: I'm here.
Thompson: Oh, excellent. Go ahead, Daryl.
Zachman: Well, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, good evening. I'm Daryl
Zachman, pastor of Calvary Chapel Treasure Valley, at 9226 West Barnes Drive in Boise.
I just want to thank you for considering our conditional use permit tonight. As you would
recall from the hearing in August, the church building site is part of the Poiema Subdivision
as has been stated already. Poiema -- we got that word -- it's a Greek word for
workmanship or masterpiece. It comes from Ephesians 2:10 that says we are His
workmanship, Poiema, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared
beforehand that we should walk in them. So, we are sort of happy about that. We think
it's cool. We also get our English word poem from that. But I just want to let you know
that from the outset our vision has been that the residential properties and the church
would exist side by side in an integrated community. That's reflected in the -- in the
common lot, as has been pointed out, and also the -- the adequate parking along the
streets that will be able to be shared with the subdivision and I know you see many
development plans, but you may not be aware of our background. We purchased this
land in 2003 and have been waiting. At the time we were meeting at a shopping center
for church, but in 2010 we lost that property because of the remodeling the landlord was
doing, so we have been a mobile church for ten years and have been using either different
church facilities or -- or now three different schools, so -- so with the increased
development of south Meridian that enabled us to get the city services out there, which
has made this project feasible. So, we are very excited to begin the construction and
blessed to cooperate with Zack Evans in planning this desirable community for seniors
and others who will be purchasing the townhomes. We see ourselves ministering to the
many residents of south Meridian in the area, of which there is a huge bedroom
community, obviously, and we are pleased that the staff has recommended approval of
our conditional use permit. So, I just want to thank you very much.
Fitzgerald: Thanks, Daryl.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F12
Page 9 of 110
Thompson: Thanks, Daryl. If I can share my screen, I have just a really quick PowerPoint
to go through. Joe did a great job and stole a lot of my slides, so --
Dodson: You are welcome, Tamara.
Thompson: I can't share yet.
Dodson: There, you should be able to share now. I apologize. I was hogging it.
Thompson: Okay. Let's see here. Totally changed my window.
Fitzgerald: Try to keep you on your toes.
Thompson: Yeah. All right. Are you seeing that?
Fitzgerald: Yes, ma'am.
Thompson: Okay. Excellent. Okay.
Fitzgerald: Tamara, you want to introduce yourself again real quick.
Thompson: Yes. Yes. Tamara Thompson. I'm with The Land Group and we are located
at 462 East Shore Drive in Eagle. Tonight before you is the conditional use permit for a
church facility in the R-15 zone. The site is currently one parcel and the Poiema
Subdivision was recently approved and this -- and so what I have shown here is the
overall subdivision boundary and, then, this lot within it, just so you can get a context of
where it -- where it sits on the property as a whole. Now north is now to the left. The --
again, the property is this location and with the subdivision as -- as Joe mentioned, the
emergency access gets constructed with the subdivision. The access for the property for
this parcel is off of the residential streets and not direct from Lake Hazel and Joe gave
you this one, just phase one is the amphitheater. This is the stage here closer to the
building and the location of this is -- excuse me -- close to 300 feet away from the
residences -- residential properties. So, it's well over the hundred feet that is in code.
And, then, with these two side by side. So, phase one and, then, phase two has an area
for expansion, which basically doubles the site, it doubles the parking counts and doubles
the -- the size of the -- of the sanctuary. And just the elevations again quickly and we
have read the staff report and agree with staff's analysis and the recommended conditions
of approval and we respectfully request your approval tonight. Thank you.
Fitzgerald: Thanks, Tamara. And thanks, Daryl, we appreciate information from both of
you. Any questions for Daryl or for Tamara?
Seal: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F13]
Page 10 of 110
Seal: Just the question on the amphitheater as far as which direction -- which direction it
faces. Is that -- is it going to be facing essentially southwest is what I'm -- that's how I'm
reading it or am I looking at it backwards? And my question pertains to the sound
projection.
Thompson: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Seal, the -- the stage is closer to the building and
so the -- it would face to the west southwest.
Seal: Okay. Thank you.
Cassinelli: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: Additional question on the amphitheater. What if-- could we get some I guess
ideas of-- of usage of that and, you know, what they see -- I'm guessing there will never
be anything too late in the day, probably, you know -- but if they could give us a little
indication on that would be great.
Zachman: I could take that if that's all right.
Thompson: Go ahead.
Zachman: So, the usage is primarily on Sunday mornings during the summer and it
wouldn't -- it's not going to be like loud concert volumes, you know, but we are also
working with Zack Evans to make this part of the CC&Rs that they are doing in the
subdivision to just let people know about that, just an understanding before they are
buying, so that they know that it's there. So, that's -- that's really how we see it. There
may be some times in the summer, you know, we might do something in the evening, but
not very often. It mainly is just going to be like a Sunday morning worship thing.
Thompson: And, Mr. Chair, if I could add onto that.
Fitzgerald: Go ahead.
Thompson: Daryl, correct me if I'm wrong, but from my understanding is it's not a
permanent system. There will be temporary or portable microphone and speaker that are
brought out at that time. So, it's not like a big sound system that's -- that's permanent in
that location. It's -- it's a portable system.
Zachman: That's correct. Yeah. Because there is nothing really to shelter any of that
from the weather or anything like that. So, yeah, that would be the way it would be.
Cassinelli: Follow up if I could, Mr. Chair.
Fitzgerald: Absolutely. Go right ahead.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F14
Page 11 of 110
Cassinelli: It looks like on the landscape plans that there are some trees or shrubs on the
-- that would help to buffer any possible noise, because I know there is a -- there is also
the subdivision going into the -- to the west of the property, so there will be homes right
there. So, is that -- is there landscaping in there that I'm seeing that will serve to buffer
some of that and -- and I -- sight and -- you know, sight as well as sound I guess.
Fitzgerald: Tamara, can you take that?
Thompson: Yeah. Mr. Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli, there -- there will be landscaping
and there is also the Ten Mile Canal in between the two properties. The Ten Mile Canal
is actually on the neighboring property, but my understanding is is that the -- the existing
trees that are there that are fairly large will remain as well. So, those will help with the
buffer.
Zachman: Can I say something, too, on that?
Fitzgerald: Yes, sir.
Zachman: It's -- it's sloped upward. It's very similar to the amphitheater at Kleiner Park,
so -- so, you are going to have a natural huge amount of dirt that's going to be helping to
buffer the sound that's directly aiming at it and sloping it upward.
Fitzgerald: Thank you for that.
Cassinelli: Okay. Thank you.
Fitzgerald: Any additional follow up, Commissioner Cassinelli?
Cassinelli: No. That's -- that covers it. Thank you.
Fitzgerald: Perfect. Commissioner Grove, did you have a question? I -- okay. Any
additional questions for the applicant? Perfect. Tamara and Daryl, thank you so much.
We will see if there is public testimony and, then, we will let you close real quick. So, we
will get back to you. Hold on for a few minutes and we will be back. Madam Clerk, do
we have anyone in the audience or online that would like to testify on this application?
Weatherly: Mr. Chair, we did not.
Fitzgerald: Okay. If there is anyone online on Zoom with us that would like to testify on
this application, please, hit the raise your hand button and we will get you over as a
panelist, so we can hear from you. Commissioner Grove, anybody in -- in chambers?
Grove: No one is indicating that they wish to speak.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F15]
Page 12 of 110
Fitzgerald: Okay. Not seeing anyone raise their hands on our attendee side either -- Mr.
Zachman -- or Pastor Zachman or Tamara, do you guys have any final words for us as
we close?
Thompson: Mr. Chair, nothing to add. We are just excited to get this project moving
forward and we request your approval tonight.
Fitzgerald: Thank you. Perfect. Well, is there any further final questions before we close
the public hearing?
Holland: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland.
Holland: I move we close the public hearing and move to deliberation.
Cassinelli: Second.
Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All those in favor
say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Fitzgerald: Who wants to lead off?
Seal: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Go right ahead, Commissioner Seal.
Seal: Just -- I mean this looks pretty straightforward. I don't have any big concerns on it.
I mean the only thing that I am a little concerned about that we have touched on is just
the position of the amphitheater and the sound that carries in there. That comes from my
previous life where I was a drummer and I know without amplifiers or anything that carries
a really really long ways. So, just, you know, hoping that whatever is discussed, decided
and ruled upon as far as the -- them being able to use amplification equipment out there,
that they are aware of that and, you know, keep it to a minimum with their neighbors. I'm
sure they are far enough away and with the buffering that's in there and the trees and the
slope that it will be kept to a minimum, but it still can get fairly loud.
Fitzgerald: Appreciate that.
Holland: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F16]
Page 13 of 110
Holland: As I say, I don't have any big concerns about this application. I think they have
-- they have tried to address with the slope and with trying to buffer it and I appreciated
them adding it to the CC&Rs of the subdivision to give them kind of a heads up when they
move in. I think it will be a nice amenity and I don't imagine that they are going to be
having a lot of late night ragers and problems with -- with anything like that. So, I -- I'm in
support of it. I think it looks like a nice project.
Cassinelli: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: Yeah. I like the -- I like the design, what we are seeing. I like the -- the layout
or the -- you know, they thought about the parking and everything and -- and I think from
the church's standpoint they are -- you know, they are -- they are going to want to -- they
are going to want to be good neighbors. I mean it's part of -- part of being in there. So, I
don't -- I don't see that as a problem and -- and, you know, I think it might be a little
community draw there as well. So, I'm in support.
Fitzgerald: Thank you, sir. Commissioner McCarvel, go right ahead, ma'am.
McCarvel: Yeah. I'm in support of this as well. I think, you know, we got a little bit of a
glimpse of this when we had the subdivision in front of us, the residential part of it, and
the connections and everything. So, I think it's been pretty well thought out and I
appreciate you telling us about the trees and stuff along the creek, because I think that
will help add as a buffer to the subdivision to the west then.
Fitzgerald: Thank you, ma'am. I -- I agree with all of the comments that have been made
so far. I think it's well laid out. I think the inner -- inner working with Zack Evans -- he
always builds nice product and I know putting it in the CC&Rs will give everybody a heads
up of what's coming. So, I think that's great. I think it looks nice. I think that -- I guess
like Commissioner Cassinelli I think the amphitheater may be a benefit, so I think it will
be a nice thing to add to that community, especially when everybody has a heads up of
what's going in, so I'm in favor of it as well. Commissioner Grove, did you --
Holland: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Oh, Commissioner Holland, go right ahead.
Holland: If -- if there was more comments I'm more than happy to let people talk, but I'm
happy to make a motion, too, if we are there.
Fitzgerald: Motions are always in order, even if someone wants to make more comments.
Holland: All right. All right. After hearing all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move
to approve the conditional use permit request for a church facility and waive the outdoor
speaker system standards to allow them within a residential district.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F17]
Page 14 of 110
McCarvel: Second.
Cassinelli: Second.
Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second -- oh, was there --
Holland: I will amend the motion just to include the file number H-2020-0035.
Cassinelli: My second still stands.
Fitzgerald: Perfect.
Dodson: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Joe, go right ahead.
Dodson: Sorry. Nine five was the subdivision. Just to let you know.
Holland: Oh. Sorry. I was going off of the staff memo and I -- or the staff hearing outline.
It was written on their wrong.
Fitzgerald: So, nine five.
Dodson: Nine five.
Holland: Zero nine five.
Fitzgerald: And, Commissioner Cassinelli, your second --
Cassinelli: Still stands.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Perfect. I have a motion and a second to approve Poiema Calvary
Chapel, H-2020-0095. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Fitzgerald: Good luck, Tamara. Thanks, Daryl. Good luck. Look forward to seeing you.
Thank you for being here tonight.
Dodson: Thank you, everybody.
5. Public Hearing for Mile High Pines Subdivision (H-2020-0099) by Baron
Black Cat, LLC, Located in the Southwest Corner of N. Ten Mile Rd.
and W. Pine Ave.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F18
Page 15 of 110
A. Request: Annexation of 17.46 acres of land with a request for C-C
(6.04 acres) and R-15 (11.42 acres) zoning districts.
B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 3 building lots and 1
common lot on 15.95 acres of land in the proposed C-C and R-15
zoning districts.
C. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development
consisting of a total of 135 residential units on 11.42 acres in the
proposed R-15 zoning district.
Fitzgerald: Thanks, Joe. Moving on to the next item on our agenda is the public hearing
for Mile High Pines Subdivision, H-2020-0099, and I will turn it back over to Joe for the
staff report.
Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Before we get started I just want to note, Commissioner
Grove, when you speak I can barely hear you. I don't know if other people online are
having trouble. You might have to eat the microphone. So, just letting you know. All
right. So, Commissioners, bear with me on my presentation for this. It is a vastly more
complex project than the previous one, so bear with me while I get through everything
that I analyzed in the staff report. As noted this is for Mile High Pines, which is specifically
located at the southwest corner of the Pine extension -- a future Pine extension and Ten
Mile. It is a request for annexation of 17.46 acres of land with a request for C-C and R-
15 zoning district. A preliminary plat consisting of three building lots and one common lot
on approximately 16 acres and a conditional use permit for a multi-family development,
consisting of a total of 135 residential units on 11.4 acres in the proposed R-15 zoning
district. The application -- sorry. The proposed land uses are multi-family residential and
commercial. The residential is in the form of detached cottages, townhomes, and two
vertically integrated buildings. Both -- or I should say the residential and the commercial
uses are consistent with the land use types noted in the future land use map designation
definitions and preferred uses for mixed use community. Of the 135 residential units, 87
are the detached single story cottages, 42 are townhome units, and there are six units
within the two vertically integrated structures. The proposed product type is by definition
multi-family, which means more than two units on a single building lot. So, the applicant
has designed units to emulate single family attached and detached structures that share
pathways and open space rather than public streets. For reference this is the sister
project to the Modern Craftsman at Black Cat that was recently approved. The proposed
project has -- as shown is approximately eight dwelling units per acre, meeting the six to
15 dwelling unit per acre range for the mixed use community designation. All proposed
lots appear to meet the UDC dimensional standards per the submitted plat. However,
there are some concerns over the applicant meeting the required utility separation and
easement requirements, while not having any permanent structure encroachments or
overhangs within the easement. It is staff's understanding that the applicant has been
continuing working with Public Works to correct this, which is greatly appreciated. If
revisions to the site design are required to comply with those requirements, the applicant
-- or the applicable plans -- all of the applicable plans should be revised and resubmitted.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F19
Page 16 of 110
For reference, this preliminary plat here is not entirely accurate, as some of the
easements have changed since this was originally approved. By that I mean just the
easement widths in some of the areas. The overall site design has not changed. The
applicant submitted conceptual elevations for the residential portion of the site. Overall
they comply with the ASM. However, the ASM, architectural standards manual, does
note that no two multi-family buildings should look the same. To ensure compliance with
at least the intent of this, the applicant should create more differentiation between the
units by providing different colors beyond the same earth tones. I do understand the
applicant's perspective that they are offering three different color variants as you can see
in the center here with different ones, but it is staff's opinion that they should incorporate
two more color variants, again, that just aren't the same kind of earth tones. It reminds
me of being at West Point again. The -- in addition adding more of the active materials,
which would be lap siding and stone, rather than stucco, would help make -- to make
more of the detached units unique from one another. Staff is recommending a condition
of approval to mitigate this. Despite the fact that a separate design review is required for
the future commercial, staff wants to ensure the future commercial buildings integrate
with the proposed residential. Therefore, the applicant should provide at least conceptual
elevations for these buildings. They did not upon the initial submittal. And, again, staff is
providing a condition of approval to submit those elevations prior to the City Council
hearing. Just to recap really quick with these, the elevations shown on the top left are the
clubhouse. The ones on the right are the one bedroom. These are the three bedroom in
the bottom left. The top right are one of the two bedroom variants. And, then, the other
two bedroom variant is on the left here and, then, on the right are the townhome units,
which they also have the same color variance -- I believe the same three colors. And,
then, these are the proposed vertically integrated buildings, just to be clear. I used the
landscape rendering plan for the site plan in this, just because I think it kind of shows all
of the areas better. The subject development offers approximately six acres of
commercial zoning, according to the proposed rezone exhibit. However, the proposed
C-C zoning does not truly reflect the commercial area, because it does not match the plat
boundary. Staff cannot support split zoning on the residential lot and so the applicant
should revise the rezone exhibit or the plat boundary to reflect the correct zoning. Or I
should say to correct -- to reflect the correct zoning boundaries. With other revisions
requested by staff within my staff report, the applicant will likely have to make other
adjustments to these documents as well. All of these changes should occur prior to City
Council to ensure transparency on the true amount of commercial zoning being proposed.
The commercial acreage of this property is proposed as two commercial lots, one in the
northeast corner of the sight and, then, the other one being the remaining area with two
more buildings. The submitted plat shows two of the three commercial buildings as
containing drive-thrus, which staff does not support. Despite this opinion, staff is not
willing to specifically limit the number of drive-thrus --or drive-thru establishments I should
say with this application, because each drive-thru will require a conditional use permit to
implement that use. The proposed residential area of the site incorporates MEWs, private
streets, common open space and different housing designs within the same parcel, as
seen on the image here. Furthermore, the applicant is proposing two story townhomes
along the southwestern boundary and on the part of the eastern boundary along Ten Mile,
with the rest of the site being a majority of single story structures. So, again, the
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F20
Page 17 of 110
townhomes are along the western boundary here and, then, the two along here. Staff
believes placing the commercial along Ten Mile with the -- is an appropriate buffer
between the busy arterial, which is Ten Mile right here, and the single story structure that
make up the center of the development. However, staff does have specific
recommendations regarding the overall site design to better transition from Ten Mile and
Pine and also spread out some of the units within the development for better utility
delivery. By that I mean water and sewer. Staff notes that all of the recommendations
that were made are with the overarching recommendation that additional units do not be
added, even if there is room available. To be specific, staff is recommending the following
changes. Remove the singular unit in the southwest -- I have another here. This just
here. Remove this singular unit here, so that this area can be opened up and help limit
any possible CPTED issues with having a unit back here. Secondly, replace the
townhome units shown on Ten Mile with the vertically integrated structure. So, move
these two units. Replace those two with this here and, then, have the additional parking
south of that to be better both from the railroad tracks and Ten Mile to help activate the
commercial and to vertically integrate it, which can also be accessed via the sidewalk
along here and integrate with this commercial. Staff believes, again, that fronting this
building onto Ten Mile will help activate the commercial. The secondary portion of this,
once the vertically integrated is moved here, move these four units here -- or all of them
for that matter further east and help spread them out. The point of this is to have the
utility lines to be able to have them -- allow them to have more room between the units.
This concern was presented by Public Works because of the proximity of the buildings.
In addition, this recommendation could add -- could, depending on how they redesign it,
additional open space in the center of this development. Finally, once this goes -- the
vertically integrated goes here, these get spread out, as you can find my -- one of the
arrows, these two townhomes could be moved up here. So, the secondary -- or the final
portion is to remove all of the detached units here, which are 14 units, and put the
townhomes here. I did preliminary measuring and I believe three, instead of the two, can
fit here, which staff is certainly fond of. If they do six-plexes, as they can do a four-plex,
et cetera. They can fill this area, in staff's opinion, with the townhomes and meet the
intent of what I'm discussing. The townhomes which front on the large open space that
is being proposed along Pine and have the garages face internally to the site. This
removes the single family style product for being adjacent to a major street extension and
removes the need for on-street parking -- I should say backup parking along the north
side of this road. With this recommendation the entire northern area of the site could be
pushed further north, depending on how the measurements work out. That would be
advantageous to open up the site and allow for more room within the street to
accommodate the required utility easements and possibly additional traffic calming. The
applicant for this project and the project proposed further north -- I should say directly to
the north and the west have entered into a legally binding dedication and development
agreement that outlines the potential options where how Pine Avenue will be extended
and constructed. In addition, ACHD has outlined different options for how this extension
or road improvements can occur. At a minimum this applicant will construct the
intersection improvements as a half -- as half of a three lane street section with one
westbound receiving lane and eastbound left turn lane and an eastbound through lane or
right turn lane with -- including vertical curb, gutter and sidewalk abutting the site. In
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F21
Page 18 of 110
addition, the applicant is at a minimum required to extend and construct Pine Avenue
outside of the intersection influence area as half of a 36 foot wide section, with their half
plus 12 to total 30 feet of payment and it also has vertical curb and gutter and, then, five
foot detached sidewalk along Pine. The applicant's agreement discusses that whoever
obtains city approval second is required to dedicate the required amount of right of way
to ensure that Pine Avenue is constructed -- centered on the section line dividing the two
properties. In addition, the applicant is required to enter into a signal agreement for the
required signal improvements at this intersection of Pine and Ten Mile. Staff appreciates
the forethought of this agreement by the applicant to ensure correct construction of the
Pine Avenue extension. Therefore, staff has recommended a condition of approval in line
with this agreement. Access is proposed to be a one private street access off of Pine
Avenue, which is here, and one driveway access to Ten Mile. So, again, this is a driveway
access, not a private street access. This is a private street access. The Ten Mile access
is proposed as a full access at this time and is approximately 400 feet, give or take, from
the railroad tracks -- northern railroad tracks. ACHD is requiring that the applicant
construct a southbound right turn lane onto Ten Mile Road, located 580 feet south of the
intersection for safe access into the site on this Ten Mile access. The applicant is also
proposing an emergency access through one of the private drives that abuts this cul-de-
sac here. The two proposed access points have been approved by ACHD. In addition
the applicant is proposing an additional private street access to the property to the west
here to add additional fenesterating and vehicular connectivity and help with the mixed
use policy. In general multi-family projects do not typically have private streets, but
instead have drive aisles. However, because of the nature of this development private
streets are being used for the purpose of having better addressing for the site. Drive
aisles cannot be named and addressed, which does not lend itself to a development of
this kind. Therefore, the private streets will function as drive aisles, but incorporate the
ability to have street names and better addressing for first responders. No gates are
proposed with development in order to improve integration and connectivity in line with
the mixed use policy's goals. The private streets are proposed at least 25 feet wide, with
attached sidewalks of varying widths on both sides of the street throughout the site.
Both open and covered parking is also proposed along the private streets. Staff does
have concern with the street layout at the main entrance off of Pine Avenue where a very
uncommon three-way intersection is shown. You guys can see that here. Let me go to
this plan. You guys can see that better. Albeit the intersection is internal to the private
streets, all three roadways that converge on this point allow traffic in both directions, two
way traffic on all three sides of this. We -- staff, including the, you know, Police
Department, have concerns over how traffic will flow and navigate this intersection,
especially in inclement weather. For example, when our lovely snow decides to cover all
the road striping and I'm impatient enough that I would be one of the people to go the
wrong direction. So, it's a safety concern and thought of staff to recommend that this be
revised. Staff believes that this intersection should be redesigned in such a way that
traffic can safely and efficiently navigate between the residential and the commercial
areas of this site. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the
standards listed in the UDC for multi-family dwellings, based on the number of bedrooms
per unit. The submitted plan shows a total of 442 total spaces for the entire development.
Three hundred and nineteen are for the residents, 12 are for the clubhouse, 30 are shown
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F22
Page 19 of 110
for the vertically integrated units and the remaining 81 are for the proposed commercial.
Of the 319 residential units, a certain number are required to be covered. The numbers
on the proposed plan that I have analyzed do not seem to add up correctly. However, I
counted the proposed covered spaces and there appear to be 218, which exceeds the
minimum required amount of 122. Overall the proposed parking appears to exceed the
minimum UDC requirements. A ten foot multi-use pathway is required along the
property's boundary -- southern boundary abutting the railroad easement as seen here.
This is the proposed ten foot pathway. As shown on the master pathways plan. The
proposed pathway will be approximately a hundred feet from the existing railroad tracks
due to the easement width and will be a segment of about 480 feet long. It connects to
the existing arterial sidewalk along Ten Mile and it also will connect to the proposed micro
path, which is all along the western boundary of the site. So, again, this is a ten foot
pathway here that, then, gets a five foot pathway along here. The adjacent applications
to the west and north will continue the multi-use pathway onto the west, which, then,
eventually connects up to Fuller Park. Sorry. The micro path also continues and connects
to other sidewalks that can go all the way to Pine Avenue. The proposed sidewalks in
this development internally are also essentially micro pathways. These pathways connect
through -- these pathways connect throughout the entire development and traverse
through every MEW as well. They offer fenestration connection and give these residents
the opportunity to walk, rather than drive within the project site, especially to the adjacent
commercial, and also the nearby commercial on the east side of Ten Mile Road. The
proposed landscaping for the required street buffers and common open space meet the
UDC requirements as proposed. However, there do not appear to be landscape strips
on both sides of the proposed pathways. Now, that's -- you know, that's multi-use and
the macro pathway just explained. Staff has recommended conditions of approval to
correct this. In addition, the proposed C-C zoning district, according to the UDC, requires
a 25 foot landscape buffer to any residential district, which this would abut. The submitted
plans do not show compliance with this requirement. Because this is a mixed use
development and there is presence of some landscaping, a sidewalk and the street
between the residential uses and the commercial, staff does not have particular concern
over this discrepancy. However, in order to comply with the UDC, the applicant will have
to request a waiver from City Council to reduce this buffer to a specific width or to reduce
it to the buffer shown on the landscape plan. A minimum of ten percent qualified open
space is required. Based on the proposed plat of 16.46 acres, a minimum of 1 .65 acres
of qualified open space should be provided. In addition, the common open space
standards listed within the specific use standards for multi-family developments also
apply. Combined, the required amount of minimum qualifying open space that should be
provided is 2.5 acres. According to the open space exhibit, the applicant is proposing a
total of 3.62 acres of qualified open space. Of this area 2.47 is proposed to meet the
overall minimum ten percent and that 2.47 equates to approximately 15 percent. This
qualified open space consists of the ten foot multi-use pathway segment, the required
street buffers and two large common open space areas. Specifically for this map, the
darker green is what is being meant to qualify for the overall open space. The -- the 11-
3-G standard. The lighter green is meant to qualify for the multi-family specific use
standards. The qualified -- sorry. As noted this area does exceed the minimum UDC
requirements. They remaining 1.15 acres is proposed to meet the specific use standards.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F23
Page 20 of 110
These areas consist of the MEWs between the attached units, areas of open space that
meet the minimum 20 by 20 multi-family open space dimensions, and the two shared
plazas. This area also exceeds the minimum requirements. Based on the area of the
plat a minimum of one qualified site amenity is to be provided. The applicant proposes a
ten foot multi-use pathway along the southern boundary to satisfy the UDC requirement.
That is in reference again to the 11-3-G requirements. The rest of the amenities are
proposed to meet the specific use standards. A minimum of four amenities are required
per the standards, but the decision making body is authorized to consider additional
amenities for developments that contain over one hundred units, as this subject
application. The following amenities are proposed to meet these standards. A clubhouse
with offices, a fitness facility enclosed by storage and a pool. A tot lot. Two shared plazas
and pedestrian bicycle circulation. Therefore, the applicant is proposing seven qualifying
site amenities. In addition to these amenities, the applicant is proposing self storage
lockers each about 12 square feet spread throughout each of the garage buildings, just
like the other Modern Craftsman. Despite this not being a qualifying amenity, I do find it
appropriate to mention, as they will likely be very much used. To be more frank about the
recommended changes that staff has made, they are in reference to helping the site open
up and also maintain the integration. It is not staff's point to do complete redesigns, but
staff has had a lot of these discussions with the applicant before, we have worked through
a lot of these issues--or tried to at least and presented some of these changes at previous
meetings. It is my understanding that the applicant is not in agreement with the staff
report and they are proposing to keep the site design as such. Again, one of the main
issues that we had been presented with is the Public Works issues about the easement
within the street and also the service lines between the units. Staff just wants to ensure
that these things can be taken care of and be taken care of up front, rather than get to a
point where at final plat they don't work and now we have a major redesign and potentially
have to start over. That is not what any of us want. So, that is -- that is where staff's at
with that. This includes the intersection -- three way intersection here and, then, just
offering some recommendations about how to better layout this site with some of the
vertically integrated and the townhomes. Understand that there can be differences of
opinion, but it's just recommendations by staff to help with the utility and overall site design
issue. With those revisions and the subsequent conditions of approval and the DA
provisions, staff does recommend approval of the subject application. And after that I will
stand for questions.
Fitzgerald: Thanks, Joe. So, just to quickly clarify. If your revisions are accepted, you
have -- you feel comfortable they are covered in your-- in all those pieces, you know, that
you have outlined. It was pretty extensive. Are outlined in your -- in your staff report in
your requirements.
Dodson: Mr. Chair, yes, sir. I -- the way that I kind of laid it out, I laid that out in the
conditions of approval as well.
Fitzgerald: Yeah. I was making sure you feel comfortable that they are all in there. So,
that was extensive.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F24]
Page 21 of 110
Dodson: Yes, sir. Yeah.
Fitzgerald: We can get the applicant on their thoughts, but I just want to make sure you
feel covered if there -- because my concern is we are redesigning and, then, this is just
me and I will let our other fellow Commissioners -- because we are redesigning this whole
thing and we are not going to have a chance to look at it before it goes to Council. That's
before the applicant even gets up here. I just want to throw that out there, because that's
my concern to make sure we are hitting stuff and we trust you guys to guide us on where
we are headed and I'm afraid where we are headed is we need to look at this again. But
any additional comments or questions for -- for Joe?
Dodson: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Yeah. Go ahead.
Dodson: If I may, I do understand what you are saying and I understand that that might
be a big concern for all the Commissioners. To be honest, this is something that staff has
discussed or reached out to the applicant with and noting that maybe a continuance would
have been necessary in order for staff and the applicant to work through. That was not
taken advantage of and that's fine. Hence why staff has decided and had to take the path
of conditioning the project, which is where we are at.
Fitzgerald: Okay.
Dodson: So, I do understand your perspective.
Fitzgerald: Thank you for the clarification. That helps me. Commissioner Holland, you
came off of mute, ma'am. Do you have questions?
Holland: No, Mr. Chair. I was just going to go with what you said. I have got some
concerns about bringing this forward to Council the way that it is right now, because it's
just -- it won't even look like the same thing by the time it gets to Council. So, I -- at this
point with the number of conditions that are requested by staff, without even hearing from
the applicant, I would -- I would want to vote to continue it and not spend too much time
looking at it tonight until we have got an adjusted layout, because I think it's going to be
a moot point until we see the adjustments on it.
Fitzgerald: Yeah. That would be my -- I want to hear from the applicant and get their
feedback.
Holland: Sure.
Fitzgerald: -- but I definitely am -- that's where I'm leaning as well. Any additional
comments or questions for Joe?
Cassinelli: Mr. Chair?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F25]
Page 22 of 110
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: Joe, can you -- what's the vertically integrated building? Can you give me --
give me some detail on it?
Dodson: Commissioner Cassinelli, so vertically integrated is what a lot of people call a
live-work. It's a commercial on the first floor and, then, residential on the top. It doesn't
have to be two stories, it can be three, four, whatever it needs to be. Like the Old Town
Lofts across from City Hall.
Cassinelli: Yeah.
Dodson: The point is to just offer the integration of the residential with the commercial
within one building, rather than spreading it out across the site. It's more of an urban --
urban feel.
Cassinelli: Sure. That's what I thought you were going at with that building, but I wanted
to double check. And, then, did anybody on that three-way intersection -- did they look
at a -- at a one way, almost a -- you know, kind of a little traffic circle or roundabout in that
scenario?
Dodson: Commissioner Cassinelli, great question. That is something that staff has told
the applicant was something that needs to be looked at from the beginning. I don't know
what they did look at in potential options. I believe that they will be able to better answer
that for you.
Cassinelli: Okay. And, then, a final question for you, if I can. You said that you are not
-- that staff was not really in favor of drive-thrus in commercial up front. Can you give us
some detail on that?
Dodson: Yes, sir. Commissioner Cassinelli, Members of the Commission, the point of
that is -- is the two -- having two drive-thrus right next to each other staff is not in support
of. At least initially looking at this. Again, none of the commercial is being proposed right
now, but they -- they will all have to have a conditional use permit. So, I believe that's a
better time to review those uses would be at the future CUP point.
Cassinelli: Okay.
Dodson: That was okay with at least one, if that makes sense, at the hard corner
especially, and I think the applicant and I had discussed that before, just showing two
right next to each other, as we know with stacking issues and things like that, that can be
troublesome. So, that was -- that was the main point of that comment.
Cassinelli: Okay.
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli, are you good or do you need follow up?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F26]
Page 23 of 110
Cassinelli: I am -- and I know -- I mean if we are going to go the direction that we have
already -- that we were talking about, I don't know if I want to spend too much time on
that, but can't we -- can we condition for just -- if we were to go down this road tonight,
reviewing everything, can we -- can we condition for just one or do those -- does every
time somebody wants a drive thru do we have to -- do we have to look at that? Because,
then, it's -- what happens is if we open the door for that, then, you know, you kind of put
a second individual come in for an application or the third, it's a disadvantage, but if it's
-- if it's conditioned up front for just one and one only, then, it goes to the highest bidder I
guess.
McCarvel: Yeah. Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: Wouldn't -- don't we just see it -- wouldn't we just see the second one when it
comes in as a drive-thru within 300 feet of another drive-thru?
Fitzgerald: Yeah. A conditional use permit we see it again.
McCarvel: Yeah.
Dodson: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner -- go ahead, Joe.
Dodson: No problem. I guess me and Commissioner Seal get confused for each other
every time. The -- in general you are correct, Commissioner McCarvel, it is -- if it's one
within 300 feet of another, but because this is also within 300 feet of a residential district
each --
McCarvel: Okay.
Dodson: -- each drive-thru it has to obtain a CUP. So, even the first one would.
McCarvel: Yeah.
Dodson: This is not -- that is not part of this application.
McCarvel: Okay.
Dodson: I don't think the -- the applicant's not wanting to go that route at this moment,
because, you know, end users are not yet known.
McCarvel: Right.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F27
Page 24 of 110
Dodson: So, commercial is conceptual. That's why I -- I didn't want to limit that up front.
Obviously, that is the purview of the Commission and Council if they want to. Like you
were saying, Commissioner Cassinelli, I understand your perspective there, because I
can see that understanding that, yes, if -- after the first one comes in the idea of another
one going in is probably going to be lower. So, I understand your perspective.
Fitzgerald: Additional questions for Joe?
Grove: Mr. Chair? Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Grove.
Grove: Thanks. Joe, question for you. With the improvements to Pine, is this
development and the other development -- does that mean that Pine will connect all the
way through? I was not completely clear on that.
Dodson: Commissioner Grove, Members of the Commission, yes, I -- I didn't go into too
much detail. I don't want to -- you know, because of the hearing laws and things that are
well outside of my purview -- intelligence at this point. I don't want to speak too much on
that application. But with both this application and the ones that are surrounding to the
west and north, if both are approved, then, yes, Pine will get punched all the way through
from Ten Mile and, then, over the Ten Mile Creek and connect through to Black Cat, which
is the intention of both applicants.
Fitzgerald: And that's the long-term plan, Joe? Either way, even if it's not these two
applications? ACHD has that plan; correct?
Dodson: Mr. Chair, that is correct. They don't have it on any of their CIPs that I know of,
because the expectation is that some applicant's will be able to take on the burden and
not put it fully on the taxpayers as those lots get redeveloped, but it is on the master street
map to be a full collector, yes.
Fitzgerald: And that's the expectation for development I would guess.
Dodson: Yes, sir.
Fitzgerald: Any additional questions for Joe at this time? Okay. Seeing none, at this
point would the applicant like to join us?
Nelson: Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission. Deborah
Nelson. 601 West Bannock Street here on behalf of the applicant team. I also have here
with me members of the development team and they are available to answer questions
with you. I'm going to -- or with me. Excuse me. For you. I'm going to share a screen
here and let me know -- can you see that just fine? Great.
Fitzgerald: Yep. Thanks, Deb. Go right ahead.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F28
Page 25 of 110
Nelson: Okay. You know, I'm going to jump in pretty quickly to the substance, because
Joe covered a lot there and you guys had a lot of questions, so I may just skip with some
of these formalities. You already know about Baron Properties from their project at Black
Cat and Chinden and so this is their second project in Meridian where they are starting
from ground up. We are excited to bring this mixed use project right here to Ten Mile and
Pine that you can see on the vicinity map. We have got existing commercial around us
with the gateway at Ten Mile and the Ten Mile area specific plan to our south. A lot of
employment uses going on there with the new Amazon. Additionally we have got the
commercial that's immediately across Ten Mile. I want to focus on the site plan right from
the get go here. I want to show you where our zones are proposed. The R-15 is 11 .42
acres. The C-C zone is just over six acres. And you can see the delineation on the site
plan where they break up here. Both of these zones are consistent with your
Comprehensive Plan designation of mixed use community. We have heard Joe's concern
about wanting to align the lots with that break in zoning and we can accommodate that.
We will add a third commercial lot that will fall within the C-C zone, include the two
vertically integrated buildings and the clubhouse area -- everything that's not included in
the other commercial lots and we will add that to our C-C zone and update our plot
accordingly as he's requested and, then, the plat lot lines will fall directly on the zone lines
as he -- as he desires. I want to also walk through some of Joe's other comments.
guess maybe as a preliminary matter from the development team's perspective the
changes that are requested in the staff report are new and surprising, given the extent of
time that the development team has worked with staff. They are very interested in getting
staff support on this development, that's why they worked so hard at it. We learned a lot
through the Black Cat evolution. We felt like we got a lot of good feedback from staff and
from the Planning and Zoning Commission that led to a better project. We incorporated
all of the feedback. We heard from staff over eight plus months of discussions. Our first
pre-app with them was in February. We didn't file until October. We had many site
revisions, a lot of movement with a lot of focus on integration between the commercial
areas and the residential areas and that is what led us to this site plan. We had specific
comments from staff about placing the townhomes along Ten Mile in the southeast portion
to create framing against that street and instead moving the more activated commercial,
vertically integrated uses up into the central part of the site. Staff wanted us to pull the
commercial down Pine to better serve our residences -- our residents and the residences
that are planned further west and with the Pine access being the full access here, they
really wanted that commercial to frame that corner and further to the integration we
created the crosswalks and the two plazas that are between the commercial and the
residential. These vertically integrated buildings are very purposefully placed. They
frame this area, they create transition from the harder corner, the commercial area, bring
that activated commercial feeling -- you know, urban feeling from the parking out front,
put pedestrian friendly from the crosswalk and they bring that right up around all of the
activity going on around the residential area. That is exactly what your Comprehensive
Plan calls for. Moving that further along Ten Mile creates islands of commercial and
residential, exactly what staff has advised us for the last year to try to avoid with the site
plan reconfiguration that we have done here. So, it is news to us what is being asked for
now and we are not supportive of it. We like the evolution that we have come up with
with staff. It's very practical and functional. We like the framing of the townhomes along
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F29
Page 26 of 110
Ten Mile. We think the better activation is along Pine and Central. We like having our
single story detached units up along Pine, not townhomes there. It creates a nice visibility.
It creates compatibility with the single family homes also planned along Pine. We like
featuring those products there. We like the -- the --the unit that was asked to be removed
entirely from our southwest side. That's part of an area that has MEWs and has
connectivity. It's safe. It's well lit. It meets all of your city code requirements. We
specifically reviewed that particular unit with Joe Bongiorno to make sure that all of the
fire and safety issues were taken care of. From a police standpoint, again, that the lighting
-- everything creates a safe environment. If, instead, we pulled it out I think we would be
running into exactly what we hear from your police chief when you create an open space
in the back that would, then, not have activity. So, those are some of our concerns.
Additionally moving the vertically integrated down on the southeast portion creates a
parking conundrum. I mean there is a different parking setup for the townhomes versus
the vertically integrated product. There is access considerations there. That access, as
Joe noted, is -- is not likely to be full access forever and it -- it's not going to support the
same commercial activity down on that corner, where the full access on Pine will. It also
doesn't work to move that access point on Ten Mile further north as he suggested as a
possible fix to our functional space concerns, because it's already within the spacing
minimum of ACHD. They allowed us to put it there to align with the street across Ten
Mile and so it is -- it's purposely sited there. We did consider the -- the island -- the
landscape island, the configuration that's causing some concern. We think it creates
traffic calming. It's also aesthetically pleasing. We are happy to work with the city, though,
and comply with the condition suggested by Joe to make sure that we are addressing all
of the city departments concerns with. If there is a safer configuration they prefer we can
abide by that condition to work through that. We -- we would also like to point out the
concern about having the townhomes along Ten Mile is inconsistent with other locations
and our own experience in the City of Meridian. We operate the -- Baron operates the
Redtail Apartments at Meridian and Victory and has had no trouble with -- with leasing
along those major streets. In fact, they have found that visibility to be great for that kind
of residential product. We did hear from Joe last week, the one topic that did come up
before we got the staff report on utility concerns, and we have addressed all of those now
with Public Works, without needing to redesign this site. Our civil engineer has been busy
working with Public Works to address all of their concerns. We now have confirmation
from them that we have and so there is also not a need to reconfigure any of this for that
purpose. I think with that let's try to move on to some of our other selling points here and,
of course, I would be happy to address any questions you guys have if you still have
remaining concerns based on what Joe has -- has raised. A couple things just to point
out maybe about the vertically integrated. This is a product we introduced at Black Cat
that was well received at all levels of the city, because it creates that integration, it's not
just horizontal. We will have residences on the second floor and commercial on the first
floor. We expect to be able to have a coffee shop, yoga studio, the kinds of uses that
work great right next to the residential areas. In our commercial area we expect more of
restaurant, retail, office, medical office, daycare, that sort of thing. That -- the commercial
buildings -- we don't have elevations for those yet. We ask that the conditional planning
those now be postponed until we do come in with future plans. The city is going to have
a chance to look at them then and you still have to approve CZC, plus the design review,
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F30
Page 27 of 110
and if there is a drive-thru we would need a conditional use permit. So, you have lots of
opportunities to review those at that time. I just want to walk through some of our
architecture quickly, show you some of the features. This is our entry monument off of
Pine. Some -- some images of our clubhouse. We will have work from home space there.
Private offices for resident use, as well as community meeting space there inside the
clubhouse. There is also a coffee bar. There is indoor gathering and seating areas, a
kitchen and a fitness center. Outside the clubhouse there is a community pool, a large
deck, and covered gazebos and grill areas. This is our vertically integrated product
showing at this point the commercial on the first floor, the residential on the second floor,
with great layouts. I also want to run through some of our residential units, so you can
see the variety and the quality of materials. There will be one, two, and three bedroom
offerings in detached homes, duplexes, six-plexes. Some of them will have attached and
tuck under garages. All residential uses provide private outdoor space. Most with private
backyards. So, that this community really lives and feels like any neighborhood would
with single family detached housing and townhomes. The residential units include
modern finishes, stainless steel appliances, washers and dryers, great living spaces with
spacious floor plans and high ceilings. The exteriors use quality materials, including stone
and stucco and wood tone siding. This slide is showing a one bedroom duplex with a
couple of different roof lines. Here is a couple of our two bedrooms. We have two different
types of two bedrooms to show different layouts. Have three bedroom units as well. And
this is now showing some of our six-plex townhomes with the tuck under garages -- two
car garages underneath. These images show front and back with multiple color palettes.
A lot of variety here. In this -- in this slide we are trying to show all the unit type variety,
where they lie, so the -- the one bed one bath, two bed two bath, etcetera, are all
distributed throughout the site, so that you can see that variety in the community.
Architectural variety as well. Here we are trying to show what the different roof lines and
color palettes -- how they are intermixed through the development, so you don't see a lot
of one thing, with two different roof lines, three different exterior facades, three different
color palettes. These all together can be mixed and matched to create 18 unique exteriors
on these detached units. We heard the comments from Joe. We disagree that more is
needed from that. We like the cohesiveness of this -- of the patterns we have selected.
However, if the Commission feels like adding another color to that mix would help create
more variety, you know, we are happy to work with the city to do that. We have got ample
parking and storage, more than is called for with detached garages -- 30 detached
garages that are shown in green here. A hundred and four covered parking spaces that
are shown in orange. Plus we have the 84 attached two unit enclosed garages. We also
have storage through self storage lockers that creates a great amenity for our residents.
As Joe walked through the open space really carefully, I would just add in addition all the
-- the green public open space and the -- and the blue private open space that you can
see through this slide the connectivity really, that east-west connection where you are
really pulling the residence towards the commercial and creating a nice connection there.
On the -- on the pathways we have got the ten foot wide multi-use pathway on the south.
But I think it's also a great point out that these all connect to the west. We are providing
connectivity to our neighbors. We have got a walking loop that goes all the way around
the entire facility -- the entire community. Amenities Joe walked through very carefully.
They are -- they are centrally located and really connected well to all of the residents
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F31
Page 28 of 110
around. There has been no concerns raised by any of the services. We meet all of the
current plans. ACHD concluded that all of the roadways have acceptable levels of
service. All schools that serve this project have capacity. We did ask for a number of
changes to the conditions. We have addressed them in a letter that we provided today
and in the testimony tonight. I think the only thing I maybe didn't address yet are the last
-- that we ask that the future CZC be specific to a zone, so that we can move forward with
either the residential or commercial first and not required to develop the entire site at
once. And the last one is simply to have the Public Works condition language match the
city approved language that we received on the Black Cat development that better suits
the timing for multi-family development. I would like to -- if you will allow me, if there is
time -- I'm sorry, I can't see a clock where I am in the Zoom format. If there is time we
have a two minute fly through that I would share with you if -- if I'm able.
Fitzgerald: Yeah. You have got a few minutes, Deborah, if you want to go ahead.
Nelson: Thank you.
Fitzgerald: We can't see it yet. Deborah, we are not seeing it.
Nelson: Oh, it's not -- oh. Okay. We -- we did send it to -- to the clerk. I don't know if
that helps the --
Fitzgerald: Madam Clerk, do you happen to have it?
Weatherly: I have it. I don't have it pulled up. So, if you want to give me just a minute or
so I can try to pull it up on my end.
Fitzgerald: Okay. While we are doing that, are there any questions we can start kind of
kick it off for Deborah?
Holland: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland, I saw you first.
Holland: Deb, the overview -- we appreciate it and that's why I love mixed use concepts
and I love a lot of the elements that are in this project, but I think my only concern is still
that staff has so many concerns and how we move forward if they are requesting some
changes and -- and how we kind of keep things moving forward. I'm not sure if you want
to just kind of address that. If you think some more time with staff you guys could figure
out a way to kind of bridge the gap and come together.
Nelson: Well, Commissioner Holland, Chairman, I appreciate that question and we -- we
do prefer to be aligned with staff as well and so I understand your concern, but we made
every effort to. I mean honestly we were just really surprised by the level of changes that
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F32
Page 29 of 110
have been proposed and I guess I would just point out -- and we looked at them pretty
carefully to see, okay, what is this -- is this something that makes sense here and none
of them are required by your code. So, there is nothing that's been proposed that needs
to happen. And, then, you look at, well, your subjective criteria in your -- in your
Comprehensive Plan, we think that our design, which was based on staff's input for the
last year, better meets your plan. It creates more of that integration, instead of having all
of your commercial along Ten Mile, it's all pulled into the site and intermixed with our
residential. So, we think that we meet all of your code requirements. We best satisfy
your Comprehensive Plan with our design and it is our preferred layout. We have -- we
have really grown to enjoy this functionality. We have spent a lot of time and money on
it. We have done all of our utilities work. I mean we have really developed this site that
we worked on a long time with staff. So, we are not supportive of a continuance to revisit
something that just came up, that is inconsistent with what we have worked on for a long
time, that's not required -- or we think even beneficial. I mean just with all due respect to
Joe, because we appreciate he's put a lot of time into this -- it feels like just a preference.
Just kind of a -- you know, he rolled up his sleeves, right, the staff and thought, hey,
wouldn't it be great to move this stuff around. Our preference is different. We feel like
this is a great development for you to consider as a whole, so -- oh. And thank you,
Adrienne. It looks like she's got the fly through ready.
Weatherly: Mr. Chair and Deb, I apologize, I don't think that I can bring up the sound, but
I think I should be able to get the video rolling for you.
Nelson: Great. Thank you.
(Video played.)
Nelson: Thank you, Commissioners, for allowing us to play that. Mr. Chairman,
Commissioner Holland, I think I was wrapping up your -- your question. I guess one
additional point to consider on the -- the layout of why we think it's -- it's -- it's beneficial
and why we prefer it. That commercial -- moving that commercial down, they -- the
vertically integrated down to the southeast isn't consistent with what we have --
understand from working with our brokers on what's going to be viable there. I mentioned
the access limitations, but they really think that corner -- the -- the north corner and the
centrally located commercial is going to create better access vehicularly. Also from a
pedestrian standpoint we think that, you know, some of these users, particularly those
that are in the vertically integrated buildings -- you know, the coffee shop, the yoga -- the
yoga facility, the yoga studio, those are the uses that people need to walk up to and the
further you put that away down in the corner the less they are going to get used. You put
those right around the clubhouse and -- and the main central part of the neighborhood,
we feel like that's going to activate those.
Fitzgerald: Thank you. Commissioner Holland, do you want to follow up?
Holland: No, I don't know that I have any follow ups. I'm just -- I just feel like we are
between a rock and a hard place, because I don't like being stuck in a spot where staff
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F33]
Page 30 of 110
doesn't agree with it and I hear where the applicant is coming from, too, and I like a lot of
the elements of it. I think they have -- they have shown that they are a good developer
and they think outside of the box in how they bring projects together and I agree with you,
I like how a lot of those elements flow together, because mixed use concepts that draw
people towards kind of that central congregating area tend to be more effective in the long
run anyway. So, I don't disagree with that. But I'm not sure how we mitigate some of
staff's concerns here, too.
Seal: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal, go right ahead.
Seal: I echo what Commissioner Holland is saying and after listening to the applicant I
mean what she said was basically that they have worked everything out with Public Works
and -- I mean I don't see anything on record as far as what was worked out, how it was
worked out, what that's going to look like. So, it sounds like some middle ground was
met, but there is -- there is no record of what was -- essentially what's being recorded for
that. So, it would be nice to remove ourselves out of that and let it -- let that come to
where it needs to be before this comes back, basically. That's -- that's my opinion of it. I
mean -- I mean there is a lot of things I really like about this product and, you know, I like
that it's here, but there are some big concerns.
McCarvel: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: Yeah. I'm -- I'm actually kind of liking the commercial where the applicant has
it. I think the big -- the issue that -- part of the issue that staff had moving it was the
utilities and I agree with Commissioner Seal that-- I mean I would like to see maybe more
on what the resolution was on that, rather than just having to say, well, we resolved it. I
think since it's been brought up as an issue. If we could see how that was resolved I think
that would alleviate some things for me as far as all the moving around. I think the other
stuff we can kind of discuss, but I think like that I would like to see some more information
on.
Fitzgerald: Agreed.
Nelson: Mr. Chairman, may I respond to those two comments?
Fitzgerald: Go right ahead.
Nelson: Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Seal and Commissioner McCarvel, since
you both asked the same question. I appreciate the opportunity to respond. I think -- I
think it's -- it's covered in the conditions that staff brought forward and so in their condition
A-7 they contemplated that there could be some continuing resolution of the concerns
and -- and so there is an express condition that allows, you know, at least ten days prior
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F34
Page 31 of 110
to the City Council hearing the applicant will obtain that approval and so we have
submitted the updated plan to resolve their -- their minor concerns and they have
approved it and our civil engineer is here, David Bailey, if you would like more details
about exactly how they did it, but I guess the punch line that I want to make sure we -- we
all have in front of us is it doesn't cause us to rearrange the site, so there is nothing new
to consider there and, two, that staff has already thoughtfully put that into the conditions
of approval as a forward looking way that -- so long as we have resolved it that can move
forward with the Council, so -- and, like I said, our civil engineer is here if you would like
to ask him anymore detailed questions than that.
Fitzgerald: Appreciate that. I think the -- my only concern is I -- we haven't, as a
Commission, heard from the Public Works. That's the only challenge. We usually have
all that information in front of us and I don't want to hand City Council something that we
haven't tried to work out all the details on before it goes to them. That's our job. But I
appreciate the feedback there.
Dodson: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Yeah, Joe, go right ahead. Love to hear from you.
Dodson: Sure. Thank you. The last thing I want to do is get into a tit for tat with Deb. I
very much respect Deb, so I'm not trying to do that at all. I -- I, too, have not gotten any
kind of-- I shouldn't say any kind of. I have not gotten a final approval from Public Works
that the utilities match and will be functional a hundred percent. I have not received that.
I have been told that we are a lot closer than what we were, which is fantastic, and that's
why I mentioned that in my initial presentation, because I -- we need to keep working
there. But, again, I -- like the Commission I have not seen that final approval, which is
why I put that condition in there and I was being courteous to say prior to City Council, as
you guys are discussing. That is part of why some of the changes that we recommended
are based somewhat on the incorporation of the utility concern, not only -- yes, can it fit
in the street, but also the service lines as well, even though I have been told by land
development that some of those discussions have occurred and we are a lot closer, they
still have concerns whether or not this will functionally work and I want to --to ensure that
the site design is -- is okay, that I want that final -- I guess formal -- whatever word you
want to use there -- approval in order to make sure that this works. I'm not going to fall
on the sword for moving that one vertically integrated building. I'm fine with that staying
there. But the point of moving that was to avoid removing some of those units on the
internal area to help spread those out and help with the service line issues as discussed,
not by just myself, but also Public Works. That's -- that was one of their conditions on the
other Modern Craftsman and finally conditions on this one. In regards to the other
condition that they would like to modify regarding -- I believe they said it's one of the
Public Works conditions regarding modifying it to match the Modern Craftsman one, staff
is not supportive of that, because the only reason that combination was made previously
is because they did not do a preliminary plat, they did a short plat. So, it was all done up
front. In this case that's not true, they will have to come back for a final plat. So, that
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F35]
Page 32 of 110
condition is written in line with our current processes. So, I just wanted to clarify those
few points there and, hopefully, we can keep moving forward.
Fitzgerald: Thanks, Joe.
Dodson: In addition -- sorry, Mr. Chair.
Fitzgerald: Go ahead.
Dodson: I wanted to ask Deb if I saw that -- the parking plan that you had, ma'am, has
that been updated to the new or the latest easement changes that have occurred?
Because it doesn't look like it. So, I just wanted to clarify if that parking matches what's
been changed to accommodate the easement.
Bailey: If I can speak here. This is David Bailey. I'm with Bailey Engineering and the
project engineer on this and we -- we actually got notice of the issues that we had here a
couple of weeks ago on the Black Cat project and the Black Cat project was a little
different in that the water lines within that subdivision are -- are under the jurisdiction of
Suez and they have slightly different easement requirements and so we were able to
make a minor adjustment to those plans that we could accommodate both the city's and
-- and Suez's requirements on that. So, since then we have gone through several
iterations looking at how to locate the water and sewer lines within the street and this was
the primary requirement and just for the record this is new to us and the city on this project
is the first time they will enforce not putting the -- not allowing the easements underneath
the covered parking on the project, so we moved things around a little bit and we were
able to move a few of the carports around and adjust the location of the sewer and water
lines within the drive aisles, so that we would provide the full easement required for the
city for both the sewer and water lines without either of those easements being
underneath any carports or any garages and it gets difficult when they are across from
each other, as it has on previous projects, because your drive aisles are 25 feet and 30
feet is total required to provide those two easements for the sewer and water. So, we
have made those adjustments. My engineer Kevin Craig has submitted those changes
to the Public Works. Public Works come back and had a question about a separation of
a storm drain line on the plan, whether it would be four feet from that. He made that
additional adjustment and submitted that to Amanda McNutt on Tuesday, December 15th,
and she sent an e-mail back, which I just forwarded to Joe, that said thank you, Kevin,
appreciate your showing that. I think you have a good plan in place that should work with
our standards. So, we have a specific e-mail from Amanda McNutt saying that this was
completed. I guess Joe didn't get the copy of that.
Fitzgerald: Thanks, David. Appreciate it. The only challenge -- I will be fully frank and
honest with you -- is I think we are in the middle of designing still. This just feels like we
are -- we are still at the pre-app table. I mean just to be frank and honest with you, it's --
this is supposed to be done and cooked, so we can make good recommendations to
Council and you guys are still designing a little bit in the middle of our meeting and that's
-- that's rough to put our Commission in the middle of and so I don't want to put -- I
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F36
Page 33 of 110
appreciate both sides and I respect both sides of our team and your team, but I also want
to make sure we are -- we are staying in the process and it's -- it's difficult for our
Commissioners to have to -- a little bit call balls and strikes and this is a -- it's a weird
position to be in, to be totally frank. So, I don't know where my fellow Commissioners
are. I would love to get your take. But this just seems like we are not there yet.
Bailey: Can I answer that question?
Fitzgerald: Absolutely. Go ahead, David.
Bailey: Great. Thank you, sir. I don't feel we are in the middle of designing this and, in
fact, we don't do final designs for preliminary plat. Never have in the past. We submitted
this in accordance with the standards and designed it in the way that we have for all of
the projects we have ever done in Meridian. They have acknowledged -- your Public
Works staff has acknowledged that your standards have not changed, but they have
decided to start enforcing this in the middle of our project. So, it's not you that are in the
middle of this, it is our client and this project that is in the middle of this and we are as
frustrated as you are at this point of how we have been treated going along this way and
we have made some significant efforts to make sure that we are addressing every single
comment that comes up on this and we have addressed them all and we get to this
Planning and Zoning meeting and your staff member is still telling me that I haven't
resolved them and let me tell you, sir, I have resolved these issues and we can meet all
your standards and I can design and build this project in accordance with the way we
have it set up here.
Fitzgerald: Appreciate that. Also appreciate the position we are in. I hope you
understand, we are -- we have to make good decisions and provide a recommendation
to the City Council and so I'm trying to do that and give our Commissioners the best
package we can see and we have definitely a different view on both sides, which is --
which is not where we like to be, if that makes sense, and so I'm not trying to place blame
on any -- either side, I just want to give the best product and final package we can to City
Council, if that's where the -- the decision of the Commission. So -- and I hope -- Deb, I
hope you understand that we are not trying to cast blame on anybody, we are just trying
to polish the truth as I call it and I just -- it's -- it's hard to do that when we have very
different views in the middle of -- of our meeting, if that makes sense.
Dodson: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Yeah. Go ahead, Joe.
Dodson: I just wanted to clarify. Again, these utility standards are not planning, so I'm
not -- and I'm not an engineer, so I don't pretend to know those requirements. I have
been tasked as a city planner, being the project manager, in conglomerating all of these
different perspectives and issues and concerns and desires into one cohesive report, to
try my own qualms with, but we are here -- neither here nor there, we are trying to move
forward. The point is the instances that Mr. Bailey is referring to I -- I have been told
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F37
Page 34 of 110
specifically that they were instances in that the city had to make accommodations
because things were missed and, therefore, we had to allow waivers and not to mention
we have different--we have had different city engineers and this is what I have been told.
I -- I feel bad that he feels that we are picking on this project and calling out this specific
project for things that haven't been enforced before. I don't -- none of us want that for Mr.
Bailey. So, I do apologize for that. I have been told specifically that these are our
standards and there shouldn't be waivers requested to meet the standards, unless there
are extenuating circumstances, which is what I was told were the situations previously. I
don't want it to be misinterpreted by anybody that the city is picking and choosing who
they want to enforce their standards on, because that is not what I have seen while being
here at the City of Meridian and that's -- that's not what I was told either. So, I just wanted
to clarify that for both the applicant and the Commission.
Fitzgerald: Thank you. Appreciate that.
Nelson: Mr. Chairman, may I make one further point?
Fitzgerald: Yeah. Deb, go right ahead.
Nelson: And we appreciate the -- all -- the position you are in and the comments from
Joe. He's relaying concerns from Public Works and so I guess what I would ask for you
to consider, since you are asking is this fully designed, you know, how is this before you.
The way I see this is that there -- to the extent there were Public Works concerns, they
have been resolved on our end on a factual basis, but from your point of view -- and I
think from Joe's point of view, he set you into the right path by requiring a condition of
approval that does not allow us to get to City Council ten days before. We have to show
those plans and so I think from the Planning and Zoning Commission's perspective you
have a site plan, you have the site plan that we are proposing and we have to get Public
Works sign off on that site plan. If we don't get Public Work sign off on that site plan we
are going to have to come back to you with another site plan. But if-- but if it is functionally
and, you know, materially the same, then, you have before you what you need and you
have a condition of approval to protect you to make sure we have to still get Public Works
sign off and -- you know. So, assuming we can address that -- and it sounds like from
Joe's comments I appreciate that was kind of the root of some of his redesign. He was
trying to create more space. That's helpful explanation to us, because it did feel a little
out of the blue. If it was just that, then, we are happy that that has been resolved and we
can deal with that. If it's a preference -- you know, we don't share that preference and
have already walked through why and it sounds like some of the Commission members
have -- you know, also agree that they prefer the layout as it is and so I think the
Commission actually has before it what you need to decide with the planning and the
layout and the site plan. This is a site plan generally and the uses generally that you like.
So, I would be happy to answer more questions, but thank you for allowing me to make
that additional comment.
Fitzgerald: Absolutely. And thank you for bringing us back to that point. I do have one
-- and it's not a preference, it's a safety thing. I don't like the -- the way you have set that
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F38
Page 35 of 110
intersection up at all. I think that's just waiting for somebody to get in an accident or
somebody to get run over. So, if there is a different design that you would be willing to
throw in there, whether that's a roundabout -- one way roundabout or something, is there
a direction you can go there? Because I think if that's two way traffic all the way around
that thing, with commercial and residential traffic all trying to intermix, I think that's going
to be somewhat of a train wreck. So, can you sum -- can you comment on that?
Nelson: Mr. Chairman, yes, we are perfectly willing to work on that with the city to make
sure that -- you know, that it's -- it's redesigned in a way that everybody is comfortable
and that's why -- you know, we did comment on the condition of approval from Joe, but
we accept the condition where he asked us to work with the city and resolve any safety
concerns they have and we are happy to do that.
Fitzgerald: Perfect. Thank you, ma'am.
McCarvel: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel, go right ahead.
McCarvel: I noticed the same thing, Deb, in the video view it almost looked like it was
acting like a roundabout. I didn't really see the two-way traffic. So, it seems like it could
be almost there, it's just -- it's -- I mean is that what I saw or is that really supposed to be
two way traffic in there?
Nelson: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner McCarvel, I mean that may be one of the solutions
is to route the traffic in that direction. We certainly like it as a traffic calming device and
so, you know, if we can preserve that functionality, that it calms and slows people, that
would be nice. But, obviously, want it to be safe.
Fitzgerald: Additional comments or questions?
Cassinelli: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: I have got a -- got a couple things that I haven't -- I don't think I have heard
information on. This being a hundred percent leasable product, is there a requirement
for an on-site manager and -- and can you -- can you address that?
Nelson: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Cassinelli, yes, we will have on-site management
in the clubhouse for the residential property there.
Cassinelli: So -- and that will be staffed to the standard business hours or what -- what's
that?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F39
Page 36 of 110
Nelson: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Cassinelli, yes, seven days a week. We have
office space for them available in the -- in the clubhouse.
Cassinelli: Okay. Another question I have -- and, Mr. Chair, if I can, I have got a couple
here.
Fitzgerald: Go right ahead, Bill.
Cassinelli: I don't know -- if you guys -- if-- and this might be for--for Joe, but the project
to the -- on the -- I guess it would be the southwest edge there where all the -- where the
townhouses are lined up, I don't know what's proposed in that adjacent property, but is
that a -- is that a good transition to what's --what-- because, obviously, there is something
-- we have got a cul-de-sac in there and I don't know what -- if we have looked at that
before. I have missed the last couple of meetings. So, if that's been looked at. But I
would -- my -- I would just -- I want to know that we are not going to have an issue, I
guess, with transition on those townhouses at some point down the road.
Dodson: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Go ahead, Joe.
Dodson: Thank you, sir. Commissioner Cassinelli, great question. I touched on it in my
staff report, but just not tonight. Directly adjacent -- abutting the property there is going
to be a few lots -- not very many, but they will be detached single family homes and
thankfully the applicant is proposing to have those townhomes opposite direction, I guess
you could say, or perpendicular to those lots. That way the --those homes are not looking
at 60 houses, they are only looking at one side of a building, which I think is a great site
design by them and incorporates those MEWs as well and the pathway that's also a buffer
between those that will include landscaping. So, I touched on all of that in my staff report
and I think that it should be a fine transition. I don't -- I don't think we will have any issues
there.
Cassinelli: Okay.
Parsons: Mr. Chair? Mr. Chair, this is Bill. Also to that point is we -- we have an active
application right now, so we can't get into too many of those details with you guys, but
you will see that coming for -- forthcoming and just to let you know that the same
engineering firm is representing that landowner, too, so they are working together and
making sure that these projects do integrate and get some of that connectivity that we are
looking for in this area. So, I just wanted to let you know, yes, that's all being worked out
and everyone's working together and that's really how we are going to get this Pine Street
connected and completed with this project. It's critical. To me that's the critical point --
portion of this development is really getting that Pine Street connected with the first phase
and this applicant -- and even the applicant to the north is willing to do that now, because
it's required of their development. So, they are working out those details, a private
agreement behind the scenes, and, again, we have had conversations with the applicant,
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F40
Page 37 of 110
they know the city's desire to make that happen and they are doing everything they can
to do that. I did just want it basis -- at least give you guys a little bit of insight with my
experience on this project, just to kind of help you guys -- guide you to a decision or some
recommendation tonight I guess, because we have gotten off topic a little bit. It's -- it's
not always professional for us to be here bantering back and forth about a project and
this is an unusual one for sure. We --we had Public Works give us -- have some concerns
-- raised some concerns and so Joe did what he did as the lead, reached out and tried to
resolve that issue, although it was a little late in the process, I wish we could have got it
before the app was done -- figured it out before the application was before you, but
sometimes those things happen. Now, Joe and I did meet with some of the applicant's
team back in October and we talked about some of these integrations and some redesign
with them and we all left that meeting feeling comfortable and we were also asked to
condition the project with some of those changes and so, in my opinion, I -- I left that
meeting in October thinking we had -- we had a solution. I think they somewhat agreed
that they could look at making some of those changes. Ultimately they didn't and so staff
landed on a position that -- where we had to make a recommendation to make sure that
what they were proposing was not only consistent with code, but consistent with the comp
plan's policies and I think the applicant's representative Deb does a great job, I mean the
comp plan is a guide, it's -- it's not thou shall, but, you know, it is -- it is open to
interpretation and from staff's vantage point we feel -- maybe not always the changes that
we are proposing this evening, but some of those changes could be incorporated to get
this in alignment a little closer to what we feel is more consistent with the mixed use
community designation and so I'm -- staff -- and staff was very adamant that potentially
continuing this out and working with the applicant to smooth out some of thing is probably
in their best interest, but realizing that, you know, they -- they -- they have spent a
significant amount of time and money into this site design and although it's not -- it's not
horrible, it's not a bad site design, I appreciate the commentary tonight and -- and Deb
explaining somehow that integration and their thought process behind that. To me that
helps go a long ways. So, certainly, I don't -- I don't know if we are all on the same page
tonight. We will -- we will leave that up to you, but as you know, this is annexation. This
is -- once we get zoning -- I mean we lose a little bit of that control. So, this is our one
chance to get it right and if you guys think the plan that they are presenting is getting it
right, then, by all means, you know, forward on a recommendation of approval and strike
those conditions. If you feel like we haven't baked this idea -- this plan enough and you
still want to see Public Works -- or at least have somebody testify at a hearing to speak
about some of their concerns or if we have it worked out, that's fine, we can move forward
with the condition as the applicant stated. But it's our opinion -- at least staff's opinion
that there needs to be further refinement to this plan and going back to -- even going back
to the Black Cat project, you know, this Commission was -- was very instrumental in
making sure -- I mean this is mixed use. Although we can -- yes, we have a design review
process. We know they could come back and provide elevations and go through that
process and try to emulate the development. This is mixed use. This is meant to be
integrated. To me all of these details should be provided to you now to make sure that it
is consistent with the mixed use and that's exactly what you did on the previous project,
you have told them to bring back -- you wanted more commercial and you wanted them
to incorporate the commercial elevations into that design and that's what we tied them to
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F41
Page 38 of 110
in their project off of Chinden Boulevard. So, to me we are treating this application -- this
application the same as the last one. We worked with them. We made changes. Deb
acknowledged that, that we worked very well -- I thought it was a very good effort and we
appreciate their collaboration and their teamwork. I mean they did a phenomenal job.
That turned out better than when they first submitted it and that's really what we are trying
to do, we are trying to help guide them and partner with them, so that we can carry this
along side and not bring any issues to and go forward to City Council with a project that
we can all be proud of. So, I'm going to quit grandstanding now. Sorry, Deb. But I just
at least wanted to share with the Commission that, you know, each project is unique, but
at the same time I think we have seen this similar project and a lot of these same issues
that were brought up on that project still exist on this project. So, I just want to at least try
to refresh your memory on that previous project and let you know that we did work very
well together and we got to the finish line. So, I will just stop my-- my grandstanding here
and, then, stand for any other questions you guys may have.
Fitzgerald: Bill, thank you. We always appreciate your perspective. It helps keep us
moving forward and keep us focused. So, thank you very much.
Cassinelli: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: I just -- if I could -- I guess questions answered, which -- which I appreciate. I
just wanted to make some comments, too, on this and that was good hearing -- hearing
Bill's perspective. I do like --there is a lot of elements about this that I like that are unique.
I looked at some of the applicant's other projects throughout the -- the country and I think
they bring a -- I think they bring a refreshing aspect that -- we seem to get stuck in some
of the same things here in Meridian by the same developers doing projects over and over
and over again. It's kind of a rubber stamp. Nothing unique. And I think this brings some
unique aspects. So, I -- I'm 0- you know, I appreciate the comments from staff and I don't
normally like to -- you know -- and I totally respect staff and -- and what they do and their
-- their passion and heart for doing things right. I -- I -- there is -- there is a lot of things I
like about this. The only thing that I -- to me is this a public -- Public Works issue that
needs to be resolved and -- and I don't like -- you know, I'm -- I like having the complete
package, so I'm a little -- I am disappointed that we didn't get it with -- with all those
questions answered already. So, we are not trying to have to figure out how we move,
but I did want to comment that I really like a lot of the aspects. I like -- I do like the
commercial -- all that commercial tight together, because it does keep it -- it keeps it
together instead of being spread about. But in my opinion what we really need to do is,
obviously, figure out that Public Works aspect and I don't know if just that condition is
good enough for that. But those are -- those are my thoughts right now.
Fitzgerald: So, Commissioner Cassinelli, I wholeheartedly agree with you and I think that
I love the productivity that's literally getting built down the street from me off of Black Cat.
So, I totally agree with your comments. I think this is a unique product that is needed in
our area and I don't think we would probably have a problem. I just want to make sure
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F42
Page 39 of 110
we have all our ducks in a row and -- and I'm not saying that you guys don't, I'm just
saying we don't have all the information we need to -- from our team possibly to make a
good decision. So, it has nothing to do with design of the project in my opinion right now,
it's making sure that we have all our information. So, if it's the commissioner-- if you feel
comfortable with the aspects that Joe's laid out in the conditions, I just -- my concern is
looking at the response from the applicant we have five pages of response with -- that are
basically -- we don't -- that they don't agree with a lot of the conditions that are in there.
So, we are going to need to sit down for a while here and work through five pages of
response and what I think maybe we could possibly -- as Bill suggested, continue this to
the 7th of January, which is only two weeks away and I know that it's the holidays and I
will let-- Deb, I will let you comment on this, but we don't have very much on that calendar
-- let you guys sit down with -- with the team of our-- of staff, finalize all this stuff and give
us a package that we know we can be proud of and move forward without any real issue
and we can feel like we are doing our job for City Council. Deb, would love -- would love
your feedback there.
Nelson: Mr. Chairman, appreciate the opportunity to weigh in on it. Now, obviously, we
don't want more delay. It's been a long process and we did come forward with a fully
complete site plan. But we understand your concern of wanting the Public Works item to
be resolved and -- and resolved in a way that it's been for you that you know the site plan
that you like is going to happen and so if we could limit the deferral to not open everything
back up and just be to -- you know, confirm the Public Works, we would ask that of you if
we could, to consider that, so that it is truly just to get that last item pinned down. That
would be our request. That we -- we would just appreciate everything we can to move
forward in a timely way and not, you know, revisit everything.
McCarvel: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Sorry. I never want to delay you guys. I know how much time and money
goes into your efforts. So, that's never my -- I don't want to delay you anymore than you
have to. Commissioner Holland, go right ahead.
Holland: I think that was Commissioner McCarvel speaking.
Fitzgerald: Oh, I'm sorry. Commissioner McCarvel. Sorry.
McCarvel: Yeah. Do we want to discuss some of the other things before issuing the
continuance and do we want to do public testimony tonight or on the continuance? Or is
there any?
Fitzgerald: I don't know if we have -- we didn't have any in the packets. I guess we need
to check and see. We can keep moving forward. I -- I think we all -- I don't want to speak
for everybody, but I -- I mean I think we -- we liked the design previously and we have
worked really well to get that over the finish line, as Bill said, and I think there is some --
I know Commissioner McCarvel, you probably-- you and I probably are on the same page
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F43]
Page 40 of 110
on where the commercial is and it sounds like Commissioner Cassinelli may be as well.
So, I'm happy --
McCarvel: Yeah. I like where the --
Fitzgerald: -- happy to do that and just work through it.
McCarvel: Yeah. I like where the commercial is. I also -- I agree I think with the applicant
about that unit in the back, about not having that being open space. I think it's probably
safer having the unit back there and, then, the subjective about the colors -- I actually like
the colors, even though there is not that many, I -- they caught -- there is a lot of contrast.
So, you know, it's -- to me it's better than having four pale colors, you know. The design
I think offered a lot of kind of-- you know, was pleasing. But I do -- yeah, I think if we get
that roundabout or just that entrance figured out and the Public Works. I think a lot of the
other stuff in it I like, so --
Seal: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal.
Seal: I mean I'm -- if it's alright I'm just going to go through the applicant's responses here
to the staff report and ask questions specific to that. So, on A-2 -- and, Joe, these --these
questions are kind of coming your way as -- and if -- if you are looking at the applicant's
response to A-2, what exactly -- I'm just trying to get a better understanding of exactly
what that means and their response, to make sure that we have got the rest of this.
Because there is five pages of it here. Two pages are basically as explanation and some
of the rest of it is, you know, dotting I's and crossing T's in my opinion. I just want to make
sure that, you know, like A-2, A-15, B-2-9, that those responses from the applicant are
acceptable.
Dodson: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Go ahead, Joe.
Dodson: Thank you, sir. Commissioner Seal, sure. The -- how do I put this here? I got
to read their specific recommend -- or request there.
Seal: Yeah. Sorry. To put you on a spot, but it's --
Dodson: No problem.
Seal: -- there is just a lot of info here and I want to make sure that, you know, if we do
move forward with this that it's informed.
Parsons: Mr. Chair, this is Bill. I would suggest that we let Joe review the applicant's
response. Let's get through the public hearing portion. Let's open this up for public
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F44
Page 41 of 110
testimony and finish that and, then, we can let Deb have a rebuttal and, then, Joe -- and,
then, we can attack any of those other applicant's response and conditions and that if we
-- that way you can make -- either get prepared to make a decision or make a
recommendation to continue, deny, approve, whatever it may be, but let's -- let's just form
a final -- follow the process first and, then, we can circle back on that applicant's rebuttal
and answer some of those questions for you.
Fitzgerald: Thanks, Joe and Bill.
Parsons: You're welcome.
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal, does that work for you?
Seal: Yes.
Fitzgerald: Because that -- I think that's my concern is that we are going to be here for
another two hours walking through this and that's what I want to see before we get here.
In normal circumstances we are -- we have a couple of items that are on -- we don't have
a five page list and that's my -- that's -- and I know we are slammed and staff's busy, but
that's -- usually we have most of that stuff worked out and we are on a couple of items,
so -- but let's -- yeah, let's keep processing forward. Anybody have any additional
questions for Deb at this point? If not, we will open the public hearing -- or open for public
testimony and, Deb, we will come back to you, so you can close and, then, we will fire
questions at Joe after that. Does that work, Commissioner Seal?
Seal: Possibly. My -- my only concern is that if we go through with the public testimony
and we come back, then, we have -- and we do move to continue it, then, we have to
condition that as well, so that we refine that into the smallest amount of hearing possible
the next go around.
Fitzgerald: That's -- I think that's Deb's request as well.
Seal: Okay. And that's -- that's my only concern. I think we are -- we are down to the
meat of it at this point in time. I think we are close. I think we are -- my opinion is we are
still far enough away that a continuance is there, but I just want to make sure that if we
go that route that, you know, we -- we do it with the smallest footprint as possible.
Fitzgerald: Absolutely. Makes sense. Any additional questions or comments at this
point? Okay. Deb, we will come back to you shortly, ma'am. Madam Clerk, is there
anyone who wishes to testify on this application?
Weatherly: Mr. Chair, there is not.
Fitzgerald: And if you are on Zoom, please, raise your hand via the Zoom application at
the bottom of the screen. Commissioner Grove, you are giving me a thumbs up that
nobody is there?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F45
Page 42 of 110
Grove: We have four people in the audience, but nobody's indicating to speak on this
one.
Fitzgerald: Yeah. Thank you. Okay. Commissioner Seal, do you want to walk through
with Joe or do you want me to have Deb to go ahead through and close? What would be
your preference? I want to make sure we run through --
Seal: Yeah. In the interest of time let's go ahead and have Deb wrap it up and, then, we
can have -- hear from Joe and I think we are ready to make a decision at that point.
Nelson: I will save you the time, because I know we do --we do want to work through the
conditions. We appreciate that effort. If you have questions of me I will answer them and
I would like to weigh in on any comments on the conditions as you walk through them,
but I think we have said what we need to say to support the development. Thank you
very much.
Fitzgerald: Deb, we appreciate it. Thank you so much. Joe, do you have some feedback
as -- I know you probably were speed reading, but you can start walking us through the
responses -- walk through this?
Dodson: Absolutely, Mr. Chair. The first one I understand where they are coming from
for A.2. I don't a hundred percent agree with the way that they are requesting to write it,
only because I do want -- and when we write these we do specifically want to note that
they need a rezone exhibit and legal descriptions to be revised. I'm assuming that--that's
presumed, but we also want that specifically written. If they want to take off the end,
because none of my recommended changes are going to be there, I'm perfectly fine.
don't -- I'm not going to -- I don't care. That's fine. So, basically, to say at least ten days
prior to Council hearing the applicant shall provide a revised plat and rezone exhibits and
legal descriptions of their requested R-15 and C-C zoning districts to eliminate any split
zoning, that's fine with me.
Nelson: Mr. Chairman, we would agree with that.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Thanks, Deb. Moving on to the next one, Joe.
Dodson: You want to go literally to the next one, A-5, or the ones that they are amenable
to, but want corrections? Which -- how are we doing this?
Seal: I -- the ones -- I mean the ones that I seek to understand specifically were the A-2,
A-15 and B-2-9, just to make sure that I understand what -- what that -- what the
implications are with that.
Dodson: Okay. All right. A-15. The applicant shall obtain certificate of zoning
compliance approval for the entire subject site prior to applying for any building permits.
That is in line with most multi-family and commercial projects. The point of having it for
the entire site is because it's a mixed use project. If -- I'm amenable to splitting it up
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F46
Page 43 of 110
between the residential -- one for the residential, one for the commercial. That -- that's
fine as well. That's also in line with the way that we do things if these happen to come in
separately. So, again, I -- when I wrote that condition it was just to go along with the fact
that it's one project. Granted, any approval garnered from this will also be the overarching
theme. So, it works both ways.
Parsons: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Bill, go ahead.
Parsons: I just want -- I just want to go back to that condition a little bit more and just get
explanation. Maybe even from the applicant. Is it your -- your intent to develop this in
two phases? Because that's how we would do that. Your commercial would have to
come in with a phase and, then, the residential could come in as one phase and you could
show us a phasing plan from -- until Council -- ten days prior to City Council give us your
phasing plan. But I know it's been our staff's experience that our City Council and even
P&Z would like to get some of those landscape improvements along the frontage, just to
kind of beautify the development and, then, hold off on the rest of the commercial pad
sites, but I don't know if the applicant is amenable to maybe even adding a condition that
if they do phase the development for the commercial, at least commit to doing the frontage
improvements along Ten Mile with the first phase, so that we get all that landscaping in
at one time.
Dodson: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Go ahead, Joe.
Dodson: I do have a condition already in there that requires that the frontage and
landscape improvements are done with phase one, even if there is not a phase, but in
general to have them done up front. So, I think we are covered there. But, then, to Bill's
point -- and thank you, Bill. I agree, yes. The other aspect of requiring a CZC for the
whole site is because this has not been presented to us as a phased development. So,
if they are going to develop the whole site at once, then, they should do one CZC and,
then, knowing that each individual pad site -- commercial pad site will also require a CZC
for that building and design review for those buildings.
Nelson: Mr. Chairman?
Fitzgerald: Deb, go ahead.
Nelson: We are amenable to providing that phasing plan as requested.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you. What was the -- B-9.
Dodson: Yes. B.2.9. Correct. So, this -- as I noted before, they are requesting to change
it to the same one that was written in for Modern Craftsman at Black Cat, which is the
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F47
Page 44 of 110
sister project to this. Again, the only reason that was changed before was because the
existing condition notes a final plat, which was not applicable and the other project is
applicable in this case, because this is a preliminary plat because of other legal issues
regarding whether or not the -- the type of parcel it is and whether it's been subdivided
before, et cetera. They have to do a preliminary plat. So, at final plat these other things
need to occur and that is one of those stop gaps that Public Works has to ensure that the
road base and the sewer and water systems and everything is approved and finalized
before the subdivision is recorded. Sorry. And that the final plat is recorded prior to
receiving any building permits. This is to ensure that we don't give building permits out
before all the public improvements are -- are there. That's -- that's why staff is not
amenable to changing that condition.
Nelson: Mr. Chairman?
Fitzgerald: Yeah. Go ahead.
Nelson: Can I just say thank you to the Commission for allowing us to do this. We can
agree to the -- the B-2-9 language as presented if we could -- our concern with the final
plat is that we would just like it to be approved, not recorded, because there is a significant
amount of development that occurs after approval and before recording with bonding and
so I think that would address our concerns and we don't have to go all the way back to
the same language. We had proposed that, because it had been approved by the city,
but I understand the concern that Joe's making, that there is a reason to not go all the
way to that language. If we could have that the final plat for the subdivision shall be
approved prior to applying for building permits, that allows us to move forward
expeditiously and in accordance with the city code that allows bonding.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you very much. So, I think that leaves maneuvering things
around. Is the -- and the open lot versus the buildable lot in the rear and, then, colors. Is
that my understanding? Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
Dodson: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Go right ahead, Joe.
Dodson: If I may make this easier for everybody, I will not fall on the sword for moving
the vertically integrated and/or removing that lot along the southwest. I understand the
explanations and the desires of the applicant. I think I have a better understanding now
than what I did, to be honest, which I appreciate it. Thank you, Deb. So, that is
understandable. I do still feel that having townhomes along Pine is somewhat of a better
transition than those detached units. I don't want to make them lose units. That's not my
intention either. If they could remove those 14 and maybe add -- add additional -- if they
did three of the townhomes that would be 18. So, they actually gain some. I could see
how that would work. Maybe even just two and, then, they lose two units, compared to
the 14. Again, part of that point is to help alleviate some of the utility concerns of having
garages or carports within the easement along the private street, which would not be an
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F48
Page 45 of 110
issue anymore if you have driveways abutting that street. So, again, as I said before, I
did not receive that e-mail that Mr. Bailey referenced, so he's right and I did not get that
-- I did receive a separate e-mail noting that, yes, we are a lot closer, but we are still not
a hundred percent clear how this is going to work and that hundred clear part is where I
have concern and so that's why I have that condition in the staff report, noting that at least
ten days prior, which I feel needs to be a very hard deadline that most applicants never
adhere to -- needs to be held to and so that we have adequate time to both review those
documents and also get a proper recommendation from Commission to Council. I think
that's very important. So, the other -- like I said, the -- the southwest unit, keep it. Fine.
Keep the vertically integrated where it is. Understandable. The colors. As I noted that
-- the point that I was trying to refer to is that the specific use -- or the architecture
standards manual says that no two multi-family buildings will be -- should look the same.
However, there is 135 units and multiple, multiple buildings in here. So, you can't have,
you know, 80 different looks. I understand that. My point is that both the Commission
and the Council last time around, the same color scheme, had noted that it tends to blend
together, which also is part of the mixed use policies. So, I can understand they are
contradictory somewhat, but my point of that was just to try to help get a little bit more
differentiation between the units, a little bit more pizazz, for lack of a better term, just to
help bring a little bit more life. Again, if the Commission feels differently, I understand
that as well. Maybe it gave me flashbacks to West Point. I don't know. Not a good time.
But it -- it makes sense, though, to keep them cohesive as well. I do understand that.
And, then, I don't -- I don't believe there were any other concerns, other than the internal
intersection, which, again, I would like to note has been brought up multiple times and we
were told to condition that. So, I -- that's what we did. So, that's where we are at with
that.
Fitzgerald: Joe, quick question on the -- the townhomes on the Pine side.
Dodson: Yes, sir.
Fitzgerald: If we had clarification from Public Works on -- on waterlines and -- would that
give us the ability to understand that better? And we don't have that right now. Would
that -- if we did have that at a later date would that help us or --
Dodson: Mr. Chair --
Fitzgerald: -- or does that need to be dealt with now?
Dodson: -- to address your -- I -- having their approval and, then, having all the plans
revised to reflect that would be very beneficial, yes, because I don't know if I said it
specifically, but the plans that were shown here -- at least in my presentation -- do not
reflect some of those easement changes that I also received in a separate document and
so my concern is that some of this may not be a hundred percent accurate. Again, I -- I
didn't draw these, so I can't make those changes. I don't know if they were that major. I
think some section of the roads were widened and that changed some things there and,
then, the placement of the garages, carports, changed as well, which is not reflected on
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F49
Page 46 of 110
any of the CUP plan or-- I don't know the parking plan, if that was updated or not, because
that wasn't in my set of plans. So, I think that having those all be reflected throughout
those site plans would be a benefit, yes.
Fitzgerald: Thank you.
Dodson: You are welcome, sir.
Fitzgerald: Additional comments or questions for Joe?
Nelson: Mr. Chairman, I apologize, are you looking for my feedback on those items?
Fitzgerald: I think we are just trying to see where we -- what we have left over and where
we can go. So, if you have additional comments, please, share them.
Nelson: I appreciate all the work by -- and cooperation with Joe and the work by the
Commission. It sounds to us like we can bring back for you before the 7th in time for you
to consider a full package on the 7th. We need to address the intersection. We need to
address the Public Works requirements and confirm that, in fact, they have approved our
plans. And we need to provide you the updated rezone and plat lines. And so with that
I think that we --we feel strongly that we can do all of that before your January 7th hearing,
so that you can just have those items remaining.
Fitzgerald: Thank you very much. Any additional questions for Deb before we close the
public hearing and -- or maybe not close the public hearing --
Grove: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: -- and deliberate.
Grove: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Grove, go right ahead.
Grove: Thanks. Hey, Deb, I had a question for you on something that we haven't really
discussed and, sorry, I don't want to drag this out any longer, but just in regards to the
vertical integrated unit that's in the center, one of the aspects that you had on the last
project on Black Cat and Chinden was integration with that vertically integrated product
more so with the open space and my question is how is that envisioned to work with that
open space that is next to it, but not necessarily behind it?
Nelson: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Grove, thanks for that question. So, the vertically
integrated space that we had at Black Cat was along Black Cat Road and it was separated
from the clubhouse by a road and it was actually separated from the big community plaza
area by the road, too. It was the pop up space that kind of opened right onto that plaza.
So, I think that might be what you are thinking of. But, in any case, we -- we actually like
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F50
Page 47 of 110
that -- the way that both of these vertically integrated buildings are oriented here. They
accommodate that kind of active streetscape with the parking that's available to serve
them, so you get that commercial activity, but also has the pedestrian pathway that runs
along both of them that is part of the -- like for the one on the north, the east-west
connection for those residences as they are moving toward the commercial area and,
then, you have the raised crosswalks or delineated crosswalks that are going to go just
next to that that connects on the side of that northern vertically integrated building and
same when you look at the one that's central. It's next to the open space, the park on
one side, on the other you have got the raised crosswalk that goes across and in the
middle you have got the larger crosswalk that goes over to the two central plazas. So,
it's not facing the big plaza in the same direct way as that the pop up was, but it is fully
surrounded by connectivity on all sides.
Grove: Okay. Thank you. Appreciate that.
Fitzgerald: Any additional follow up, Commissioner Grove?
Grove: No.
Fitzgerald: Any additional questions for Deb at this time? Deb, you are awesome. Thank
you so much for working through it with us and we will have a chat and we will go from
there. Before we close the public hearing, do we have a direction we want to head? It
sounds like Deb knows where they need to go. Do we feel comfortable bringing it back
on the 7th of January with that information? Is there anything else you would like her to
take into account or do we want to deliberate on anything further?
Holland: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland.
Holland: I have a list of things that I wrote down from all the comments if you want me to
read through them and see if we are hitting all the marks.
Fitzgerald: Yes, ma'am. Go right ahead.
Holland: Okay. I have, first of all, A-2, that we would revise the staff report to have the
applicant provide a revised plat for lots and zone lines. A-15. That the applicant will
phase the commercial and do the frontage improvements with the first phase. B-2.9.
That the final plat should be approved prior to building permit, not necessarily prior to
being recorded. We would remove the condition to relocate the vertically integrated
structures and leave them where they are. That we would have the applicant revisit with
staff on the types of units that are against Pine. That was a request by Bill. The color
palette is still an item of discussion if we want to include something about that. I -- I'm
okay with the color palette, the way that it is, but we could put a condition in there that the
applicant would consider an additional color palette or accent that could help with
differentiation. Confirm with Public Works on meeting their needs with this application
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F51
Page 48 of 110
and, then, the last thing I had was adjust the layout to show a revised roundabout or
alternative intersection in the entrances around the commercial.
Fitzgerald: Sounds right to me. Commissioner Seal, go right ahead.
Seal: That's -- it's like she was looking at my notes. But very similar notes. The only
thing -- I agree with -- and maybe it's because I have lived on military housing as well, so
-- I mean I know in the beginning with the contrast that's there, it all looks shiny brand
new and everything, but over time that's going to -- it's going to look like Army housing,
you know. Navy housing. So, I just don't think there is -- there is enough color -- there is
enough different -- different -- difference in there for sure, as far as what's built and how
it's built and how it's put together and presented, but the color palette to me needs to be
expanded to provide something a little bit less earthy in areas where applicable.
Fitzgerald: Thoughts on the lot in the back? I know I heard Commissioner McCarvel's
opinion on that. I -- I have mixed emotions, because I think it is a great spot for open
space, even if it is in the back. So, I'm -- and it's kind of a weird spot without seeing a lot
there. But I'm kind of -- I'm indifferent. So, any additional thoughts there?
Grove: Mr. Chair?
Holland: Mr. Chair, I'm kind of indifferent on it as well.
Grove: Mr. Chair, I -- I think it's hard to fully make a decision, just because we don't know
what's to the west of it and so knowing if it -- how open that would look from -- from a
police perspective, I think that would be -- it's somewhat hard to make a full decision on
that in that -- in that regard.
Fitzgerald: Maybe we could ask Joe to get Meridian Police Department's opinion on that
sort of change, if they have an opinion.
Holland: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Yeah.
Holland: One other thought is if we did leave that as open space it might be nice to have
some sort of specific amenity to it that would help prevent crime-related type uses. Like
potentially it could be a good dog park location, if you had a fenced area, or -- I don't
know. Something that's a little more visible, so it's not -- not a danger zone.
Fitzgerald: Yeah.
Holland: And I'm okay with keeping a lot there, too. It doesn't seem to be a conflict to
me.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F52
Page 49 of 110
Fitzgerald: Okay. With that I think we have given Deb direction and I think we have space
on our 7th -- July -- or January 7th calendar, so is there any other additional comments
or things we need to share with them, so they can make decisions and be able to finalize
everything to bring it back on a very limited public hearing package?
Parsons: Mr. Chair, is there any desire of the Commission to see commercial elevations
or are you in agreement with the applicant allowing that to happen when they actually
have an end user?
Fitzgerald: They are coming back with a CP or a CUP; right?
Parsons: For the drive-thru use, yes. It's going to depend on the proposed use in the
commercial zone, whether or not that's principally permitted or conditional use.
Fitzgerald: Thoughts, team?
Seal: I believe was -- A-11 was the one that was in there and I just -- well, no, that was
A-14. I don't have a note on that one. It seems like -- you know, if there were elevations
submitted, then, that seems to be covered. That said, there is -- I think there is a -- I don't
have any issues with them needing to submit elevations for that. If that's what they are
after. Between now and then.
Holland: Mr. Chair?
Dodson: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Grove, go right ahead.
Dodson: It was Commissioner Holland and, then, myself, but --
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland and -- it all forms into Commissioner Grove's voice.
that was awesome. Commissioner Holland, go right ahead, then, we will go to Joe.
Holland: Mr. Chair and Joe, one of my suggestions would be on the commercial
elevations that we could just make a note that says it would be something comparable to
what was shown on the flyover video. I felt like they did kind of show some sample
elevations in the way that the flyover came through, how the commercial would integrate
in. I don't know. That's just a thought.
Dodson: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Go ahead, Joe.
Dodson: Thanks, Commissioner Holland, I do understand that and that's kind of the point
of why I asked for that. It's not to say that this is what you shall build, it's just this is
annexation and a mixed use project, I'm not asking for something we don't always ask for
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F53
Page 50 of 110
with commercial projects, which is some type of conceptual elevations. More so as a
guide for future development. I do not plan on saying that these are the elevations that
will be built. It's more of just conceptual, so both Commission understands what's being
proposed and also Council. That's -- that was my only comment there.
Fitzgerald: Okay.
Holland: I'm fine adding that to the list.
Fitzgerald: Does somebody want to make a continuance motion, if that's the direction we
are headed, and try to make it as narrowly as possible to keep us where we -- we will
work with the applicant on these specific things and we can go from there?
Holland: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland.
Holland: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to continue
file number -- there is a lot of text here. H-2022-0099, Mile High Pines, to the hearing
date of January 7th for the following reasons: That the staff and would work with the
applicant and also make adjustments in the staff report on these items. A-2. That the
applicant would provide a revised plat to align lots and zone lines. A-15. Modify that the
applicant will phase the commercial and do frontage improvements with the first phase of
development, but that they would also provide conceptual elevations for what the
commercial could look like in the future. Modify B-2.9, that the final plat should be
approved prior to building permit, not necessarily before recording. That we would
remove the condition of relocating the vertically integrated structures and leave them
where they are. That the applicant would revisit with staff on the type of units that are
going to be placed against Pine and the transition there. That the applicant would
consider an additional color palette or some sort of accent within the site development
that could help with differentiation and breaking up the development. That the applicant
would -- or that staff would confirm with Public Works on meeting their needs with the
application and have that reported in the staff report. That the applicant would adjust the
layout to show a revised roundabout or alternative intersection in the entrance around the
commercial and I think that's it.
Fitzgerald: Nice work. I have a motion.
Grove: Second.
Seal: Second.
Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to continue -- if I can find it -- file number H-
2020-0099 to the hearing date of January 7th, 2021. All those in favor say aye. Any
opposed? Motion passes.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F54]
Page 51 of 110
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Fitzgerald: Deb, thank you guys. Joe, thanks for all your work. Appreciate it. We look
forward to seeing you on the 7th.
Nelson: Thank you. Merry Christmas.
Holland: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland.
Holland: One quick comment before we keep moving on. I know we still have three
applications to hear tonight. I'm a little bit nervous about the last application, that we
might lose some folks who had interest in public testimony before we even get to those
applications. Do we want to confirm with the clerk if we have -- or if we have people
signed up for public testimony on some of those last items, to see if we want to shuffle
things around?
Fitzgerald: Yeah. We can -- Madam Clerk, do we have public testimony on the last three
items? Can you give us some -- I don't want to -- I mean I understand what you are
saying. What I want to say is that we can call it when we think we need to and that's not
putting any pressure on -- but I also want to make sure the public gets their time and they
have spent some time with us tonight. But if we are feeling like we can't go further than
the next two, I want to make sure we do that now. So, thank you for bringing that up.
Madam Clerk, do you have thoughts there?
Weatherly: Mr. Chair, since we are doing in person and online, I have some signup sheets
that I have to run and get from the back. Preliminary information shows that I do have
only -- on the next three applications I have a few people that have signed up for the
Southridge South application. Give me 30 seconds and I will be right back to give you
more information.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Does anybody need a real quick break?
Cassinelli: This might be a good time to take one.
Fitzgerald: Yeah. While she's doing that let's do a three minute break or a bio break and
get some water and we will be back in -- at 8:37.
(Recess: 8:34 p.m. to 8:38 p.m.)
Fitzgerald: We are mostly back. Madam Clerk, do you have more information for us?
Weatherly: Mr. Chair, I do. So, for Daphne Square I have a few people that are in house
wishing to testify on that project. On Cache Creek I have one person in house wishing to
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F55]
Page 52 of 110
testify on that project. On Southridge South I don't have anybody signed up in house to
testify on that project, but I do have one or two people online wishing to testify.
Fitzgerald: I think we need to keep plowing forward, especially if we have people in
chambers on the next two. So, if is there a time when we -- if you have a situation where
you need to get off, let us know and we can make sure we have a quorum. But let's see
how far we can get. Commissioner Holland, I know you are in a situation where the little
one may need you, too. So, keep us in the loop and we will keep plowing forward until
you -- and we have a quorum -- over a quorum right now, so if there is a situation where
you needed to hop off, we totally understand. But let's see how far we can get and let me
know if there is -- if there is a concern from you or from other Commissioners and we will
go from there. Does that work?
Holland: Sounds good. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
6. Public Hearing for Daphne Square Subdivision (H-2020-0101) by Matt
Schultz of Schultz Development, Located 4700 W. McMillan Rd.
A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 4.97 acres of land with an R-15
zoning district.
B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 30 building lots and 3
common lots on 4.97 acres of land in the proposed R-15 zoning
district.
Fitzgerald: Yeah. Thank you. With that let us move on to the next item on our agenda.
I think we have everybody back. The next item on the agenda is Daphne Square
Subdivision, file number H-2020-0101 and let's start with the staff report. Alan, are you
available?
Tiefenbach: Good evening, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. If you can hear me
and see my presentation give me a thumbs up.
Fitzgerald: You're good, sir. Go right ahead.
Tiefenbach: So, this is a proposal for annexation and rezoning to R-15 and a preliminary
plat to allow 30 building -- 30 building lots and three common lots. The site is 4.97 acres
of land. It's presently zoned RUT in unincorporated Ada county and it's located at 4700
West McMillan Road. It's north -- northeast corner of North Black Cat and West McMillan.
You can see the future land use map there. It recommends medium density residential.
You can see the zoning map in the middle and the aerials. We will start with the plat here.
So, the property presently contains an existing manufactured home that will be removed.
This proposal includes mostly duplexes, in addition to several single family attached
structures. Staff does believe this is a housing plat that would lead to more diversity in
housing, as a majority of the housing in this area is single family residential. I will put this
out. It's easier to see this color probably plat. There is two points of access proposed.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F56
Page 53 of 110
The first is an internal street that's here. It goes to the north to Brody Square, which was
approved I think in July. It comes up to Daphne Street and, then, you can either go east
down to McMillan or you can go west to North Black Cat. Only one street, which is this
one here, will serve the internal development and this one dead ends in a cul-de-sac. So,
Black Cat and West McMillan have presently two lanes. They don't contain any sidewalks
at the present. The applicant is required to dedicate right of way for future widening and
the construction of a five foot sidewalk. These are the same width that would connect
with properties that have been approved -- the Brody Square to the north, as well as
properties to the west. They are also -- it's important to note that there is a roundabout
-- a future roundabout that is planned at this intersection here. The applicant has provided
a parking exhibit, which indicates 30 additional on-street spaces. This is in addition to the
two car garages and the two car driveways that are shown for all units. So, each unit has
two -- like I said, two car drive -- two car garage and here is a parking plan which shows
that in addition to that, above what's required, they have 30 parking spaces. This is the
applicant's common open space exhibit. So, this property is less than five acres in size.
This means that per our standards it does not have to meet the minimum -- the common
open space and amenity requirements. However, this is an annexation and the applicant
proposes the density that's at the high end of the MDR range. Again, the range is three
to eight dwelling units per acre. The applicant proposes six. Staff informed the applicant
that in order for staff to support a density and size of R-15, this development should
contain quality open space and amenities. If not, perhaps a lower density, such as R-8,
would be more appropriate. The landscape plan indicates 12 percent of open space,
amenity of a 5,600 square foot lot, which you can see right here, and staff is not convinced
that this project -- that this project actually proposes 12 percent common open space.
The reason why is, first of all, it counts the buffers twice. You can only count the
landscape buffers along Black Cat and McMillan as one half. So, that's counted as one
half. But it also looks like that they might be counting the parkways that are along this as
well, which is kind of double counting. The other thing is that the parkways that you can
see along Riva Capri Street, those are the detached sidewalks. You can't count the
driveways and this exhibit here, from what you are seeing, shows that those driveways
are being counted. And the last thing is that there is a -- as we mentioned there is a
roundabout that is eventually proposed at the Black Cat-McMillan Road intersection and
we don't know how much of this landscaping at the end of that cul-de-sac this project is
going to lose, but we do think that that could happen. We would really want to see what
this project will look like after that roundabout and after the right of way is dedicated. But
also I guess staff's opinion is that the -- the common open space that they are proposing
here is directly on the intersection of North Black Cat and the West McMillan. Staff doesn't
believe that a park or a bench directly on this intersection would be considered quality
open space, something that the residents would use. So, staff's recommendation -- there
is a retention pond, which is shown up here -- let me back up and you can see it here.
So, there is a retention basin that's shown here. One of staff's recommendations is that
these two lots could be merged into one larger open space and this could serve as a
quality open space. Per the code if it is more than five acres, if they were using the
retention basin, then, they would have to provide at least 20,000 square foot of additional
space. In this particular case this is much less, but we do think it would be usable. Again,
staff's -- staff's thoughts on this is that they are proposing to go to R-15, which is pretty
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F57
Page 54 of 110
dense. That's pretty high on the recommendation, but staff's opinion is that if they don't
provide a good quality open space for the residents, we would probably recommend
something lower, otherwise R-8. Here is a picture of the elevations if you would like to
see them. With that -- really that's our -- our only major issue is the merging of the two
lots into the detention basin and with that staff recommends approval of the conditions as
listed in the staff report.
Fitzgerald: Thanks, Alan. We appreciate it. Are there any questions for Alan at this
point? Okay. Hearing none, thanks, Alan. We appreciate that. Would the applicant like
to come forward or join us -- I think Matt's online. Matt, I see you -- thanks, Alan. Matt,
can you unmute yourself and turn your video on if you would like and you can join us.
Matt, are you with us, sir?
Schultz: I am with you.
Fitzgerald: Hey, sir. Good evening.
Schultz: Get the light off my face. It's a little bright. That's a little better. All right.
Fitzgerald: Please introduce yourself and the floor is yours, sir.
Schultz: Thank you, Commissioners. Matt Schultz. 8421 South Ten Mile in Meridian.
Here on behalf of Berkeley Communities for the Daphne Square Subdivision. Thanks for
having me and staying up a little late. It's a pretty small little site that -- that Joe Atalla
brought to me and said, hey, what can we do with this and even though it says 4.97, it's
really about 3.75. It has an extraordinary right of way requirement being on a corner. I
have done some other 4.97 sites -- acre sites that all the right of way was already taken
out. This is not one of them. So, it's a really constrained site in terms of what can you do
with it. We have had a similar one with Berkeley a few years ago --three years ago called
Bancroft Square by Sutherland Farm. It was a cul-de-sac and your open space tends to
be on the end of the cul-de-sac and -- or, if not, you are -- you are just losing lots to lose
lots and I would be remiss to -- to do so without at least giving some other options and so
I want to speak to that. But first I would like to kind of go to the -- the big picture of where
our site is and how it relates to Brody Square to the north that was approved over the
summer previous to us, because, really, this is like a phase two of Brody Square and that
our access relies on it, because we cannot take access off of Black Cat and McMillan any
longer with the intersection being right there and we rely on their sewer, their water, their
-- everything. And they are -- they are out there right now tearing down some houses and
getting going and -- and we hope to kind of come along a few months behind them and
do phase two. So, if -- I don't know if Alan or somebody can put -- can you put up that --
or if I can take control of the presentation to where I can scroll forward a little bit.
Tiefenbach: You should be able to share your screen there, Matt. You should have the
option to do that.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F58
Page 55 of 110
Schultz: Okay. Share screen. All right. Well, I have never shared a screen before,
so --
Tiefenbach: There you go.
Schultz: All right. All right. All right. I'm little bit -- you are screen sharing. Okay. I'm
not seeing anything --
Tiefenbach: I think it's to your computer desktop right now.
Schultz: Okay. You were going to put up -- you were going to put some of your slides. I
gave you a couple of them. I didn't have them -- I didn't have them uploaded and ready
to go, those ones that I sent you.
Weatherly: Mr. Chair, Matt, this is Adrienne. I can help you. Which one do you want?
Schultz: The one that shows both of Brody Square and -- it's green and white. It just has
green open space and white. I apologize. I need to be more sophisticated.
Fitzgerald: No worries. Matt, you can stop sharing your screen, that will give Adrienne
back the screen.
Schultz: Stop share. There we go.
Weatherly: Okay. Commissioners, this is a pdf, so I'm trying to maneuver it, so that you
can see everything here. One moment.
Fitzgerald: Thank you, ma'am.
Weatherly: Matt, tell me if this is the right one that you are thinking of.
Schultz: It is. Great. Thank you. So, you can see the -- the bottom -- the bottom
rectangle down there is our five acres and the top bigger rectangle is Brody Square, which
is 15 acres and this -- this whole 20 acres is about a mile away to the west of Walmart.
About a mile and a half from Heroes Park. There are some R-15 and R-8. Of course,
Brody Square is R-8. There is some R-15 across the street. We believe that R-15 is
appropriate in this location due to the constrained location. We need some dimensional
flexibility. The densities -- I would say only six for R-15, especially the medium density is
three to eight. Six is in the middle. We are definitely not in the high end of -- of that
medium density. I thought it was important to show how we compare -- or how we
connect, how we integrate with Brody Square with their -- we have the same statistics as
far as percentage of usable open space. Theirs is, obviously, bigger, because they had
a bigger site and a bigger area to work with. We -- we have -- if you look at a combined
density of both of our sites, they had 4.3. We have six. There are -- combined is -- thank
you. The combined is 4.7, which is that fourth line there. Excuse me. Third line that says
density. You can also see the percent of right of way on ours is 25 percent, which is quite
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F59
Page 56 of 110
large. And perimeter right of way. I have never had a site, I don't think, with that large of
a right of way. So, kind of our net acres is 3.72 and the qualified open space percentages
are very similar. So, really, what we are getting down to is even though we are under five
acres, we are still providing over the ten percent and we are still providing an amenity.
Now, staff is wanting a little bit bigger open space and to us to relocate the amenity and
we are open to that. With that said, if you can go back to that overall look, please. Like I
said, we are like a phase two of Brody Square in terms of timing, integration, access. I
know Mr. Atalla is working with the other owner as far as potentially joining HOAs
together, cost sharing on pressure irrigation, even buying lots inside Brody Square, in
addition to developing Daphne Square. This is a very similar situation to the Bancroft
Square next to Sutherland Farm that we did where we proposed -- kind of thinking a little
bit outside of the box here, a condition that we replace number -- condition number two,
which is that we reload -- that we combine Lot 28, 29, Block 1, into Lot 30, with -- maybe
that's our second alternative, but our first alternative would be to locate a playground
amenity in Brody Square on the east side of that park and if that can't happen, then, we
would put an amenity at the -- at our intersection, instead of at the end of the cul-de-sac
and that's something that I know this Commission has done before and allowed when we
are joining or there is the potential to join, those things take time and we would definitely
work all that out or we would build an amenity at the intersection. Do we need to lose two
lots? I don't think so. I think we do with one extra one right next to that and still have
ample open space. But if we can't get to the bigger playground amenity in Brody Square,
which I don't see why we wouldn't, it's going to add value not only to Brody Square, but
to us. It's going to be better centrally located to the entire 20 acres. It's just a better plan
and I think with the -- with our five acres we kind of get down in the -- in the details and,
then, to kind of zoom in on it -- and I understand where staff is coming from, but I think
there is probably a better option. It's a third option than either we have presented, what
they proposed, and, hey, here is a third option that I think would work out better for
everybody. As far as the open space percentages, we did -- we did doublecheck those
and we have 1 ,200 feet of park strips internal and that was a choice that we did. We
didn't have to do it. Only 40 percent of that is counted because of driveways and our
open space exhibit does say that, it says minus driveways. So, that was -- that was
accounted for. We think it's a good product. It's got some good diversity. Berkeley's a
good -- a good home builder. He's an architect. He's done some nice elevations and,
like I said, the size -- condition two and condition three we do agree with staff's
recommendation for approval and staff's conditions. Condition three is that we show the
roundabout. We have --we have dropped a template of ACHD's roundabout in there and
we have room. Roundabouts are very specialized designs. This is like ten years out.
would hate to lock in on an exact design of what that looks like, knowing that even if they
took 5,000 square feet out, we would still be over ten percent. We have ample room. We
are giving 61 feet on McMillan of right of way, when typically you will see 48. So, we are
already giving an extra width. We are also giving extra width on Black Cat. We are at 50
to account for that roundabout, whatever it may be in that location, and there may be a
little wedge that comes out in the corner, but it's -- it's -- it's pretty much going to fit and
we would hate to get locked in in an exact design when there is no exact design right
now. ACHD does not have a design. They have a template that doesn't work at this
specific location, because some offsets are going to have to be required. There is going
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F60]
Page 57 of 110
to be some value engineering about power poles and canals and there is some other
things that are outside of our-- our site that need to be taken into account with that design,
but it's going to take a lot of time and a lot of money for ACHD to determine that. But in
the meantime we have dedicated -- or we are going to dedicate ample right of way and
before final plat maybe they will have a better design. But, like I said, this isn't even on
their -- on their ten year plan right now I don't believe. So, we think it's a good design.
We think it's the right location. We think it's a good mix with Brody Square. It integrates
very well we believe. I think it's -- because of the constraints of the site this density isn't
-- isn't too bad or offensive, if you will, and I think it blends in very well with what we got
and depending on -- especially in this location. So, I will stand for any questions. Thank
you.
Fitzgerald: Thanks, Matt. Are there any questions for Matt at this time? Commissioner
Cassinelli?
Cassinelli: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Go right ahead.
Cassinelli: Matt, is this -- is this a rental product or not?
Schultz: Is it -- oh, hi, Commissioner Cassinelli. I don't believe so. It could, but I don't
believe -- that's not his intent. His -- Mr. Atalla and Berkeley Builders sell these. They
are a zero lot line. Now they are not -- even though they are attached they are --they are
individual lots per unit with a zero lot line between them, except for there is a couple of
single family detached where we don't have an even -- an even lot count in the block,
there is one on the end that's a single on a couple of the blocks. But they are -- they
could rent, but at the price point and everything else, I don't think so.
Cassinelli: Okay. And, then, another question if I could.
Fitzgerald: Go right ahead.
Cassinelli: The -- the lots on the north side that back up to -- is it Brody Square on the
north?
Schultz: It is.
Cassinelli: You got two to one and those are -- you know, two story product there,
overlooking -- you know, you got one lot with two two story homes, what can we -- you
know, is there anything that -- have you looked at -- at that transition along there? I'm not
-- I would like to see a little bit -- I would like to see it a little thinner.
Schultz: If I could, Mr. Cassinelli, just respond to that. There is eight lots in Brody Square
backing up to our side. We have got one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine,
ten, 11, 12 -- they are going to look like six buildings from the back, because they are
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F61
Page 58 of 110
attached. It's going to look like six structures versus their eight structures. So, we -- and
even talking to the other -- the other developer, he didn't see that as being a big deal,
because they were attached, they won't -- they won't look like a bunch -- it won't look like
two to one, even though it is two to one, because of their width and efficiency. So, that's
-- that's how we are looking at it. You may still not like that, but that's -- it is actually less
structures backing up to their more structures.
Cassinelli: So, on that how close to the -- to the rear lot line are those? Do you have
something that --
Schultz: I do. We have--we have looked at--we have looked at our layouts and because
we chose to put the park strips in the front of these, it actually pushes your house ten feet
back and at that we are meeting the 12 foot setback. If we did not do the park strips and
pull the sidewalk and made it attached in the front, we would have 22 feet -- or 22 and a
half feet, something like that. And so we do meet setbacks in there and they have 50 foot
wide lots. Probably some two -- a lot of two stories as well. So, it will probably be two
story to two story.
Fitzgerald: Follow up, Commissioner Cassinelli?
Cassinelli: No, that -- that answers it. Thank you.
Holland: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland.
Holland: Matt, I'm just curious. It's kind of along the same lines of what Commissioner
Cassinelli just asked you, but would you consider doing a single family product that backs
up to the existing single family that will be in the new -- in the other developments in the
north of you and, then, doing your more dense product on the bottom where you have it?
But would you be willing to adjust the northern part of that to do single family on that part,
instead of your attached product? Just to create a better transition between those houses.
Does that make sense what I'm asking?
Schultz: Oh, it absolutely makes sense what you are asking. It's not my subdivision.
Yeah. I know that -- I know that Mr. Atalla likes this product. It's something that he thinks
complements it, but if that's your recommendation we would certainly go for the --
hopefully City Council with that recommendation that we convert that. Obviously, I think
it would -- I mean if-- if you did 40 foot lots -- I don't know if you are looking to go one for
one 50 foot lots, because once you get to 40 they are detached.
Holland: You know, looking at it just first glance the way that it compares, I think one of
my recommendations might be to have the lot lines match up and do single family --
Schultz: Okay.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F62
Page 59 of 110
Holland: -- on that northern boundary and, then, leave more of the attached product on
the bottom side, but maybe that would help with the transition there. Because to me I
look at that and it looks like a lot of density compared to the other project and I think -- I
would agree with staff that I would rather see R-8 or R-4 there to tie in with the future use
maps calling for with medium density housing there.
Schultz: Right. Commissioner Holland, R-4 would definitely not -- be like 90 by 90s or
something to hit the R-4. Probably be the reverse transition that we are looking for from
that intersection. R-8 definitely is -- definitely within your purview. That would be -- if we
did 40s in there we would lose probably three or four lots in that area right there to -- to
get those in there. With the same setbacks -- same setbacks allowed in R-4 -- not R-4.
Excuse me. R-8 and R-15. They are the same regarding setbacks.
Fitzgerald: Follow up? Oh, is that -- oh. Okay. Any additional questions?
Seal: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal.
Seal: Just listening to the applicant's testimony earlier about the roundabout that's going
in there, as I'm looking over the -- the ACHD final report and in condition 2.13 in there they
actually have -- and it is a very rudimentary drawing of how the roundabout would fit into
that intersection and it actually looks like it -- well, it doesn't look like they are actually
recommending that more offset -- let me see here. How do they word it? Applicant shall
be required to dedicate additional right of way to accommodate the future construction of
the multi-lane roundabout and they show an attachment on there. Has -- have you used
that basically as, you know, essentially that kind of template to apply to what's being
submitted? Because as I'm looking at that it's going to take a substantial piece of that
corner away.
Schultz: Right. Staff and ACHD dropped that in there really quick. When they do these
roundabout designs they probably spend about four or five months and about a hundred
thousand dollars designing them with civil engineers and survey and everything else and
there is ways to rotate those, so the -- the legs curve a little more efficiently around there.
They didn't do us any favors by how they dropped that in there, but that was definitely not
a design drawing. They will be required to be shifted -- shifted over to the west, probably
shifted up a little bit to the north. We have preliminarily dropped a template in there and
there is a little bit of a cut on the corner, but there is more right of way there than it looks
like. It's not an apples to apples comparison of the aerial overlay that you are seeing and
our-- and our site plan, but-- but it fits -- it fits into right of way. We are giving exceptional
right of way beyond and they said, yes, you are going to need to do a little -- you know, a
little bit of additional right at the corner, but we have -- we have room there for them to
take a little bit out of that corner.
Holland: Mr. Chair, one more question.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F63]
Page 60 of 110
Fitzgerald: Go right ahead.
Holland: It's -- it's kind of untraditional to have a cul-de-sac be on the hard corner of two
major roadways. I have seen it done a few times in other subdivisions, too, but it's -- it's
kind of atypical. Is there going to be significant landscaping, fencing, that kind of goes
around that cul-de-sac and the open space?
Schultz: Yes. Absolutely. I know we have submitted a landscape plan -- a color
landscape plan and it will be berm and there is significant landscaping in our landscape
plan there to where it's not going to be, hey, you can see the cul-de-sac on -- from the
main road. It's going to be bermed up, trees and shrubs and bushes. Fencing. As you
can see there. That's the intent. And, really, it's because there is -- there is no access
allowed that close to the intersection, obviously, that -- that we have that cul-de-sac there
at the end, which -- which happens sometimes on certain projects. Not a lot, but it
happens sometimes.
Fitzgerald: Following up on Commissioner Holland's comments. Matt, if that roundabout
is built there and it eats into that -- all that landscaping, how close can we talk about it
getting to the -- to the roundabout? It seems like that eats the landscaping completely.
Schultz: Well, again, that -- that diagram that was shown there was -- it didn't do any
justice to how that might land there, especially the final design work. But if it ate in there
like maybe ten, 15 feet, there is -- there is 25 within the common lot and, then, there is
more north of that -- 30 to 40 feet there, where 25 is required. So, there is -- there is quite
a bit of room there. There is more than it looks like for these -- these roundabouts and,
really, it's -- like I said, it's a four intersection design that they get into in there and what's
funny is the next application up -- we have a site that's right on a hard corner where they
have done 99 percent drawings and you can see exactly how it worked and these are --
but this one is -- which they are building next year. This one is not even on the ten year
plan right now.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you. Additional questions for Matt at this point?
Seal: Mr. Chair, just --
Fitzgerald: Yes, go right ahead.
Seal: -- I had one quick question. Well, just to the applicant when --what's your timeline
for trying to essentially merge the two HOAs and provide for that, you know, kind of phase
two go of it?
Schultz: We-- how we have worded these before is, you know, prior to final plat signature
shall prove that you have joined -- or have an agreement to put the amenity in there --
you know, whatever it may be or join the HOA, that we wouldn't have initially have to join
the HOA, but, obviously, it would make it cleaner as far as use and all that -- be a cross
use, cross-access. On the -- on Bancroft Square it was prior to final plat show
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F64
Page 61 of 110
documentation that you have -- you have done the merger or have an agreement to do
the merger and that was -- that was enough for the city attorney and the staff on that one.
Their idea being that we want to do it as soon as we can. You know, if we can get it
worked out in the next month we would.
Fitzgerald: And, Matt, that was just to clarify. That was -- you would remove the gazebo
concept and move whatever it may be.
Schultz: Yeah. Exactly.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Got you. Commissioner Cassinelli, did you have another question?
Cassinelli: No.
Fitzgerald: Okay.
Cassinelli: My last one just got answered.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you.
McCarvel: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel, go right ahead.
McCarvel: Can we get that visual back up on the white and green with the two
subdivisions back to back? I just want to look again if those -- yeah. If you are really
looking at --
Fitzgerald: If there are 30 foot versus 50 foot lots.
McCarvel: Right. But they will be one structure for over the line.
Fitzgerald: Oh, yes.
McCarvel: Yeah. I mean this visual -- what -- the other thing that kind of stands out to
me, Matt, is just taken on the entry there where you have got the three lots, you know,
coming right in a row from the single family. That's to the north of it. Coming right in on
that -- on the entry there. It looks kind of -- maybe continue just the single family, make
that one or two lots right there. I'm not sure how wide that would make those --
Schultz: Fifty's.
McCarvel: Yeah.
Schultz: Fifty, probably.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F65]
Page 62 of 110
McCarvel: Yeah. I mean -- and you don't notice it until you put the overview on it, but --
but that might look a little more appealing driving down that street if those were all in line.
Fitzgerald: Any additional comments or questions for Matt at this point? Okay. Hearing
none, Matt, we will be back to you and let you close after we take public testimony. Thank
you, sir. Madam Clerk, it sounds like you have people in -- in the audience that would
like to testify on this application.
Weatherly: Mr. Chair, I do. First would be David -- is it Pera?
Pera: Mr. Chairman. My name is David Pera -- oh, I'm sorry. Commissioners. I live on
Daphne Street. I am the vice-president of the Beach Lateral water users and we have
been working with Brody Square on their irrigation. We have live irrigation there. We
flood. We all have five acre pieces. So, there's water ditches and there is wastewater
ditches that flow right through Daphne Square. We haven't had any contact from the
developer yet or anybody about what they plan on doing with this water. So, we are just
asking that they come to us with some kind of plan, so we can go over it and approve it,
talk to them and see what we can do to make everything work. Like I said, we have
almost got everything done with Brody Square. I don't see any difference, but we just --
we need to get something from them.
Fitzgerald: Sir, thank you so much for being here tonight. We will make sure they answer
that. They are required to make sure that water flows through their -- their site and so we
will -- we will make sure Matt answers that when he comes back up. But, yeah, the water
definitely will continue to flow through the property and so they will make sure that that's
taken care of. We appreciate you sticking with us tonight.
Pera: Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Fitzgerald: Thank you, sir.
Weatherly: Mr. Chair, next is Mrs. Corbell.
Fitzgerald: Good evening, ma'am. Please state your name and your address for the
record and we will -- the floor is yours.
Corbell: I beg your pardon? Lanelle Corbell. 4520 West McMillan, Meridian. And if you
would put that plat back up. If you would put that plat back up that has the property lines
on it.
Fitzgerald: Madam -- there you go. Thanks, Adrienne.
Corbell: That long side east of Daphne Square is my property. I have ten acres. It
borders right on Brody Square and Daphne Square. It was my understanding that there
would be that one street that would go along by my property line. We have livestock. We
have ten acres. We have livestock. We are not in the Meridian city limits. I'm going to
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F66
Page 63 of 110
have to have some kind of a substantial protection on that property line for my livestock.
Also we depend completely on the irrigation to keep our grass for our livestock and that's
a main irrigation line on McMillan Road that goes all the way down to the corner of Black
Cat and, then, goes north towards Brody Square. So, we are going to have to be sure
that we have no interruption in our water services, our irrigation, and we are going to be
-- have to be sure that we are protected from people entering our property from both
Daphne Square and Brody Square and we are going to need to have protection on the
back, because our property goes all the way back to Daphne and that's where all the
traffic's going to be and we do have small calves and we need to be protected from the
traffic. We have got bumper to bumper traffic all day long on McMillan now. Everybody
going down to Walmart, so -- and everybody going to work and into the construction sites
and so we are going to need to be protected from that. I would urge you to make sure
that they put some kind of a permanent substantial protection on that property line for
those ten acres all the way down to Daphne.
Fitzgerald: And, ma'am, I will have Matt respond to you when he comes back up, but --
regarding the fencing and the protection of your water and thank you for being here
tonight. We appreciate it greatly.
Weatherly: Mr. Chair, next we have Randy Corbell. And he has chosen not to speak.
That's all I have signed up, Mr. Chair.
Fitzgerald: Is there anyone either in chambers or online that would like to testify on this
application? Please raise your hand if you are in chambers or use the raise your hand
function on Zoom. Commissioner Grove, don't see anybody? Okay. Matt, would you
like to close and answer some of those questions -- or answer some of those questions
and close.
Schultz: Yes. Thanks. Thanks. Matt Schultz. 8421 South Ten Mile. Yeah. Appreciate
David from the Beach Lateral water users showing up. We did show some preliminary
lines coming along with McMillan and Black Cat. We fine tuned those, working with the
area owners and if there is any lateral ditch companies in our final designs, but, obviously,
we -- we maintain all historic deliveries, whether that would be wastewater or delivery
water. As an ex-engineer that's -- it seems to be the number one thing that we do is figure
out those things and at this juncture we -- we know we have to do it. We just don't know
exactly if there is a little branch somewhere, but we have got a couple lines playing, which
kind of goes along with Mrs. Corbell's comment as well about drainage. We met the
Corbells at the neighborhood meeting and -- and talked to them about that -- our shared
property line there on the -- on the east side of us and the west side of her. We are
planning to do a -- fix a vinyl fence with a berm and what we have done in these -- in
these situations where we have had livestock on the other side of a vinyl fence -- because
some people are not worried about that and some people are as we put a parallel --
usually a parallel three or four strand barbed wire, you know, parallel to it, just to kind of
keep them away from the vinyl. So, we end up putting in two fences and we would fence
off across the stub street, that when that does continue on in the future those panels come
out and it's a moot point at that -- at that juncture. But in the meantime there is no vision
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F67
Page 64 of 110
through that stub street and it's all fenced off and not a -- not an escape point for any
livestock. So, those are the two issues, that fence line and the irrigation for the neighbors
and I hope we have addressed them adequately. I have been texting the -- the owner a
little bit here as we were waiting for -- for, you know, the responses and looking at that
north property line and if we could put the diagram back up, the site plan, please, and
look at it. As far as Commissioner McCarvel talking about coming in there, I don't know
if you can -- okay. As you come in from Brody Square there is a T intersection. As you
are going south on the left on the -- on the left-hand side there is those three lots. On the
right there is the open space. We had those three lots oriented the other way previously,
so they were faced internal to the subdivision, instead of, you know, they -- they are lots
that you would line up with the other houses as you drive in like, Commissioner McCarvel
pointed out. We had those rotated previously and staff wanted us to rotate them back
this way, so -- so, kind of going in a little bit of a circle there. In looking at the question if,
hey, can we go to R-8s or -- or 40 foot lots, potentially, on the north side -- we could do it
if you want to. I think -- if it's your recommendation we would certainly take that forward
to Council. What we have submitted I think is what we think works. We would -- they
would propose that we -- like I said, get the amenity in Brody Square and for some reason
we can't -- and I don't see why we couldn't, but if there is some reason we can't we would
move our amenity that we are currently showing down the cul-de-sac over on this
intersection and put it -- I would like to rotate those three lots north-south and lose one of
the building lots and on the corner we would have our amenity as you drive in with the
other two lots facing north-south. So, we would lose a lot there. That's -- I think that's a
good solution to the streetscape issue that Commissioner McCarvel brought up. It's a
good fallback solution to the amenity not being at the end of the cul-de-sac and being
more -- I guess somewhat centrally located. There are -- and I will tell you the truth -- and
we are planning on spending three times as much on that playground as we are on a
sitting area in terms of what we want to put into Brody Square. Really similar to what we
called Warrick a couple years ago and it's being marketed as Calistoga on Amity. It's
about a 45 to 50 thousand dollar playground. That's what we would like to put in Brody
Square and that's what we are approaching the owner with and in our negotiations, say,
hey, let's just make a better centralized open space for everybody within those 20 acres.
They had -- they just had a sitting area coming in off of Black Cat and we would have --
and there is a pond in the middle for the irrigation and, then, on the other side we have a
playground and I think that's a better big picture solution that's going to give better value
to everybody in the neighborhood, instead of getting down in the weeds on this little five
acre site. So, that's my -- that's our proposal. We hope you would go along with us, but
if you want to make a different recommendation moving forward that you approve it by --
you want 40 foot lots on the north, that's certainly something that we are open to moving
forward with. But we -- we would like to -- for you to approve what we submitted, with the
minor modifications as discussed.
Fitzgerald: Matt, in regards to the open space lot, I mean that's a -- that's a holding pond.
Are you doing subsurface water with a play area over the top or how -- what does that
look like?
Schultz: Are you talking about what we currently have?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F68
Page 65 of 110
Fitzgerald: Yeah.
Schultz: What we currently have as you drive in -- it's -- it's just a -- it's a dry retention
basin that fills up in the hundred year event. We are not counting it as open space as
shown. It's not included. It's just there. The facility. It was not included -- it was not
counted as usable open space in what we have shown. What we are proposing is right
across the street we would have one that would be usable with -- with an amenity in it
that has no drainage related to it whatsoever.
Fitzgerald: But the drainage basin is it subsurface or is it going to be open -- kind of an
open -- kind of swale?
Schultz: It will be depressed to the low flow -- the trickle flow, the carwash flow will go
underground and so it will be dry, unless there is a really heavy -- you know, really heavy
downpour, it would fill up and, then, go down again and dry out again. So, you know, 99
percent of the time it's dry grass, with a little little sand window in the bottom for the -- the
trickle flow that comes off of sprinklers or whatever when it's not raining.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you. Additional questions for Matt?
Grove: Mr. Chair.
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Grove, go right ahead.
Grove: Matt, question. Would you be open to having a sidewalk that connects to the
Black Cat sidewalk? It looks like there is no connector-- or easy access from here --from
the subdivision going that direction. I know it's not that hard to walk around the cul-de-
sac necessarily, but it seems like it would be an easy way to improve some connectivity
there.
Schultz: Yeah. Absolutely. We just showed it to McMillan and didn't -- didn't continue
that thought process far enough and that is absolutely a great idea to make that
connection through. You do --you do lose a little bit of privacy when you do that, because
you are depressing the berm to punch that sidewalk through. You know, we just had one
-- one little break and we are not -- we are not opposed to doing that, but that is the
tradeoff if -- if that sidewalk does want to open up a view through there, which -- which
isn't the worst thing in the world, but we are certainly open to doing that.
Fitzgerald: Additional questions? Going once. Going twice. Matt, thank you very much,
sir. We appreciate it. I know we will see you momentarily again, so --
Schultz: Thanks.
Fitzgerald: Thank you. Can I get a motion to close the public hearing?
Cassinelli: Mr. Chair?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F69
Page 66 of 110
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: I move we closed the public hearing for file number H-2020-0101, Daphne
Square.
Seal: Second.
Fitzgerald: Motion and a second to close the public hearing on Daphne Square. All those
in favor say aye. Any opposed? Okay. Motion passes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Fitzgerald: Who wants to lead off?
Holland: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland.
Holland: I kind of already made my comments to Matt there earlier, but I -- I think at a
minimum I would want to see at least those lot lines align on the northern boundary of the
site coming into it, because it just seems like it's an abrupt transition to density when it
doesn't necessarily need to. So, I think I stand with that comment. I'm not necessarily
opposed to having the attached product that's on the south side there, but I would want
to see enough green space and -- and break up those a little bit. So, I would say on that
northwest chunk there I wouldn't want to see more than seven lots on that north side of
the cul-de-sac and, then, no more than two on that kind of eastern -- northeastern chunk
that's there, too. That way they would align with what's -- what's in Brody Square. That's
my initial thought.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you.
Cassinelli: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: With -- with regards -- I think Commissioner Holland and I are -- got similar
thinking there. But if I can make a comment, I believe there is eight lots on Brody Square
on the north side and you just mentioned seven. One is going to already -- well, I guess
one -- one will be that retention pond now that I'm looking at it. So --
Holland: Mr. Chair, that's why I counted seven was because I wanted the space for that
retention pond for a little bit of green space coming in there.
Cassinelli: And if he goes -- I think Matt mentioned on the -- if we were to change that
there to single family instead of to detached, it would have to be 40. 1 mean would you
be -- would you be okay with it, you know, if maybe it was eight or nine in there versus --
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F70]
Page 67 of 110
right now there is one, two, three, four, four, five, six, seven -- nine, ten, 11 -- there is 12
along there. I definitely don't like the transition, the two to one that it's at right now.
Holland: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Yeah. Commissioner Holland, go right ahead.
Holland: I think that's why I was trying to come up with a compromise in -- in trying to
give that single family transition that meets the R-8 standards on that northern boundary,
but still allowing the R-15 style that's on the south side there and he could probably -- we
could probably let him have eight lots there and he could condense it a little bit, but I
would love -- I always like to see when the fence lines align, because it always seems
funky when you are sharing -- when you have got a fence line like halfway in the middle
of your yard. I have that -- if we can avoid it.
Fitzgerald: So, I understand where you guys are headed. The challenge -- I guess the
only thing I will comment back is if this neighborhood had been built already that would
be one thing, but this neighbor is flat dirt right now and I would guess they are all going
to get built together and they know -- they know what's going to come. So, that's my only
-- I'm not saying that I disagree with you, just taking that -- taking that into account is we
usually work through transition when there is people already living there, but that's -- I'm
not sure that changes anybody's mind, but this is all going to be flat dirt that comes in
together. It is a hard corner on two relatively busy roads. I'm not sure if that makes a
difference, but it would transition from the busy road to a single family home. Yeah, I --
that's my only thought. I understand where you are going.
Cassinelli: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Yes, sir.
Cassinelli: The other-- the other issue there is that those are 12 foot setbacks to the rear.
Fitzgerald: Yeah.
Cassinelli: So, they are very close to -- to those lots to the north.
Fitzgerald: That's true.
Cassinelli: I don't know if that -- and my other thought -- as long as we are talking lots on
the north -- by flipping those -- on those three, if you -- if you rotate them, then, you have
two going into the site of the one house. You would have a -- Matt was proposing a -- a
common lot there on the -- on the corner, but, then, the other two -- then you have --
again, you got two backing up to the side of a house. I don't know if that's -- that's only
in one spot, I don't know if it would be that big of a deal there.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F71
Page 68 of 110
McCarvel: Yeah. Mr. Chair, I don't think I -- I think I dislike the flipping it more than I
dislike leaving it the way it is, but I just thought, you know, transition wise you are driving
by, you know, single family and, then, all of a sudden you get these couple of detached
just kind of sticking there by themselves. Or attached.
Cassinelli: If he's willing -- if he was willing to give up a lot there and if you give up a lot
and just have two houses oriented --
McCarvel: Yeah.
Cassinelli: -- the way they are, maybe that's a little bit -- not -- not quite --
McCarvel: Yeah.
Cassinelli: -- radical going from, you know, single family -- you know, detached single
family to -- to three, but if you just go to two, maybe --
McCarvel: Well, Mr. Chair-- and even -- even the way -- you know, I'm looking at the way
the attached product is lining up, that they come in and they start right next to the open
space with a detached and, then, you have got your two attached, which would make
them totally offset from the attached -- or the single family on the other side. So, you
would have that fence line almost office -- you know, in the halfway on those lots on every
one of them, rather if you started with that first one being attached they would maybe at
least, you know, structure wise they would line up a little better.
Grove: Mr. Chair, from what I'm looking at --
McCarvel: But they are still really close to that back fence.
Grove: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Grove, go ahead.
Grove: Looking at the -- the units like almost everyone's saying basically if the
nonattached units were taken out it would vastly improve this project, because there is
one, two, three, four that aren't attached. It seems like that starts to resolve some of the
issues that we are having.
Fitzgerald: You're talking about on each end? The single on each end?
Grove: Correct. Yeah.
McCarvel: Yeah.
Grove: There is four of them, I believe, and --
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F72
Page 69 of 110
McCarvel: Yeah.
Grove: -- at least three of them are problematic.
McCarvel: Yeah. If you took those three -- I see what you are saying. Yeah. Take those
three out, that might --
Grove: But if you took out all four it would make it seem more cohesive also.
Fitzgerald: And, then, the masking that you were talking about before that -- that Matt
mentioned before, it would somewhat match -- match up better. So, Commissioner
Cassinelli, can I ask you a quick question?
Cassinelli: Yeah.
Fitzgerald: So, would you rather see an attached sidewalk and shift those houses forward
than a ribbon -- than a park strip?
Cassinelli: What does that do to -- what does it do to the open space?
Fitzgerald: Oh. That's -- exactly. Well, I don't know if the park strips are in there. We
could ask Matt.
Cassinelli: Well, we would have to open it back up to do that.
McCarvel: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: That's 22 feet versus 12. Yes, Commissioner Cassinelli, go right ahead. Or
Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: Yeah. Well, if you are losing that one detached there on that northeast corner
and make it open space, put that back in your calculation, I don't know if that would get
you where you wanted to be. But if you are taking out a few of those detached ones and
make it a little more open space out of that, then, you could put -- take and push the --
the structures forward and have that sidewalk changed and probably almost gain open
space.
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal is being very quiet. It's unlike you. Come on, man. What
are you thinking?
Seal: Well, I mean I would like to see the lot boundaries line up a little bit better, but for
sure I -- you know, I think that the roundabout probably is going to eat into a considerable
amount of the area that's there. You know, it would have been nice if ACHD provided
something other than, you know, a stencil crayon drawing in their report. A little -- a little
lackluster on --on their part for sure. So, I mean it makes that --you know, it makes some
kind of determination difficult on this. You know, looking at it -- I guess I'm caught in a
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F73
Page 70 of 110
quandary of, you know, they -- they want to be part of Brody -- was it Brody Square? But
they are not and that makes this difficult, because I'm looking at the sub to, you know,
essentially stand on its own. Knowing that they want to be part of that subdivision, you
know, the HOA and all of it, that would probably change the way that I looked at this a
little bit for sure, where I give them a little bit more latitude and -- and look at it -- so you
-- you know, lose less of the homes that are there, still provide, you know, better lineup
with lot boundaries that are there for sure, but if they were part of that HOA and they could
provide, you know, the amenities that we are looking for and everything, that is going to
make me look at it differently and if that's not there -- and I -- I mean it sounds like we can
condition that as part of it, but at the same time, without knowing if that's ever going to
come to fruition, you know, what's going to happen. So, if we condition it on that and they
say, no, we don't want to do that, then, do they start this whole process over again?
Fitzgerald: Well, it's possibly to get it remanded back, but the City Council could take into
account our recommendations.
Parsons: Mr. Chair, I can certainly add in on that.
Fitzgerald: Bill, go right ahead.
Parsons: So, I -- I actually liked the idea of Matt working with the adjacent development
and -- and making that happen. He has been successful several times over the years
and I -- at least from staff's perspective we are confident that he probably can make that
happen, if that is the desire of the Commission. This is annexation, so you have the ability
to require that as part of the DA and I looked at the past DAs where Matt was successful
in that effort and it said if you can't -- you know, the condition read if you can't get
agreeance to join that HOA, then, you provide X amount of open space in one amenity.
So, we can certainly tailor a DA provision to that effect and I would imagine Matt would
be comfortable with that, because, again, he's -- he's been successful in two pretty
tumultuous projects from my -- what I remember. They were pretty controversial projects
that he was able to get that accomplished and get it done and I think that would just make
it a better development overall. This really should have been part of Brody Square when
it came in and when we started -- when we first pre-apped with Brody Square this piece
was included and because of that ACHD requirement of dedicating that additional right of
way for the roundabout, the developer didn't want to buy the property, because it took too
much property -- too much land. So, he went ahead and purchased the northern five
acres of Brody Square, rather than the southern end of it, and so whatever we can do --
and going to your -- to Alan's presentation to you this evening, this is under five acres.
So, technically by code they don't need to provide five -- or any--ten percent open space.
So, having this merge with that adjacent development, I think it's a win not only for Matt,
but also Brody Square. We have consistent design elements. We have consistent
maintenance. And we have got -- more likely people in this subdivision are going to go
walk over there and use that park anyways and, then, we just avoid conflicts in the future.
So, I think to me this is a win and if Matt is amenable to that condition, then, I would ask
the Commission to include that if you choose to do that.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F74
Page 71 of 110
Fitzgerald: Thanks, Bill. Additional comments? Thoughts? Commissioner Yearsley,
haven't heard from you all night. Are you --
Yearsley: I know. Am I my supposed to say something? Sorry. So, looking at this I have
a tendency to agree with everybody else's comments that lining up those northern lots
with Brody Square -- and I do like the idea of having them join HOAs and having them
provide an amenity in their park. I think that would make the things a lot cleaner. I think
with that I could support this application. I can't believe that they are going to lose a lot
more property with the roundabout in that corner, because they just take up a ton of room
no matter how they lay them out. They just take up so much room that it just wipes out a
lot of corners.
Fitzgerald: I think we are close.
Parsons: Yeah. Commission, the other thing I would like to add on that as well is that's
why Alan and I were pushing for showing us how that -- that right of way lands on this
property, because what we don't want to happen is the road improvements go in and all
of a sudden there is no landscape buffer and we have people -- people's backyards up
against right of way. I think -- I think all of us can agree, we have seen that throughout
our community, it's not a good look. We want to make sure that people have some --
some privacy, especially on those major arterials and looking at how this is laid out, given
the fact that you have Idaho Power on one side and a pretty big irrigation facility on the
south side, they may be looking for more right of way on the north side to try to -- like Matt
says, value engineer the project, because it's going to get expensive to remove power
lines and bury ditches.
Fitzgerald: Thanks for that ray of sunshine.
Yearsley: And just from a --from a practical use, we just ended up -- on Eagle Road they
are putting a roundabout around our entrance to Tuscany and it's amazing what they did
to our frontage and our property coming into it. They took it all. It's -- it's just horrendous
what they did for the -- for the right of way for a roundabout, so --
Grove: Mr. Chair, question for staff.
Fitzgerald: Go right ahead, Commissioner Grove.
Grove: With the -- the front of the -- the front sidewalks in front of the units, does that
align with what Brody Square looks like in terms of the landscaping between the sidewalk
and the street or -- I guess -- my question is if we conditioned it to look like it was part of
Brody Square does that provide better offsets for the -- like the southern boundary for --
if the right of way were to expand further than -- than anticipated?
Tiefenbach: If you would like, if you want to give me a minute I can get the Brody Square
landscape plan up. Would you like to see that?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F75
Page 72 of 110
Grove: Sure.
Tiefenbach: Give me -- give me -- if you want to keep going, it's going to take me a
minute. If you want to keep talking and, then, I will -- I will send that over to you.
Fitzgerald: Thanks, Alan.
Parsons: Alan, I got -- I have it pulled up.
Tiefenbach: Oh, yeah. I'm not going to go through why I can't do it, but if you can do it
that would be quicker.
Parsons: Yeah. I'm happy to take that for the Commission.
Tiefenbach: All right. Thanks. They have a color landscape plan in there that would
probably be very good.
Parsons: Well, we don't need to share it, but we could just tell the Commission that,
essentially, they have attached sidewalks in their development, so they do not have the
green strip between the sidewalk and the curb. So, to me if that's something that you -- I
kind of agree with Commissioner McCarvel, if you were to pull the buildings closer to the
street, you get a deeper backyard, you get a little more open space on the -- you get more
buildable lot, more open space for those residents, and you get greater separation
between the houses, which I think, you know, I'm not -- I'm always a fan of having
detached sidewalks, but in this case with the amount of curb cuts you are not really
gaining much of a parkway strip along the street, you are really getting a lot of curb cuts,
a lot of concrete. So, you are not really -- to me it's almost an impediment to the
development, because of the minimal amount of green space that you are getting. I would
almost rather see the -- get the bigger lots, have more of a front yard, more of a rear yard
for residents to use, especially when you are next to an arterial roadway like that. That's
going to be their private space on their property. So, whatever we can do to do that I
think that's a win. Now, it does that -- going back to the Commission's question, does it
reduce the space. Yes, but it will be a minimal given that it really doesn't count because
of the curb cuts. So, it to me I think if -- my recommendation to Matt, if he wants -- and
the Commission, if we are going to pursue that avenue of this property joining with the
adjacent property and HOAs and Matt may want to maybe crunch some of those numbers
-- numbers for City Council, say, hey, even between these two projects we still exceed
code -- minimum code requirements for open space and amenities. Amenities is going
to be a no brainer. They are definitely going to be over what the code requires for an
amenity. But as far as their open space, combined with Brody Square's, what does that
total look like. So, at least we can give -- give that comparison to City Council if that's the
direction the Commission wants to go.
Fitzgerald: And because it's a five acre in-fill they don't really have to do -- I mean they
don't have to meet that minimum.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F76]
Page 73 of 110
Parsons: Yeah. This --well, this is an interesting property, because when I was reviewing
the staff report for Alan it's interesting that Ada County Assessor says it's five acres, but
when you draw--when you look at the surveying documents, this property--this property
is under five acres. It's -- so, I don't know where that discrepancy lies, but I just know it's
not a true five acre parcel based on all the documentation that we have gotten on this.
So, the county may have rounded it up, I'm not sure, but it's not five acres, it's definitely
under five. But it is annexation. I mean certainly it's within your purview to -- to
recommend changes if you want to see that. Within reason, of course. Obviously, we
can't make him lose half his lots and put in 15 percent open space, but I mean some of
the discussion that I have heard this evening sounds pretty reasonable from my
standpoint.
Fitzgerald: Thanks, Bill. I don't think we are very far apart, guys. I think you guys outlined
it well. I think, Commissioner Groves, that-- that was a great question, because I had the
same thing going on in my mind as well, is how do we give people more space and it --
aligning it with -- or whatever it's called. Square. I mean I think that makes sense. It
wouldn't make any sense to look differently and lose space in the rear of the house, so
-- so, are we kind of walking through it? Do we agree that we need to -- the north side
needs to line up -- the lot lines on the north?
Yearsley: I would agree to that.
Fitzgerald: Okay. And, then, do we want to lose that lot -- that second lot -- or the third
lot on the northeast corner to be replaced by open space? Or an amenity?
Grove: I would -- I would be okay with it as it is, because I'm assuming they are going to
have to lose lots to make the lines align on that northside to Brody Square. So, I wouldn't
be opposed either way.
Fitzgerald: Well, is it -- is it a qualifying where if they can't get into the HOA, then, they
have to lose a lot and -- and put in an amenity that -- whatever would be that third lot? Is
that the -- the tradeoff?
Cassinelli: I think that makes sense.
Holland: Mr. Chair, one more clarification. Are we requesting that they stay single family
on the northern side, instead of attached product?
Fitzgerald: I think that's up to us -- up to the crew. I -- I don't have a problem with zero
lot lines, to be totally honest, but -- as long as the lots line up. But I -- if someone has a
different opinion that's -- I totally am open to that.
McCarvel: Yeah. Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Go right ahead.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F77
Page 74 of 110
McCarvel: I think -- I would agree. I think as long as the lot lines line up where you have
got structure for structure, I'm okay with the zero lot line in there. And, then, in giving
them more -- more distance, I think that makes a difference from -- from the back line.
Fitzgerald: Losing the park strip, moving the houses forward, attaching the sidewalks.
McCarvel: Yeah.
Fitzgerald: Additional thoughts? Somebody have a motion?
Seal: We have to close the public hearing first.
Fitzgerald: We already did.
Seal: We did? Okay. Where was I?
Fitzgerald: It's all good. Commissioner Seal, did you have a motion you were preparing
to make?
Seal: I'm thinking about it. Make sure I have got the right thing. Yeah. I will take a crack
at this. Mr. Chair, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
recommend approval to the City Council of file number H-2020-0101, as presented in the
staff report for the hearing date of December 17th, 2020, with the following modifications:
The DA provisioned to ensure that they join the Brody Square HOA. They reconfigure
the northern boundary homes to align with lots in -- that are already existing in Brody
Square and they eliminate the park strips to better align with the look and feel of what's
going to exist in Brody Square.
Fitzgerald: Can I clarify one thing?
Seal: Yes, sir.
Fitzgerald: If they can't join Brody Square are we going to stipulate the loss of that lot, so
they can put an open space in there and an amenity on the northeast corner?
Seal: Yeah. Amend my motion to include if they are unable to join Brody Square HOA
they will need to eliminate -- oh, at least lot --what is it? Lot 29 of Block 1 to provide more
open space.
McCarvel: Second.
Grove: Would that be 29 or lot one?
Fitzgerald: That would be lot --
McCarvel: One.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F78
Page 75 of 110
Fitzgerald: Yeah. It would be Lot 1.
McCarvel: Do we want to stipulate a lot, instead of the end one, I guess. One --
Seal: It would be the -- the lot closest to the open drain area of that.
Grove: I thought we were talking about --
McCarvel: Yeah.
Cassinelli: Talking about those three lots. One, two, and three.
McCarvel: Yeah.
Fitzgerald: Yeah. I want to make sure we are clear.
McCarvel: On the northeast corner there.
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal, does that make sense or did you have a different idea?
I know you --
Seal: It does. I'm just trying to make sure I have got -- okay.
Tiefenbach: Are we talking about Lot 1, Block 2?
Fitzgerald: Or that northeast corner block? Whatever block.
Tiefenbach: Lot 1, Block 2, if I'm reading it correctly. I'm just trying to make sure.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Thanks, Alan.
Seal: Okay. So, with that -- so what we are asking -- what we would be asking is for
them to eliminate lot -- Lot 1, Block 2 --
McCarvel: Yes.
Seal: That's it, because we already asked them to align the lots -- the northern lots along
the boundary line.
McCarvel: Uh-huh. Yeah.
Fitzgerald: Would the second stipulate to that motion adjustment?
McCarvel: Yes.
Fitzgerald: Okay.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F79
Page 76 of 110
McCarvel: All that --
Fitzgerald: All that stuff. I have a motion and a second to recommend approval of file
number H-2020-0101 , Daphne Square Subdivision. All those in favor say aye. Any
opposed? Motion passes. Thank you all.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
7. Public Hearing for Cache Creek Subdivision (H-2020-0105) by Matt
Schultz of Schultz Development, Located on the Northwest Corner of
E. Victory Rd. and S. Locust Grove Rd.
A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 15.18 acres of land from RUT in
Ada County to the R-4 zoning district.
B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 41 building lots and 4
common lots on 13.99 acres of land in the proposed R-4 zoning
district.
Fitzgerald: Moving on to the next item on our agenda -- first I have to close out my
agenda. What's the number? It's -- the next item on our agenda is Cache Creek
Subdivision, file number H-2020-0105 and, Alan, is this yours, too? I believe.
Tiefenbach: It is. I'm just trying to get my Zoom to work here. I got to -- there we go.
Okay. Sorry. Give me one second here. Okay. Do you got that? That was a thumbs
up?
Fitzgerald: Looks good.
Tiefenbach: Okay. Thank you. Sometimes there is a lot of maneuvering going on here,
as you already know. Okay. Just a second here.
Grove: Mr. Chair?
Tiefenbach: Okay.
Grove: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Yeah, Commissioner Grove, go right ahead.
Grove: Sorry, Alan, I was just going to ask a question before we jumped in. We are
getting close to 10.00 o'clock and I just wanted to see if we wanted to discuss if we will
be hearing the -- the last one before we get started or not.
Fitzgerald: Commissioners, what's your thoughts? I -- we have done late nights before,
but I -- I want to be sensitive to your -- your desires and requests. So, we have got by 11
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F80
Page 77 of 110
people that are online with us still and, then, we have got at least one person in chambers
on this one. Do you want to see how it goes or do you want to stipulate that we are going
to stop after this one? Comments?
Yearsley: If we have got people waiting I would prefer not to have to have them come
back and we just go a little late and get it all finished.
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland, I know that you are -- may need to leave us, so as
long as we have a quorum we can keep plowing forward.
Holland: Well, my kid is asleep. I just get less sleep, but that's all right. I'm used to
sleeping on -- or surviving on three hours now, so I'm good. I will power through with you
guys.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Commissioner Cassinelli, are you good?
Cassinelli: I'm good.
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal?
Seal: Good.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Commissioner McCarvel and Commissioner Grove?
McCarvel: Sure.
Fitzgerald: That sounded really like robust. Commissioner Grove, are you okay? I know
you are in person.
Grove: I'm good.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you all. I appreciate it greatly. And we appreciate the public
sticking with us. Okay. Alan, it's all you, sir.
Tiefenbach: Yes, sir. Thank you. All right. So, this is the Cache Creek-- or Cache Creek
Subdivision and this is an annexation and rezoning -- a zoning to R-4 and a preliminary
plat to allow 41 building lots and four common lots. So, this property is 13.99 acres of
land. Presently zoned RUT in unincorporated Ada county. It's located at 1560 West
Victory Road and 2955 South Locust Grove, which is the northwest corner of South Grove
-- or South Locust Grove Road and East Victory Road. You can see it's recommended
for low density residential. The zoning map showing it's surrounded by R-4 and R-8. See
if I can move on here. Okay. So, this proposal includes the annexation, zoning, and
platting to allow 41 building lots and four common lots. The property present -- presently
contains two existing homes. The one to the south, which would be the one to the
southeast, will be demolished and the one to the northeast, up at the top there, will remain.
There is going to be two accesses to these properties. Each access will connect to a stub
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F81
Page 78 of 110
street in the Capella Creek Subdivision. So, one access -- so, there is a stub here. You
can see this. And there is -- oh, sorry. Yeah. So, there is a stub here and there is a stub
here. These two accesses will connect to those stubs. These stub streets terminate at
South Bailey Way, which is, basically, running north and south here and from that, then,
you can either go east up to South Locust Grove or you can go south to Victory. Within
this subdivision -- the Cache Creek Subdivision applies a loop road, which you can see
here. That's a 33 -- a 33 foot wide road and you have detached sidewalks and eight foot
landscaped strips. South Locust Grove on the east currently has two lanes and no curb,
gutter, or sidewalk. East Victory Road to the south presently has two lanes with no curb,
gutter, or sidewalk. Both of these are going to be widened in the next three years and
just like the other project there is going to be a roundabout that's being planned and that's
at East Victory Road and South Locust Grove Road. There is also a detention pond or a
retention basin that's in the development down here as well. Ten Mile Creek runs right
next to the road across the property. You can't see it here -- which I will talk about in a
minute -- but it runs right through the property. Sufficient right of way presently exists for
widening both South Locust Grove and East Victory Road. However, the applicant will
be required to dedicate additional right of way for the roundabout. Because both of these
roads are due to be reconstructed, ACHD has requested the applicant pay 38,000 dollars
into a road trust deposit. This road trust deposit will be used by ACHD to construct
sidewalks that abut the site as part of the future intersection project. Staff has received
letters and -- from neighbors and from the president of the Cabella Creek Homeowners
Association. They request to not connect to the stub streets to allow direct access, but,
instead, they want to allow direct access from South Locust Grove. One suggestion was
by lining up with East Sagemoor Drive. As you can see my pointer, East Sagemoor Drive
is here, so the request was to see if they could line up an access here and get rid of the
accesses there. It's important to note that both the city regulations and the
Comprehensive Plan discourage new developments directly connecting to arterials and
collectors and in addition to that I talked to ACHD today and they -- they responded that
allowing a new access onto the South Locust Grove Road would not meet their spacing
requirements. It needs to be at least 1,300 points -- feet. They can't get close to that.
Now they could ask for a waiver from our policy, but they have noted that the only time
that -- that they will -- that they will grant waivers from the policy is if the roads that they
are stubbing to are deemed to be over capacity and in order for that to be happen those
roads would have to be serving more than 2,000 trips per day. This proposal is estimated
to generate 387. So, ACHD does not support opening up any accesses to this project.
Five foot detached sidewalks are proposed on both sides of all the streets within this
development. There is also a pedestrian connection, which is here -- oh, sorry. Which is
here into this common lot. There is also a pedestrian connection that runs along this
retention basin here. This development includes two amenities, which is the playground,
as well as a very large open area that's central. Two amenities and approximately 16
percent open space. There is a regional pathway, which is down here, and that parallels
Ten Mile Creek to East Victory Road and the Cabella Creek Subdivision. It runs right
through this subdivision, although the pathway itself is not on the subject property. There
is also a ten foot pathway -- if you can see my pointer -- over here that runs along the
Eight Mile parallel lateral and it dead ends right here. So, there is not really a good
crossing right now. Although the proposed plat shows that there is a five foot sidewalk
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F82
Page 79 of 110
that is running -- if you can see my pointer-- it sort of runs down along South Locust and,
then, there is another sidewalk that runs along east Victory, people could come out here
and walk down the street and turn. Staff thought that it would be better to actually have
an internal connection where you could get a faster way -- cut through to common open
space here, if you can see my pointer, and, then, you can either choose to go into the
Ten Mile here or you can go and hit Ten Mile and go the opposite direction. We made
that recommendation. Yesterday the applicant provided us an updated plat. Hopefully
they can show you that, but I have put a picture on here, so that you can see -- maybe
not very well. This is the trail -- the trail connection that the applicant is proposing to
connect to. This is basically in the area -- if you read the staff report where staff was
suggesting that we needed to have that. So, that's what we were looking for. Although
the minimum square footage of the common open space is satisfied, one thing that's
important to note is that there is an arterial buffer here and this arterial buffer does not
meet the minimum 25 foot spacing requirements right here. Hopefully you can see my
pointer. This is the existing residence here. Right now there is -- there is several
accesses onto South Locust Grove. Those accesses are going to be closed off with
landscaping and both of their accesses are going to occur from these internal driveways.
There is two, which is a little strange. I thought the applicant could sort of weigh into why
they actually need to have two. However, so -- so, we have got a 25 foot buffer, but it
goes down to I think around nine or ten feet right here. The applicant has noted that it's
not feasible to be able to --to provide this buffer, because of the engineering and because
of the location of the house, but if you look at this very carefully, this is all asphalt here.
Paving. We believe that at least some of that buffer, if not 25 foot, could be put there.
So, we -- it was our opinion that the application needs to revise these plans to reflect a
-- reflect a 25 wide -- 20 foot -- 25 foot wide buffer or as close as they can get or be -- or
apply and be granted a buffer reduction through the alternative compliance process.
That's an administrative process. So, what will happen is -- is that they would either
provide that buffer or before City Council at the Planning Commission they would have to
make an application with some specific findings that need to be met and the committee
-- the planning director would have to decide whether they would grant alternative
compliance. If they did it would be a nonissue. If they didn't, then, that would be
something that they would have to talk to the Council about, whether or not the Council
wanted to grant that. The other thing I want to mention is that the landscape plan is
missing a little piece of the lot. If you look at -- this is the GIS and if you look at the --
these lots were drawn on. So, these aren't existing now. But this is the applicant's lot. If
you see the corner of this, this lot goes all the way down to Victory. If you look at the
landscape plan, it's kind of cut off here. Ten Mile Creek is a major amenity and our
regulations and our Comprehensive Plan talks about preserving and enhancing
amenities. So, one of the things that we want to see is that the landscape plan, first of
all, incorporates all of the property onto the landscape plan. The second thing is that we
recommend that this landscape plan be updated to design this waterway in as a natural
amenity and with that staff recommends approval with the conditions as listed in the staff
report.
Fitzgerald: Thanks, Alan. Appreciate it. Any questions for Alan at this point? Hearing
none at this point, Matt, are you still with us?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F83]
Page 80 of 110
Schultz: I am. I just got to get on video here. I'm trying. I'm trying.
Fitzgerald: You're good, sir. If you will re-introduce yourself and your address for the
record, the floor is yours when you are ready.
Schultz: Thank you. Matt Schultz. 8421 South Ten Mile, Meridian. I'm here on behalf
of Challenger Development. It's R-4, can we just like approve it? Just kidding. Anyway,
it does make it a little bit easier. We have a site that, in my opinion, is pretty
straightforward. I did look at this site a couple years ago and we were looking at it like,
man, maybe we could do R-8, maybe we could have an access off a Locust Grove and
-- you know. And, then, last year when it was brought to me again to look at, I said, man,
the roundabout is going in, there goes our access, and there is two other accesses into
an R-4 sub. Comp plan. There is no step-ups anymore. Even without that rule, because
of the access and how it does integrate with Cabella Creek, it really needed to be R-4,
like Cabella Creek. It is -- it's pretty straightforward from that perspective and I just told
my client it's R-4. So, that's what we did. That's how we did it. We didn't even think
about putting an access out to Locust Grove Road, because of the proximity to the
roundabout and that roundabout is based on a 99 percent plan approved, ready for bid,
ready for right of way acquisition. Our layout completely matches it. They are going to
widen both roads. They are going to extend that culvert to the Ten Mile drain. They are
going to wipe out everything and if we would have waited another year we could have got
some free sidewalk, but as it is they are going to build it next year, so we are going to put
up 38,000 for our share of the sidewalk and -- and so be it. It's -- it's good to have that
work done sooner than later, in my opinion, so we can have a cohesive integration with
the transportation facilities in our subdivision. I do appreciate staff pointing out that a
pathway would be a good idea and they were absolutely right, it would be a good idea,
and we did that pretty quickly yesterday and without sacrificing our R-4 lot sizes we were
able to put a pathway in across -- lining up with that -- across Locust Grove Road into our
common central open space. It fits very nicely. Two quirky things about this subdivision
and, then, I will -- I promise I will try to stop talking, but the -- the existing home we are
keeping, they always present their challenges for setbacks and access and -- and how
do you -- how do you reorient them and we are keeping the one. The Carringtons would
like to stay there. The reason there is two internal driveway common -- it's just all part of
their lot with frontage into our subdivision, is that if you look at the current situation --there
is a driveway on the north property line that goes back to their back shops and, then,
there is a circular driveway that goes to their house. Once you cut off those accesses
those two driveways don't connect, without wiping out their entire backyard, and so we
just did two separate -- one -- one connection to their back shop and one connection to
their--their-- their--their garage, which does get a little bit close to that front buffer. Like
Alan said, we propose a ten foot minimum. I still need to -- I wasn't exact in my -- my
alternative compliance application, which I'm going to do so. Right after Christmas I
promise to get that in and we will see how it goes administratively, but these houses
sometimes beg for some administrative relief. In this case I have done a calculation, we
meet the total square footage over the whole buffer, because there is some areas that
are extra wide and so we are asking for a little bit narrower and I think it all comes down
to landscaping. You know, ten feet or -- ten or 15 feet of landscaping is a lot better than
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F84]
Page 81 of 110
a 50 foot buffer with weak landscaping. So, I think it comes down to landscaping and
how you do that and everything lines up. The other issue is -- and it's the only -- it's the
only condition that I would like to talk about, because we do approve -- agree with staff's
recommendations and their recommendation for approval and their conditions is item
number four -- and Alan talked about it. Down there in our corner -- the reason we
excluded that -- and we should have done a better job of showing the -- the Nampa-
Meridian hundred foot easement that's there, but really with the -- with the pathway being
on the south side already within that easement, the north side is theirs, to not do anything
within, so they can get in there and clean it out and do what they got to do to the Ten Mile
drain, that's -- that's there -- whatever -- whatever side the pathway is going on, they take
the other side for their maintenance and access. In addition, ACHD is going to totally
rebuild that entire ditch in that area when they expand the road, expand the culvert, and
that drainage lot that we put in there was -- it's theirs. We don't need it for open space,
even though it's big enough to qualify as open space, if it's -- if it's landscaped adequately
and we would ask that you provide a -- it's almost a recommendation to ACHD that they
do landscape this facility to Meridian's landscape standards, because it's for the
roundabout. We are not using it for our drainage. It's a roundabout drainage facility.
They had one in the general area previously that was a long narrow -- along our west
property line. We said, no, no, no, this is a better spot right in the corner next to the drain,
we will put a pathway through, it's great. So, they are going back and tweaking their
design in that area to use that as -- as a space for theirs. But if you don't encourage them
they are -- I don't know what they would have done, but I know the old design was a
fenced off no man's land of sterile -- sterile drainage, which they tend to do along these
arterials sometimes if they are not directed -- or encouraged, like I have already done, to
-- to do the landscaping that -- that's nice and integrates these transportation facility
drainage areas with --with the subdivisions, instead of having a sterile fenced off no man's
land. So, that's -- that's what we have shown here. You know, they will be landscaped
with a pathway on one side and so with that, like I said, it's -- it's pretty straightforward. A
few little quirks. But we think R-4 is appropriate. Good park strips. Good size lots. I
know the access in the Cabella Creek is an issue with those neighbors, it always is on
these stub streets that we connect to, but that's what they are for is for connectivity and
we just don't have a high density subdivision that's going to generate the traffic that's
going to cause ACHD to want to approve any other access. So, I think what we have is
-- is a really good design. So, thanks.
Fitzgerald: Thanks, Matt. We appreciate it. Are there any questions for Matt at this
point? Okay, sir. We will come back to you as soon as we hear from the public.
Schultz: Thanks.
Fitzgerald: Madam Clerk, do we have -- we have people in -- in chambers?
Weatherly: Mr. Chair, we have Mrs. Rita Green joining us.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F85]
Page 82 of 110
Fitzgerald: Mrs. Green, thank you for staying with us tonight. We appreciate you hanging
in there. Please state your name and your address for the record, ma'am, and the floor
is yours.
Green: Rita Green. 37 East South Bailey Way, Meridian, in Cabella Creek. Okay. This
-- this propose --- this proposed subdivision is east of my house and they want to use the
access roads of Sagemoor and Loggers Pass, which is through our subdivision, and that's
going to increase the traffic by 80 to a hundred cars going through right by my house. It's
going to -- also there is no access for emergency vehicles. They have to come through
my subdivision, get on Bailey or Loggers Pass to access that subdivision, so -- and I have
never seen a subdivision built that doesn't have their own exits and entrances. It's just
unusual to me. I have never seen it before. I just want to see something provided for
those people. They are a different subdivision. They are not paying into our association
or anything and it's our responsibility -- I know roads belong to Meridian, but I'm right on
that corner and my husband and I are both retired, he's completely disabled, and a lot of
noise upsets me tremendously. Thank you.
Fitzgerald: Thank you, ma'am. We greatly appreciate your being here tonight. Is there
anyone on Zoom that would like to testify on this application? Please raise your hand via
the Zoom app if you would like to testify on this application. Anyone new? Going once.
Going twice. Matt, would you like to close, sir?
Schultz: Yes. Matt Schultz. 8421 South Ten Mile. I do appreciate Mrs. Green not
wanting any change on that vacant property next to her, but those stubs streets were
provided forjust what we are saying and, ultimately, because of the roundabout being put
in it's probably even better. So, no matter what those stub streets are just going to have
to connect, even if we did have another access out to Locust Grove, those would still go
through. ACHD never abandons those. It's a good idea for pedestrians or anything else
and it is a low density-- I know it's a small cancellation, but it is a much lower density than
what it could have maybe been put in there ten years ago even. And, really, it's the
design, probably, that would have happened as a Cabella Creek phase two. In fact,
Cabella Creek HOA president -- I might get in trouble for this, but he approached me at
the -- at the neighborhood meeting and said, hey, you want to join the HOA. Said, well,
we will look at it, but -- but we have got the amenities, too, so -- we will look at it, you
know, but you know what I mean, it's --we are matching the detached sidewalks. We are
matching the feel. We are matching the size of the houses. We are matching -- we are
really just trying to get along out there and not have any -- any kind of transition problems
whatsoever. So, with that, yeah, I think -- I think that's the end of my presentation and
ask for your approval.
Fitzgerald: Thanks, Matt.
Schultz: Thanks.
Fitzgerald: Any questions for Matt or additional comments?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F86
Page 83 of 110
Seal: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal.
Seal: Just wanted to ask staff real quick -- on the condition four where he explained as
far as making the Ten Mile Creek into a natural amenity, was -- was that enough of an
explanation to -- that we can basically strike that? I mean it makes perfect sense. I live
along a piece of irrigation canal like that, so it makes sense to me. I just wanted to make
sure that that was okay with staff as well.
Tiefenbach: Alan Tiefenbach. Community development planner here. I guess my
question is what's going to happen -- is that going to become a no man's land or are they
going to be deeding that over to ACHD? I guess I'm not -- not exactly -- I'm not exactly
sure what's going to happen with that little corner piece. If it's going -- I understand it's
within a drainage easement. What we don't want to see is, basically, a no man's land
there. So, it either becomes -- it's either retained with the applicant or it goes to ACHD,
who I guess we can work with. But I guess we are not sure about how that's going to
work.
Fitzgerald: Matt, will you clarify that, please.
Schultz: Yeah. Yeah. Thanks. Thanks, Alan for-- for the -- Commissioner Seal, for the
question. That's going to be a common lot owned by our HOA. The Nampa-Meridian
Irrigation District has exclusive rights to it and in jurisdiction over what goes in there, given
that there are easements that they control in there and so we -- we have to take care of
any weeds that may pop up, because they don't -- they don't do that great of a job at it.
So, we maintain that access road for them on that other side, but they don't generally like
to give us any kind of improvements within their right of way that they might have to
replace if they have to go in and clean out that ditch, which they do every once in a while
with heavy equipment on the other side and so, yeah, I think it's great just what's out there
right now. In fact, if there is an existing pathway and good landscaping -- and if there is
a little teeny tiny triangle right there in the extreme corner that we need the landscape just
outside of their easement we will. We will get that plotted on there before City Council,
so we can see. But if it is it's going to be tiny. I mean it's going to be like ten square feet
I think. It's -- it's really -- there is just nothing left down there to do, so --
Fitzgerald: Matt, if you could just make sure it's being platted, so that --
Schultz: Pretty sure --
Fitzgerald: -- in a questionable area --
Schultz: It will be a lot and block and that the HOA has responsibility for.
Tiefenbach: Sir, if I may -- if I may add, I think it would be very helpful if there -- if their
landscape plan could just sort of give us an idea of what that's going to look like. Right
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F87]
Page 84 of 110
now there is nothing there at all. I think that's part of what's making staff a little nervous
is we -- we don't want to see something where people are throwing their soda cans in
from the road. We would like to know that there is something happening there. They are
pretty major -- there is a major trail pathway running right along it, so we want to make
sure that that is maintained.
Schultz: We will get it better documented for you, Alan.
Tiefenbach: Thank you, sir.
Schultz: Yep.
Fitzgerald: Thanks, sir. Any additional questions for Matt? And, Mrs. Green, we
appreciate you staying with us and -- is she still in chambers, Nick? I just want to be clear
that, unfortunately, where your house is located that stub street -- they would require us
to connect that almost -- almost guaranteed with whatever was going to get built in that
corner or that -- that spot of land and so, unfortunately, that kind of growth has come to
that area and -- and so ACHD is required -- requires us to continue that street into
whatever is built and so, hopefully, when -- I know Matt will be a good neighbor if this is
approved. They always do a good job. But that is the reality of that --that land connection
-- or the interconnection of the roads. So, I just want to make sure we are clear there. If
there is not additional questions or comments for Matt, can I get a motion to close the
public hearing?
McCarvel: So moved.
Seal: Second.
Holland: Second.
Fitzgerald: Have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on file number H-
2020-0105. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Cassinelli: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli, it's R-4. Go for it. Go for it. Go.
Cassinelli: Not a whole lot I can say with -- with everything we have discussed, with the
conditions, you know, and to address what you just did as far as the stub streets and
traffic flow, they can't access Locust Grove -- it is what it is. It's too bad there wasn't a
stub street to the north, instead two out to the -- to the west, but that's not -- you know,
that's not this -- this subdivision -- that's not this development's fault, basically. So, it
would have been nice had it done that, but it didn't.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F88]
Page 85 of 110
Fitzgerald: Well, I think, also, to that point -- and I don't want to cut you off, but to your
point, I -- in this situation I'm -- probably for the Greens, it's better that it doesn't connect
to Locust Grove, because it would probably be a thoroughfare through the neighborhood
into that -- into Cabella Creek. So, hopefully, this is a narrowing of only the people that
are in that neighborhood. So, sorry. Go right ahead.
Cassinelli: If you find out. And I think one of the things --just to maybe -- to put -- to put
her at ease a little bit, I think R-4, the price points in here, you are not going to be getting
-- you are not going to be getting drag racers.
McCarvel: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Go right ahead, Commissioner McCarvel. I'm sorry.
McCarvel: Oh. Yeah. Yeah, I think this -- yeah. To everybody's point, R-4 -- yea. And
I think the -- I would be in for leaving the landscape buffer the way it is, just because I
think most of that buffer is for the benefit of the homes that are on the other side to buffer
from the street noise and everything and if it's -- that homeowner is -- I can see why they
need it to have that swoop around there, but I would be in support of leaving that.
Fitzgerald: Like move that through alternative compliance?
McCarvel: Yeah.
Fitzgerald: Yeah. I'm kind of -- I think it looks good. It was well thought out. The big --
the amenity in the central core is nice, so I -- I don't have any concerns with going through
alternative compliance for Matt's client either, so -- I would like to see the landscape plan.
I think that's already in our stipulation per Alan's condition, so that isn't something we
have to cover, it's already in there. So, any additional comments?
Yearsley: Mr. Chairman?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: I'm actually giving Matt a standing ovation for doing an R-4 finally, so -- grateful
for having -- I do -- I think -- I think it looks good. I think for the most part everything is
good. I -- I would try to -- like to see that detention basin be grass instead of the weeds
and crap that are going to be in there if you don't -- they have got several around here
and that's all they become is just a weed catcher and so if we could condition that to be
grass I think that would be a much better use of that area.
Holland: Mr. Chair, I'm just giving my thumbs up and saying ditto. Commissioner
Yearsley, I think you should make your motion.
Yearsley: Hey, let me see if I can pull it up. Mr. Chair, after considering all staff, applicant
and public testimony I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number H-
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F89
Page 86 of 110
2020-0150 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 17th, 2020,
with the following modifications: That the ACHD detention basin be landscaped instead
of -- with grass, instead of just the sand that they like to put in the bottom of it.
Holland: Second.
Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to recommend approval of file number H-2020-
0105 with modifications. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Fitzgerald: Matt, thanks for hanging with us. Look forward to seeing you later, sir. Have
a great -- Merry Christmas.
Schultz: Merry Christmas.
8. Public Hearing for Southridge South (H-2020-0083) by The Land
Group, Inc., Generally Located South of W. Overland Rd., East of S.
Ten Mile Rd.
A. Request: Rezone of 7.15 acres of land from the R-4 to the R-2 zoning
district and 28.89 acres of land from the R-2 and R-4 to the R-8
zoning district.
B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 254 buildable lots and 29
common lots on 83.77 acres of land in the R-2 and R-8 zoning
districts.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Moving on to our last item on the agenda is the public hearing for
Southridge South Subdivision, file number H-2020-0083, and turn this over to Sonya. You
survived until the end, ma'am.
Allen: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. Thanks for keeping this on
the agenda tonight. The next applications before you are a request for a rezone and a
preliminary plat. This site consists of approximately 84 acres of land. It's zoned R-2 and
R-4 and is located on the south side of West Overland Road, east of South Ten Mile
Road, and is part of the larger 291 acre Southridge Development currently in the
development process to the east. Southridge encompasses land on the south side of
Overland Road from this property to the east to Linder Road and to the south to Val Vista
and Aspen Cove Subdivisions. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north across
Overland Road is vacant, undeveloped land, zoned R-8 and apartments in the
development process, zoned R-15. To the east are single family residential properties in
the development process, zoned R-4. To the west and south are rural residential
properties in Val Vista and Aspen Cove Subdivisions, zoned RUT in Ada county. So, just
to give a little history on this property, it was annexed in -- in -- excuse me -- 2007, with a
development agreement that was later replaced a couple of times with new development
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F90
Page 87 of 110
agreements. The existing agreement requires a minimum of one thousand and a
maximum of 1 ,286 residential units, consisting of a mix of apartments and single family
residential homes to develop in the overall Southridge Development, unless otherwise
specifically approved by Council through subsequent applications. Subsequent
development agreement vacation applications were approved that removed the two
apartment projects to the east from the overall Southridge Development and placed them
in development agreements of their own, which no longer tied them to the terms of the
original agreement. So, if you can see my pointer here, this orange area here on the first
map is the Southridge Apartments site and, then, to the east of that is another apartment
site. So, just so you have your bearings of what's going on in this area. With the 640
units anticipated to develop in Southbridge Apartments, 336 units in Linder and Overland
Apartments -- and that was the furthest east apartment complex -- 221 single family
residential units in Southridge phases one through five to the east and 254 in the
proposed development, that's a total of 1,451 units, which is 165 units over that originally
anticipated in the development agreement. Mostly the difference is in the apartment units,
which were approved through subsequent applications as allowed through the
development agreement, which were 848 anticipated units and 976 were approved. The
single family residential units were anticipated to consist of 438 units or a balance of -- or
a balance to total of 1,286 total units with the apartment units. The total number of single
family units in the overall development, if this development is approved, will be 475, which
is approximately 37 over that originally anticipated. Because the subject plat is a
subsequent applicant, as described In the development agreement, staff finds the
proposal in compliance with the agreement without a modification to the development
agreement. A preliminary plat was approved with the annexation that included the subject
property as mega lots for future resubdivision. The existing development agreement does
not include a conceptual design plan for this and only governs the number of lots
anticipated for future development, which can be modified through a subsequent
application approved by Council. I should clarify that the existing development agreement
does include a conceptual development plan, but the text of the agreement only requires
that the public streets be in alignment with that shown on that concept plan. The
Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is low density residential, which is
5.5 acres of the site and that is that green area, if you can see on the screen that I'm
pointing to, and the rest of this site is designated medium density residential, which
consists of approximately 78 acres. A rezone of 7.15 acres of land is proposed from the
R-4 to the R-2 zoning district and that is along the southern and western boundary and
28.89 acres of land from the R-2 and R-4 to R-8 zoning districts for the development of
254 single family residential detached homes, at a gross density of three units per acre,
consistent with density desired in the Comprehensive Plan for this area. The
Comprehensive Plan includes goals for development that encourage a variety of housing
types that meet the needs, preferences, and financial capabilities of Meridian's present
and future residents, with a desire to avoid the centration of any one housing type or lot
size in any geographical area and desires for diverse housing types to be provided
throughout the city. With the size of the Southridge Development and no other housing
types besides apartments in this vicinity, staff believes more variety in housing types is
needed in accord with the Comprehensive Plan and, therefore, recommends another
housing type, either attached units and/or townhomes, is provided in this development.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F91
Page 88 of 110
By attached I mean two units attached together or townhomes, three or more units
attached together. A preliminary plat -- actually, let me back up. I did make that
recommendation and ask the applicant to submit a revised plat that indicated compliance
with -- with a variety of housing types prior to the City Council hearing. A preliminary plat
is proposed consisting of 254 buildable lots and 29 common lots on 83.77 acres of land
in the proposed R-2 and R-8 zoning districts. The minimum lot size proposed is 4,369
square feet, with an average lot size of 8,053 square feet. The plat is proposed to develop
in four phases, as shown on the phasing plan. There are a variety of lot sizes proposed
and a variety of styles of homes. Just not a variety of housing types, as desired in the
comp plan. Staff worked with the applicant to modify the phasing plan prior to the hearing
to include the large 3.8 acre common area where a clubhouse, swimming pool, tot lot is
proposed to develop in the second phase, along with the bridge and extension of a stub
street to the east, instead of with the fourth phase as originally proposed. There is one
existing home on this site that is proposed to remain on a lot in the proposed subdivision.
Access is proposed via one public street and one emergency access via Overland Road.
Stub streets are proposed to the west, south, and east for future extension. Off-street
parking will be provided in accord with UDC standards on individual lots. On-street
parking for guests can also be accommodated on both sides of public streets. Public
streets and three common driveways are proposed for internal circulation and access to
lots. Detached sidewalks with landscape parkways are proposed throughout the
development. The Ridenbaugh Canal runs along the northeast side of this development
and is a large open waterway that is required to be piped, unless left open and improved
as a water amenity or a linear open space. The applicant requests a Council waiver to
this requirement, which is in UDC 11-3A-6B, to allow the canal to remain open and
proposes to construct six foot tall chain link fencing along the waterway to preserve public
safety. The Williams Northwest Gas Pipeline bisects the southwest corner of this site
within a 75 foot wide easement and is contained within common lots and that is this
hatched area you can see right there on the plat. A 35 foot wide landscape street buffer
is required along Overland Road, an entryway corridor. Ten foot wide multi-use pathways
are proposed in accord with the pathways master plan on the site within the street buffer
along Overland Road, along the Ridenbaugh Canal, and along the Williams Pipeline.
Qualified open space is proposed in excess UDC standards. A minimum of ten percent
or 8.38 acres is required. A total of 22.3 or 26 percent of the site is proposed consisting
of half the street buffer along Overland Road, linear open space and open grassy areas
of at least 50 feet by 100 feet in area. Parkways also qualify toward the open space
requirements, but were are not included in the calculations. A minimum of four qualified
site amenities are required. A clubhouse, a swimming pool, tot lot with children's play
equipment, three different segments of multi-use pathways and additional qualified open
space above the standards are proposed in excess of UDC standards. Conceptual
building elevations are proposed for each of the different lot widths proposed. Four 39
foot wide lots as shown, 50 foot wide lots, and 60 foot wide lots. Written testimony has
been received from the following: Tamara Thompson, The Land Group. She is the
applicant's representative. She is in agreement with the staff report, except for staff's
recommendation that another housing type is provided. She would like this requirement
removed and I will let her go over the reasons for that in her presentation. Letter of
testimony was received from Ken and Sherry Fawcett, neighbors. They are not in favor
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F92
Page 89 of 110
of the proposed R-8 zoning and location of the stub street to the south. They would like
it to be moved further to the west between Lots 4 and 5 and I will just go back to the plat
here and show you where that's located. So, four and five are right to the corner -- at the
southwest corner of the development. So, that's where they would prefer that the stub
street be located. A letter of testimony was also received from four couples, also
neighbors to this development. Scott and Jennifer Nichols. Curtis and Naomi Elton.
Steven and Susan Przybos and Michael and Brenda Voglemore. They are in agreement
with the location of the stub street to the south, where it's at, and that does stub to the
Nichols' property and they have three requests as follows: The first they would like
suitable drainage for irrigation and runoff to be maintained from the west end of the
Southridge fence, northwest towards Overland Road. Second, they would like a condition
placed on this development and the associated housing to only allow dark sky compliant
lighting, so that it doesn't encroach on their properties. The city has no ordinance, just as
a -- as a side note for such. And, third and finally, they would like Lots 1 and 2, Block 10,
located on the east side of the stub street -- those are these two lots right here where my
pointer is at. They would like those relocated to the north in this common area right here.
And they would like the height of the residential vegetation adjacent to Val Vista
Subdivision fence to be limited at ten feet above ground level for the reasons stated in
their letter. Staff is recommending approval per the conditions in the staff report. Staff
will stand for any questions.
Fitzgerald: Thanks, Sonya. I appreciate it. Any questions for Sonya at this time? Hearing
none, I see Tamara Thompson joining us. Tamara, you want to take it from here?
Thompson: Absolutely. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Tamara Thompson,
I'm with The Land Group. We are located at 4628 Shore Drive in Eagle. And if I can, I
have a PowerPoint for you that I will go through. I want to mention as well that with me
from The Land Group is Jason Densmer. He is an engineer on the project. Okay. Are
you seeing that? All right. Thank you. All right. Before you this is the Southridge South
Subdivision. This is a rezone and a preliminary plat. The property is located south of
West Overland Road, east of Ten Mile Road. As Sonya mentioned, it was annexed in
2007. It's gone through several different development agreement modifications over the
years. The latest which was dated 2012. So, it's had the same development agreement
since 2012. The rezone is necessary to clean up the zoning boundaries to be consistent
with the proposed lot configurations and to be consistent with the development agreement
and the future land use designation from the city. So, I have color coded this for you, so
you can see it a little easier. The blue-purple color is the R-8 zone. There is roughly 68
-- or 63 acres of that and the R-2 is 22.25 acres and that's the salmon color. And, again,
the proposed zones are consistent with the existing development agreement. This is the
master concept plan that is in the development agreement and, please, note the different
varieties of homes that are included in the overall master plan. So, in this area there are
alley-loaded patio homes. They are detached units, but they are patio homes with -- that
are alley loaded and in this area there is some smaller narrow lots, Blue Valley Elementary
school is -- is located here along Linder Road and I can let you know that that school is
currently in design and permitting. There is a commercial corner and, then, this was
approved as the Linder-Overland apartments and that is -- I don't know if it's a hundred
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F93
Page 90 of 110
percent done, but the units -- there is several units that are occupied and, then, the
Southridge Apartments are in this area. So, the area that we are talking about tonight is
the area I have outlined in blue. So, the preliminary -- the preliminary plat is -- is what
you see here. It consists of 254 single family lots proposed in four phases. The services
are available to serve the site and we will go to this one here. The -- as Sonya mentioned,
we have 22.3 acres or 26 percent of open space, which is in 29 common lots. Amenities
are a centrally located clubhouse, swimming pool, tot lot, play equipment, multiple use
pathways throughout and as Sonya mentioned, we are requesting a waiver to leave the
Ridenbaugh Canal as is and it's an open canal. Access to Overland Road is in one
location. There will be another crossing over the Ridenbaugh Canal, which would go to
the east and, then, this little connection right here is the emergency fire department
connection. So, although all the units are single family residential, there are three different
product types. The conceptual elevations that I'm showing here are for the 60 -- 60 foot
lots and, then, we have different ones for 50 foot lots and 39 foot lots. We have read the
staff report and we agree with the analysis in the conditions of approval. Although it's not
a condition of approval, but, rather, a requirement on page 35 of the staff report, it states
prior to the City Council hearing we request -- require -- or there is -- that we need to
include another housing type and as I have mentioned before, this is part of a larger
master plan and within that master plan there are several different housing types. We
have three different housing types within the Southridge South and we are requesting
that this condition be removed. And with that I will stand for questions.
Fitzgerald: Thanks, Tamara. Are there questions for the applicant at this point? Jason,
thanks for being here, too. We appreciate it.
Seal: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Go right ahead.
Seal: Just in looking at the -- I'm looking at the landscape plan, but it's area three where
those common driveways go down, I mean it's -- there is essentially six properties that
are going to be taking access from the shared access driveways there. Considering that
the staff is asking for another type of housing in there, I mean would you guys be willing
to look at that as an opportunity to do that in there, because the shared driveways in there
-- I mean having six properties off that is really cramming them in there, basically. I think
that's an opportunity there to possibly look at a different housing style that would eliminate
that altogether.
Densmer: I would be happy to answer that, Commissioner. This is Jason Densmer with
The Land Group, just to get on the record. My address is also 462 East Shore Drive in
Eagle. I have been involved with Southridge since the original annexation in 2007 and
so I have a little bit of background with that. The -- the type of housing that we are
proposing there with the six lots along the common drive has already been built-- I believe
on four other streets in the original Southridge to the east and it's really successful in
helping us tackle some of the typography challenges that this site has, which makes it
unique in several ways from other properties in the City of Meridian. This is kind of a
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F94
Page 91 of 110
bench property where the Ridenbaugh Canal is along the edge of the bench and so below
the canal to the north and east is significantly steep and, then, also on this property above
the canal there is quite a bit of grade change. So, those -- that style of housing -- six lots
clustered along a common drive really works well for us to create some tiered lots where
each lot along the common drive is different elevation from its neighbor, which is not at
all conducive to a different housing type, like an attached product as the staff report
suggests we should include.
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal, follow up?
Seal: No. Thank you.
Fitzgerald: Thanks, Jason. Any additional questions for the applicant at this juncture?
Tamara and Jason, thank you so much. We will let you finish up and close answering
questions after we hear public testimony. Hang with us and we will get back to you.
Densmer: Thank you.
Fitzgerald: Thank you. Madam Clerk, do we have -- I know we have a number of people
online. If you would like -- I think I will let you go down the list, ma'am.
Weatherly: Mr. Chair, I apologize, the two people that were signed in ahead of time were
Mr. Densmer and Tamara. There are several other people signed in, but not indicating
the wish to testify. I did see a hand raised earlier prior to this hearing, so we will see if
that person does that. Scott Nichols. One moment, please.
Fitzgerald: If Mr. Nichols would like to testify, bring him over. Hold on one second, sir.
Mr. Nichols, are you -- I think you are transitioned over.
Nichols: I think I'm transitioned over. Can you hear me?
Fitzgerald: Yes sir. Go right ahead, please.
Nichols: I did -- I did open up the video. I don't know if you have got video. It doesn't
look like there is video on me right now. How about -- there we go. Okay. This is Scott
Nichols. My address is 2730 West Val Vista Court, immediately south of the Southridge
South plat that we have been looking at this evening. I'm actually speaking on behalf of
the four residents that Sonya was outlining earlier, Curtis and Naomi Elton to the west of
me. Myself. Mike and Brenda Voglemore to the -- to the east. And Steven and Susan
Przybos, the furthest eastern most residents in Val Vista. Sonya, I want to thank you for
a really good presentation and thank you for pointing out our concerns. We have been
working on this project with The Land Group and Jason for -- I can't believe it's been 13
years and our -- our underlying and the most important thing that we have been working
on in those 13 years is to ensure that the value of the lots that we are living on and that
we purchased and that we moved here for are not lost in transition from the term Val Vista
to no vista. They have worked through the process with us and -- and there are some
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F95
Page 92 of 110
instances where Jason has been excellent to work with. There are some other areas that
he pointed out, justly so, that he really can't represent us in -- in what we would
recommend. So, we find ourselves, as we always knew we would at sort of at the 11 th
hour, asking the Planning and Zoning Commission to, please, take a look at this -- and I
don't think there is anything egregious or out of the ordinary or unreasonable that we
would ask, other than to help us preserve the view lot that we have established. Mr.
Przybos has been in his house for -- I don't know how many years. Probably 15 or 20.
He was one of the first residences here, I believe, and actually constructed his -- his -- his
house there. Mr. Voglemore purchased his house a number of years ago. All -- all of us
for the same reason, the view that we had of the valley. I want to reiterate that none of
us ever anticipated that there would not be development to the north. So, we are not
opposed to the development, we just really want to make sure that if at all possible -- and
we believe it is possible -- that we can integrate that development and preserve not only
Southridge Subdivision's values or enhance their values, but it makes them this very
simple improvement for -- for the city and for the future of Val Vista Subdivision. Sonya,
again, thank you for the really good summary. I want to just -- if you can go back to that
slide that shows the plat with the lots that are shown on the -- on the very bottom, the lot
lines. I will let that come up real quick. So, the -- as you follow to the very southwest
corner of Southridge South -- Sonya, if you can put your cursor on that stub street of Red
Clay Road that heads south into Val Vista. That one -- right there. Jason did a really
good job coordinating with us on the location of that. It comes out west of my house, east
of the Elton's house and wouldn't -- you know, doesn't interfere with either of us. As a
matter of fact, in some ways it's a benefit from the standpoint of natural gas, water, sewer,
or-- or fiber optic for -- for the Curtis' and myself, potentially, if we wanted to do that. But
there are two lots to the west of that stub street that will significantly -- in fact, not even
significantly, they will eliminate Mr. Voglemore's view shed to the northwest and totally
eliminate my view shed to the north and with the light pollution we have talked about, turn
our typical dark sky that I'm looking at right now, literally just looking out to the north, will
-- you know, our backyards are going to be illuminated without consideration for these --
for these two minor things and I understand the city doesn't have a dark sky ordinance.
Wouldn't prevent us from implementing dark sky lighting. I cannot believe it would be any
more expensive and with the additional lots that have been placed out here -- I don't
remember the exact number, Sonya, but we are well above the original plat that was
intended to be here and, again, this is a rezone to increase the density. So, the first issue
was the dark sky. The second issue really has to do with -- with this -- the ten foot
vegetative buffer right along the fence line. That's all we are asking for is that we don't
have a -- a bunch of 60 foot trees that would block Mr. Przybos' view shed all the way to
the east on the other side of Williams Pipeline -- across Williams Pipeline and, then, just
to the west of Williams Pipeline to protect those view sheds there and, then, Mr. Elton's
view shed looking to the -- to the northeast also. He's got a great view of Bogus Basin.
So, we are not asking for no development, but the last point of that is that we really believe
that moving those two lots right there in the corner of Williams Pipeline and that stub
street, if you were to put those two lots to the left in that little cul-de-sac, they are not
going to fill up that park area, but it allows that park to become -- instead of one central
repository where people come and stop, it allows people to flow down the street, through
the park, out to the pipeline area onto the rest of the greenscape that's integrated in the
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F96
Page 93 of 110
community and it would flow really really well. So, I am going to leave that with you. I
think there are four really good reasons for us to make those two changes and for the
Council to find in favor. These are not major or significant in terms of redesign or
consideration, but they are a major impact for the residents and the future layout of the
community. I guess I want to say to the other thing is is that it adds to view lots for the
developer -- I'm sorry, it adds one additional view lot for the developer, instead of limiting
-- limiting the view of lots that are there along Williams Pipeline. So, I am going to -- I'm
sure there is something that I forgot, but we did submit written comments and I would just
ask your consideration in making those changes before we issue a final plat. Thank you.
Fitzgerald: Thanks, Mr. Nichols. We appreciate you being here tonight.
Cassinelli: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: If I could address a question to Mr. Nichols.
Fitzgerald: Yes, sir. Go right ahead.
Cassinelli: Mr. Nichols, could you just summarize real quickly -- you just -- you just want
to lose -- you're asking for those two lots in that corner there to come out?
Nichols: Actually, only to be moved. We will retain the two lots, let's just fit them in right
there where Sonya's cursor is.
Cassinelli: Okay. And, then, what was your other request?
Nichols: The other request was for a -- a -- just a ten foot max vegetation height on the
southern edge of the subdivision on the fence line, so that we don't have 60 foot poplar
trees blocking Mr. Przybos' view to the east or Mr. Voglemore's view there just along
Williams Pipeline.
Cassinelli: Okay. Thank you.
Fitzgerald: Scott, can I ask you one quick question? How high above the current -- it's
a gravel pit now; right? How high above you guys -- or below it are you? You guys are
high above them; correct? How -- how many feet would you say?
Nichols: We are actually -- and I want to tell you we -- we supported the development of
that gravel extraction under the guise of regrading, recognizing that it would benefit the
developer and us. That was a painful process to go through with the dust and the noise
and we lived through a lot, but I think the bottom of the gravel pit-- I would defer to Jason,
but I believe that is 35 feet down the slope to the bottom and that would be in the area
east of Williams Pipeline.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F97
Page 94 of 110
Cassinelli: Okay.
Nichols: The area west of the pipeline is actually higher than where I sit right now. So,
as I -- as I'm looking out my window I'm looking straight out the lot line parallel with the
cross-hatching that covers the Williams Pipeline and that ground is actually a little bit
higher than me. So, yeah, I -- you know, I don't -- I'm going to live with houses out there.
Mike -- and we all understand that. We are just trying to buffer the impact a little.
Fitzgerald: No. That helps me understand it. Thank you. I -- I was trying to pull it up on
Google Maps. I couldn't get the grading. There is now, so --
Nichols: Yes, sir.
Fitzgerald: Thank you very much.
Nichols: You are welcome.
Fitzgerald: Madam Clerk, who might be -- if there is someone who would like to testify
on this application that's online, please, raise your hand via the Zoom application to the
bottom of your screen if you would like to testify. We have several of Mr. Nichols'
neighbors that are still online. If you would like to testify, please, raise your hand. If not,
we can -- Mr. Voglemore, we see that you are on. Would you like to testify? We will bring
you over in just a second, sir. Did we lose him in the process? I don't see him anymore.
Weatherly: Mr. Chair, I think maybe we lost him in the process of transferring over. I
didn't see any technical issues on my end, but I'm not -- I don't have an explanation.
Fitzgerald: Thanks, Madam Clerk. I appreciate it, Adrienne. Jason, while we are waiting
to see if he -- if he hops back on, can you answer a question for me? Do you have a topo
at all on that -- on the grading that was finished out there or the -- the pre -- pre-finish
where it is right now? Do you guys have a topographical, what that looks like?
Densmer: We do and we have included a conceptual mass grading plan in the pre-plat
materials, although I admit there is quite a few sheets there and a lot of detail that you
probably haven't committed to memory.
Fitzgerald: Okay. So, what Mr. Nichols was talking about there -- so, is a mound in the
middle right now. Is that going to be flattened out or what's that going to look like after
this is done? Is there going to be a below grade -- below Val Vista that they sit up on?
Densmer: The amount of the middle certainly wouldn't --wouldn't be capped. The overall
grading has lowered the property at least 30 feet, depending on where you are. Of
course, we didn't lower the grade at all at the Williams Pipeline, but as you move towards
the north the ground level has gone down quite a lot. I think one of the -- one of the areas
where the masquerading for the gravel pit benefited the neighbors to the south is kind of
right at the corner where the Val Vista and Aspen Cove Subdivisions come together,
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F98
Page 95 of 110
which is just to the west of the common driveway access lots that Commissioner Seal
asked me about earlier and in that corner there is kind of one particularly large lot that
you can see on the screen in front of us. Probably can't see my cursor, but it's kind of
dead center of the south property line. Right at that location. I think overall the mass
grading resulted in that lot being lowered -- I think 27 feet from the natural grade, which
certainly has lowered that lot and all the lots considerably to the benefit of Val Vista's
neighbors' views.
Fitzgerald: Okay.
Densmer: While I'm on the topic I did want to maybe mention some of the other
requirements that were encapsulated in the original development agreement in 2007 and,
then, carried forward into the -- the development agreement modification in 2012. All of
which were originally designed in response to neighbors' concerns about a lot of the same
issues that have been brought up tonight. In particular, the development agreement
required -- and the developer has already completed a very expensive six foot tall
masonry fence along the entire south boundary line of the project, between Val Vista and
Aspen Cove and the Southridge South project. There are specific restrictions on the
heights of the homes that can be built along that shared property line. They are limited
to a maximum height of 22 feet or to a -- you know, basically, the maximum height of the
ridge of the -- the roof of the house has -- can -- can be taller than 22, so long as it's not
higher than the top of that six foot fence. So, for the lots that have been lowered, taller
homes are possible, but they still wouldn't be above the top of the fence. There is a --
there is a categorical restriction on the number of homes that can be along the shared
property line. The development agreement restricts it to 14, which is exactly what we
have proposed. So, we are --we are staying consistent with the promises that have been
made all the way back to 2007 and, then, there is also a requirement on an increase
setback for all of the lots that -- that border that property line. Although, those properties
are zoned R-2 and have been since the original annexation into the city, the R-2 zoning
allows a rear setback of 15 feet, but through the development agreement the property
has agreed to a 50 foot setback for those lots in order to move the homes much further
away from the neighbors and the underlying zoning requirement would allow.
Fitzgerald: Thank you.
Densmer: I sort of hijacked the original question, but --
Fitzgerald: You're fine.
Densmer: -- it provides more color to the discussion.
Fitzgerald: I appreciate it. No, I appreciate that. Mr. Voglemore, you are -- I think you
are with us now, sir. If you unmute yourself you can join our conversation.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F99
Page 96 of 110
Voglemore: You know, with Jason -- he touched on everything. I just wanted to make
sure that, you know, we all had the same understanding and so Jason did explain that
well.
Fitzgerald: And, Mr. Voglemore, can you introduce yourself, just so we have you on
our --
Voglemore: I'm sorry. I'm Mike Voglemore. 2720 West Val Vista Court.
Fitzgerald: So, any additional comments to make -- follow that up?
Voglemore: No. Jason touched it very well.
Fitzgerald: Okay. That was -- it's helpful. Thank you so much for the information.
Voglemore: You bet.
Fitzgerald: Adrienne, I see -- I think Karen has her hand up.
Weatherly: Yes, Mr. Chair. Karen, one moment, please. Karen, if you could unmute
yourself and finish transitioning. Karen, if you would like to unmute yourself and introduce
yourself. Did I lose Karen?
Fitzgerald: Madam Clerk, we are losing people left and right.
Weatherly: Mr. Chair, I promise, I don't know what's happening, but I'm not doing it.
Fitzgerald: Is there anyone else that would like to testify, to see if Karen comes back in
-- that is in the audience or online that would like to testify, please, raise your hand. See
if Karen gets back on. Not seeing anyone --Tamara, would you like to take an opportunity
to close and we will let Karen hop back on if she gets back online.
Thompson: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, this is Tamara Thompson again with
The Land Group. If I could, I will just share one more screen real quickly. There we go.
Let's see. Did that work?
Fitzgerald: Not yet.
Thompson: Okay. How about now?
Fitzgerald: Yep.
Thompson: Okay. So, what --just in -- in addition to what Jason said, I think he -- he did
the -- replied to Mr. Nichols' points on a lot of things. As far as the drainage, the comp --
point number one that Mr. Nichols brought up, of course, we are aware and we will
accommodate the drainage that he is referring to. As far as the streetlighting with the
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 Flool
Page 97 of 110
dark sky, we are happy to include the area that is adjacent to the Val Vista Subdivision
that we can include in the CC&Rs for having some dark sky light fixtures in that area.
And, then, as far as the subdivision layout, Jason addressed that. There were -- this is
the master plan from 2013 and the Val Vista Subdivision was included in -- in those. Mr.
Nichols has lived there since 2006. So, he's been involved in this process through --
throughout and -- and I have done lots of research as far as on their subdivision and the
deeds of the homeowners along that south property line and there aren't any -- any view
sheds or anything like that that are deeded and, you know, you buy your property, but
you don't necessarily buy the view. The view -- the view is for sale sometimes, but -- but
that's not -- having conditions that are -- encumber somebody else's property aren't
something that's -- that's part of your deed, but these have been -- since 2007 there has
been many concessions that have been made and those are codified, they are in the
development agreement and we are complying with every single one of those. So, I just
want to go back that we -- we do agree with the staff report. We agree with all the
conditions of approval. There is the -- the one requirement to include another attached
unit and we are asking for that condition to be removed, that we would like to keep these
as detached single family homes and with that we respectfully request your approval
tonight and thank you very much.
Fitzgerald: Tamara, real quick. Can you -- what about the vegetation buffer or the --
keeping the vegetation lower than the ridge line or ten feet?
Densmer: Mr. Chairman, this is Jason Densmer. If I can jump in on a couple of items
that maybe I have a little bit more background on and that might be one of them.
Fitzgerald: Go right ahead.
Densmer: Yeah. Thank you. And to the point that -- that Tamara made, certainly we
have been -- we have enjoyed working with Scott and all of the neighbors in Val Vista
since 2006. It really has been a partnership in working with them and -- and seeing that
their needs are addressed through the development agreements and are documented.
We are-- I'm quite proud of the project that's in front of you tonight, because it-- it respects
all of those. It also meets the developer -- our client's goals and aspirations for the
property. There were -- in addition to the vegetation -- trust me, I'm coming back to that
eventually. The -- Scott did also ask about relocating two lots -- the two lots that were
used for the stub street and -- in between the stub street and the Williams Pipeline. One
of the things that we are particularly proud of with the layout of the subdivision is the
effective use of open space and while I appreciate this suggestion that we take those two
lots and relocate them into the area across the street, you can see here on the master
plan that's in front of us the -- there has always been lots proposed along the south
boundary line in that area between the stub street and the Williams Pipeline. On the
master plan originally there had been lots across the street in the open space, but we
deliberately removed those in order to increase the amount of open space and really
provide open parkland in a more meaningful way that can benefit the neighborhood. The
proposed design of that open space area is really -- it really meets the vision of an open
space by being open. It's not cut up and it doesn't have two lots just floating out in the
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 Foll
Page 98 of 110
middle of it, which allows us to provide more sportsfield type space with a perimeter
walking path that can connect in with the multi-use path that follows the Williams Pipeline.
We really feel like -- while I appreciate this recommendation and the city has been great
since 2006 in providing us with feedback on the design, with regard to those two lots and
his suggestion, I think what we have proposed is a stronger proposal. As far as limiting
vegetation along the south property line, that's really difficult and it's not a component of
the existing development agreement. As Tamara mentioned, there are -- and
summarized them for you -- there is a number of protections that are already built into the
development agreement and that are being honored to try and control individual
homeowners landscape is -- is a minefield and I don't think even the city gets into that.
You provide us with recommendations and requirements for common area landscaping,
but there is very few restrictions on individual homeowner plantings. It's not a requirement
that we would be willing to add to the project.
Fitzgerald: Thanks, Jason. Additional questions for Jason or Tamara? None at this
time? This is your last chance. If anyone has a quick -- quick question or follow up.
Okay. Tamara, Jason, thank you so much for being here this evening, hanging with us,
and with that we are done discussing at this point. Could I get a motion to close the public
hearing.
Seal: So moved.
Holland: Second.
Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on H-2020-0083,
Southridge South Subdivision. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Fitzgerald: Anybody want to leadoff?
McCarvel: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: I will jump in on a couple of things. I think I would actually be in agreement
with the applicant on the side of not requiring another housing type right here within this.
I just -- I think there is plenty of housing types within the area. I mean we have got some
decent size lots in here and -- you know. And even in the R-8s and I think there is a nice
variety within the area.
Fitzgerald: I agree. I think there is -- then the apartments are right next door. There is
townhomes right --
McCarvel: Yeah. There is a ton of apartments.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F102
Page 99 of 110
Fitzgerald: Yeah. I agree.
McCarvel: And, you know, I'm -- I'm for, you know, doing -- you know, within reason to
help conserve people's views that have been there for a while, but on the other hand, you
know, you can't limit what this property is -- I mean the -- there is more view lots coming.
I mean they are going to have views as well. But I think there is some things that, you
know, they have suggested within reason and I think Tamara was in agreement with --
already with the dark sky lighting. Yeah. And, you know, the ten foot vegetative limit on
one hit -- you know, seems like a reasonable request on the one hand, but on the other
who is ever going to be able to police that.
Fitzgerald: Additional comments?
Holland: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland.
Holland: I would agree with Commissioner McCarvel's comments there, too. I don't really
feel like there is a need for another housing type. I think that it's well accomplished within
this area regionally. So, I -- I would be okay with striking that. The only other thing I
noticed was like -- and I don't think I want to change it necessarily. I appreciate that they
have got a large section of open space, but I felt a little bad for all the R-8 units that just
look like rows of R-8 without any breaks in them. I guess I don't know that I necessarily
want to change anything, but it's something I certainly noticed. It's just a big section of R-
8 and there is not really any pocket parks or any other amenities on -- on that section for
those homes, it's just kind of more on the south side. So, there are two houses that get
great access to the big open spaces, but they have the bigger lots and the R-8 -- it's all
kind of more packed and they don't have as much open space that's close to them, but I
think they are meeting and exceeding what -- what they need to do for open space
throughout the entire project, so just a point of conversation. Commissioner Seal kind of
touched on it, but I always hate shared drives when you have got three -- six houses on
one split down. I just hate those. I don't think they work well. I think it causes issues with
trash collection, it causes someone who has got a trailer or you have got people double
parked or whatever it is -- guest parking. It just -- they don't -- they don't work well and I
don't think anybody on the Commission likes them, so that would be my only point of
consideration if we were going to make a recommendation to see if there was an
alternative way to -- to do that. But other than that I -- I am not opposed to the
development. I think it's a pretty good layout and I think the R-2 was a nice transition. I
would also like to make a couple comments about the view lots. It's hard to restrict
somebody on a different property from what they want to do with it, but I think they have
tried to do what they can to be accommodating to those neighbors.
Fitzgerald: So, my only -- I agree with -- with the majority what you just said. I think the
comment about the common area in the -- on the R-8, that is a pretty big field -- a pool in
the middle at the southeast corner that is away from the R-2 that I think is really
centralized. We always talk about -- like to break up these little pieces all over the place.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F103
Page 100 of 110
I love that central area. I know there is park strips all along that middle -- I know it's just
kind of a funky -- like ribs layout, but that-- I love the Central Park they have in the middle
with the pool in it. So, unless you want to trade off for a pocket park.
Holland: No. And that's why I said I don't think I want to change anything, because I
would much rather have a big open space and walk an extra two blocks to get to it, but
it's just sad when you see rows of R-8. I wish there was an extra pocket park, but I'm not
going to make them take away from something else to add it in there.
Grove: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Any thought?
Grove: Mr. Chair? Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Mr. Chairman?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: So, you know, I think one of the banes of being on Planning and Zoning is
having to look at a house with a 39 foot frontage, because all you see is a big garage
door, with a little front door and it -- to me that is probably one of the most things that just
-- I hate, just because it just -- all you do is you see a sea of garage and you don't see
much of the house and so I guess that's more of my nitpicking versus wanting to do
anything about it, but I don't know -- if we could get rid of some of those and make a little
bit bigger lots I would be much happier.
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Grove, I think I cut you off.
Grove: It's all good. I would echo a lot of what's been said, especially with what
Commissioner Holland said. That north portion -- or northwest portion where -- there is
no open space, but I don't -- normally I would probably want to change some of that, but
because of what you said also, Mr. Chair, with how big the open space is and the
amenities that are there, I -- I think that that works for this. I understand what
Commissioner Yearsley says about the garage that -- and how those look. I think at this
point, though, for me, having houses that are smaller does improve what is available for
our community in allowing more people access to homeownership and so I'm in favor of
-- of how this has been laid out.
Seal: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal.
Seal: I like a lot of things about the sub. I like the -- you know, the layout of it. I agree
that the -- kind of the rows and rows of houses I don't necessarily care for, but I -- you
know, I mean the rest of it is laid out a little bit differently, so provides some variety in the
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F104
Page 101 of 110
community. But the shared driveways where there is six homes on each one of those, I
just -- I just can't -- I can't get over that. So, I -- you know, I would really like to see those
eliminated or at least limited to three, you know, and in doing that I don't know -- I mean
looking at the -- essentially what Sonya has got in the staff report, she gives an example
of single family attached or townhomes that she's not necessarily saying that that's what
has to go in there, but I think there is an opportunity to, you know, do both -- provide
something that could be different, not necessarily attached -- you know, single family
attached or townhomes or something like that, but just something different in there that
eliminates the need for those shared driveways. So, I appreciate that it's a little bit
different landscape in there, but even in the original drawings they had -- they had cul-de-
sacs in there, so I just think that the community in -- between all of the services that need
to be provided there and everything else, it would be better served by eliminating those
shared driveways or at least getting them limited to, you know, no more than three on a
shared driveway or something along those lines. I don't know. And I can see maybe an
alley load product or something like that working well in there, especially with some kind
of, you know, view in mind with them.
Cassinelli: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli, go right ahead.
Cassinelli: I think the -- the one thing on those shared driveways -- I think what Jason
was mentioning -- had with the -- with the topography and so I -- I think that they are kind
of limited on that. I just wanted to throw that in while I'm thinking about it. A couple of my
thoughts here. I -- I don't -- I'm in agreement with the applicant. I don't think -- I think
there is enough housing types in that area that we don't need to try and just shove one in
here for the sake of shoving it in and we have got some of these smaller lots -- these 39
foot lots -- I'm in agreement with Commissioner Yearsley as far as the look of that, but
that will bring in a -- I think a lower price point product and open the door and some of
those may be with some, you know, more patio home styles that will, you know, bring the
-- bring the cap and open it up for more -- more ownership. I couldn't figure out what --
what was getting me when I looked at all of this -- kind of those that -- you called it -- you
referred to it as kind of the rib effect, the rib look, and as you pointed out is that there is
-- there is no greenspace there. It was all so straight. I'm -- I'm not so sold on the fact
that you have got to have that huge open area by the R-2 and, number one, R-2 people,
they got big lots, they are not going to be going to a huge common lot. It's going to be
the other people that want that. So, you know, I would ultimately like to see that move.
Again, this is a preliminary plat, but I would like to see some more -- more open space in
some of those other areas. It's those smaller lots that -- that need close access to -- to a
pocket park and I know in -- in my subdivision we have got one huge open space area --
nobody really uses it. Every once in a while somebody will -- will put a volleyball net up
there, every once in a while that's where we have our -- you know, some -- some
community events twice a year. It's not like it's full every day with kids playing in there
like you might think. It's -- you know, it's actually -- a couple of smaller pocket parks that
I think are used more, because they are, you know, a block away, half a block away,
instead of all the way across the subdivision. So, that's my thoughts on there. And, then,
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F105
Page 102 of 110
one of the comments I wanted to address to one of Mr. Nichols' comment, is in his e-mail
was that, you know, they are -- the applicant is asking for a rezone of a -- significant
request for a rezone and I know they have -- they have worked together a lot. I don't see
-- you know. And moving those two lots -- I think it's not the -- the residents up on Val
Vista didn't just say we don't want it, we don't want it, I mean they kind of -- they took -- I
think they were creative, they took some time, they have, obviously, spent a lot of time
communicating. It sounded like the only reason why they -- why the applicant was
opposed to moving those two lots is because they had that one big open area. Well, alls
that does is it kind of shifts it a little bit and, again, I would -- I would -- I'm more in favor
of moving some of that open space even -- even down. So, I'm not -- it's a preliminary
plat. I'm not -- I would love to see some changes in there. I would love -- I would like to
see the applicant really look hard about moving those two lots. It's not -- there is not a --
there is not a real reason not to do it and I don't think that the folks up on Val Vista are
asking for the moon on that and I think it could be done. So, those are -- those are my
thoughts. But I would really love to see some more -- some of that open space shifted
down below. And I guess I have a question if I can. Sonya, are we just approving the
rezone? I think you thought -- I think your comments -- your initial comments were they
are presenting a preliminary plat, but we were only addressing the rezone. Can you clarify
that?
Allen: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli, Commissioners, no, they are requesting a
rezone and a preliminary plat. So, both of those items are -- are requiring a
recommendation from you to Council. I would like to clarify something that's not in the
staff report specifically. The -- the applicant references 39 foot wide lots. Those do not
meet the minimum dimensional standards of the R-8 district. There is a minimum frontage
of 40 feet. Their plat is missing dimensions of the frontage. The final plat will have to
comply with the dimensional standards of the district that they are approved with, but just
--just to note that, that if there are 39 foot wide lots, that does not meet the R-8 standard
and they will need to be widened a little bit.
Fitzgerald: Thanks for that, Sonya. Just to follow up on Commissioner Cassinelli's
comments. I -- I understand your comment about shifting a lot over into the open space.
One of the things I don't want us to get into as a -- as a Commission is view sheds are
not something we can -- I mean that's not -- it's not in code, it's not anywhere we can
discuss it. I mean it's -- it's something that everybody has a right to. It's a property right
that no one can take away from other people. When it's landowners that's -- what's on
their land. So, I'm going to make sure we -- that's not the direction we go on some of
these comments, because that's -- and I really appreciate that we don't want to impact
the people on Val Vista, that -- I totally agree and they have been great partners, but I
want to make sure that view sheds are something that get real sticky when you go into --
especially in a legal battle, because there is nothing that defines that in our code and
every property right owner has a right to their own -- where their lot sits and where their
view is and so does the property owner where this is developed. So, we got to make sure
we don't -- we got to be real careful about how we approach that. So, I -- not that that
impacts my comments about -- or your thoughts about the -- moving the lots. If that's
something we think we want to do, the good kind of partner in the city, that's --that's okay,
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F106
Page 103 of 110
but let's be careful about how we approach that. I think that's my--at least in my thoughts.
I would love feedback there, if there is others that have different opinions.
Seal: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Yeah, go right ahead.
Seal: Just on moving those lots, I mean the one thing, you know, to -- to consider is if
those lots are moving that becomes open space. There is requirements on the open
space to have things like trees, things that are going to block that -- that view anyway. I
think what we are going to run up against is the -- I think, you know, what I'm hearing from
-- from the folks that live south of this is, you know, essentially, they don't want anything
that's going to encroach upon their view shed -- or on their view at all and I think, you
know, as long as the buildings are kept to, you know, certain height restrictions and things
like that, that can somewhat be accomplished, but you can't necessarily tell somebody
that they can't plant a tree in their backyard. You know. And, again, who is going to
enforce that. You know, I mean we -- everywhere we go, you know, the mantra is plant
as many trees as you can stand on your property. I mean I think we still have the two
tree minimum in our front yards for Ada county. So, you know, we kind of get into that
where, yeah, we might move two houses and, then, the next thing you know there is trees
in there that are going to block the view. So -- you know. And I sympathize for them. I
mean to be perfectly honest, this is a piece of property I have eyed for a long time, like if
it ever comes available I'm going to start shopping, so --you know. And --and specifically
for the fact that it's going to have great views, you know, and there is not much that's
going to pop up in front of it. Not that I'm -- you know, I don't necessarily want to look out
on a whole bunch of apartments, but you do have Bogus Basin in your view as well. So,
you know, I agree we have to be careful with what -- you know, what we are trying to
accomplish here by accommodating them, because in trying to accommodate them it
might turn into just the opposite where we are going to have -- you know, because of the
requirement to put in trees and, you know, bushes and things like that, it might end up
doing the opposite for them. So, that's -- that's my thoughts on it. I mean --
Fitzgerald: And we can't plant anything besides grass on that -- on the Williams -- or on
the Williams Pipeline, which is a big section of that greenspace.
Seal: Right.
Fitzgerald: So, just to keep that in the --
McCarvel: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Yes, sir. Go ahead.
McCarvel: Oh, this --
Fitzgerald: Oh, sorry.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F107
Page 104 of 110
McCarvel: Yeah. I really don't -- I don't see the real value in moving those two lots over
into the middle of that green space and just kind of floating those two lots there in the
middle of, you know, what looks like very nicely -- nice designed area and I agree with
Commissioner Seal, you take those out you might be getting worse as far as view
blockage.
Holland: Mr. Chair, could we restrict them to single story? Would that help at all?
Fitzgerald: I think Tamara put restrictions in place.
Holland: I think that was already covered, but --
Fitzgerald: Yeah. And, Sonya, can you speak to that? Was that something that -- was
it in the development agreement originally?
Allen: I'm sorry, Chairman, can you repeat the question?
Fitzgerald: On the height of the R-2 along the southern border.
Allen: Yes. The height is dealt with in the development agreement and I believe I included
those conditions in the conditions of approval of this staff report. Do you have it handy?
Fitzgerald: I do somewhere, yes. And the 14,000 tabs I have open.
Allen: Would you like me to review the condition or --
Fitzgerald: That would be awesome.
Allen: Hang on.
Fitzgerald: I think we covered it, if I remember correctly. I'm just trying to find it.
Allen: Yeah. That -- the height of the homes along the southern boundary of the
subdivision shared with Val Vista and Aspen Cove Subdivision shall be limited to a
maximum height of 22 feet measured from either the midpoint of the front of the lot at the
top back of curb or the midpoint of the rear of the lot, whichever is more restrictive, to the
average height of the highest roof surface. In the event the maximum height of the home
as so measured is lower than the top of the six foot tall masonry fence, then, the maximum
height may be increased, so that the maximum height is equal to the elevation of the top
of the fence at midpoint of the rear of the lot. The lots along this boundary are also
required to provide a minimum 50 foot rear setback.
Fitzgerald: Thank you.
Allen: Yes.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F108
Page 105 of 110
Fitzgerald: Additional comments or thoughts? What do we need to work through? I know
we are -- we have some pocket park discussions. We have common driveway
discussions. And, then, anything else that's -- that's hanging out there that anybody has
some concerns about? I think we all -- do we all agree that we don't need to have a
different type of housing type, unless they are going to shift the common drive lots? Like
are we all okay there?
Cassinelli: I'm -- I'm good with that.
Yearsley: I good with that.
Seal: I mean I -- honestly my -- I mean the only thing I have hanging out there. I
understand about the -- the parks and how things could be redone in order to
accommodate, you know, losing a little bit of that larger area and making some small
areas to, you know, break up the block base and those -- you know, where they are all
just right in a row. You know, I -- I like to do everything we can to eliminate the -- the
garage farm concept for sure, but I mean there is a lot of things in this subdivision that
make that a little more difficult to do, so -- geographically that is. I mean my -- my only
hang up really is those common driveways. I think we would better serve the community
by trying to get -- you know, at least reduce them to, you know, no more than three at this
point.
Holland: Mr. Chair, I would say maybe no more than four, because, then, you could at
least have them even. There is six right now on them.
Cassinelli: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Go right ahead.
Cassinelli: Sonya, back to the outline. They have proposed 254 building lots. There
were a lot of different numbers there in the beginning from the original development
agreement to current and -- and the apartments and all the number breakdowns. How
many more units -- if you know this off the top of your head. How many more units are
they -- are they proposing now than what -- what the net after -- you know, the
apartments and all that, what it should have been? I think -- I see in 37 is that what -- is
that correct?
Allen: Well, it just depends on how you do the calcs. It's 37 in the single family homes.
But there was a -- there was a variance that the DA -- the development agreement
allowed, which was -- hang on just a second here. They were anticipated -- the single
family units were anticipated to consist of 438 units or a balance of the single family and
the multi-family to total 1,286 total units. So, if you just look at the calcs on the single
family, it's approximately 37 more. If you look at the calcs overall the -- the maximum
number originally in the development agreement was 1 ,296 and today if this
development agreement is approved they would be at 1,451. However, you know, it's
important to note that the other -- the two multi-family developments have gone through
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 Flog]
Page 106 of 110
separate approvals and are now broken out into their own development agreements
and were approved for that number of units, if that makes sense. So, the numbers
really aren't a whole lot of applicable at this point, because there has been a lot of
changes to the site and the development since 2012 when this development agreement
was last modified.
Cassinelli: And I guess where I'm -- where I'm going on this -- some of my fellow
Commissioners -- is, you know, can we -- can we pull out some lots. A couple of you
have shown some concerns over the common driveways. Can we pull out a couple
there and, then, can we pull out a few in all that -- the large R-8 section and keep in
mind that, you know, what they are asking for, too, is a whole lot more R-8 than -- there
was R-4 in there and that's -- that's gone. They are asking to get rid of the R-4 all
together and go -- replace that with R-8 and there was R-2 in there as well. I'm not
looking at the -- the original right now, but, you know, I don't think it would be -- I don't --
I don't think it would be a stretch for us to ask them to eliminate some of the -- you
know, some lots here and there to get a pocket park in some of those R-8 sections.
Fitzgerald: Additional thoughts?
Holland: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland, go right ahead.
Holland: My only concern is if you ask him to start eliminating lots to put in open space,
then, we are looking more at a continuance for them to come back to us again to look at
it again. I don't know that -- I don't think we need to necessarily do that. I think we are
pretty close here. The thing -- I think if we were to restrict those common drives down
to four, instead of six, I would feel better about that, but I think with how big those open
spaces are, I would say -- you know, I lived in a neighborhood before the one that I'm in
now that had a fairly large open space and it was well utilized for the neighborhood. It
was mostly an R-4, R-8 kind of mixed neighborhood, but all of the kids were using that
park, people were using it with frisbees and dogs and we walked four blocks to get to it
and we didn't mind, because we liked having the bigger open space. So, I think it's just
personal perspective and -- and preference there. I would prefer to have the bigger
open spaces, so I don't know that I want to mess with it too much to have them
eliminate lots.
McCarvel: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: I would agree. I -- I like the bigger open space. I think maybe what we are
trying to get after is fewer of the 40 foot lots, so we don't have, you know, so many of
those places there be just walls of garage. Yeah. It -- you get a little bit -- better varied
fronts if you just -- I mean maybe we limit the number of 40 foot lots. I don't know.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 Fol
Page 107 of 110
Fitzgerald: Well, I think I'm -- I'm in agreement with -- I mean Commissioner Holland
and -- your comment and Commissioner Seal where if we take the -- if we start with the
camera, the six lots on a common drive, and take to four -- looking at -- and I see
looking and the open qualified -- or qualified open space, there is green space pretty
much everywhere. It's not a pocket park, but there is green space all over the place and
I do like the centralized -- you know, there are centralized places and kind of in multiple
locations, but there is two big significant open spaces, which I kind of like. I don't -- I
kind of like the mix of different housing types. If you are going to do that I -- I'm not sure
how you do it or where you start.
McCarvel: Yeah. Yeah. I -- going after those -- eliminating the -- those shared
driveways is the bigger deal, because it just -- talking through this, I mean those
narrower lots do provide the housing, the different -- in my mind the different housing
type, that it lends itself to having the different housing type is just detached.
Fitzgerald: Yeah.
McCarvel: Which I think is better than having more attached, being that they are so
close to other townhomes and massive amounts of apartments.
Parsons: So, Mr. Chair, if I may.
Fitzgerald: Go ahead, Bill.
Parsons: Thank you. So, keep in mind this is a plat. There is a rezone associated with
it, but as staff has mentioned in their presentation there is no modification to the DA at
this time. We have found that even with this rezone and the subdivision before you
tonight it is consistent with the recorded development agreement. So, we have to be a
little bit careful of trying to redesign and require people to lose lots and make -- provide
more open space when they already exceed code requirements. So, I will caution the
Commission on that discussion this evening. The other thing that the Commission is
missing on this exhibit before you is a qualified open space exhibit, is that the applicant
is going to be building a ten foot multi-use pathway along the Ridenbaugh. That is a
ring around this community. So, you don't see that green line going up along that north
-- north boundary of this project, which to me is probably one of the better amenities for
this development, because that's a tremendous amount of pathway being added with
this development and to me that's what gives you that walking path and starts
connecting some of that open space in here, so -- so, keep that in mind. It's -- it's hard
to see it, because it's such -- it only has to be 15 feet wide, but that's a tremendous
asset to this community and it does tie -- not only does the road network tie into the --
the adjacent Southridge to the east, but it also ties into the pathway system into that
development as well. So, we are going to have a mile segment of pathway through this
entire development when it's done. So, I just wanted to at least bring that to your
attention as you are -- you are deliberating tonight.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 Fill]
Page 108 of 110
Fitzgerald: No. Bill, that was hugely helpful. Thank you. And so -- but I think we can
request a modification of the DA that no more than four lots come off a common drive;
correct?
Parsons: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I probably wouldn't go that route just
to modify a DA to reduce two lots. The applicant's demonstrated that it can work in the
development to the east. Sonya's conditioned it appropriately to make sure that we are
adequately addressing our concerns and the fire department's concerns. So, at this
point -- I mean we hear you, we understand what you are -- what you are saying. If the
applicant's amenable to losing a few lots, I think maybe opening up and having that
discussion with them about doing that -- or maybe even Jason can explain how it
worked in the previous phases, because, again, we have already done this before. It
doesn't mean we have to do it again, but, again, I -- I don't know what the benefit is
opening up a DA and doing a DA mod to lose four lots. At the end of the day it's got to
work, it's got to meet code, and the code allows up to six units off a common drive.
Fitzgerald: Got it.
Holland: Mr. Chair, perhaps we just make a recommendation that the applicant might
consider alternatives to that shared drive, but make it not a requirement.
Fitzgerald: Yeah. Bill is all kinds of rays of sunshine this evening. He just drops like --
drops the mic and starts beating everybody about the head. Thanks, Bill. Where were
you a half an hour ago? No, I'm just joking.
Parsons: Trying to get you to bed earlier.
Fitzgerald: Lisa said that a long -- an hour and a half long ago. Sorry. Anyway, I'm
getting loopy. Anyone have additional comments around that? I -- I tend to agree with
Bill's comments. I -- I think this is -- this is pretty baked into -- and it has been for a
while after 13 years of working on it, so --
Holland: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland.
Holland: Just to clarify, is there anything that we do want to condition, then, or we -- it
sounds like we have kind of resolved almost everything at this point. We are not
planning to condition much.
Parsons: Well, Mr. Chair, I just wanted to mention, too, that the applicant will have to
lose some lots. Some of his -- their lot sizes don't meet code. So, by virtue of just code
they are going to probably have to re -- reconfigure some of those R-8 lots to meet our
dimensional standards.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F112
Page 109 of 110
Fitzgerald: Then if that's the case -- I mean I think it may be -- and I will leave this up to
you guys making motions, but maybe we make a recommendation that they look at
losing some R-8 lots in the middle. They look at removing the six lots on a common
drive and trying to find some way to put -- I don't know, pocket parks in somewhere. I
mean I leave it up to you guys, but -- and it's more of a recommendation going forward
than an actual condition.
Holland Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland.
Holland: I'm going to attempt something.
Fitzgerald: You go.
Holland: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
recommend approval to City Council of file number --just lost the file number.
Fitzgerald: Eighty-three.
Holland: File number 2020-0083 for Southridge South, with the -- as presented during
the hearing date on December 17th, 2020, with the following recommendations: That
the applicant would consider alternative options for where the shared drive meets six
lots and that the applicant might also take some time considering the dense R-8 section
and the possibility of removing a few lots or adding another couple spots of green space
in there.
Fitzgerald: And the housing type pieces.
McCarvel: Yeah.
Holland: And that we would remove the condition and requirement for an alternative
type of housing product to be provided.
McCarvel: I think it's 8-A, isn't it?
Holland: Condition 8-A.
Seal: Second.
Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to recommend approval of file number H-
2020-0083 with modifications and recommendations. Any other further comment?
Okay. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same?
Cassinelli: Nay.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. December 17,2020 F113
Page 110 of 110
Fitzgerald: I have a -- Commissioner Cassinelli, Commissioner Yearsley, is that right?
Or Commissioner Grove?
Yearsley: I said aye.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Commissioner Grove, did you want to -- were you nay?
Grove: I was aye.
Fitzgerald: Oh, you were aye.
Cassinelli: Commissioner Cassinelli was a nay.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Sorry. Was there any other -- I just want to make sure we are clear.
Okay. Motion passes.
MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE NAY.
Fitzgerald: Thank you, Tamara and Jason and members of the public. Hopefully we
will work through this and it will be a successful partnership for everybody going
forward. With that can I get one more motion?
Holland: Mr. Chair, I move we adjourn.
Seal: Second.
Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to let Commissioner Holland go to bed. All
those in favor say aye. Motion passes. Thank you, guys.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11.55 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
1 1 7 12021
RYAN FITZGERALD - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED
ATTEST:
CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK