2021-01-07 Item 1.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting January 7, 2021.
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of January 7, 2021 , 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, 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. So, at this time I would like to call to order the regularly rescheduled
meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for the date of January
7th, 2021, and let's start with roll call.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Fitzgerald: Thanks, ma'am. Happy New Year to all of you and to those joining us on
Zoom and in person. First item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. A couple
of things I wanted to point out. The first item on the agenda I was hoping with the
permission of the Commission -- or agreement of the Commission to move the election
of officers or the chair or vice-chair to the end. I'm not sure where that will play out, but if
there is someone who has not been a commission -- or a chair or vice-chair before, I want
you guys to have the benefit of the -- the prep meetings that the chair has. So, if that's
okay with you guys, we will move that to the end, because, if not, you have to take over
-- whoever gets elected gets to take over the meeting. So, if we want to move that to the
end that's great. If not we can deal with it right now. And, then, the second item -- we
will be opening up Item No. 4, the Vicenza North Subdivision, H-2020-0108 -- 08. Excuse
me. That was not properly posted in a timely manner, so we need to postpone that one
or continue it to a hearing date and I think we are targeting January 21 st for that one. As
I retire you guys are really really busy in February, so -- and it starts like March, too.
know they are stacking up five or six at a time. So, I think we are looking to -- to put that
on the January 21 st meeting date. There is five or six on there right now, but it's -- those
-- there is a couple that are individual homeowners just looking to hook up to sewer and
water and be annexed in the city and, then, one Bill's pretty sure it will be continued to
later. So, I think the January 21 st date looks like the best possible candidate, because
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 7,2021 6
Page 2 of 38
February is -- is loaded and so do all those things sound copacetic? You guys good with
an adjustment to that and, if so, could I get a motion?
Holland: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland.
Holland: I move we adopt the agenda as presented with one note that we move Item 3
to the end of the agenda for the vote of the chairperson and vice-chairperson.
Cassinelli: Second.
McCarvel: Second.
Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as adjusted. All those in
favor say aye. Any opposed? Okay. Motion passes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item]
1. Approve Minutes of the December 17, 2020 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting
2. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Poiema Calvary Chapel (H-
2020-0095) by The Land Group, Inc., Located at 3727 E. Lake Hazel Rd.
Fitzgerald: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. We have two items on the
Consent Agenda, the approval of the minutes for December 17th, 2020, Planning and
Zoning Commission meeting and the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for
Poiema Calvary Chapel, H-2020-0095. Anything need to be pulled out for further
discussion? If not, can I get a motion to approve the Consent Agenda.
Holland: So moved.
Cassinelli: Second.
McCarvel: Second.
Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. All those in
favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Fitzgerald: So, first let me explain the public hearing process for this evening. We will
open each item individually and start with the staff report. The staff will report the findings
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 7,2021 7
Page 3 of 38
regarding how the application adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and Uniform
Development Code with their staff-- with our staff's recommendations. After the staff has
made their presentation the applicant will come forward via Zoom or in person and make
their presentation on -- regarding the approval of their application and respond to any staff
comments or commissioner comments. The applicant will have 15 minutes to do so.
After the applicant is finished we will open the floor to public testimony. There is a signup
opportunity in the back if you are in person. There is an iPad back there for each
application we are going to be hearing tonight. Please make sure you sign up. If you are
online, please, raise your hand via Zoom and we will make sure you get transferred over
so we can hear from you on that application. If there is any individual that's here to speak
on a larger group, as an HOA, we will give you a little bit more time to speak on behalf of
the HOA, but we ask the people that are -- that are speaking on their behalf not to get up
and reiterate the same comments. One thing I want to make sure we are clear on as --
as we are hearing from -- we are going to use Zoom and in person as we continue to do
the business -- the business of the city, we appreciate everybody's patience as we deal
with technology. One thing we would ask, though, is if you get your three minutes as an
individual, please, take the time wisely, because you won't have a second chance to get
up and provide testimony again. You get your three minutes and, then, the applicant will
have an opportunity to come up and close. They will get ten minutes to do that. But,
please, use your three minutes wisely as we won't be able to hear from you again a
second time. So, with that after all testimony has been heard, like I said, we will have the
applicant come back and answer any questions they have of the commissioners or any
questions that came up during public testimony and, then, we will close the public hearing
and commissioners will have a chance to deliberate and make -- hopefully make
recommendations to City Council on the applications.
ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item]
ACTION ITEMS
4. Public Hearing Continued from December 15, 2020 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.
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
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 7,2021 8
Page 4 of 38
(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: With that let's move to our first hearing item, which is the public hearing
continued from December 15th for Vicenza North Subdivision, file number H-2020-0108.
And, Joe, do you want to take this real quick?
Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, sir. Everybody hear me okay?
Fitzgerald: Yes, sir.
Dodson: Awesome. Yeah. As Mr. Chair alluded to before we got into this, they -- they
didn't post the site in time. It's just a freak -- fluke thing by the applicant's representative.
He's usually really good about it. We just missed it by a day. So, we are going to have
to continue it and I agree with the chair's opinion that I think the 21 st is probably the better
date. Once we get into February it starts to get a little bit more beastly with the size of
the projects, as well as the contentiousness potential. I don't know if that's a word, but
-- I think that the 21 st probably works the best and already started the staff report, so we
should be good.
Fitzgerald: Thanks, Joe. Is there any questions of staff? If not, can I get a motion?
Holland: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland.
Holland: I move we continue Vicenza North Subdivision, H-2020-0108, to January 21 st.
Grove: Second.
Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to continue the hearing for Vicenza North
Subdivision, file number H-2020-0108, to the date of January 21 st, 2021. All those in
favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
5. Public Hearing Continued from December 17, 2020 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.
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
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 7,2021 191
Page 5 of 38
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: Next we will -- next on the agenda is the continued public hearing for Mile
High Pines Subdivision, H-2020-0099, and I will turn it back over to Joe as this was
continued to pretty narrowly -- we gave some specific things we wanted to see on this
continued public hearing and I think, hopefully, we wrap that up. Joe, do you want to take
it from there?
Dodson: Absolutely. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. As noted this
was continued from the December 17th hearing to mostly work with some of my
conditions of approval in the staff report and revise any plans that were related to the
conditions and, specifically, those related to the utility easements and -- but within the
private streets for the public sewer and water lines. Specifically in regards to that we did
receive a memo from Public Works that they endorsed the plan and the revisions that
have been made. Again, they cannot formally approve anything with this application,
because they have not been part of our process. We do not get formal construction
drawings at this point. So, those will be applied for probably with final plat. That's when
they come in. So, we are a ways away from that. But in the interim Public Works has
provided two memos, actually, that they are in support of this and if anything needs to
change from here on out they should be minor changes. So, planning staff very much
appreciates that from Public Works. Second to that, the applicant has submitted some
revised plans which resulted in some recommended changes to the conditions of
approval. I'm basically just going to go -- skim through my memo that I sent out to you
guys, so I hope you guys had time to read that. I don't want to rehash all of the other
stuff, just because we had some very specifics that we continued this for. Notably none
of the open space and parking counts have really changed much from -- with those
revisions, so that's good. Also I don't want to get into those again. It's going to stay the
same. Secondly, those numbers will be added to the staff report following this -- you
know, whatever recommendation you guys make to City Council. The noticeable
revisions are as follows: The zoning and the preliminary plat now match, so -- come on,
let me click. Let me click. There we go. So, they revised the zoning and the plat to show
that the --this red line is going to be the C-C zoning and it matches where the commercial
is going to occur. So, we had mixed zoning that crossed some of the property lines, which
cannot occur. They added an additional commercial lot here -- technically two, I guess.
One here and, then, one in the middle. So, now everything is okay with that. I already
have a condition within the revised --well, within the staff report to provide revised Iegals.
Today prior to the meeting the applicant did provide those, so I will add a recommended
condition -- or recommended change from the Commission that you guys strike that
condition, because it's no longer necessary. In general the C-C zone is about six acres.
This is the zone here. And on the R-15 it's about the 11th. So, it now matches with what
was originally proposed, which we appreciate very much. As within the other Modern
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 7,2021 Flo]
Page 6 of 38
Craftsman, the clubhouse is residing within the C-C zone and that can occur. It doesn't
-- multi-family can be in commercial and residential. So, there is an area -- this area right
here is the clubhouse and it will be in the C-C zone. The applicant also revised this three-
way intersection as you can see, which we very much appreciate. It's no longer that --
that awkward roundabout thing. Now, it's kind of a T intersection, which should be more
beneficial I think to the traffic flow. There is -- I'm not aware of whether or not there are
going to be stop signs on that. That's not something that we usually dictate when it comes
to those things. I think they will work that out. If there is stop signs I presume that the
north-south will not have them, so that the traffic from the commercial and into the site
can be pretty free flow. Other than that I don't have any other comments, but we do
appreciate and approve of the revised layout there.
Fitzgerald: Thanks, Joe. Any questions for staff at this time? Okay. Hearing none, is
the applicant with us? I think they are online.
Nelson: Good evening, commissioners. Deborah Nelson. 601 West Bannock Street.
On behalf of the applicant. And we appreciate all of staff's work to review our new
submittals and Public Works as well and we will just -- we are just here to stand for
questions, because we feel like you have probably received every single thing that was
asked of us and so if you have any questions about those items we would be happy to
answer them.
Fitzgerald: Deborah, thank you guys very much. We appreciate your understanding of
our need to have more information. So, thank you guys for the -- working with us and I
appreciate the changes. Any change -- any questions for Deborah at this time?
Holland: I would just echo I appreciate you working with staff on getting some of those
changes so it was a cleaner staff report and easier for us to make that move to Council.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Deborah, we will let you close in just a minute. I just want to make
sure we don't have any public testimony and, then, we will come back to you for closing
remarks.
Cassinelli: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli, go right ahead.
Cassinelli: Yeah. I just had one question for Deborah. I know -- I was kind of maybe
hoping to see one -- I think before on that three-way intersection was it -- wasn't it a two
way roundabout?
Nelson: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Cassinelli, before what we had was a small triangle
island in the middle. There isn't space there for a roundabout, so we addressed it with a
T that we think provides the same safety with the curvature there that we were hoping to
achieve, but also provides an attractive entry.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 7,2021 Fil
Page 7 of 38
Cassinelli: Okay. Because I was thinking like before you had an island, but it was a -- it
was -- or that -- I guess it was a triangle, but it was a -- the traffic around it was two way
and not one way. That's what I was hoping for. But it looks like you have added some
landscaping in there, because roundabouts oftentimes present -- you know, offer up a
nice visual effect when you get that island in the middle, but it looks like you have got that.
I -- my only question there seeing -- seeing the landscape design is -- is the visibility
particularly to the south coming from the -- coming from the private road there, if you were
stopped there is there -- you know right -- right up there. Is there going to be decent
visibility to the south if you were going to head on out? Does that make sense?
Nelson: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Cassinelli, yes, we will make sure that that visibility
complies with all standards, with your site triangles, and I'm sure that will be reviewed
carefully in the CZC time frame and it's certainly in our interest as well.
Cassinelli: Okay. That would be my only concern on that. Thank you.
Fitzgerald: Any other questions for Deborah at this time? Madam Clerk, do we have any
public testimony or anyone in chambers that would like to testify in this application?
Weatherly: Mr. Chair, we do not have anybody signed in on this application.
Fitzgerald: If there is anyone online, please, raise your hands or, Commissioner Seal, is
there anybody in chambers with you?
Seal: There is not.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Deborah, do you have any final comments for us, seeing that there is
no additional thoughts or folks who want to testify? So, do you have any additional
thoughts for us?
Nelson: Mr. Chairman, thank you. We would just say that we are in full agreement with
the revised and added conditions from staff and ask you to approve it as recommended
by staff.
Fitzgerald: Sounds good. And, please, tell David thank you for all his work. I know it
was -- it was a yeoman's work at times. So, tell him thank you.
Nelson: We will pass that along. Thank you.
Fitzgerald: Any final questions for Deborah or for staff before we close the public hearing?
If not, can I get a motion?
Seal: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 7,2021 F12
Page 8 of 38
Seal: I move that we close the public testimony on file H-2020-0099.
Cassinelli: Second.
Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on Mile High Pines
Subdivision, H-2020-0099. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Fitzgerald: Anyone want to lead off? I think Commissioner Cassinelli had my -- my only
question was the sight triangles, too, and I think that it looks much better than it did. So,
I think it -- everything we asked them to do it looks like it got taken care of, but any
additional thoughts?
Yearsley: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: I think it looks good and I agree with the applicant that sometimes the
landscapers get a little happy with where they placed trees and so it's more of a graphical
look than an actual -- where some of the trees may sit. So, I think that they will make
sure that the sight triangles are there and not having any issues and with that I'm -- I'm in
support of this application.
Fitzgerald: Thank you, sir.
Seal: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal.
Holland: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Just looking at it again I really like this product. I think it's a great addition to our
communities here in Meridian, especially with the -- the -- the -- what do you call them?
The business on the bottom and residential on the top.
Fitzgerald: Live-work.
Seal: Yeah. Live-work. I really really like that. I hope -- I hope that that has a lot of
success in our community. That--that's something that is very very appealing to me and,
again, I hope it has good success. Thank you very much for all the work that's been put
into this. That's a -- kind of a tough spot to put things in and I'm very happy to hear that
this is going to add credence and moving forward with getting Pine Avenue punched all
the way through as well, so that's -- that's another benefit for -- for all involved for sure
and the only -- the only thing I will say is the -- the fourth color palette they picked is --
somebody really has -- has it in for the Army monotones as it would be. So, I was kind of
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 7,2021 F13
Page 9 of 38
hoping to see like a blue or an orange in there maybe, but other than that if -- if that's the
paint schemes that are going to be in there that's totally livable and I'm sure people will
be very happy with them.
Dodson: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Yeah, Joe, go ahead.
Dodson: Just to that point -- I didn't get to it quite well, but to Mr. Seal's point the -- the
applicants did add a fourth color palette and I believe it is a bluish color, so it does add a
little bit of flavor to the site. I agree, I was having flashbacks to being at West Point for a
few months there, so that's a lot of green. But I think we will be okay.
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland, I think you had chimed in there before, ma'am. Go
ahead.
Holland: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would just echo the other comments of the other
commissioners. I think they did what we asked them to do and I don't see any big
concerns. It's nice to have a -- a different product style that's not four-plexes stacked up,
but it's something that will provide a good product that's affordable and has that live-work
component, which I really appreciate.
Fitzgerald: Agreed.
McCarvel: Yeah. Just --
Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel, go right ahead.
McCarvel: Yeah. I -- I agree. I was kind of on the -- the only thing I had wanted to see
changed really last time was that intersection as well and I couldn't help but chuckle at
Commissioner Seal's description. I guess we have to call these a mullet building now,
with the business on the top and the living on the bottom. But I do -- I like them. I think
that's a good integration.
Fitzgerald: Very good.
Grove: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Grove.
Grove: I don't have anything substantial to add other than I think they have done a great
job incorporating what we asked them to do and they have done a good job of creating a
sense of community and within this development, which is always something that I like to
see with these types of things where they have thought through how to integrate different
aspects of the development, so that it flows together and creates a sense of space.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 7,2021 F14]
Page 10 of 38
Fitzgerald: Thank you, sir.
Cassinelli: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: It checks every box. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony
I move to recommend approval to City Council, file number H-2020-0099 as presented in
the staff report for the hearing date of January 7th, 2021. And I don't think there is any
modifications.
Yearsley: I think there was one.
Cassinelli: Was there?
McCarvel: There was one. Yeah.
Yearsley: The condition of the legal descriptions I think or something to that effect.
Seal: There is actually quite a few.
Dodson: Mr. Chair?
Seal: And, yeah, Joe -- Joe summed them up nicely in his letter.
Fitzgerald: Yeah.
Dodson: I was going to say, if you -- if you made it per my memo --
Cassinelli: Yeah. Okay.
Fitzgerald: Per the staff memo.
Dodson: And, then, the additional one of removing the condition requiring revised Iegals
and, then, I think we are kosher.
Cassinelli: Okay. I amend my motion to do the modifications to -- let me get that -- pull
that memo up -- to be in line with the staff memo and the revised legal condition.
Holland: I will second.
McCarvel: Second.
Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to recommend approval of file number H-2020-
0099, Mile High Pines Subdivision. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion
passes.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 7,2021 F15]
Page 11 of 38
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Fitzgerald: Deborah, thank you guys. Good luck and we will see you in the future I'm
sure.
Nelson: Thank you very much.
Dodson: Good night, everybody.
6. Public Hearing for Tetherow Crossing Subdivision (H-2020-0112) by
Hayden Homes Idaho, LLC, Located Northeast of N. Linder Rd and W.
Ustick Rd.
A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 7.58 acres of land from RUT in
Ada County to the R-8 zoning district.
B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 46 building lots and 8
common lots on 13.99 acres of land in the proposed R-8 zoning
district.
Fitzgerald: Thanks, Joe. Okay. Moving on to the last -- second to the last item on the
agenda, the Tetherow -- Tetherow Crossing Subdivision, file number H-2020-0112. Alan,
I will let you take the lead on the staff report, sir.
Tiefenbach: Happy New Year, Mr. Chair and Members of the Commission. Can
everybody hear me okay? Give me a thumbs up.
Seal: A little faint.
Tiefenbach: See my screen.
Fitzgerald: You're a little bit -- on your voice, sir. So, if you can get a little bit closer.
Tiefenbach: Wow. Sure. You're about the first people I have ever heard in my life that
told me they can't hear me, so awesome. Usually my wife tells me to, please, keep it
down. Is this better? Okay. Great.
Fitzgerald: That's good, Alan. Thanks.
Tiefenbach: So, this is an annexation, a zoning, and a preliminary plat. You said you
could see my screen? Thumbs up, please, somebody? You can't see my screen?
Cassinelli: Can see it.
Fitzgerald: I can see --
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 7,2021 F16]
Page 12 of 38
Cassinelli: Oh, no.
Fitzgerald: I can see something. Is that yours?
Cassinelli: It says a Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
Tiefenbach: Okay. All right. Fair enough. Okay. I was -- I was trying to be cool, but I
guess it didn't work. But this is an annexation, zoning, and preliminary plat. The site
consists of about seven and a half acres of land. It's zoned RUT in unincorporated Ada
county. It's located on the northeast of North Linder Road and Ustick, but to the west of
the property is zoned C-C. That went through a proposal for a townhouse development
some time ago, which did not get approved. To the northwest up at the top is Eddington
Commons, which you should remember and that was recently approved. To the east is
the Woodburn West No. 2 Subdivision and to the south is the Creason Creek Subdivision.
A little history on this property. In 2006 there was a proposal for this property. It was for
35 single family lots. That was not approved, but the Council denied that because they
believed at that time that it wasn't ready, they didn't have the infrastructure, it was a
leapfrog type development. Since that time it is mostly filled in and infrastructure has
come out to the site. The property is zoned to medium density residential, which is eight
to 12 dwelling units per acre. And, again, this is a proposal for annexation, a rezoning to
R-8, and a preliminary plat to allow 46 building lots and eight common lots. I will go to
the plat here. Okay. So, first of all, there is five points of access. I'm going to use the
color plat, just because I think it's a little easier to see on a public screen. There is five
points of access proposed with this. There is three stubs. So, this is the first stub here
to the north, if you can see my pointer. This is the second stub here to the west. And
down here to the east is a third stub. So, those three properties have not yet -- although
-- although this one to the west here -- this is Eddington Commons and it is in the process
of--they just finished their final plat. So, you should see that develop very quickly. There
are two existing points of access. The first is here. That is West Woodpine Street and
that is the Wood -- or Woodburn West Subdivision. That's existing there now. There is
a second point of access. Right now it's -- if you can see my pointer here it's actually
called North Llama Road and it's a little over here to the west right now. It runs --the road
runs right directly through the middle of this. As part of this development the applicant is
going to shift the whole thing over to the east and is going to have now what's called a
new Northwest 12th Drive. You can't see it on this picture, but on the other side of Ustick,
below here to the south, is an existing Northwest 12th Drive. Usually the city does not
support taking access off of an arterial and we usually recommend that those go away.
In this particular case ACHD supports this and the reason why is because the existing
access off of North Llama does not line up with any other access. It's configuration. This
particular access they are going to align this Northwest 12th with the Northwest 12th
below it. Also, the spacing requirements from Ustick and Linder are supposed to be 1,320
feet. The existing access, the North Llama, doesn't come close to that. This one is
shifting it over and picking up a couple of hundred extra feet. ACHD is supportive of the
waiver to the policy of this, because it's increasing the intersection distance, even if it isn't
meeting it, it's better than the existing situation. There isn't going to be any required road
improvements along Ustick. It's already a five --five travel lanes, a bike lane, and vertical
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 7,2021 F17
Page 13 of 38
curb and gutter and detached concrete sidewalk. However, the applicant will be required
to construct all the internal roads to a 33 foot ACHD template. As you can see on the
color plat, there are sidewalks proposed on both sides of internal streets and there is one
common driveway that is proposed. Can everybody still hear me okay? Thumbs up?
Yep. Okay. Good. Open space and amenities. I will move on to this next screen. This
development proposes a total of 15.12 percent of open space. This includes several
small landscaped areas over here and down here. Those aren't really being proposed as
qualified open space. What it also proposes is this 25 foot buffer that is down here to the
north of Ustick. It proposes several pathways, which we will talk about in a minute. A
central open space at the northeast side of the property. Over here this is an existing
ditch and there is an existing pathway here that is maintained by this HOA over to the
east. This proposal is tying in to that walkway. So, they are orienting all of their common
open space over to this existing ditch and over to this existing walkway and they are
connecting with a walkway here and they are connecting with a walkway there. So, again,
just a little bit to talk about the qualified open space. Thirteen percent of this would meet
the requirements for qualified open space. This includes the central park, which is pretty
much close to the center of the development. It includes several pathway common lots.
So, there is a pathway lot down here to the west. There is another dog park and a sitting
area and a pathway lot here and there are two pathway lots -- two pathways, one here
and one here, and both of those connect in to the existing pathway that's along the ditch.
Also half of the buffer can be counted as a qualified open space. This would be required
to provide one amenity per our regulations. They are actually providing a -- quite a bit
more than that. So, first of all, they are -- they are -- they are giving us a park or an open
space of at least 50 times 100 feet. So, that's one thing to be qualified as an open space.
But in addition to that you can call it an amenity if there is an additional 20,000 square
feet and in this particular case they are proposing 33,000. So, maybe three quarters of
an acre. It's significantly more than they would be required. So, that -- that -- just that
amount of open space would be called an amenity. In addition to that they are proposing
a recreational amenity, which they can talk about. It's going to be a playground and a
seating area. They are also proposing the two pathways and the way that our code works
-- it says that these pathways are not required per the code, then, they will be counted as
an amenity, as long as they meet the minimum landscaping requirements and that's a
five foot landscape strip on either side and one tree per hundred. In this particular case
they are proposing two pathway amenities. And, finally, they are proposing this dog park
and this sitting area here. One thing I want to mention is about the trees. There is quite
a bit of mature landscaping here. There has been some -- some discussions between
the applicant and the arborist in regard to whether or not they can preserve those trees.
The applicant hasn't really given us any details yet on the tree preservation plan, but we
are recommending that as a -- as a condition of approval of the final plat, that the -- we
get a tree mitigation plan. It would say which trees would be preserved and which would
be mitigated. Finally, there are -- the applicant has submitted sample elevations of single
family homes for this project, but these homes are depicted as two story structures with
two car garages, a variety of architectural elements and finish materials, including gabled
roofs, dormers, stone wainscotting, lap siding, exposed timber and scallop wood shingles.
Those types of scallop we see back in -- if you can see my pointer there. These little tiles
here, these like fish scale things are the scalloped wood shingles. Some of these houses
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 7,2021 F18]
Page 14 of 38
will be very visible from West Ustick Road. Therefore, staff recommended as a condition
of approval that the rear and sides of these two story structures visible from West Ustick
incorporate minimum articulation requirements. You will see that added to our
recommendations for the development agreement. The last thing I want to talk about is
there was a couple of clarifications that were made to the staff report. The first was on
the original plat there is an easement that's shown there and it's -- it's kind of funky. There
is a note there that says that, basically, the title work shows that there is an access
easement there, but they couldn't find any evidence of that being actually recorded. So,
staff had concerns -- the property to the north, we didn't want them to be cut off. We
recommended as a condition of approval that the applicant provide us a recorded access
easement to make sure that the property to the north has access. Since the time of the
staff report the applicant has told us that they have gotten that access easement. It wasn't
very clear on the plat, but they have given us the access easement and so staff is okay
with that. So, you can actually strike that condition if you would like, that the access
easement is no longer required.
Fitzgerald: Hey, Alan, what number is that?
Tiefenbach: Oh, boy. Let me --
Fitzgerald: Make sure I'm --
Tiefebach: That would be -- give me one second here. That would be on 1-C in the
development agreement conditions. Can you still see the screen or did it go away? Okay.
Good. Because I backed out I wasn't sure. There is two clarifications and these don't
really need any changes. The first is that there was a condition in -- from -- from water in
regard to roadway extensions to West Oak Creek Drive and Dixie Avenue. Those aren't
pertinent to this development. The public -- or water should have removed those. I will
make sure those are stricken for the staff report to the Council. The second thing is the
fire district. There is a typo in there that says that they cannot meet the targeted goal of
80 percent or greater, but, actually, they can. So, I will make sure that we -- we had Fire
send us updated corrected comments, so you don't need to worry about that. With that
staff recommends approval of the annexation and zoning and preliminary plat with the
conditions listed in the staff report. It is my understanding that the applicant is in full
agreement. They do have a presentation, however, and I will stand for any questions if
the Commission would choose at this time. Thank you very much.
Fitzgerald: Thanks, Alan. Are there any questions for staff at this point?
Seal: Mr. Chair?
Cassinelli: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal, go right ahead.
Seal: I'm just -- in looking at the -- the open space kind of in that L shaped, do we know
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 7,2021 F19
Page 15 of 38
how the subdivision basically to the west lines up to that? Is that open space in that
adjacent subdivision or are their houses there? Just trying to get a sense of how -- if
that's boxed in or more wide open.
Tiefenbach: If you give me a second I will pull up the GIS and take a look at that for you,
sir. If you have any other questions in the interim.
Cassinelli: Mr. Chair?
Holland: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli, go right ahead.
Cassinelli: I kind of have a question that sort of piggybacks off that and that was that --
that mixed use parcel on the corner there, is that going to get--will they get cross-access?
I think the cross-access was lined up directly to where that shared driveway is. But correct
me if I'm wrong there, Alan.
Tiefenbach: No, they are not proposing access to that commercial lot. I would assume
that they probably don't want to have cars driving in and out from the commercial off of
Linder. They are providing cross-access to the subdivision to the west through West
Woodpine Street and I believe ACHD was okay with that. I'm -- go ahead.
Cassinelli: Is that going to be an issue, though, down the road in trying to develop that
commercial piece on the corner without -- without proper cross-access?
Tiefenbach: Again, ACHD didn't have any concerns with that. The applicant has not
proposed that. But I think -- we wouldn't really want to see cut through traffic coming
through it. Right now it's zoned for commercial. It's not zoned for mixed use. If -- if
townhouses or apartments went in there that certainly, I guess, there could be some --
some need perhaps for access, but if this is commercial it could serve as a cut through
there. So, no, staff has not -- I'm not sure if I have a very good answer for that, other than
staff has not perceived that for that particular reason.
Parsons: Yeah. Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Bill, go ahead.
Parsons: Yeah. I can elaborate on that a little bit for Commissioner Cassinelli. When we
first started pre-app'ing with this applicant we had entertained the thought of maybe
having some cross-access or at least a stub street to that property. Given the proximity
to that intersection and the fact that, you know, as Alan alluded to, we didn't want to funnel
commercial traffic in front of all of those homes to get them out to Ustick. So, we agreed
to work with the applicant and have them at least stub a pedestrian connection and that's
what you see on the north side of that common drive that's currently located in the
southwest corner. Where I think some of that interconnectivity is going to be coming from
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 7,2021 F20
Page 16 of 38
is this project does connect into Eddington Place. If you recall we did require a stub street
as part of that project that does drop down into the commercial. So, yes, if there is
commercial that goes on that corner they may have to go out to Ustick to get access to it
or they could use that local street network and drive a little bit out of their way and go
through the adjacent residential to the west to make that happen. But anything that goes
on that corner I think is going to be a challenge and we just didn't want to burden this
residential project with all of that commercial activity. So, essentially, staff made a
concession, along with our partner ACHD, to allow a pedestrian only connection and at
this point we don't know what's going to happen on that corner. It could be more
residential. It could be commercial. As we discussed a few years ago, we all know there
is a concept plan that shows all commercial on this site, but staff has met with a potential
developer who is thinking about self storage and a commercial pad at the corner. So, if
self storage goes on this it's more likely not going to get that interconnectivity that we
desire, but it made sense to at least get a ped connection at this point. I don't -- I don't
know what the long-term effects will be on that, but I think from -- I think when we went
through that exercise of townhomes or four-plexes developing on that site and having a
token commercial we will all agree it's just a tough corner. We just don't know at this point
what's going to go on there. It may have a residential component with a small commercial
aspect to it,just --just don't know at this point. But more than likely there may be another
access granted to that piece off of Ustick in the future, at least a right-in, right-out only.
Holland: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland.
Tiefenbach: I was going to -- sorry, Commissioner Holland.
Holland: Go ahead, Alan.
Tiefenbach: I was going to follow up -- I was going to follow up on the question in regard
to the open space and the existing properties to the east. If you can see -- can you see
that colored drawing that I have right now? This is a track that's owned by the HOA. So,
this will be a track that's owned by the HOA of this particular development. This in here
is a track that's owned by the existing HOA and, then, beyond that track are the backyards
of houses. So, it won't be directly backing to the houses, it will be backing to the track of
the HOA of what that ditch and that pathway runs through.
Seal: A follow-up question to that.
Fitzgerald: Go right ahead, Commissioner Seal. The -- so, the houses that backup to
that, they have the visibility fence requirement; is that correct? The houses that are going
in with this development would have the requirement. Correct. It would have to be either
an open style fence, which would be -- open style or four feet opaque with two feet of
lattice on top. I can't speak for the fences on the other side. I'm pretty sure that they are
solid, but I don't know that for a fact. But, yes, correct, they would have to have -- for
CPTED, Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design, they would have to have
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 7,2021 F21
Page 17 of 38
visible fencing for that path.
Parsons: Mr. Chair? I did the site inspection for that subdivision. Right on that east
boundary there is four foot fencing along that -- that pathway in Woodburn West.
Fitzgerald: You said four foot fencing?
Parsons: Four foot solid fencing. Yes.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Commissioner Seal, did you have follow up there?
Seal: No. Thank you for specifying that, Bill. That's -- I'm just trying to get -- it -- it's kind
of boxed in back there, it creates a little private area that's -- would be kind of hard to
monitor what was going on back there. So, knowing that that's open on the backside --
or to the east of it, I guess, would make that a moot point.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Commissioner Cassinelli, did you have any follow up on your question?
Cassinelli: No, other than -- I mean I can address it once we -- once we close it. My
concern there is -- is that piece to the -- directly to the west that's commercial, we have
had so much problem with it and, then, cutting out. I know originally we had talked about
-- you know, had that gone in first there would have been cross-access through there and
now it's going to make that piece even more difficult to develop.
Holland: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland.
Holland: My comments and question for staff are along that same lines that
Commissioner Cassinelli just shared, too. I -- of all the projects we have looked at on this
commission -- and we have looked at a lot -- this corner is the one that's giving me the
most heartburn as a commissioner. We have looked at so many different projects and
potentials for that -- that commercial piece and I really wish we had spent more time
looking at it when we were doing the comp plan process, because I think we should have
expanded the amount of commercial required there, because it's going to be a tough
piece to fill, unless you just do something like storage and we have already approved a
lot of storage on this corner. So, I would hate to see that happen there, because I think
we have -- the northwest corner of Ustick and Linder also approved for a storage project.
So, I would hate for it to be storage corner, because it's a great walkable corner with a lot
of residential nearby, so it's just -- I don't know if there is -- I mean it's in the future use
map it's medium density residential, but I don't know if-- if staff has any -- if they had any
conversations with the applicant or if the applicant would be willing to entertain doing
anything different -- adding some commercial components to their frontage there. That
would make me feel a lot better if there was a possibility of doing that, so we would make
that piece viable. But, again, that's redesigning an entire site plan. So, it's -- it's a tough
piece, because I feel like while we are trying to follow what the future use map shows,
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 7,2021 F22
Page 18 of 38
which is for medium density residential, we also try to make sure that the comp plan
comes together in a way that supports overall development and I think by approving this
-- and I had the same concern with the development that was to the north of that
commercial parcel that we -- that went through the process, that by putting both of those
first we box in that commercial piece and it's going to become unusable and becomes
something that's not in the best interest of the city. So, that's my concern. I don't know if
staff has any other comments about that. I don't know if we can make a request to have
a better mixed use piece there that ties in with it, but I'm struggling with it just as much as
Commissioner Cassinelli is.
Fitzgerald: But you said it more eloquently.
Tiefenbach: I don't think I can't add anything that -- that Bill has already -- hasn't already
said. I mean it would certainly require a complete redesign, a whole new project for them.
I don't think the applicant is proposing to do that. I would defer to them at this point to
see if they really wanted to look at that. I'm reviewing the project based on what they
gave us.
Parsons: Yeah. Mr. Chair, Commissioner Holland, I -- I think you bring up the same
points I brought up back when we were looking at that four-plex on this site and, then,
when Delano --or Eddington Place came in and itjust-- unfortunately I think we all wanted
that mixed use to float either to the north or -- or to the east to try to blend in the
commercial a little bit better with the surrounding residential uses. Unfortunately, the
applicant that had a four-plex project, he just could not get all the parties to work together
and have that come to fruition, because I think -- if I remember correctly this body wanted
some of that commercial to float up along the Linder frontage and now we have kind of
-- that -- that ship has sailed. We have approved a residential subdivision that butts up
-- right up against C-C zoned property. I would share with the Commission that at least
on the northwest corner, that storage facility is not moving forward. That gentleman never
executed the development agreement and, therefore, it never gained any traction. So,
it's still technically on the books approved for commercial across the street. It doesn't
solve this problem, but rest assured I don't -- I think we are with you, we don't want to see
-- for lack of a better term -- storage alley either on those two corners, because I think we
want to have some of that walkability and some of that neighborhood serving commercial,
because we are -- we have lost so much at the half mile even farther to the east. We
want to preserve that. We do have a plan in the books with a development agreement
that shows access coming off of Ustick and Linder for that site. So, although it may not
mesh one hundred percent with these two developments, there is still something in a
development agreement that -- at least that property owner is vested with and will have
to come back and either develop it that way or work with the adjacent property owners to
do that. But I'm -- I'm with Alan, let's -- let's get through our portion and let's open it up
for the applicant and -- and see what they are willing to do and see if they are willing to
make some kind of concession to either convert that common drive to a public street and
-- and stub a street there. I mean that's certainly within your purview if you want that
connectivity. I can assure you I have had these conversations with them and trying to
figure out how we could better integrate that and, you are right, it doesn't always work to
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 7,2021 F23
Page 19 of 38
have commercial directly integrating with a residential subdivision. Typically you have a
-- a different zone or a different -- a higher density project to transition away from --
transition with. But, anyways, I -- that's -- there is my feedback. I'm certainly open to
whatever the commission wants --
Fitzgerald: Hey, Bill --
Parsons: -- staff to look at or if the applicant is willing to make some minor -- minor
changes.
Fitzgerald: Just -- I want to make sure we are real clear, because the -- so, the northwest
corner cannot proceed forward with a project without coming back before us; is that
correct? They can't put storage up without coming back through us; correct?
Parsons: You mean the --
Fitzgerald: The last -- I want to -- I want to understand that -- what you just said --
Parsons: Yeah. If they wanted storage they would need to do another DA mod and go
through the Council and, then, come back to this body with a conditional use, just like the
C-C that's adjacent to this property. Storage is a conditional use permit.
Fitzgerald: Okay.
Parsons: So, it's not -- it's not by right, they still -- there is still a public hearing involved
and they would have to modify their DA as well, because the -- the original -- a DA that
was approved for that site in 2014 showed three commercial pad sites --
Fitzgerald: Yeah.
Parsons: -- on that corner.
Holland: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: That makes me really happy, because I hated storage on that corner. I think
I -- I don't know if I -- I think I was chair, so I didn't vote, but I was like, please, God, no.
So, that makes me happy. Commissioner Holland, go right ahead, ma'am.
Holland: I would echo that, Mr. Chair. It kept me up all night for sure.
Fitzgerald: Yeah.
Parsons: Well, the other -- the other thing we tried to get the applicant to do was have a
shared access to Ustick on their -- their west boundary -- shared with that commercial so
it would not go through the residential, but it would just be used --almost like the Maverick
on McMillan and Locust Grove where they built that road into the commercial and you
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 7,2021 F24
Page 20 of 38
had the residential on one side and you turn into the commercial on the other side.
Fitzgerald: Yeah.
Parsons: That's something, again, the applicant could pursue with ACHD. I'm not sure
if they are going to support that, given the offset of those access points onto Ustick. It
just doesn't meet any of their policies. But those are conversations that we definitely had
with them as well.
Holland: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Go right ahead.
Holland: My follow-up question is are we still having active conversations with anyone on
that commercial C-C parcel?
Parsons: Again, the last pre-app we had was several months ago and it showed a multi-
tenant building on the corner and, then, some storage that wrapped around that and we
told them -- we had talked with the applicant about this project, because I -- it was in the
process and we told them at a minimum you are going to need to provide pedestrian
connection to that neighborhood and, then, figure out how to bring that other street into
the -- that stub to your north boundary into the site and provide that connectivity. We told
him we would entertain a small segment of storage. It couldn't all be storage, but if -- if
they wanted to create a buffer from the multi-tenant building and maybe develop the
northern half with some flex buildings and some self storage to go along with that we
could be supportive of that, but they really needed to work with ACHD on access and try
to integrate with the surrounding development as far as architectural style and walkability
and even to that point of some kind of access or connectivity to one of the neighborhoods.
So, it is somewhat consistent with our mixed use standards.
Holland: Thanks, Bill. Appreciate it. No more questions.
Fitzgerald: Thanks, Bill. That was hugely helpful. Commissioner Cassinelli, did you get
all your questions squared away?
Cassinelli: Yeah. Yeah. I'm good.
Fitzgerald: Cool. Okay. Any other questions for anybody right now? If not we will bring
up the -- or Mr. Erickson take over and hear from the applicant. Ross, are you with us?
I think? Maybe?
Erickson: Can you guys hear me?
Fitzgerald: Yeah. Go right ahead.
Erickson: So, I believe, actually, Tim Mokwa had a presentation prepared for this product.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 7,2021 F25]
Page 21 of 38
He was more of the resource for technical or engineering questions, so --
Fitzgerald: Tim, are you available?
Mokwa: I am available. Can you hear me okay?
Fitzgerald: Yes, sir. Please state your name and your address for the record and the
floor is yours, sir.
Mokwa: Okay. Thank you. This is Tim Mokwa with Hayden Homes. 1406 North Main
Street, Suite 109, Meridian. 83642. And what I'm trying to do is share my screen. Can
you see the little cover page of a PowerPoint there?
Fitzgerald: We got you.
Mokwa: So, I will try to be brief. I suspect there is going to be more question -- more
value in question and answer than there would be in a long drawn out presentation and I
think Alan did a good job of covering the project and the staff report is very detailed as
well. So, as was mentioned we are proposing an annexation with a zone of R-8. This
property is an in-fill parcel surrounded by R-8, as well as the R-15 Eddington, and, then,
the project -- the parcel we have been talking about here at the corner. I have had
conversations -- it was probably around the same time that this potential applicant was
meeting with staff for a pre-app and they -- we did discuss the potential for cross-access
here, as well as a potential shared access on the property line. They were opposed to
that and we were opposed to that as well. This is a seven and a half acre site that we are
working with and to introduce potential storage unit traffic through here or commercial
that we have no idea what it's going to be, it just doesn't seem like this seven and a half
acre residential site is a contiguous -- or a consistent use with that commercial at that
corner. They do have an access from Eddington Common -- Commons that was
approved and it's up here and we are providing a interconnectivity with Eddington as well.
There is also a -- and I know -- you know, I don't know the details of this, but there is a
Ustick Road north -- the north boundary or north improvements there is a curb cut to this
existing parcel. I don't know that ACHD would stand by that, depending on -- I guess on
what the use and what the site layout look like. I'm jumping around here. I'm trying to
think of what questions were asked. Let me -- let me get back on point here. So, we are
proposing 46 building lots in here, eight common area lots. Our average lot size is 4,236
square feet. We did work with staff. We revised this area quite a bit. Can you see my
cursor? Okay. So, we have revised this area quite a bit to make this a larger central play
area. Originally we had our -- had a play area down here, which was about the size of
one lot. So, we have -- we have consolidate -- consolidated that into a more central area.
I wanted to talk just briefly about some of the communication that we have had with our
-- our neighbors, particularly the neighbor to the -- the neighbor to the north. This is going
to remain a county RUT parcel and, then, the neighbors to the east of us -- this existing
Woodburn Subdivision. So, with the owners of the north, Mr. and Mrs. Lloyd, we had
several meetings and eventually became to some agreements here. Staff mentioned that
there is an existing access easement that runs right -- roughly right through the center of
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 7,2021 F26
Page 22 of 38
the site and tied into his driveway access right here. This access -- we believe that we
have the right to vacate and access as long as we are not land locking him and we are
providing him some public right of way access to his property. You know, we -- we had
a little bit of a difference of opinion initially, but we were able to work through some of
those issues and come to an agreement that he would not challenge vacation of this
easement provided we met a couple of conditions, specifically that we locate this Llama
Way stub at the location that currently meets his access point to his property. The reason
that that was important -- it saved a berm and some landscaping along this boundary and
it just worked well with the way his property is currently set up. We also agreed with him
that we would -- which we are going to be required to by code anyway, but that we would
install this six foot solid vinyl fence prior to doing any home construction. We -- there is
an existing large -- I would say it's at least 20 -- maybe 30 inch caliper or more willow tree
that's a quality tree on his property, but we agreed to hold our house back and our fence
back, so that we can create an easement on this Lot 5 of Block 2 to protect the root zone
of that tree and, then, lastly, we agreed that Lots 2 through 5 would be limited to single
story to prevent some of the impacts on his adjacent property. So, that was one of the
areas. The other one was with work -- in working with the HOA management people for
the Woodburn Subdivision. They were in agreement if you -- if you follow this tree line
there is an existing ditch there that is a -- it's just kind of a skunky stagnant water ditch
with a lot of volunteer overgrown shrubbery. It's in both of our interest to clean that area
up. So, our -- our proposal to them was that we would remove this existing -- there is --
they had fencing along their back -- their lot, as Bill mentioned, but there is an existing
chain link on the east side of this ditch as well. So, we would remove that. We would tile
that ditch and fill it in and, then, landscape this area, including even -- even a little on their
side where we are, you know, having to fill in that ditch and I think it makes for a much
better landscaped common area and appearance from both subdivisions. One of the
factors, though, was that Bill -- Bill or Alan mentioned there is a lot of existing trees along
here. Many of them are dead within the ditch itself, so we -- I met with the forester out
there. Matt went through and flagged up all of the existing trees that are worth saving
and so we surveyed those in and when we are doing our design for the tiling of this ditch
we are going to save as many of those as we can and where we can't we will -- or per
what staff mentioned here -- as Matt mentioned here, this 346 inches of tree mitigation
required, that would be required if we removed every one of those trees that he flagged
up. Our intent is to save as many of those as we can. So, anyway, back to the overall.
You know, there is really not a lot that I wanted to add beyond --you know, we are meeting
the comp plan. The six units per acre seems to be a good transition from the higher
density of the Eddington to the R-8 here. We have met the city's requirements for -- and
exceeded the city's requirements for common area and amenities and qualified open
space. But I guess I would just be happy to answer your questions, if I can expand on
some of that a little bit.
Fitzgerald: Thanks, Tim. We appreciate it. And we appreciate the efforts to work with
the neighbors and bring that into -- and that's not always an easy thing. So, thank you for
that. Any questions for Tim at this time?
Tiefenbach: Mr. Chair, this is Alan. Staff.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 7,2021 F27
Page 23 of 38
Fitzgerald: Go ahead.
Tiefenbach: Sorry to interrupt. I wanted to note that this is the first time we have been
told about the agreement with the applicant and the homeowner regarding the one story
requirement on the north side and the fencing. I think it's important that that be added to
the DA if -- if we are going to go forward with that. If -- we don't have that in the DA or
the conditions of approval and that doesn't exist, because we have not heard this before.
Fitzgerald: Got it. Thanks, Alan. And, Tim, you're -- you're fine with adding to the DA?
Mokwa: I would be happy to add that to the DA, because we are required to do that as
part of our agreement that both us and the neighbor to the north signed. So, yes.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you. Commissioners, do we have any questions for the
applicant on -- especially the commercial questions you had. Anybody want to discuss
that with -- with Tim at this point? Commissioner Holland or Commissioner Cassinelli, do
you guys have a question?
Cassinelli: No. I'm good. Thank you.
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland?
Mokwa: Could I add one more point?
Fitzgerald: Oh, yeah. Go ahead, Tim.
Mokwa: Okay. I just wanted to tell you -- back to this issue about an additional access
or making this a vehicular. I -- you know, I have worked on a lot of projects. This is a
seven acre site with five access points right now. So, I think -- I think the amount of
interconnectivity that we are already providing, both, you know, vehicular and pedestrian
is -- it's pretty high for a site -- in-fill site this small. So, I hope you will take that into
consideration when -- if you are considering asking for another access point here.
Fitzgerald: Appreciate that. Commissioner Holland, go right ahead.
Holland: Mr. Chair, I -- Tim, I think you heard some of my comments before we -- we
listened to yours and I appreciate that this is a -- it's a tough site and I know you guys --
you guys create great product. I have seen some of your product where it does interface
with commercial in some other neighborhoods that you guys have developed, too, and I
wish that there was a win-win here and I know that it's -- it's not your responsibility to
develop that site that's adjacent to you, but I'm still trying to figure out a way that we can
help make it successful in the future. I would hate to see storage be on a hard corner. I
think this commission in general has that comment every time there is a storage facility
that comes in on a hard corner. So, I think it would be our hope that whatever comes
forward we might push back to have maybe some sort of office use or something that's
maybe not a retail use that has a lot of traffic going through it, but maybe there is some
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 7,2021 F28]
Page 24 of 38
sort of win-win in how we can develop that to be -- you know, maybe it's a hair salon type
thing or it's a doctor's office, dentist, those kind of things that could go in there. Some of
that kind of neighborhood commercial. But I -- I still don't like the -- even if that doesn't
go through, having a shared drive kind of going in there, where it could have been a full
access going through, it -- it's still a tough layout for me just in that piece and I don't know
if there is anything we can do to make a compromise that would give a little more visibility
there and I understand your comment about having five access points and certainly don't
want to make you have another one, but I would sure like to see that road go through,
even if it was -- I don't know exactly how we can change it, but I just don't want to pigeon
hole that other commercial development so they can't develop it as anything but storage.
Mokwa: Yeah. I don't -- I don't know what I can say. I mean I really -- I mean we would
-- we would certainly consider if it's -- if it's a condition of getting our project approved. I
-- I really don't like it for--for our purposes, which is what I have got to be concerned with.
I -- you know, I -- I understand where you are coming from and I -- I definitely can see
your point. Part of why we put the shared driveway with the pedestrian pathway there,
because we thought that having the pedestrian connection to an -- to an ultimate
commercial, hopefully, was a good, you know, interconnectivity. But just the -- just the
idea of inviting additional commercial traffic through this small area, I just -- I have my
reservations. So, I'm sorry, I don't know what to propose to -- to help there.
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland, go right ahead if you have follow up.
Holland: That's all I have got for now. I just wanted to make those comments.
Fitzgerald: Okay.
Holland: Thanks, Tim.
Mokwa: Thank you.
Fitzgerald: Any additional questions for Tim? Okay. Tim, we will come back to you in a
minute after we take any public testimony and let you close.
Mokwa: Okay.
Fitzgerald: Thank you, sir. Madam Clerk, do we have anyone in the audience or online
that would like to testify on this application?
Weatherly: Mr. Chair, we do have one person signed in wishing to testify and he's here
in house with us and that's Rick Wagner.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Mr. Wagner, if you will come and join us at the podium, please, sir.
And, please, give us your name and your address and the floor is yours when you are
ready, sir.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 7,2021 F29
Page 25 of 38
Wagner: My name is Rick Wagner. I live at 1250 West Ustick and I have the property to
the east of this development. I have two concerns. One of them is that I noticed that one
road is going to go -- it looks like it's going to go right through my house when they extend
it. That one. Right there. Yes. And so I would like, you know, a barrier along that whole
property line. Vinyl six foot solid fence. I get enough problems with the subdivision to the
north. They use my property as a thoroughfare to Ustick. So, I would like something to
stop that from your subdivision. The other thing is that there is a ditch in the front that
runs along Ustick. It's a Nampa-Meridian Irrigation ditch. I use that for flood irrigation on
my property. I know that the City of Meridian is going to require pressurized irrigation. I
got a question. What's going to happen to my ditch? That's two things I have got.
Fitzgerald: And, Mr. Wagner, we will make sure that Tim clarifies that when he -- when
he closes, but I know that they have to keep your water -- they have to keep your access
to your water, so that -- that will be maintained no matter what. That's a requirement of
development. So, we will make sure that that -- and Tim can talk about that, but we will
make sure you are covered on the water side, because that's a requirement. They have
to make sure your ditch rights and your water rights are maintained.
Wagner: Thank you. How about a fence?
Fitzgerald: Let me let Tim talk about that. If you want to take a seat I will have him close,
if he's willing to take that on. But I know there will be a sign that stubs -- at least a barrier
of some kind, but I will let him do that when he closes.
Wagner: Okay. Thank you.
Fitzgerald: Thanks, Mr. Wagner. We appreciate you being here tonight. I don't see any
other attendees. Madam Clerk, is there anyone else who would like to testify?
Weatherly: Mr. Chair, I don't have anymore information on anybody wishing to testify.
Fitzgerald: Tim, do you want to answer Mr. Wagner's question and, then, close when you
have a chance?
Mokwa: Certainly. So, first on the fence we would install a six foot solid vinyl fence along
this entire common property line, including across the stub street and the barricade or the
standard ACHD -- this road is intended to be extended in the future sign would be
mounted on that six foot vinyl. So, sometimes you will see where they will -- they will put
the vinyl fence along the property line and leave this gap open. We will fence right -- right
across the road. So, this entire property will be separated by that. Secondly, my answer
on the irrigation would be the same as yours, Mr. Chairman, is that per Idaho Code we
are required to -- you know, we can't impede anyone's water right or their ability to drain
their -- their flood irrigation water. So, if that's what's happening along the ditch along
Ustick Road now, we are required by Idaho Code to maintain that.
Fitzgerald: Perfect. Thank you, sir. Do you want to close? Any further comments?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 7,2021 F30
Page 26 of 38
Mokwa: No. Just that, you know, we -- we have taken quite a while to get here to this
point. You know, this -- this -- discussions with the property owner to the north and the
access to Ustick and the alignment here, I mean we have had so many meetings and
conversations with ACHD and a couple with Meridian staff. That all evolved from our
discussions with Mr. and Mrs. Lloyd to the north and I think we were able to come to a
solution that they were happy with or at least -- I mean their preference would be that this
would stay an open field, but in the absence of that I think they are happy with the
solutions that we worked out and we tried to be accommodating with them. ACHD was
happy with our access plan here in that, you know, there is an existing 11 th Street, I
believe it is, that -- that borders Mr. Wagner's property over on the east side of his
property. That's what drove this stub street connection here, is that that, then, provides
an opportunity for, you know, cross-access with this piece, should it ever redevelop, and
our property to a one safer aligned intersection on Ustick Road. So, those were some of
the -- some of the things that led to the sign that you are looking at tonight and so, you
know, is it perfect? Probably not, but we tried to be as accommodating as we can and
also to do what we feel like is going to be a good project. So, with that I -- I'm done.
Fitzgerald: Thank, Tim. We appreciate it. Further questions for Tim at this point? Okay.
Hearing no further questions, can I get a motion to close the public hearing?
Seal: So moved.
Grove: Second.
McCarvel: Second.
Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All those in favor
say aye. Any opposed? Okay. Motion passes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Fitzgerald: Anyone want to lead off?
McCarvel: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Go right ahead, ma'am.
McCarvel: Alan, can we get that one picture back up on how this connects to everything
around it?
Tiefenbach: Which --
McCarvel: You had a good -- you had a picture during your presentation.
Tiefenbach: Oh, let's take a look here.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 7,2021 F31
Page 27 of 38
McCarvel: Okay.
Seal: I think it was GIS data.
McCarvel: And while you are looking for that --
Tiefenbach: Yeah. Oh, was it? Bill, can you bring that up? Because I can't do that from
my end here.
McCarvel: Okay.
Holland: It might have been the one from the applicant.
Tiefenbach: Bill -- Bill, I can't get to the computer at work from where I am right here, I
will have Bill share it.
Parsons: Yeah. It was the applicant's presentation.
McCarvel: Oh, was it? Okay.
Parsons: So, you can -- you can give him the right and he can probably just bring it back
up.
McCarvel: Okay.
Parsons: I noticed that, too. I was like that's a great graphic. I wish I had that in my
presentation. And it does -- it does show how it interconnects with all the adjacent
properties --
McCarvel: Yeah.
Parsons: -- and what's happening in the area. I think that's critical for you all tonight.
McCarvel: Yeah. And --
Fitzgerald: Madam Clerk, can you bring Tim back into the panelist side, so we can ask
him to --
Parsons: Bring up his presentation.
Fitzgerald: -- bring up his presentation again.
Seal: She had to step out for just a second, so as soon as she comes back in I will let
her know.
Fitzgerald: Oh. Okay.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 7,2021 F32
Page 28 of 38
McCarvel: Okay.
Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel, do you want to go right ahead with your comments.
McCarvel: Yeah. In the meantime, yeah, we can take a look at how that all connects
again. But, otherwise, I really appreciate this applicant working so well with the neighbors
and going the extra mile and some of those details. Of course, I always like to see a little
bit bigger corner lots, instead of those common drives, but for a small site I think there is
a lot to like about what they have done with the pathways connecting to the subdivision
to the east and just in general keeping that open space more centralized and utilizing that
well. Yeah. I don't think we have ever seen a seven acre site with five accesses. So,
yeah, I mean in general we like it. I -- I like it. But, yeah, if we can -- if -- I guess this is
our one stab to see if there is anything that can be done with the site to the west on the
corner, but, then, again, it's not this applicant's problem to solve, unless it -- you know,
there is something that makes sense.
Fitzgerald: Yeah. I'm kind of-- I have a tough time with this one, because I -- I think there
is -- we are asking a lot of the applicant. I remember one day when I was on the other
side of the dais where I am now when we were asked to masterplan a giant, you know,
section around us and after spending all that money and doing that it was denied anyway.
I understand the desire to not pigeonhole one square, but we are putting the -- that onus
on the applicant and I think that's -- that could be a little bit brutal. But I know that -- that's
where it's never going to be easy. It's not now or will it be in the future, whether we have
cross-access or not, just because of the way it runs and there is a giant lateral that runs
through it. So, I -- and I think we got to be --we got to be cautious about how we approach
this, because I mean there are small businesses, like little coffee shops or some that can
use -- that don't have a ton of traffic, but I -- I understand that we have looked at this
corner 40 times, so -- and I think we asked Steve Arnold to redesign it four times. So, I
get the concerns, because I think they are all there. But I do like the effort that -- that they
have put into making this work and I know the -- especially the RUT piece to the north,
we have heard from that homeowner several times in different applications and I
appreciate that -- the work that went into doing that. They are making it so it would work
for his family, so it's tough. It's not an easy one for me either. And it is -- it does meet the
comp plan and the zoning currently, which is another piece I have to wrestle with. So,
Commissioner Holland, you came off of mute. Go right ahead, ma'am.
Holland: I did. I still struggle. I -- I like the idea of being able to have a shared access
road that would divide these two, because I think that would fix some of the problems for
me, too, but that would be redesigning their site plan and I know that they weren't in favor
of that option. Because I think it does work really well. I have seen it in a couple places.
There is a spot on Linder and McMillan I want to say that they have something like that,
too, where residential is on one side and commercial is on the other side of a road and it
works really nicely there. I wish that that was something that we could have them look
at. I understand their concern, too, about having another access point that comes through
their neighborhood, because people would probably float through there. I just hate seeing
it blocked off there. So, I'm still struggling with it. I don't know what else we can do there,
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 7,2021 F33
Page 29 of 38
but my -- my preference would be to -- my number one preference, if we had the ability
to have them do it, would be to have that shared access road that would divide this
property line, because I think that would make a big difference. But I don't know if that's
something that this commission would like to look into, because that would mean that
they would have to redesign their plan again. I don't know if that's helpful. I -- I do
appreciate what they -- what they have put forward. I think it's -- if you are just looking at
the site by itself it's not a bad development. I know the product type looks good. It will
match with what Eddington Commons does and it's such a good transition from
Woodburn. It's just a tough -- I hate that it's -- it's tough in the regional perspective of
what it's going to do for what's around it. I wish the other piece was done first.
Fitzgerald: Or master planned into it and I -- I know it's really hard to do that. And we
have asked everybody to try that and it hasn't seemed to work.
Holland: Yeah. I wish that they could come in together jointly with these projects.
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli, I know you popped off mute, sir. What do you have
to say?
Cassinelli: I kind of have a question and, first, let me say that I do like the project. For
an in-fill I'm happy with the R-8, that's it's not R-15, that we are not -- you know, I like the
layout. Their product is -- their product regionally is -- is good. I'm happy with all that and
-- and I -- you know, I -- I sympathize with them with -- with five access points there that's
a -- that's a ton for -- for seven acres. But I have got a question for staff. I just want to
pose this. Either for Bill or Alan. If that commercial would have developed first -- and I
know it's not, but had that developed first with a cross-access point to the -- going -- going
towards this -- this parcel, would there be a requirement for this developer to line up with
that and to -- to make that happen?
Tiefenbach: This is Alan Tiefenbach. If there was already an access that was required
we would make them line up for it. The thing is it's not going to meet -- first of all, it's not
going to meet ACHD spacing requirements. They are going to have an issue with that
and it just depends on what kind of commercial development it is, because depending on
what it is they wouldn't want that cross-through traffic. So, yes, if there was one already
approved they would have to line up with it, but I'm not sure ACHD would support
additional accesses coming through there. Bill, do you want to add anything?
Parsons: I think you have it covered, Alan. I think -- when I'm looking at the -- so I'm
looking at the approved concept plan and the development agreement for that piece that
came in. It was called Sugarman and there was never a shared access on the property
like we are talking about tonight. It goes back to almost what Tim's comment was where
there is an existing curb cut already constructed out there and that's where they showed
their access coming in from. And, then, they were tied into the property to the north. So,
even on the approved concept plan it never contemplated anything to the west -- or the
east of this -- this east boundary here. I'm going to look at some of the DA provisions and
see if that was the case. But I -- I don't recall it being the case.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 7,2021 F34
Page 30 of 38
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli, did you have follow up there?
Cassinelli: I did. For Bill or Alan. In previous talks with -- well, with a potential project
there on that corner, is ACHD -- are they in agreement to keep that curb cut access there
if there is not the cross-access, so at least that parcel would get a right-in, right-out off of
Ustick?
Parsons: Well, I'm looking -- well, that's -- that's a good question. It goes back to almost
-- you know, like anything -- here is my experience with ACHD and these -- these access
points. Sometimes as part of a road widening or intersection they will widen it and they
will put the access points in. Sometimes they work with the property owner and they,
basically, vest that property owner with those access points. Other times I have seen it
where they have said, no, we reserve the right to remove it at any time when there is a
conflict or depending on the use. So, I'm not sure if any of those agreements exist for
this particular development. All I can do is go off the concept plan that we have approved
as part of that development agreement. It shows a curb cut. It does say that direct -- so,
I'm -- I'm quoting verbatim from the recorded development agreement for that commercial
property. It says direct lot access to West Ustick Road and North Linder Road is
prohibited, except for the access points approved with the plat. I can tell you the plat has
expired. There is no longer a valid plat. Only the development agreement runs with the
land currently. So, it says access to North Linder Road shall be restricted to right-in, right-
out and -- only and access to Ustick Road shall be determined by ACHD. So, again, as
determined by ACHD. So, they have the ability --
Fitzgerald: Hey, Bill?
Parsons: -- to say no, they have the ability to say yes, just -- again, it's going back to --
it's contingent upon what -- when the actual development is proposed and right now all
we have is a concept plan and zoning.
Fitzgerald: So, looking at the -- at Google Maps, there is curb cuts on both sides. There
is one on the north boundary on Linder and there is a Ustick curb cut and that's after they
have widened both roads.
Parsons: Yes. And that's consistent with the concept plan that's in the DA.
Fitzgerald: So, I'm just -- just for informational purposes for the commission -- I don't
know if we can bring up Google Maps. I have it open.
Cassinelli: Yeah. I'm looking at it, too.
Fitzgerald: So, there is curb cuts that are there and that's post widening. I would guess
that that's where they go. But I understand the concerns.
Parsons: And, then, I'm looking at the plat that's tied -- that was at one point valid and it
showed those curb cuts were -- that's where the cross-access drives would come into the
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 7,2021 F35]
Page 31 of 38
development and serve of all those commercial lots. So, again, it's consistent to what the
contract is currently on the property.
Holland: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Yeah. Go ahead. Commissioner Holland, go right ahead.
Holland: While I don't want to pass the buck onto Council, we could always just make a
note instead of requiring that they change it, that Council take serious consideration on
whether or not they think there should be cross-access there and just make a note that it
was a big concern of ours, but not condition it. I might be willing to do that as a
compromise, because I don't know that I have got a good solution for them of how to fix
that, but I would at least want Council to consider with the applicant whether or not they
could do a shared access or have that common drive become a public drive through to
give cross-connectivity. But I don't really want to condition it. I would just at least like
Council to have that conversation with them and see what they think. I don't know if that
makes a compromise, but --
Grove: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Grove, go right ahead.
Grove: So, a few things. You know, reiterate a couple of things that were said earlier.
You know, this is a lot of interconnectivity already for such a small piece, but, you know,
in-fill is hard and I appreciate the work that they have done, especially in regards to
working with the neighbors to address their concerns and really being thoughtful of
making sure that their designs took those considerations and integrated them accordingly.
I am lucky enough to not have been through some of the trauma that you guys have with
this -- this particular area, so coming at it with, you know, a little bit naivete -- a little bit of
-- whatever that --
Fitzgerald: We call it fresh eyes, Commissioner Grove. Fresh eyes.
Grove: One thing that I'm looking at, though, is -- I like how -- I like this project and I like
what they have done with it, you know, with the constraints that they have. With the
commercial lot, that piece to the west that we are discussing, I understand what we are
saying with creating that connectivity, but I'm somewhat of the mindset that I don't
necessarily think that having that direct connectivity is the absolute best piece -- or best
idea just in terms of-- there would still be connectivity to the north and --which allows the
access back out to Linder to the north and, then, out to Ustick, you know, by going east
and south, which creates a longer path, but I think that allows for that connectivity, but it's
inconvenient enough for people that people wouldn't use it as much because people take
the path of least resistance and so almost saying, yes, there is access there, but it's not
direct access, so we are somewhat limiting it, because we are -- it's almost a traffic
calming feature by not having direct access. So, that's my counter point. I don't know
that it's valid necessarily, but that's just kind of how I'm looking at it, with not having been
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 7,2021 F36]
Page 32 of 38
through what you guys have on -- on these other projects, so --
Fitzgerald: I appreciate that. I think that's -- fresh eyes are always helpful. Additional
comments? Commissioner Yearsley, you came off mute.
Yearsley: Oh, I -- I agree with Commissioner Grove not having dealt with it. On the -- on
its own merits I think the subdivision looks good. I think they have done a decent job.
You know, there is already two access points on that property already. So, I would be in
favor of just moving it forward.
McCarvel: Yeah. Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: Yeah. I think there is a lot of reasons to not have that cross -- cross-access
into the commercial right in front of the residential there. I mean they -- they don't have
to redesign the whole thing and I think -- yeah. On its own it's -- it looks good.
Seal: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal, go right ahead.
Seal: Yeah. Echoing a lot of what I have heard already, I like the piece as it -- as it
stands. I mean they have worked really well with the neighbors. They interconnect really
well. They provide an abundance of interconnectivity. I -- I do agree that it's very
concerning that that commercial property doesn't have the cross-access happening to it
out of this, but to land that burden on this project is -- is a little troublesome, too. So, I
agree that we should maybe -- that we should put something in there for City Council, let
them know it was a large issue for us, you know, in case they don't read through
everything that has happened here tonight. I do imagine when we get to that -- the next
application for that commercial piece of property we are all going to roll our eyes as it
comes through, because it's -- it's a tough piece. I mean it really is. You know, I -- I have
been here for one of the hearings on it. I was here for the storage that was approved
across the street and that was very contentious as well. So, it's going to be a tough one.
But as far as this project I'm very much in support of seeing it move forward. And with
that I can take a crack at a motion, unless somebody wants to jump in.
Fitzgerald: Go right ahead. Motions are always in order. Go right ahead.
Seal: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file
number H-2020-0112, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 7th,
2021, with the following modifications: That they strike recommendation 1-C. That they
add agreements with the northern -- northern neighbors to the formal DA. That we ask
City Council to consider cross-access to the commercial property to the west as it was a
large concern for the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 7,2021 F37
Page 33 of 38
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal, is there a discussion about making sure that fence
continues across the road for Mr. Wagner's -- or I mean Mr. Wagner's property? Would
that be amenable to your motion?
Seal: I think he addressed that, but if -- do we want to make that a formal
recommendation? I mean I'm --
Fitzgerald: It's up to you. I think I would like to make sure that that gets somewhere in
there, so we can ensure that that's blocked off.
Seal: Okay. I will amend my -- my motion to include that a six foot fence is down across
the eastern border of the property from the common area to the north all the way to Ustick
Road.
Grove: Second.
Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to recommend approval of file number H-2020-
0112. Any other further comments before we take a vote?
Cassinelli: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: Can -- can I just get a repeat of the language on the recommendation to
Council regarding the cross-access?
Seal: What I said was that we ask that City Council consider cross-access to the
commercial property to the west, as it was a large concern for the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
Cassinelli: Thank you.
Fitzgerald: Any further comments?
Seal: I'm just surprised I can read my own handwriting there. So, that's my only comment.
Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to recommend approval of file number H-2020-
0112, Tetherow Crossing Subdivision. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion
passes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
3. Election of 2021 Commission Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson
Fitzgerald: Tim and -- we appreciate you being here tonight, sir. Ross, thanks for being
here. We look forward to -- good luck on City Council and hope things go well. Okay.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 7,2021 F38
Page 34 of 38
Last item on the agenda. I'm retiring, so thanks, team. It's been a blast. We have to
make a formal discussion on who wants to take lead of the commission. It's been fun
leading the crew and I'm retiring after next meeting, so, please, take over and our fearless
attorney leader will be guiding us if there is any questions. But any comments or
questions or thoughts on who would like to take on the role of chair first? Or vice-chair.
I would entertain any comments or thoughts on either one of those.
Yearsley: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: Not it.
Cassinelli: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: Not it.
Fitzgerald: Okay. That -- that narrows it down. Commissioner McCarvel, you came off
of mute.
McCarvel: Mr. Chair, I nominate our Vice-Chair Lisa Holland.
Holland: Mr. Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland.
Holland: Well, I don't want to continue the trend of saying not it. I -- I will start with -- I
am very grateful for the opportunity to have been vice-chair this year and I have really
enjoyed the opportunity to fill in for a few meetings. With having a new little guy and
having a lot of extra on my plate with trying to balance him, I think that this would be the
year I would prefer not to be chair. I would be more than happy to consider being vice-
chair again, if you would like -- would like me to fill in from time to time, but with the extra
time commitment I think it would be a good year for someone else to have that
opportunity, if that's all right. But I certainly appreciate the nomination, Commissioner
McCarvel. I would return to say that I know Commissioner McCarvel has been chair in
the past and has done a fabulous job and if she would be willing I would nominate her to
be chair, since she's had experience and, again, if -- if anybody would like me to, I would
be more than happy to continue serving as vice-chair, but I would also be happy to let
someone else have that opportunity if they would like to. I know Commissioner Seal does
an excellent job as motion maker, but I can certainly see you with an interest in potentially
having that opportunity. So, I will leave that out there. But I certainly appreciate
everybody on this commission and really enjoy the opportunity to still stay a part of all the
discussions moving forward.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 7,2021 F39
Page 35 of 38
Cassinelli: I would -- Commissioner Seal as well.
Fitzgerald: Commercial Seal or Commissioner Grove, any thoughts?
Seal: Yeah. I'm -- I think it's something that in the future I would like to do. At this point
I don't know -- I don't even know what the extra duties are, so -- and I don't know that I
have the right cheat sheets to get by with the whole thing. So, yeah, I mean if it came
down to that I would gladly serve and do it, but I don't know that I'm the best qualified
person in this panel to -- to do that at this point. I'm still learning.
Yearsley: I'm sure Ryan would hand you all his cheat sheets.
Fitzgerald: I don't know about the cheat sheets, but the staff is awesome about meeting
with you on Thursday afternoon and helping you get all the things you need, too, so -- but
I also -- I understand having -- it was nice to serve as vice-chair first and, then, get to step
in the chair. So, I -- I have been there as well. Commissioner Grove, any thoughts? Do
you want to throw your hat in the ring or are you happy --
Grove: I do not. I can barely make a motion.
Yearsley: Well, that's the great thing as chair, you don't have to make a motion.
Fitzgerald: Exactly. Just hang out and watch.
McCarvel: Commissioner Grove did not say not it.
Grove: Not it.
Cassinelli: Commissioner McCarvel, what's your thoughts? Would you -- you do -- are
you ready again?
McCarvel: I would do it if nobody else is going to --
Yearsley: I was going to say, be careful what you ask for.
McCarvel: I know. Yeah. If Commissioner Seal would prefer to do vice for a while, I
would do it and I'm sure there would be plenty of opportunities on my calendar for him to
practice a few times.
Fitzgerald: That almost sounded like a motion, but you can't motion yourself.
McCarvel: No. No. No.
Holland: Well, first of all, I will make a formal motion to appoint Commissioner McCarvel
as chair for the 2021 year.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 7,2021 F40
Page 36 of 38
Seal: Second.
Grove: Second.
Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to appoint Commissioner McCarvel as the new
chair for 2021. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Fitzgerald: Congratulations.
McCarvel: That is not the way I saw today going.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, you want to take over now or -- you want to do last motion?
McCarvel: Well, I nominate -- are we -- we got to do vice?
Fitzgerald: Yes, ma'am.
McCarvel: I'm thinking -- I would move that Commissioner Seal be vice-chair.
Cassinelli: Second that.
Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to appoint Commissioner Seal as vice-chair of
the Planning and Zoning Commission. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Besides
Commissioner Seal, you can't oppose yourself.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Holland: I will give you my cheat sheets, too, Commissioner Seal.
Seal: Thank you. I appreciate that. Luckily, we live close. I can just walk over and say
help me.
Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel has all the notes, too. She's good at that stuff.
McCarvel: Yeah. Well, I don't have all the new stuff with all the Zoom technology. That's
a different little spiel at the beginning. But, yeah, I would like to get some experience
spread around here.
Holland: I will send it out to everybody, so you all have it in case you want it.
Cassinelli: Commissioner -- Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: Yes.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 7,2021 F41
Page 37 of 38
Cassinelli: How long have you served on the Commission?
Fitzgerald: Five wonderful years.
Cassinelli: And are you just retiring because it's been five wonderful years or do you have
something big on your agenda that --
Fitzgerald: I have coaching baseball and being a helper in my -- my son's Scout troop.
So, that's Thursday nights and that's where I told the Mayor I was reluctant to step off
because I love doing this and I like working with you guys, but my kid is ten years old and
he's getting bigger fast, so I'm going to go coach baseball and help him with Scouts.
Cassinelli: Awesome.
Seal: Very cool.
Yearsley: Sounds like a great opportunity.
Fitzgerald: I will miss you guys. It has been -- it has been an awesome ride. I saw Greg
Wilson today and we were joking around, because he's like you made it the full five years,
I'm so proud of you. Because he bailed on me, because we got sworn in together and he
was giving me a bad time, but -- yeah. No, it's been a pleasure, guys. It's been fun. So,
I will miss you. Maybe Commissioner Yearsley in a year or two, it's like get dragged back
into this stuff.
McCarvel: We will see you back in in a few years.
Yearsley: Well, you know, it's kind of nice to know what's going on in the city. You know,
for the last couple years I have been not -- not been in it. It's -- I was like, well, what's
going on? What's this going in? So, it is nice to know what's going on.
Fitzgerald: Totally agree. Totally agree. It's been cool to watch some of the things we
have approved get built, too, so --
McCarvel: Yearsley is going to be a lifer.
Holland: I almost nominated Commissioner Yearsley to be vice-chair just to keep him
rooted in with us.
McCarvel: Oh, that's a spectacular idea.
Cassinelli: How quick he was in there with that not it.
Fitzgerald: Well, thanks, team. I will be with you as a commissioner for one more meeting
and, then, go from there. So, Madam Chair, it's all you.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 7,2021 F42
Page 38 of 38
McCarvel: Well, would somebody like to make the last motion? Commissioner
Fitzgerald?
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, I move we adjourn.
Yearsley: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded that we adjourn the meeting of -- what is
today? January --
Fitzgerald: 7th.
McCarvel: -- 7th. All those in favor. Any opposed? Meeting adjourn.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:41 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
1 21 �2021
RYAN FITZGERALD - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED
ATTEST:
CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK