2021-01-21 Item 1.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting January 21, 2021.
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of January 21, 2021 , was
called to order at 6:15 p.m. by Chairman Rhonda McCarvel.
Members Present: Chairman Rhonda McCarvel, Commissioner Ryan Fitzgerald,
Commissioner Lisa Holland, Commissioner Bill Cassinelli, Commissioner Andrew Seal,
Commissioner Nick Grove and Commissioner Steven Yearsley.
Others Present: Adrienne Weatherly, Andrea Pogue, Bill Parsons, Sonya Allen, Joe
Dodson, Alan Tiefenbach, and Dean Willis.
ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE
_X Lisa Holland X Ryan Fitzgerald
X Andrew Seal X Nick Grove
_X Steven Yearsley X Bill Cassinelli
X Rhonda McCarvel
McCarvel: All right. Good evening. Welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting for January 21st, 2021, by Zoom and in person. The Commissioners who are
present this evening are at City Hall and on Zoom and we also have staff from the city
attorney and the clerk's office and Planning Department with us as well. If you are joining
us on Zoom this evening you may observe the meeting and we can see that you were
there. However, your ability to talk will -- and be seen will be muted. During the public
testimony portion of the meeting you will be unmuted and able to comment. If you have
previously sent a presentation for the meeting it will be displayed on the screen and the
clerk will run the presentation. If you simply want to watch the meeting we encourage
you to watch this streaming on the city YouTube channel. You can access it at
meridiancity.org forward slash live. We will begin -- we will open each item individually
and begin with the staff report. Staff will report their findings on how the item adheres to
our Comprehensive Plan and the Uniform Development Code. After staff has made their
presentation the applicant will come forward to present their case and respond to staff
comments. They will have 15 minutes to do so. After the applicant has finished we will
open the floor to public testimony. When the public testimony is open the clerk will call
the names individually of those who have signed up to testify on our website. You will,
then, be unmuted. Please state your name and address for the record and you will have
three minutes to address the Commission, unless you are representing a larger group,
like an HOA. After that time we may ask you some questions for clarification. But once
you are done you will be muted and no longer have the ability to speak. Once all of those
who have signed up in advance are called we will invite others who wish to testify. If you
wish to speak on the topic you may press the raise hand button on the Zoom app or if you
are only listening through a cell phone or Iandline you can press star nine. Wait for your
name to be called. If you are listening on multiple devices, a computer or phone -- and a
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 6
Page 2 of 84
phone, et cetera, please be sure and mute those devices, so you don't experience
feedback and everyone can hear you clearly. Please note that we cannot take questions
until the public testimony portion. If you have a process question during the meeting
please e-mail city clerk at meridiancity.org and they will be able to help you as quickly as
possible. With all that being said let's begin with roll call.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda
and I think -- no changes. We have Item No. 2 is -- the applicant is requesting a
continuance and staff will inform us on that. So, at this time could I get a motion to adopt
the agenda?
Seal: So moved.
Fitzgerald: So moved.
Cassinelli: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All those in favor say
aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item]
1. Approve Minutes of the January 7, 2021 Planning and Zoning
Commission Regular Meeting
McCarvel: The next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and we just have approval
of minutes for the January 7th, 2021, Planning and Zoning Commission regular meeting.
So, can I get a motion -- a motion to accept the Consent Agenda as presented?
Holland: So moved.
Seal: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the Consent Agenda. All those in
favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item]
ACTION ITEMS
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 7
Page 3 of 84
2. Public Hearing Continued from December 3, 2020 for TM Center (H-
2020-0074) by SCS Brighton, et al., Located East of S. Ten Mile Rd. and
South of W. Franklin Rd.
A. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 83 buildable lots and 2
common lots on 132.42 acres of land in the R-40, TN-C, C-C and C-
G zoning districts.
McCarvel: So, at this time we would like to continue -- continue on from December 3rd,
2020, TM Center, H-2020-0074. The applicant is requesting a continuance and so if we
could have some comments from staff.
Allen: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. Yeah. The applicant
would prefer to continue this to the February 18th hearing. Staff is recommending that it
be continued to a later date to run concurrently with the upcoming planned unit
development and development agreement modification applications for the same
property. This was the reason this application was originally pulled back to begin with, so
that could be reviewed comprehensively as an overall project. As is the street sections
that are proposed with the preliminary plat and actually some have been constructed are
not consistent with the Ten Mile plan and there are changes to the -- some of the
guidelines in the Ten Mile plan that are anticipated to be incorporated into a new
development agreement master DA for the overall site, so -- so, that's the reason staff
would prefer to process this all together. Staff will stand for any questions.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: Sonya, what date are you looking for?
Allen: Well, I think that the second meeting in March would probably be the safest. That
would be the 18th. But I don't know -- the applicant may be able to provide more
information on when they anticipate the additional items being submitted for those other
two applications I referenced. If -- if it's going to be submitted soon, then, staff doesn't
have an issue with the March 4th meeting, then, that would only delay it a couple more
weeks than what they are -- what they really wanted to get on. Thank you.
Holland: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Holland.
Holland: Follow up to Commissioner Fitzgerald's question. Do we have a lot on the
agenda for the 4th or the 18th?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 8
Page 4 of 84
Weatherly: Madam Chair, this is Adrienne. Currently we do not -- I don't believe. I'm
away from my computer trying to fix some technical issues, but we don't have more than
two, I think, for the 4th and I don't think we have noticed anything for the 18th yet.
McCarvel: Any other questions for staff? Would the applicant like to address the
Commission?
Weatherly: Madam Chair, that might take us a minute to see if he is online.
McCarvel: Okay.
Weatherly: Part of our reboot with -- it took away our guest list.
McCarvel: Okay. We will wait.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. I mean I know you all have a pretty significant
lineup for February. I know looking at what you have on the docket for the last two
meetings is relatively significant, so I -- I would say -- I would suggest if we are going to
do something we push it at least to that first meeting in March, if not to that -- where the
staff thinks they can align everything.
McCarvel: Agreed. I'm -- personally I like to error on the side of staff and not rush them.
Holland: Madam Chair, I would be happy to make a motion, unless we need to hear from
the applicant. I didn't catch all that. I'm sorry.
McCarvel: I didn't either.
Weatherly: Madam Chair, we are trying to test our sound again. Chris is going to talk
through the microphone and see if you can hear him.
McCarvel: Okay.
Johnson: This is Chris trying to see if you can hear me through the sound.
McCarvel: Yes.
Johnson: We are going to pause for one moment, connect everything over and make
sure you can still hear us.
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you.
McCarvel: At this point I think I would be supportive of the March 18th date.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 191
Page 5 of 84
Holland: Can I make a motion or do we need to hear from the applicant?
Weatherly: Madam Chair, Commissioners, my apologies for all the technical difficulties
we are having right now. To pick up where we left off, I cannot locate anybody from the
applicant's --
McCarvel: Okay.
Weatherly: -- team online. If they are online and you wish for them to talk I would just
asked for them to raise their hand, so I can identify them.
McCarvel: Okay. If the applicant is here for H-2020-0074, if they could, please, raise
their hand to be noticed by the clerk. Okay. I would say a motion is in order.
Holland: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Holland.
Holland: I move we continue Item No. H-2020-0074 for TM Center to the hearing date of
March 18th to allow staff more time to work with the applicant on supporting materials for
the application.
Grove: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to continue H-2020-0074 to the date of
March 18th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Okay. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
3. Public Hearing for Mark Enos Annexation (H-2020-0119) by Mark Enos,
Located at 2972 E. Leslie Dr.
A. Request: Annexation of 1.05 acres of land with the R-2 zoning
district.
McCarvel: Next item on the agenda is H-2020-001 -- I'm sorry. Dash 0119, the Mark
Enos Annexation and we will begin with the staff report.
Tiefenbach: Good evening, Planning Commission. Can you see my presentation and
can you hear me? Thumbs up. Great. Alan Tiefenbach, planner with the City of Meridian.
Again good evening. This is an annexation and zoning. The site consists of an acre of
land. It's zoned R-1 in unincorporated Ada county. It's located at 2972 East Leslie, which
is south and west of the East Ustick Road, North Eagle Road intersection. The property
is bordered on two sides by the city limits. To the north is R-15. To the east is R-2.
Unincorporated Ada county to the south and to the west. Comprehensive Plan
recommendation is for a low density residential. This is a proposal to annex and rezone
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 Flo]
Page 6 of 84
of one acre of property to R-2 to obtain city services. The property is in unincorporated
Ada county and is served by an individual well and septic. I will put this site plan up here.
The applicant desires to construct a detached accessory building of approximately 1,750
square foot. That's what you see here on the north and that would be for RV garage and
upstairs living. The applicant has been unable to obtain a new septic permit from the
county. They want to add a living space above. They have been unable to obtain a septic
permit for the addition due to the location and the limitations of the existing system. So,
where the system is located where there is a ditch they can't expand the system easily.
The county has recommended that the applicant annex into the city. The annex is -- the
applicant has determined it would be cheaper to do this than to try to upgrade the whole
system. That's the reason for this annexation. If the -- if the applicant chooses to use the
upstairs living area as a secondary dwelling unit, it's subject to specific use standards,
which includes the living area being less than 700 square feet, one additional parking
space, and the property having to be occupied at least six months out of the year by the
primary occupant. Comprehensive Plan is supportive of the secondary dwelling unit.
There is recommendations in the plan that support the construction of accessory dwelling
units, as well as increasing the diversity of housing. So, again, the only reason for this is
for the applicant to be able to obtain city services, so they can build this second building.
With that staff recommends approval. If you have any questions.
Cassinelli: Madam Chair, this is Bill.
McCarvel: Yeah. Do you have any -- yeah. Sorry. I was muted.
Cassinelli: Can you hear me?
McCarvel: Yes.
Cassinelli: Okay. I'm just -- I'm curious on the -- the condition for owner occupied for at
least six months out of the year. Is that city code on that?
Tiefenbach: Correct. I think the intent of that is so that somebody remotely doesn't just
try to Airbnb everything out and to make sure that there is somebody on site that if it is
used for a secondary dwelling unit there are some eyes on the property and it's not all
just a renter. So, yes, that is the city code. Six months out of the year.
McCarvel: Any other questions for staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to speak? If
you are in the -- on Zoom, please, raise your hand. Oh, there we go. Adrienne, do you
see him?
Enos: Am I unmuted now?
McCarvel: Yes. Oh. There you go. Okay. Yes. Please state your name and address
for the record.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 Fill
Page 7 of 84
Enos: This is Mark Enos. Address 2972 East Leslie Drive in Meridian and, no, I don't --
I don't have anything to add, unless there is specific questions.
McCarvel: Okay. Any questions for the applicant?
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Mr. Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: Just really quick. Mr. Enos, how are you accessing that secondary dwelling?
Do you have a driveway you are adding to your lawn?
Enos: Sure. On the right side of the property there is already a gravel driveway that
accesses the back of the property.
Fitzgerald: And that's on your property?
Enos: Yes.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Perfect. That just--that was a question for me. Thank you. Appreciate
it.
McCarvel: And do we have any -- anyone signed up to testify on this application?
Weatherly: Madam Chair, we do not.
McCarvel: Okay. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to testify on this?
Please raise your hand. Okay.
Seal: No one in chambers either, Madam Chair.
McCarvel: So, I think at this time if I can get a motion to close the public hearing for Item
H-20 -- sorry. Lost them.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Mr. Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: Can I -- I make a -- or I move that we close public hearing on H-2020-0119,
Mark Enos Annexation.
Holland: Commissioner Holland second.
McCarvel: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing. All those in favor
-- and second on -- all those in favor say aye. Those opposed? Motion carries.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F12
Page 8 of 84
MOTION CARRIED: ALL YES.
McCarvel: Any other discussion on this? It is pretty straightforward.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, this is a pretty simple one. I -- I appreciate they -- they are
wanting to add an additional dwelling unit. I think there is space there and if Ada -- if Ada
county can't serve them for a new well and septic, then, I think picking up the city services
is appropriate. So, if anybody has a problem let us know. If not I will make a motion.
McCarvel: Always in order.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I
move to recommend approval to the City Council file number H-2020-0119 as presented
in the staff report for the hearing date of January 21 st, 2021 .
Holland: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve H-2020-0119 to recommend
approval. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Congratulations.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
4. Public Hearing for Schnebly Annexation (H-2020-0115) by Richard
Schnebly, Located at 2690 E. Franklin Rd.
A. Request: Annexation of 0.75 of an acre of land with an R-2 zoning
district.
McCarvel: Next item on the agenda is the Schnebly Annexation, H-2020-0115, and we
will begin with the staff report.
Allen- Thank you, Madam Chair. Oops. Can you all hear me?
McCarvel: Yes.
Allen- Thank you. I'm sorry. I thought I was muted. Thank you, Madam Chair, Members
of the Commission. The next application before you is a request for annexation and
zoning. This site consists of .63 of an acre of land. It's currently zoned RUT in Ada county
and it's located at 2690 East Franklin Road. The Comprehensive Plan future land use
map designation on this property is commercial. The applicant is proposing to annex .75
of an acre of land and that goes to the section line of East Franklin Road as required by
rezoning, with an R-2 low density residential zoning district. The reason for annexation
is that the existing septic system on the single family residential property failed last -- late
last year and the applicant had to hook up to city water and sewer service. No new
development or redevelopment of the property is proposed at this time and the use will
remain residential for the foreseeable future. As a provision of hookup to city services
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F13
Page 9 of 84
annexation into the city is required. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map
designation for this property is commercial. Because there is an existing home on the
property and the use is proposed to remain residential, an R-2 zoning district is requested
as recommended by staff as a placeholder zoning district until the property redevelops or
a change of use to the property is proposed in the future. At such time the property should
be rezoned and the use -- development should be consistent with the commercial future
land use map designation. To ensure future development is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan staff does recommend a development agreement is required as a
provision of annexation that requires the property to be rezoned and the agreement
modified to include a conceptual development plan consistent with the commercial
designation prior to any change in use or redevelopment of the property. This would not
prevent the applicant from selling the property for continued residential use, but would
preclude it from being subdivided to increase the density on the property and further the
residential use of the property. Written testimony has been received from Brad Miller from
Adler Industrial. He has concerns pertaining to compatibility of R-2 zoning of the property
with adjacent industrial uses to the north and suggests commercial zoning might be more
compatible and a better option. I did touch base with Mr. Miller and did explain that this
is just a placeholder zoning that's requested and supported by staff. Anyway, just to
explain that. Staff is recommending approval of the requested annexation with R-2 zoning
and the requirement of a development agreement as previously mentioned. Staff will
stand for any questions.
Holland: Madam Chair?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel -- or I mean Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Yeah. There we go. Thank you. Commissioner Holland, I think you started
first.
Holland: Either way. Sonya, just one quick question. With the --the comment that came
in from Brad Miller, if they have an R-2 designation does it impact them any way on the
industrial side of things with setbacks or anything like that? Because I know sometimes
there is additional setback requirements for residentially zoned properties next to
industrial areas. Or is there a way that in the development agreement it could be noted
that they would be exempt from those traditional setbacks, because it's planned to be
commercial in the future?
Allen: Well, I believe that the -- I'm just double checking that. I believe that the industrial
uses to the -- the industrial property to the north is already improved and, therefore,
nothing additional would be required. If the site were to redevelop with the new uses,
then, yes, a buffer to residential use is required.
Holland: So, follow up to that. Do we -- if it is all developed, then, probably no concern,
but if somebody was to come in and do another industrial use their way, we can put that
note in the development agreement or the staff report that it's a placeholder zoning and
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F14
Page 10 of 84
the typical buffers wouldn't apply, because we are going to follow the notes of the future
use map for that site?
Allen: I will defer to legal on that, but I don't believe so. The developer -- or the
requirement would -- would be on the priority under development and it is based on the
zoning district of the property under -- under development. So, I believe it would apply in
either case.
Pogue: Agreed.
McCarvel: Mr. Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: Sonya, did Brad have a response to your comment? Did he give you
feedback?
Allen: Well, I don't want to put words in his mouth, but he seemed okay with that
explanation and -- and, yes, I can see from the aerial that that property to the north is
currently developed. He represents the property owner to the north. Adler Industrial.
Fitzgerald: Got it. Okay.
Allen: I think he just wanted the comment to be on the record.
McCarvel: Any other questions for staff?
Parsons: Commission, this is Bill.
McCarvel: Yes. Go ahead.
Parson: I was going to also let the Commission know that the two vacant parcels there
have also been approved by the city to develop industrial uses. So, it will be a fabrication
shop and some outdoor storage.
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions for staff before the applicant?
I don't see the applicant in the Zoom audience. Do we have the applicant in chambers,
Commissioner Seal?
Weatherly: Madam Chair, it looks like I do have somebody raising their hand --
McCarvel: Okay.
Weatherly: -- wanting to talk for a moment.
McCarvel: Okay. Okay. So, is this Mr. Schnebly? You are on mute, sir. If you are --
you will need to unclick your mute. I think you have the permission to talk if you unmute
your -- your side. There you go.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F15]
Page 11 of 84
Schnebly: Can you hear me now, Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Yes. There you go. Please state your name and address for the record.
Schnebly: I'm learning how to work this. My name is --
McCarvel: We all are.
Schnebly: My name is Rich Schnebly and my -- you want my home address or the
address of the property that I own? My home address was 4050 East Hubbard Road,
Kuna. 83634.
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Is there anything you would like to share with us about
your application?
Schnebly: No. I believe it's pretty straight forward. My one concern that I had after being
given the staff report -- and I will have to tell you that Sonya has been very patient with
me throughout this whole process and that she's tried very hard to make sure I understand
things, but still this is very new to me and trying to work through all the ins and outs of this
project have been somewhat overwhelming. But, anyway, the one thing that I had after
the staff report was this DA that -- this development agreement that you wanted me to
sign or apparently is required and never having seen one or whatever I was very very
concerned over what obligations it would put to me, what kind of legal stuff that I would
be required to do and that this is kind of something you guys apparently need or want and
I have questioned the necessity of it, because it just seemed most everything in there is
kind of a given. You know, if the house changes hands at some point down the road
certainly don't have any thing, but if it's sold to somebody that's a commercial developer
I mean however it's zoned or whatever don't -- don't they still have to come in front of you
guys to get it rezoned for commercial use and come with a plan. I'm somewhat uncertain
why the development plan even needs to be in place and the fact that I get charged for
the privilege of signing it.
McCarvel: Okay. Sonya, do you want to respond?
Allen: I'm sorry, I was tending to a technical difficulty and I did not catch that question. I
apologize.
McCarvel: Mr. Schnebly wants further explanation on why he needs the DA agreement.
Schnebly: Madam, could I interrupt there just a second.
McCarvel: Sure.
Schnebly: Sonya and I had a pretty good discussion last night via e-mail and she tried
her best to explain the necessity of it and the requirement of it and, again, I understand
it, but I still have a little bit of resistance I guess. So, if you guys really feel that it's a
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F16
Page 12 of 84
necessity-- the one thing is I just happened to notice on one of the other applications that
you had that in the staff report you have a zoning of R-1. I only put a zoning
recommendation of R-2 in there, because it was one of the recommendations Sonya put
out in the pre-planning meeting that we had to go forward for my project and would a
zoning of R-1, would that help better that it could only be a single family dwelling on that
acreage and maybe a development plan wouldn't be needed. But at the same time if you
guys do feel that you do need to put the development agreement together and it is
required, I will go forward with it, but I guess the one thing I could ask of you is I don't
know if you have it within your power to maybe waive the fees for having to put that
together, because I still have to go forward this spring. This project has been enormously
expensive for me and not planned and has been kind of a financial burden to me at the
moment. So, the 300 bucks or whatever that was being required to -- to put this
agreement together could be better used this spring, because I have to totally re-renovate
my entire front yard on that property that got tore up in this project and that money I think
could certainly be better used to put things back together again this spring. So, that's my
comments. Thank you very much. I will let you guys go forward.
Allen: Madam Chair, if I could respond to Mr. Schnebly's suggestion for R-1 zoning. The
city does not have an R-1 zoning. R-1 is a county designation. The lowest density zoning
designation the city has is R-2. So, that's why staff recommended that zone.
McCarvel: Thank you. I guess at this time do we have any further staff comments from
Bill?
Parsons: Sure. I'm listening to their conversations, so I think this body is aware and also
for Mr. Schnebly, certainly wouldn't want to put undue burdens on homeowners or people
that just want to hook up and -- and honor their commitments with the city, but this site is
a little bit different. We are -- we actually have a comprehensive plan designation of
commercial, but we are recommending a residential zone to help assist with his need to
annex in and that's really our standard process, so the state statutes enable staff to
require a contract with annexations or rezone. So, once -- he's right, though, they --
technically he could come back through -- whoever buys the property could come back
through and rezone it and, then, at that time the city, through our process, could require
a development agreement or amendment to the DA if-- if you choose to do that. The city
does not have a fee waiver process anymore. We modified the code a few years ago
and took that out. The Council at the time had determined that, you know, it just doesn't
set a good precedent to be waiving fees for applications, because there is staff time
involved, there is -- there is so many different staff members touching these applications.
But what I can recommend to this Commission is certainly the city has the ability to get
some other assurances with the rezone, but to me it's really a Council decision. They are
the ones that are going to be making the decision on the land use. So, if that's something
that the Commission feels is appropriate in this case, then, I would go forward on a
recommendation of the annexation without the inclusion of a development agreement.
That's certainly something you can do and see whether or not Council would support that
recommendation.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F17
Page 13 of 84
McCarvel: Okay.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: So, Bill, we can't recommend that anything on that property until it comes
back, has to go through the process again? We can't make that determination in a DA?
Parsons: Oh, sure you can. You always have the -- that's what a DA mode is; right?
Fitzgerald: Yeah.
Parsons: You put a DA in place. Yes. The avenue to change that contract is to go before
City Council.
Fitzgerald: Yeah. So, that's my one concern about not putting a DA in place is that comes
back and it still remains residential down the road where it's supposed to -- where I think
it's a commercial zone.
Parsons: Correct.
Fitzgerald: Or industrial zone. So, that would be my concern about that.
Parsons: Yeah. The long-term vision for this property is commercial and we don't want
the residential. Not that it -- it can't continue, but the intent is not for that to be residential
forever.
Holland: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner -- Commissioner Holland.
Holland: Questions for staff. If we condition it so that they don't have a development
agreement, can we still make a condition through annexation that they are not allowed to
subdivide the property in the future?
Parsons: Madam Chair?
Allen: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Where did Sonya go?
Allen: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, state code does not allow annexations
to be conditioned. The only method we have of doing that is through the development
agreement process and agreement.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F18
Page 14 of 84
Holland: That's what I thought. Thanks for clarifying.
McCarvel: And I mean it just helps everybody be clear -- you know, a future purchaser,
it just helps things from slipping through the cracks, so -- okay. If -- anymore comments
from the applicant? I think we still have you. We are answering your questions and staff's
at this point.
Schnebly: Am I still on with you?
McCarvel: Yes.
Schnebly: Okay. I certainly understand and, like I said, Sonya has been very very patient
with me and tried to explain it to the best of her ability last night to me. So, I -- and if you
don't have the ability to waive fees anymore, I guess you -- I will have to accept what you
move forward with and go from there. Right now I'm just trying to honor my commitment
to you that--of annexation, because all my permits were issued early on, so that we could
get the house back up and habitable, because I have people living in it and they really
needed to be able to use the system. So, anyway, thank you very much for your time
tonight. I do appreciate it.
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Is there anybody in the audience who wishes to testify on
this application or do we have anybody signed up?
Weatherly: No, we do not.
McCarvel: Okay. So, at this time if I could get a motion to close the public hearing for H-
2020-0115.
Holland: So moved.
Seal: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for H-2020-0115.
All those in favor say aye. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
McCarvel: Comments? Discussion?
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: We did a lot of it. Mr. Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: Yeah. I think my comments kind of float into what I said. I mean I totally
understand the challenges that come with attaching to the city services and this just
happens to be a unique property that we -- we see further commercial use on it and I --
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F19
Page 15 of 84
I'm sorry for the applicant's situation. I know it's -- having a development agreement does
cost money and I -- and I'm definitely sympathetic to that. The challenge is if we don't do
it and we -- and he sells that property or something changes with it, we can't control what
happens after annexation and so, unfortunately, I think we got to have a development
agreement go with it in my opinion. So, that would be my -- my thought is that we attach
it with an R-2, that's fine, but, then, it has to come back through the process to get
redeveloped once that next step happens with that property if it's redeveloped in the
future.
Holland: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Holland.
Holland: I would echo Commissioner Fitzgerald's comments. I -- I wish that we had the
ability to do a fee waiver, because I would make that recommendation to Council that they
consider waiving the fee, but if that's not a tool that we have available to us -- I don't know
if there is anything creative Council can do to help them, but I think it's -- I think it's
important to have that development agreement in place just because of-- it's a step away
from the Comprehensive Plan that was designated for that property. I think the only other
possibility -- and I don't think this is an option either -- is requesting the waiver of the fee
on the Comprehensive Plan amendment, but that's the same -- same situation. We don't
have that ability to change those fees.
McCarvel: I agree. I do feel -- I mean it -- we need the DA in place just for transparency
for everyone involved and as fast as things move here it could easily be forgotten, so --
any other comments or motions?
Holland: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Holland.
Holland: Unless there is other comments I -- I will move -- I will make a motion. After
hearing all staff, applicant, and public testimony I move to recommend approval to City
Council of file Number H-2020-0115 for the Schnebly annexation with the request that
they would work with staff on a development agreement. I think that might already be in
the staff report, so maybe it doesn't need to be in the motion.
McCarvel: I believe it's in there. Do I have a second?
Grove: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to recommend approval on H-2020-0115.
All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F20
Page 16 of 84
5. Public Hearing for Village at Meridian Cafe Rio Drive-Through (H-2020-
0116) by Layton Davis Architects, Located at 3243 E. Village Dr.
A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a drive-through establishment
within 300-feet of another drive-through establishment in the C-G
zoning district.
McCarvel: Next item on the agenda is the public hearing for Village at Meridian Cafe Rio,
the drive-thru, H-2020-0116, and we will begin with the staff report.
Allen: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. The next application
before you is a request for a conditional use permit. This site consists of .97 of an acre
of land, zoned C-G, located at 3243 East Village Drive. This property was annexed back
in 2007 as part of the larger Village of Meridian project. A development agreement was
required as a provision of annexation, which has been amended twice since that time.
The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for this property is mixed use
regional. A conditional use permit is requested for a drive-thru establishment for Cafe
Rio within 300 feet of another drive-thru facility to the north Chick-fil-A as required by the
UDC. Cafe Rio is proposed to occupy the southern tenant space of a 10,000 square foot
multi-tenant building. The existing drive thru is separated from the drive thru to the north
by a public street, East Village Drive. Therefore, no traffic conflicts exist between the two
sites. The proposed use is subject to specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-11,
drive-thru establishment. Staff has reviewed the proposed site design and found it to be
consistent with these standards. Access is proposed via a driveway from a right turn lane
from Eagle Road on East Village Drive along the northern boundary of this site across the
abutting lot. Direct lot access via Eagle Road is prohibited. ACHD's traffic engineers
have reviewed and approved the proposed turn lane configuration. A reciprocal cross-
access easement for vehicular and pedestrian ingress and egress exists between the lots
in the subdivision. A cross-access agreement also exists for shared parking between
businesses and lots in the subdivision. Parking lot landscaping is proposed in accord
with UDC standards. Street buffer landscaping was installed with development of the
subdivision along North Eagle Road and East Village Drive. Because the drive-thru lane
and back of the building with mechanical equipment will be highly visible from North Eagle
Road, staff recommends additional landscaping, consisting of coniferous trees and
bushes, is provided within the street buffer along Eagle Road to screen this area and
functions while preserving a clear view of the drive-thru window for surveillance purposes.
Conceptual building elevations were submitted as shown that incorporate materials
consisting of EFIS in two different colors, tile, metal and concrete trim and accents and
standing seam metal roofing. Final design shall be consistent with the design standards
listed in the architectural standards manual. Written testimony was received from John
Davis, Layton Davis Architects, the applicant's representative, and they are in agreement
with the staff report. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions in the report.
Staff will stand for any questions.
Holland: Madam Chair?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F21
Page 17 of 84
McCarvel: Yes, Commissioner Holland.
Holland: One quick -- just one quick question. Sonya, is the drive -- driveway through
the north side of the property, is that where the entrance is, or does it come in on the
south side for the drive thru?
Allen: Madam Chair, Commissioner Holland, Commissioners, the drive through --the site
plan is oriented to the north. Top is north. So, they come in along Village Drive from the
north, down in here, if you can see my cursor, and -- and up around this way.
Holland: Okay. Perfect. Thanks.
Allen: Yep.
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Yes, Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: This is Cassinelli. Sonya, I was curious about the landscape issue brought
up. Is the -- are there not parapets around the top there? You mentioned --of mechanical
equipment on the roof.
Allen: Well, Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli, Commissioners, the code does
require mechanical equipment on the roof to be screened, but this -- what I was referring
to is mechanical equipment on the rear of the building visible from Eagle.
Cassinelli: Oh. Okay. Okay. Got you. Sorry.
Allen: Either way we want it to be screened.
Cassinelli: Yep.
Holland: Madam Chair, one more follow-up question.
McCarvel: Commissioner Holland.
Holland: Is that an escape lane in -- around the drive thru that I see kind of on that
southwest corner?
Allen: If you -- Madam Chair and Commissioner Holland, if you look at the hatched area
right there, that's the escape lane, and, then, they can drop off here where the road is and
go out.
Holland: I have gotten stuck in a long drive thru before and -- you turn the corner and,
then, realize there is 20 cars in front of you sometimes and you need to escape.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F22
Page 18 of 84
Allen: Right. Our -- our city code requires an escape lane if the stacking lane is greater
than a hundred feet in length.
Holland: Perfect. Thanks for clarifying.
McCarvel: Any other questions for staff? Do we have the applicant in chambers or -- oh.
Do we have -- is that said John Fink is the applicant?
Allen: Yes.
McCarvel: Okay. Mr. Fink, if you would state your name and address for the record and
the floor is yours.
Fink: Are you able to hear me?
McCarvel: Yes.
Fink: Wonderful. Thanks for the opportunity to speak tonight and thanks for the
presentation, Sonya. Everything's pretty straight forward. We are going to add another
10,000 square foot building on this property. Right now there is only going to be one
restaurant in this building. We do not plan to put a restaurant on the north side of this
building. There may be a restaurant in the middle of this building, but they will, obviously,
not be a part of the drive thru. But the staff recommendations from Sonya will add extra
landscaping in the back, will widen the sidewalks on any pedestrian walkways and we are
in full agreement of that.
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Okay. Do we have
anybody wishing to testify on this application?
Weatherly: No, we do not signed up. I did have one person raise their hand. Layton
Davis Architects. I have moved them over and they have the opportunity to speak.
McCarvel: Okay. Go ahead. Layton Davis.
Davis: This is John Davis.
McCarvel: The floor is yours. We can hear you.
Davis: Yeah. I was just offering if there was any -- any questions. That's why I raised
my hand. I have nothing further to add. Thank you.
McCarvel: Okay. All right. Thank you. So, if there is no more comments from the
applicant and no questions, could -- any -- any other final thoughts from the applicant
before we close? Okay. Could I get a motion to close the public hearing on H-2020-
0116.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F23
Page 19 of 84
Fitzgerald: So moved, Madam Chair.
Holland: Second.
McCarvel: Did I hear Madam Chair in there somewhere? It has been moved and
seconded to close the public hearing on H-2020-0116. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
McCarvel: Thoughts? Comments?
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Yeah. Mr. Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: I think the -- I mean the Chick-fil-A is pretty significantly distanced from this
and I think the stacking lane that they have is pretty significant. It's long and they have
an escape lane at the end if they needed to get out of there for -- so, it seems like a
reasonable use and with guidance from the applicant not having other restaurants using
the drive thru under the circumstance I think it makes sense. I don't have any problem.
It looks -- looks pretty straight forward.
Cassinelli: Madam Chair.
McCarvel: Yeah, Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: Commission Cassinelli. I would echo those comments by Mr. Fitzgerald.
McCarvel: Great. Thank you. And I would just remind whoever is making the motion it's
a CUP, so it's approval, not a recommendation.
Holland: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Holland.
Holland: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve
the drive thru for the Village at Meridian Cafe Rio, H-2020-0116, for their conditional use
permit for a drive-thru establishment with the conditions in the staff report.
Grove: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve H-2020-0116, Meridian Cafe Rio
drive thru. All those in favor say aye. Motion passes. Thank you, Mr. Fink.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F24
Page 20 of 84
6. Public Hearing for Prescott Ridge (H-2020-0047) by Providence
Properties, LLC, Located on the South Side of W. Chinden Blvd. and
on the East Side of N. McDermott Rd.
A. Annexation of 128.21 acres of land with R-8 (99.53 acres), R-15
(8.82 acres) and C-G (19.85 acres) zoning districts.
B. Preliminary Plat consisting of 371 buildable lots [single-family
residential (215 detached/102 attached), townhome (38), multi-
family residential (14), commercial (1) and school (1)], 42 common
lots and 6 other (shared driveway) lots] on 124.81 acres of land in
the R-8, R-15 and C-G zoning districts.
McCarvel: Next on the agenda is the public hearing for Prescott Ridge, H-2020-0047.
We will begin with the staff report.
Allen: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. This project was
previously heard by the Commission in September of last year. The Council heard this
application and was not in favor of annexing the medical campus portion of the site without
inclusion of the 1 .27 acre parcel at the northeast corner of the site. So, if you will
remember, this is the medical campus portion of the site, the commercial area. There is
a parcel right here, if you can see my pointer, along the northeast corner that was an
outparcel previously and was not included in this application. So, the Council remanded
the project back to the Commission for inclusion of that outparcel in the annexation
application. The applicant has submitted updated plans for the overall project that include
this parcel and the annex -- annexation boundary now consists of 128.21 acres of land,
with 19.85 acres in the commercial portion of the site. An updated conceptual
development plan was submitted for the medical campus portion of the site as shown that
depicts the three story hospital in the same location and the medical office building now
shifted to the northeast corner of the site, if you can see my pointer there it's this area
right here. The medical office building changed. It increased in height from three stories
to four stories and is proposed to be approximately 80,000 square feet that now
incorporates retail and restaurant uses on the entire first floor, which provides a mix of
uses desired in a mixed use regional designated area that was not there previously. Staff
wasn't planning to go into the whole application again, since this was heard previously by
the Commission, but if there is any -- any questions you have or anything you would like
me to cover I'm certainly willing to. The rest of the development really didn't change. It's
-- it's the same. It was just the commercial portion of the site.
Holland: Madam Chair? Sonya, did we approve another hospital just down the street
from this one, too? Do we have two medical facilities going in next to each other?
Allen: And the Brighton application, Pollard Subdivision, directly to the north across
Chinden did include a hospital in their concept development plans, yes.
Holland: And I remember --
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F25]
Page 21 of 84
Allen: I don't believe there has been any movement on that as far as I know, though.
Holland: Okay. One more follow up if I may. I read that there were some concerns
potentially with the emergency vehicle access coming in and out. I think that was my --
my only main concern on this project. Do you have any comments related to that?
Allen: The emergency vehicles should be -- it's -- well, let me clarify. Were you referring
to emergency vehicles with the emergency department in the hospital?
Holland: Yes.
Allen: Yeah. Yeah. They will be accessing the site from Rustic -- Rustic Oak Way and
Chinden. So, they will -- they will come out of here -- there will be a signal here, traffic
signal, and they will come in here and access and -- and the ambulance -- ambulance
entry is right here, if you can see on the site.
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Go ahead, Bill.
Holland: Go ahead, Bill. I will ask mine later.
Cassinelli: Go ahead and wrap it up.
Holland: My only other concern was the way that single family abuts the commercial site.
Did staff have any concerns with that? Because it looks like you have got some pretty
significant commercial frontage against some of those backyards there.
Allen: Yeah. Madam Chair, Commissioner Holland and Commissioners, yeah, that --
that really hasn't changed, but the improvements to the site plan have been the -- the shift
of that medical office building as far away as they can get it at the northeast corner of the
site. They are providing a 30 foot wide buffer that's heavily vegetated as you can see
along the west and southern boundaries adjacent to existing and future residential uses.
Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Shall I go ahead?
McCarvel: Yes, Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: Sonya, just real quickly, I'm assuming that -- I know the last time we saw this
that -- that they were hoping to have that parcel under contract. So, I'm assuming that
that -- that is now the case. But my real question here is how does the layout of the
medical campus differ from -- because the -- to me the last time we -- I think we have
seen a couple versions of it and it -- it -- I'm not sure if this goes back to the -- closer to
the first time we saw this or the last time we saw it. Do you have -- do you have a
rendering of what that looked like, the layout of the medical campus, when we approved
it -- when we last saw it?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F26
Page 22 of 84
Allen: Yes, I can find one, Commissioner Cassinelli. It was roughly in this location right
here, though. It was oriented more north-south and right here where my pointer is. I can
find one for you if you will give me a minute.
Cassinelli: Okay. Because if memory serves me, we also saw a completely different
rendering of it at one point in time, but I don't remember if that was the first time out.
Allen: Yeah. There were several iterations of the concept plan. It's been constantly
evolving based on staff -- staff recommendations and the public's requests as well.
McCarvel: Any other questions for staff? Okay. Is the applicant with us? If you could
raise your hand. Oh. Okay. Mr. Connor?
Connor: Yes. Hi. My name is Patrick Connor. I would like to share my screen if I can.
McCarvel: Okay. And if you could state your name and address for the record.
Connor: Yes. Thank you. My name is Patrick Connor. Address is 701 South Allen
Street, Meridian, Idaho. 83642.
McCarvel: Thank you. Go ahead.
Johnson: Madam Chair. Mr. Connor, you should have the ability to share your screen
now.
Connor: Okay. Thank you. One moment, please. Hey, Stephanie? Okay. Thank you.
Sorry for the technical difficulties. As I said before, my name is Patrick Connor with
Providence Properties. This is the third time we are presenting this project to you all at
the Planning and Zoning Commission, with the exception of Commissioner Holland, I
don't think you have seen this full presentation, so I would like to run through it just so
you have an understanding of the full project. As I get to different parts of it where things
have changed I will stop and spend extra attention, so the full Commission can see what
we have changed and improved. So, this is Prescott Ridge. The location -- the project
location is in northwest Meridian, just south of Chinden, and east of McDermott Road.
Everything you see on the screen here is either platted, built, under construction or
approved for construction. The project does include 28 acres of a site that's owned by
West Ada School District. It's part of our project to get them legal -- get the legal lot legally
annexed and zoned as part of our application, but it will develop separately from our
project. Here is a future land use map. The majority of the site is medium density
residential, with the north portion as mixed use regional. I also want to point out that a
portion of the Peregrine Heights neighborhood is also mixed use regional to our
northwest. The current zoning. To our south is R-4 and R-8. To our north is general
commercial. The requested zoning boundaries --we requested about 16 acres of general
commercial, 7.92 acres of R-15 zone, and about one hundred acres of the R-8 zone as
shown on the map. This preliminary plat, as Sonya alluded to, has not changed really at
all, with the exception of the addition of the 1.2 acres as requested by City Council. So,
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F27
Page 23 of 84
that is now part of this preliminary plat, as shown in the north corner of the property. Three
hundred and seventeen single family lots, 38 townhome lots, eight single family attached
two unit buildings. We have 14 multi-family lots with four-plexes on each of those lots.
So, it totals about 56 units. Forty-two common lots. The one medical campus lot, about
16 acres, and, then, the Ada county -- or West Ada School District parcel, which is 28
acres. Our qualified to open space is about 15 and a half percent, which is shown on this
map. I should note that this excludes the commercial property and the West Ada School
District property. It does include what is included in the residential portion of the project.
We do have a main central park with a pool and a clubhouse, with a large tot lot. We
have pocket parks scattered around, including two tot lots and a dog park on the west
side of the property. Here is some renderings of that central clubhouse with the pool and
the large tot lot and here is some renderings of the smaller tot lots and the pocket parks
around the property. The pedestrian connectivity is always a big necessity for community
and it's always a big amenity that people desire. So, what I have shown here are the
pathways that are through our common lots that kind of break up the -- the blocks to allow
for connectivity and pedestrian connectivity and also recreation. There is also a ten foot
Parks Department pathway that runs from the north of the property through the medical
campus, through the cul-de-sac, through the center of the property of the center park and
to the school district site. Also the ten foot pathway continues down Rustic Oak to Rustic
Oak -- or Oaks North south of our property. Here is a shot of the phasing plan. Just want
to point out the -- phase one hasn't changed. We are building the full extent of Rustic
Oak in our property from the south portion all the way to the north portion. This was
something that the Fire Department liked and that the city did like, because it offered two
points of access to our south to Oaks North and also to the north at Chinden and, then,
extends all the way farther west to McDermott with those two points of access to ensure
that the fire emergency response time is up to snuff and up to their level of service. With
this full build out of Rustic Oak from the very beginning it will connect to the Oaks North,
Rustic Oak and, then, down to McMillan. Both the Fire Department and the Police
Department have said this would improve the police and fire response times for the entire
area. We do have 15 neighbors to our west that are not in the city limits, but they are in
the county, but we have paid attention to their access point on the south of their cul-de-
sac. We are stubbing a road here. To ensure that they still have emergency access or
to give them a secondary emergency access we have offered to install an electronic gate
with an opticom device that would not impede their response time, but also prevent any
through traffic or cut-through traffic through Serenity Lane from Prescott Ridge. In
working with a neighborhood over the past year we have made a lot of different changes,
particularly to the medical campus, but this is one example of a gate that they would like
to see that we would have installed on the property to ensure they have emergency
access, but to restrict the cut through. I'm going to talk a little about the housing types
and then -- and, then, get more in particular about the product. So, the majority of the
property is the mixed 45, 50 and 60 foot lots that you see in yellow. Then you have in
blue the cluster of 40 foot lots, but the option to have attached units in those. In the green
are a townhome variety that we will get into more detail later and, then, the red you will
see is the multi-family portion of the site. What you see in purple are large lots, 70 to 100
feet in width. We located these next to our neighbors of Peregrine Heights as a buffer
and as a transition to their large lots. In working with the neighborhood and the --
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F28
Page 24 of 84
particularly the HOA and HOA board, we have committed to limit the height restriction to
single story on these nine lots shown. Particularly this is to make sure that the two stories
wouldn't block any sort of view of the mountains that they had and lower the scale of our
homes adjacent to their properties. Here is an example of some of our homes for our 40,
50 and 60 foot plans and these are larger 50 foot and 60, 70 and up houses with a third
car garage option. Here is an example of our attached single family. So, getting more
into the townhouse -- and you have seen a couple of variations of this townhome. This
has not changed since the last hearing where we really improved the layout. Just for
some background, we now have two points of access of this private drive to Rustic Oak
and Wildfire Drive. We have 46 total townhome units, but there is three different
townhome product types. There is 29 rear load townhomes, which are the ones in the
center and in the north part of the site. These will have two car garages, but their front
yards are fenced in, but that's for their -- their private spaces that opens up to a common
view MEW here and these open up to more of a private MEW on the north end. We also
have front load two car garage units here on the west side. They actually have a backyard
that's fenced in for privacy and on the south side of this townhome complex are our two
unit duplexes, which are front load onto the -- onto the public road, but also have private
driveways. We do have a common MEW area here and we have this amenity pocket
park over here with a pergola, barbecues, seating and a fire pit. Here is an example of
the rear load townhomes in the center of the site and the north of the site. This is an
example of the townhomes on the west portion of the site. These designs are -- actually
the architecture is getting updated to match the overall architecture for the traditional
townhomes and duplex product. And this is the duplex rendering. Here is an example of
some products that we have worked on as a team around the country, different MEWs
and how they can live to be communal spaces that open up and are used by the
community and here is an example of some amenities that we would have in that
townhome gathering park. A private space located in the townhome area. This is one
area that we have improved since the City Council hearing in December. Some of the
comments we got were having also some private amenity areas for this townhome -- or
for this multi-family. So, we included a new tot lot here in the southeast corner, as well
as a gathering place here in this area of four lots. We have also included the location of
our mailbox kiosk and a service shed for maintaining the landscape around the units.
Here is an example of a rendering of the front, side, and rear of these -- of these multi-
family four-plex units. We are building these units in two or three other communities
around the valley. For all of our homes of all varieties we are committed to a hundred
percent energy star certification. Along with Brighton we have delivered the most homes
in the Treasure Valley that received this certification of energy efficiency to help decrease
energy costs, but also help the environment. All the homes also -- our buyers have the
opportunity to come to our design center to customize their home. Here is a shot. We
are on the cover of the Parade of Homes last fall and here is a shot of some of our
interiors. Lastly, the medical campus. And to answer some of your questions from before
-- and I do have an exhibit in here that shows the other layout, but this medical office
building was initially shown to you all in this corner over here and some of the comments
that we got from the Commission and from our neighbors was it was too close to our
neighbors next door and so we located it as far as we could in the northeast corner over
here. Also I don't know if you remember, but the southern -- the bottom portion of the
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F29
Page 25 of 84
medical office building is retail and a restaurant. Initially the retail and the restaurant were
a separate building. We went ahead to make it a true mixed use. Put it on the bottom
floor to allow more kind of neighborhood friendly services for retail and -- and restaurant
bottom floor and having the top three stories as a medical office. The hospital building
was -- most recently has always been oriented this way. Initially, probably about six or
seven months ago, the building was rotated 90 degrees clockwise. Some of the
comments we got from our neighbors was they did not want the loading zone next to their
homes and so we rotated this direction. We also moved it another 40 feet most recently
to the east to alleviate it as far away from the neighbors as we possibly could without
taking away our ability to park and to loop emergency traffic through the site. Other than
that nothing really has changed on this layout for the medical campus. What you see
shown and circled in red are the outdoor areas and integration into the neighborhood and
just for reference, Commissioner Holland, because this is a commercial site and these
are residential, we will have an eight foot high masonry wall on the south and the west
portion of this site, as well as a 30 foot wide landscape buffer. We think that this will give
a pretty sufficient vegetative buffer between the residential and the commercial uses.
There will be two access points of pedestrian access into the medical campus, both here
to the townhomes and here is a ten foot wide pathway through the single family that will
continue on to Chinden and the path -- the city pathway that's already built. Here is some
renderings of the large -- larger hospital building here and, then, this is an example of
what the medical office building would look like. The architecture will -- will match what
the hospital looks like, but this is the medical office campus that HCA operates in Caldwell
and this is the same sort of use and -- and feel that they would have on this campus in
Meridian. These are just some schematics of some integration into the park system and
pathways, outdoor seating, walkways through greenspace and areas for people to gather
outdoors. So, that concludes this presentation. As Sonya said before, we were remanded
from City Council to include that other parcel,. Answer any questions on that. That
outparcel is now acquired by us. So, it's part of this application. So, it's no longer a what
if it becomes part of the project, it is now part of the project. We are very happy to present
this to you all again and, hopefully, I was able to fill in any sort of questions you had on
things that we have changed and, hopefully, was able to remind you of some of the good
and positive aspects we have in this project. So, with that I stand for any questions.
McCarvel: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Connor. I think that, you know, getting that parcel in --
included in this and being able to see the finished product is very helpful. Do we have
any questions from the Commissioners for the applicant?
Holland: Madam Chair, I would say thank you for the -- the overview, because I wasn't
here for the first time this came through. I might have been on maternity leave when that
one came through. So, thanks for the overview. I appreciate it.
McCarvel: Any other questions? Okay. Do we have anybody signed up to testify on this
application?
Weatherly: Madam Chair, we do not.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F30
Page 26 of 84
McCarvel: Okay. With nobody being signed up, is there anybody in the audience, if you
just hit raise your hand or star nine.
Weatherly: Madam Chair, I see a couple people raising their hand. Cory Coltrin. One
moment, please.
McCarvel: Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Coltrin. Please state your name and address for the
record.
Coltrin: Madam Chair and Commissioner, this is Cory Coltrin at 6178 North Serenity
Lane. I am the third lot from south off of Chinden down Serenity Lane, just as a reference
there, and I would recommend to the Commissioners and to the chair that you reconsider
or turn down, actually, the rezoning from RUT to C-G, that that be denied. We have got
a 25 year neighbor -- and the reason for that is we have got a 25 year plus neighborhood
here. I have been here 22 years now. I have got my -- raised my family here. I have got
my life invested into this property. We always knew that, you know, at some day there
would be some type of growth going on and -- behind us and -- and we -- we knew that.
But the idea to change this from RUT to C-G and put a hospital right in our backyard just
breaks our heart and it's going to significantly impact us, you know, and I'm also
concerned with -- with the access that they are proposing off of our private road and I
know we are going to have some comment on that coming in, but I just want to -- to voice
my opinion that I am totally opposed of this medical campus. Yeah, they -- you know,
they are going to put an eight foot wall, but how does an eight foot wall, you know, block
out a 56 foot hospital. Not to mention the -- it doesn't matter how -- how a wall or how
many trees -- and the trees just, you know, inhibit our -- our beautiful view that we already
-- that we -- we have had of the mountains and what you are going to be taking away also
from -- from the -- from the hospital. So, I appreciate your time and you consider denying
the rezoning of that -- that parcel of property. Thank you.
McCarvel: Thank you, Mr. Coltrin. Anybody else, Adrienne?
Weatherly: Madam Chair, I'm going to allow Mr. Jacobson to talk. One moment, please.
McCarvel: Thank you.
Jacobson: Madam Chair, can you hear me?
McCarvel: Yes. Please state your name and address for the record.
Jacobson: Very good. My -- my name is James Jacobson. My address -- my -- my
residential address is 8386 West Sundisk in Boise. But my purpose in being here tonight
is that I was recently approached by the Peregrine Heights HOA. I am an attorney with
the law firm of Sasser and Jacobson and Mr. Coltrin has already spoken. He is a member
of the HOA and has been my point of contact. My purpose in providing comment is simply
on behalf of the HOA. I think that there are some legitimate concerns that have yet to be
addressed and I appreciate that the presentation offered some overview and some
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F31
Page 27 of 84
additional insight, but I don't think that the -- the issues regarding the abutment to the
residential have been appropriately addressed. I think Mr. Coltrin spoke to some of his
concerns with regard to that. The ingress and egress off of this frontage road that's been
proposed from Serenity Lane I don't think have been appropriately addressed. There was
some mention of a gate and using that to try to address the --the volume of traffic coming
off of Serenity Lane into the proposed medical campus, but there was no addressing as
to how that gate is going to be used or controlled and how it's going to, then, effectively
deal with the potential increased traffic to the medical campus. Also there was some
mention of -- by the chairperson of an additional medical facility located just a short
distance from this proposed one. I think that's some concern that we have got two medical
facilities that are being proposed within a short distance of each other and -- and so I think
that this particular project bears some additional consideration regarding those issues
that -- that haven't been adequately addressed. I know that this was something that was
presented back in September of 2020 and that we are here now with some effort having
been made to try to address some issues, but I don't think that they have been. And so
as Mr. Coltrin indicated, I know that there is a desire for the project to be rejected, but at
a minimum there should be some additional addressing of those issues adequately and
appropriately before a vote is taken and approval is given. Thank you.
McCarvel: Thank you. Anybody else, Adrienne?
Weatherly: Yes, Madam Chair. Next will be Sue Ropski. Sue, one moment.
McCarvel: Okay. Ms. Ropski, if you would unmute your mic, the floor is yours. Please
state your name and address for the record.
Ropski: Madam Chair, thank you. My name is Sue Ropski. I live at 6262 North Serenity
Lane, which for point of reference is -- Cory Coltrin's next door neighbor. I'm the second
lot as you come in on the east side. I moved here 21 years ago from Chicago to get away
from exactly what I'm going to be sitting in the middle of. I have been a registered nurse
for 35 years and I have concerns that we will have medical campuses across the street
from each other. Regarding the medical campus in the back of my property, I'm very
thankful that you turned the loading dock, but I still have concerns, knowing what goes on
at a hospital, I don't see anywhere marked on there now where your medical waste
facilities will be and I am concerned with a loading dock still on the side, that the noise
will affect our neighborhood. The height of the medical office buildings has fluctuated
between three and four feet. So, I just want you to imagine sitting in your backyard looking
at a tower of a building that -- I mean my -- my gardens will be gone. I won't have sun in
my yard. I just have concerns that this is going to dramatically affect not only our quality
of life, but whether or not I'm going to have my basic hobbies that I have been doing from
gardening to having a green yard. So, I oppose a four story structure that is going to
block my sun, block my view, and change the quality of life. The access road I don't
believe has been addressed and I know that my neighbor Mr. Pittman, who is the first
street coming in, is -- is very concerned about how that traffic will move alongside his
house and into the neighborhood. So, I -- I go along with Cory and I continue to oppose
this project. But thank you very much for letting me give my opinion.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F32
Page 28 of 84
McCarvel: Thank you, Sue. Adrienne, who do we have next?
Weatherly: Madam Chair, next is Patricia Buckholtz. Patricia, one moment.
McCarvel: Okay. Patricia, you have entered. If you can unmute your mic and state your
name and address for the record. The floor is yours.
Buckholtz: I'm actually not a part of this. I just wanted to see if I could get the name of
Mr. Jacobson's law firm again.
McCarvel: Okay.
Weatherly: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: It will be in the minutes. Adrienne, do you know it offhand?
Weatherly: Madam Chair. Patricia, if you want to e-mail cityclerk@meridiancity.org with
your request we would be happy to help you with that information.
Buckholtz: Okay. Great. Thank you.
McCarvel: Thank you.
Weatherly: Madam Chair, next we have Cary Pitman. Cary, one moment.
McCarvel: Okay. Cary, if you would like to unmute your mic and state your name and
address for the record.
Pitman: The address is 6203 North Serenity Lane.
McCarvel: Okay. Go ahead, sir.
Pitman: Yes. So, as was previously stated, I am the first property going south off of
Chinden on the east side and there is -- the -- a proposed frontage road that continues to
be an issue on how there is going to be enough space between ITD's right of way and my
property line and there seems to be some issues with -- and, of course, the fire chief and
those have not been responsive and -- or been in these meetings and there was a point
of -- there was a certain amount of space that needed to be between the property line
and the ITD right of way that was a minimal property -- or minimal distance and I'm
concerned that that's not been addressed in a -- a manner that someone has never really
come out and said, yes, we can and cannot have this much space or can't have -- or we
need this much space to get a firetruck and/or other vehicles through this space that is
considered to be there -- an access to this medical campus.
McCarvel: We will have the applicant address the questions. Did you have any others,
Mr. Pitman?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F33
Page 29 of 84
Pitman: Not at this time.
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you.
Weatherly: Madam Chair, next is Doug Haneborg. Doug, one moment.
Haneborg: Can you hear me?
McCarvel: Yes. Thank you. State your name and address for the record, please.
Haneborg: Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair and staff. This is Doug Haneborg. I'm the
HOA president of Peregrine Heights. I live at 6002 North Serenity Lane, Meridian. 83646.
So, I just wanted to start off by saying that we do appreciate Patrick and his team trying
to meet some of our needs and our concerns of our neighbors and, you know, such as
like the single story lots that are abutting our larger lots that he spoke of and the southern
gate as well. Patrick has accepted and made some adjustments for some of our requests
and we do appreciate that. But, however, that being said, there are still ongoing
communications with the neighbors of Peregrine Heights to check the support levels of
this project and there are still major concerns as you guys have heard previously tonight.
Patrick had asked me if I could maybe write a letter in support of the project and I wanted
to run that, you know, by our neighbors and get a pulse and I have met a lot of resistance
in doing that and I received several responses from our neighbors in writing and I just
wanted to share a few snippets of those responses. One neighbor had stated given that
we still don't know what else they can sneak in via amendments between now and the
time that this is all built out, we not only don't see how we can rubber stamp the plan, but
why we should. We are quite sure that P&Z and the City Council don't expect or require
us to, especially since they put the whole hospital complex in a separate application in
order to move this all through faster. It's certainly not going to be helpful for our
neighborhood. In response to Patrick's requests, he was also wondering what other
requests that we had and the neighbors feel like we have already been sharing that with
him and have been turned down on some of those. For example, a buffer space between
some of the back fences and our yards. Fewer houses abutting the southeast Peregrine
Heights properties and the fact that they are ignoring the major frontage road issue.
Another neighbor response was: I'm hesitant to sign off on a letter of support. Each time
we meet more details come to light. Since the hospital campus is an evolving project,
things can continue to seem to change. Another neighbor wrote: We are adamantly
opposed to having a hospital next to our subdivision. I have always expected that there
would be a nice residential neighborhood behind our property, but would never have
imagined someone would try to put a hospital there. Lastly, another neighbor wrote: I'm
not a supporter of this project. I have no desire for a large structure behind my house
with parking lot lights everywhere blocking the view that was one of the reasons why I
purchased this home and the road that they want to put 25 feet from our yards is not
acceptable. As previously stated by other people tonight, too, there is a consensus that
the private road and it being owned by our HOA, legally the development cannot tie into
a privately owned road for their access requirements without our consent and so that
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F34]
Page 30 of 84
seems to be an ongoing discussion and issue. That's all that I have at this time. So,
thank you, Madam Chair.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: Mr. Haneborg, could I ask you a quick question?
Haneborg: Sure.
Fitzgerald: So, when the highway district or ITD eventually closes your road off, where
are you going to get access? Because that's what is eventually going to happen. We
have been -- we have been -- in the earlier conversations about this that is the access to
your neighborhood, whether it be private or not. It is likely going away in the next five to
ten years. Is that -- can we agree on that?
Haneborg: Well, that's what it sounds like and that's kind of our question, too, because if
this project requires two access points and that one's being taken away, then, it doesn't
have two access points.
Fitzgerald: It does. On McDermott it has one on -- on Chinden. So, I'm confused. I think
beforehand we were -- we kind of found an even medium by hopefully giving you guys a
gated access for that until your right-in, right-out comes into play and, then, the actual
eventual termination of your road goes away. So, I thought we had come to that --
Haneborg: So, that would be the southern -- the southern access point with the gate. But
the frontage road is still an issue, because if you are saying their second access point is
off of McDermott, then, what's -- what's the need or requirement now for the access point
on our private road?
Fitzgerald: And I think it was for you guys, to be honest, and --
Haneborg: No. This is --
Fitzgerald: We will let Patrick respond to that, but --
McCarvel: Okay.
Haneborg: And I think it's been a consistent issue and one of the largest concerns is that
road tying into our private road. You know, there is -- like you are saying, what the
highway is going to do is what the highway is going to do and so that's why we don't even
understand that if in five years I agree with you, if they block that, then, it's a null and void,
you know, reason now, because within five years what's even the point of that road there
tying into ours if it's going to be blocked off anyways and that's one of the concerns,
because, then, if for those five years we just have an excess of traffic that, you know, isn't
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F35
Page 31 of 84
necessary or required. And, again, there is no other access road anywhere down
Chinden. Not even on the busiest intersections or any of those -- any neighborhood there
is not one I have seen anywhere. Do you guys know of any? So, it doesn't make sense
to us why this little strip has an access road that will probably be not accessible in five
years as you are stating. That's part of our -- our issue, too. And, then, you want to put
it 25 feet from someone's yard, you know. So, that's where we are stating that there is
-- it's not clear, it doesn't really make sense and if you are saying their other access point
is McDermott, then, that's -- that makes sense; right? Because that's a future --those are
the two -- that's what I have been saying, too. If it's McDermott and Chinden, then, why
are we putting an access road for, you know, a short -- short little gap that there is no
other access roads anywhere else down Chinden on north or south and if it's just to fulfill
a little requirement or something for the hospital, that's where it doesn't make sense to
us.
Fitzgerald: Appreciate it.
McCarvel: Thank you, Mr. Haneborg.
Haneborg: Thank you.
McCarvel: Do we have anybody else, Adrienne?
Weatherly: Madam Chair, I don't see any other hands raised.
McCarvel: Okay. And, Commissioner Seal, do we have anybody in chambers wishing
to speak?
Seal: We do not.
McCarvel: Yes?
Seal: No.
McCarvel: No. Okay. Okay. Would the applicant like to comeback up and address the
issues that we have heard?
Connor: Yes, I would.
McCarvel: Okay. Go ahead.
Connor: Before I address them, Sonya, do you want to talk a little bit about the Code,
UDC 11-3H-4B that tied us to the frontage road with the intent to connect to adjacent
properties, particularly the property on the west side of Peregrine Heights?
Allen: Madam Chair, would you like me to address that?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F36
Page 32 of 84
McCarvel: Sure.
Allen: Thank you. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, the city code requires a
frontage road adjacent to state highways. So, it's the -- the access road is not simply
serving as an emergency access from Chinden. I mean it is, but the -- the main reason
for the access -- well, let me back up. With -- with the first phase of development the
applicant is proposing to construct a collector street that's going to extend from Chinden
Boulevard to the property's south boundary, which will eventually connect through to
McMillan Road. So, that will eliminate the requirement for --for an emergency secondary
access from the Fire Department when that is constructed. The -- again, back to the
frontage road requirement. That is a -- the UDC requires frontage roads to restrict
accesses to state facilities for safety reasons. So, people aren't constantly, you know,
slowing down, pulling out into traffic. So, that will serve as an access road between the
property to the west of Peregrine Heights Subdivision when that redevelops and that will
provide an access road out to the signalized intersection at the collector street Rustic Oak
Way and Chinden. So, the applicant isn't really -- it wasn't their idea to propose this road,
it was -- it's a city code requirement. With the State Highway 16 going in further to the
west there it -- it locks in this property -- kind of landlocks it without these access roads.
Hopefully that helps.
McCarvel: And I guess to Mr. Connor, then, we have had several questions about that
access road, if it fits.
Connor: Yes.
Allen: Yeah. And I can actually respond to that, too, Madam Chair. Joe Bongiorno,
Deputy Fire Chief, has been out to the site, has inspected the road, as well as reviewed
the -- the plans and he has determined that it meets the fire department standards for
access, which will also meet the city code requirements for frontage road as well.
McCarvel: Okay.
Allen: And the frontage road is not a public road, but more of a private driveway access,
just to clarify.
McCarvel: Okay. And, Mr. Connor, I think we had also questions about where the
medical waste was going and the -- the gate for the emergency access.
Connor: Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. I will answer all the questions that are brought
up.
McCarvel: Okay. Great.
Connor: So, just some quick background. I think we have had three -- either three or
four neighborhood meetings about this project and the comment about the site changing
and moving around is accurate. I would say it's changed because of comments and us
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F37
Page 33 of 84
trying to accommodate changes that are asked either by the neighbors, by staff, or by the
Commission. So, we are changing it. I would argue that we are improving it to be a better
product -- product -- project, but also a better neighbor for the neighbors. So, just briefly
just going through it, yes, by city code we are required to have the frontage road. The
intent of their frontage road is to connect to the property on the east side. I have worked
with the current planner that's working on that project on the east side of Peregrine
Heights to coordinate a plan as was recommended by staff and by Chief Bongiorno to
ensure that they have that access road as well -- that frontage road as well. We
understand that it does kind of create a unique situation with the driveway to Peregrine
Heights. We have offered to put in -- put signs that say for emergency use only and trying
to deter any sort of traffic from using that road, as well as not printing any sort of signage
for the hospital to use Serenity Lane, but to drive all the traffic through Rustic Oak. So,
that's one accommodation that we want to ensure. If and when the access to Serenity
Lane does go away, the -- the only point of access will be the southern part of Serenity
Lane through our project. So, we did do a few changes to the building. So, we oriented
the loading dock -- and this is also the location of the trash receptacles, which is on the
south side of the building. That was a recommendation by -- by Ms. Sue Ropski and we
made that change pretty early on in the revisions of this project and we maintained it. The
comments about the height of the building, so the hospital building, the larger building,
was made three stories and combining the restaurant and retail into the medical office
buildings it did -- it's at four stories. That's -- the initial application was a three story
building for the medical office building. Again, moving it all the way to the northeast corner
we were trying to alleviate the concerns that were brought up at a previous public hearing
that the building was in the wrong location. The attorney, Mr. Jacobson, saying that there
is still concerns to be addressed. We have been addressing concerns throughout this
project. At the last neighborhood meeting I had two big takeaways from the HOA
president, the HOA members and neighbors. The first concern was -- and I believe it
came from Mr. Coltrin, but he wanted to seethe hospital moved over further east. I moved
it I think 30 to 40 feet further east, while maintaining the necessary parking that we had
on our east side, but also allowing enough traffic moving to the ambulance entry as I
previously said. This is as far east as we can move the building to make it work and
function as a hospital. So, that was the first request from the neighborhood. The second
request is that we look at decreasing the height of our residential units adjacent to them.
Initially I was only given the permission to decrease the height of four houses. I had bent
over backwards and asked for permission to move that number to nine as recently as just
a few days ago. The HOA president Mr. Haneborg asked me for an additional lot to be
dropped down to one story and I made that accommodation. So, that's nine houses that
we are taking down to help their view--their view shed. Also this building in the northeast
corner, the medical office building, we orientated it east-west. That actually will take away
from some of the visibility of the emergency room and the hospital building by moving in
that direction. The sole reason for this movement was to help alleviate some of the
questions and the concerns that these neighbors have had about their view. So, those
are the concerns that have came up in the most recent neighborhood meeting and all
neighborhood meetings and I have asked if there is anything else that is to be addressed.
They have brought up the issue of the frontage road required by code. I believe that
those issues are addressed and it's necessary for access, as well as it's part of code and
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F38]
Page 34 of 84
it's part of this project and so there is really nothing that we can change on that. There is
alternatives if -- if and when -- a possibility in the future, as this whole area here -- pretty
much the whole scene that you see is on the future land use map for mixed use regional.
If and when these homes redevelop we could potentially have a stub road at this point.
There is -- there is options down the road for how this whole area can redevelop in the
future. As far as the parking lot and the lights and -- and having that use, we will be using
-- using parking lot lights that only shine on the pavement and not up in the air. This
hospital, just for clarification, is going to cater towards women services. Typical hours
are, you know, 7:00 o'clock in the morning until about 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon for
most of the surgeries and the operations. It's a fairly lightly used hospital use. It's not a
trauma hospital, so any sort of big issues or ambulances will go to St. Al's or St. Luke's
and not to this hospital. The ambulance entry is really only required because of the level
of surgeries that they would do for the outpatient surgeries in the hospital. So, also any
sort of -- you have regulations for no sirens and no lights adjacent to certain
neighborhoods. So, that's a policy they have to not disturb any sort of residential areas
around the area. So, just another clarification. We are -- we are about-- I think it's -- and
I can do the measurement, but I think we are over 120 feet from the edge of the property
line. This buffer zone is 30 feet, plus 20, plus probably another -- I would say 80 to 100
feet and so the argument that the building is 25 feet from the property line is not an
accurate representation of this project.
Hopkins: Yeah. I will add some things. This is Stephanie Hopkins with KM Engineering.
9233 West State, Boise. 83714. Just to kind of touch on a couple of the code related
things and to kind of add to what Patrick has already said. I think Doug and maybe
another neighbor had mentioned that they think that we are kind of sneaking things
through. I think Patrick did a good job of, you know, explaining how many times we have
met with neighbors and all the conversations we have had with them and staff and -- and
other stakeholders in the area. Additionally, any applications that were --that the hospital
will have to have a conditional use permit, which will include more detailed plans, more
requirements, such as photometric tests and -- and other things that will require that we
make sure we are not disturbing them with light and that any noise is mitigated and we
comply with design standards. In that application and through the next -- and the
application, after that we would have to comply with all the code requirements and -- and
the neighbors would have another opportunity to talk to us about their concerns and
thoughts, too. I think Doug had also mentioned that he was hoping to see residential in
this area and, as Patrick had said, this area on the future land use map is designated
mixed use regional zone, which the future land use and that -- that area really does guide
development towards higher developments or higher density developments for residential
properties. So, really, the only residential designation we would be able to request here
is R-15 or the R-40 zone and, in fact, they actually hope that you are going to have more
of a commercial and a regional draw to the area. So, that's kind of where we landed with
this project through several discussions with the city and, you know, just looking to see
what makes sense in the area. So, I think that's all I had to add.
Connor: I just want to add just one more thing. There has been some mention of there
is already an unimproved medical campus across the street. We are fully aware of that.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F39
Page 35 of 84
In fact, HCA, who is attached to this project, was initially attached to that project and so
they decided that their relationship would be better used with us on this side of the street
and so from -- from a resident and a user standpoint having multiple medical options
nearby is actually beneficial as a consumer. You, potentially, have more access to a
variety of doctors and options, potentially at lower cost of surgeries and operations, as
well as there is some efficiency and it's smart to have an adjacency of uses of -- of similar
medical professions across the street from each other. So, it can be almost like a medical
hub. Obviously, the market will dictate what services that each of the hospitals provide,
but in many cities all across our region and around the country there are many different
medical operators who operate adjacent to each other and this is not to be, you know, to
be in competition at all times, but also there is real efficiencies and this can be a real win
for the city and for the consumers from a medical standpoint. So, I think that covered
most of the questions that were -- that were brought up.
McCarvel: Do we have any questions for the applicant?
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: So, I may have missed it. I apologize. The hospital is -- was it five stories? Is
that what I heard?
Hopkins: Madam Chair, Commissioner Yearsley, it's -- it's a three story hospital.
Yearsley: Okay.
Hopkins: Four story medical office building with the retail and restaurant on the bottom
floor.
Yearsley: Okay. So, for a long the residence to the west I know we got a 30 foot wide
buffer with trees. Are you planning a fence or a structure of any kind to block the noise?
Connor: Commissioner Yearsley, by code we are required to do an eight foot tall masonry
wall.
Yearsley: Okay.
Connor: So that -- and, actually, in talking with the neighbors over this time, they may --
I believe were -- were happy with the 30 foot buffer and -- but they also were saying, you
know, we don't want too many trees, because we don't want them to grow too high,
because that would obstruct the view even more. So, we want to make sure that we work
with the neighbors ensuring that we put in appropriate species of trees there that you
don't completely block out their view. So, that's something that we want to make sure
that we work with the neighbors as we pick the right species of trees to offer the visual
and sound barrier, but -- but not too much.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F40
Page 36 of 84
Yearsley: Okay. Thank you.
McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Seeing none, I would entertain
a motion to close the public hearing on H-2020-0047.
Yearsley: So moved.
Seal: Second.
McCarvel: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All those in favor
say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Seal: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Seal.
Seal: Let me start out by saying I sympathize with the folks that share this -- the border
there to the west. So, I have had a place with a view twice in my existence here in Idaho
and I have moved out of both of them, because houses or something else were built
behind me. So, I very much sympathize with that. But I mean how do we protect a view?
It's not in our purview. It's nothing that anybody owns. We have been through this before
with other applications and although I sympathize with them, there is also an
understanding when you move in that there is going to be building around here. There is
-- there is no stopping it at this point in time. Hopefully we have done a good job in
mitigating, you know, the growth that comes here and making sure that we are
responsible about it. I mean I know that so far I mean I have just been jotting down -- I
mean the hospital was turned and lowered. The fencing was revised. They put in a 30
foot pathway. They have put in an electric gate. ACHD has approved -- I mean the city
was the one that asked them to put in the access point. The commercial building has
been moved. They lower the houses to one story around. They are working with West
Ada School District to bring in a school. I mean I can't think of -- and through the entire
process I think that they have tried to be very transparent. I mean we have worked with
a lot of developers and builders that I feel are not transparent, they are trying to get away
with an absolute minimum and bring things in. I think these guys are being very creative
and I think they are trying to add something to the community that I think is sorely needed,
not only in services, but in jobs as well. So, having all that done and, again, there are --
there has been a lot of changes. I mean we have seen this thing three times now and all
the changes that I have noted here and everything that I see coming through are all
because of recommendations that have been made. I don't see anything that's coming
in here as, you know, they are trying to sneak in or put it in sideways or whatever the
verbiage is around that. So, I mean at some point in time you have to accept that you are
going to have neighbors. That's -- I mean it's an unfortunate thing and, again,
sympathize with that. But, you know, at least it's not a big box store or you know -- you
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F41
Page 37 of 84
know, an R-40 or something like that coming. I mean a quiet little hospital that's sitting
there, I would almost welcome it in.
Grove: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Grove.
Grove: I would like to echo a lot of what Commissioner Seal just said. One of the things
that, you know, we have seen this, like he said, three times and I -- I feel for the residents
that are next to this project. One of the things that kind of keeps them back is this -- and
I know this is not their intent, but the compromises that have been made are not -- it's not
a -- it's not a capitulation to do everything that is asked of the developer, there is a
compromise that has to come from both sides, and I feel like throughout this process that
that has been the goal of the project is to meet in the middle on a lot of these things and
so I -- I applaud, you know, the changes that have been made and some of the things
that they have changed even since we saw it last time in the residential piece, I -- I like,
you know, what they have done with the -- that four-plex area and making that more of a
livable space and the -- I continue to like what they did with the -- I think it was the second
time we saw it when they changed the townhome section to have the MEW and creating
that sense of space within that area. The whole project has done something that I
appreciate, which is creating a sense of space, a sense of community within a project and
I think tying that into the medical campus is great with what they have done and I -- I'm in
favor of where they have moved the medical office and the consolidation of it into one
building. I know that added a story, but it did improve the -- the traffic flow in that area
and it provided a -- provided a different aspect that seemed kind of cramped before, but
feels like it -- it will really do what they had intended to do from the get go. I think that,
you know, where this is next to the state highway is a great location for a hospital facility
and especially where, you know, it's going to have the two highways crisscrossing not far
from this and it's also going to improve what else is going on in this general area with,
you know, bringing jobs out to northwest Meridian where, you know, we need to continue
to have places for people to work near where they are living potentially and so we don't
want to have solid -- just solid, you know, residential use throughout an area. It -- it
doesn't hold up well in my opinion over time.
McCarvel: Thank you.
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: So, here is my -- you know, one -- one thing I will -- I will note. There seems
to be far more comments by the residents of the -- of Serenity Lane there this time than
-- than last time, which -- which is interesting and I thought we hit a lot of the concerns
last time. But here is what really -- here is what's kind of getting -- getting to me and
bothering me. When we first saw it back in September it was a -- it was -- one of the
buildings was four story and one was three and, then, when we saw it in October and
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F42
Page 38 of 84
think we went past midnight that night and I hope we don't do it tonight, but when we --
when we saw it then and went over it, they had reduced the height of -- of both buildings
and taking them to three stories and that was -- I think that was a big part of -- and we
liked everything else they did on the residential set, but I -- but I think that that was a big
thing with -- with all the Commissioners, that they -- that they really looked at that and
they -- they -- they did what they could to work with the -- with the neighbors there to -- to
reduce the -- the height to try and keep a view to a degree. They moved -- you know.
And we had asked him that I could -- you know, I'm looking at the motion that we passed
last time and it was -- it was a three story medical office building be moved to the east
and now that they got that lot they were able to do that, but now they bumped it up to four.
So, we approved it unanimously as a Commission at a three story hospital and a three
story office building and now they come back today and one of those buildings is now a
four story. I don't know how much the hospital has changed. It doesn't look like much.
It's -- it has been orient -- reoriented a whole lot from the very first time it was, but it looks
like it's pretty similar to when we approved it. But the big one is that we have -- what we
approved was a three story, where now they have come back -- kind of feel like a little
bait and switch. They have come back now since going to Council with a four story and
that's not -- that's not what I wanted last time. I don't know if -- you know, I can't speak
for all my fellow Commissioners here, but I do know I'm looking at the motion and -- and
what was made there and it was an approval based on both buildings being three stories.
So, where -- where I sit -- I'm -- that's what I wanted, that's what I said yea to on the
approval and that's what I'm sticking with is -- if they came back four -- or if they came
back with the three story on the office building -- and I realize they are trying to put -- they
want to put retail and restaurant on the bottom floor. I get what they are doing. But that's
-- with all the work that we did and the hours we spent on it, that's what we approved and
now we are --we are --we are looking at something different now to approve it and, really,
all Council wanted to do was kick it back to us until -- until we had that parcel as part of
it. Well, now it's -- the design has changed since what we approved. That's what I'm
trying to say. So, I -- personally I can't get behind it.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, can I ask Commissioner Cassinelli a question?
Cassinelli: Yeah. You bet.
McCarvel: Yeah. Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: So, I get what you are saying. I think the -- if I recall correctly -- and you can
correct me if I'm wrong if you are looking at the notes, but there was a request to not only
bring that -- that parcel in and try to incorporate it, move the medical building over, but
also include retail. That was a direction they gave them --we gave them. So, I think they
are going after the direction we gave them or at least that was my understanding of the
direction we gave them. Because we would like to see some type of retail restaurant pad,
something there that incorporated that into just -- not just an office building. So, I mean
moving it, you know, 50 to 80 feet or more, I'm not sure exactly what-- at least a significant
amount is much more than the angle you are looking at if you -- if you had it in the middle
of that parking lot and so we approved it not knowing exactly if that thing was going to be
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F43
Page 39 of 84
-- it was going to be approved with that new lot or not and it was in the middle of that
thing. So, we had moved it over 80 to 100 feet and it's added a story that we asked for.
I mean we didn't ask for that specifically, but we asked for retail and restaurants to be on
that pad somewhere. So, I don't think they are bait and switching, at least I don't want to
put words in their mouth, but I don't think there is a bait and switch going on. I think there
is -- they are listening to us and trying to incorporate what we asked them to do. So, that
-- at least that's what I took away from it.
Holland: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Holland.
Holland: Can I just ask a clarification question to staff? Do we have anything planned to
the east of this development on Chinden right now or what the future use map is there --
is still continued -- possible commercial zoning there?
Allen: Madam Chair, Commissioners, we do not have anything directly to the east yet.
That area is also designated mixed use regional. I believe there is a landscape company
there now.
Holland: So, it's likely that at some point that would continue with more commercial?
Allen: That's correct.
Holland: Okay. Thank you. I don't know if you want me to make my comments now.
McCarvel: Go right ahead.
Holland: I -- this is my first time really looking at this application, because I was out the
last couple times you guys heard this. I think, again, I was maybe on maternity leave or
elsewhere, but apologies for not being involved in that before. I love -- I really like
commercial developments. Obviously, that's my background is economic development.
Hospitals bring great jobs. They bring great wages. They bring great amenities that are
needed for communities. So, people don't have to drive as far for medical services. If I
could have picked where to put one I wouldn't have chosen to put it necessarily next to
an R-2 subdivision, so that's -- that's my challenge to looking at it and I know it sounds
like you guys have done significant rounds of conversations on how to be as amenable
to that neighbor as possible. It's tough. I would -- I think it looks like they have made
some good concessions to try and fit in there. The residential component I think it's -- it's
a well balanced project. The only heartburn I'm having is still with that Serenity Lane and
how that ties in. I wish that there could be another row of homes to transition it, but I
know that that would probably still have some heartburn for those folks as well. So, I
commend you all for making the recommendations you did. It looks like they have
integrated a lot of those components. I would also agree with Commissioner Fitzgerald's
thoughts on the -- moving the building to the east. If it's going to integrate with future
commercial you are likely going to have other structures that will come in at a height and
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F44]
Page 40 of 84
you are kind of transitioning it over to the east side. I think it might be far enough away
that the difference between a three story and a four story is not going to make a huge
difference where it's located. So, I'm okay with the four story building there for the office,
because it adds the -- the potential to have more restaurants, live-work spaces available
to the public there, but I certainly commiserate with the Serenity Lane folks and I'm
struggling on how to help them, but it's -- it's tough that that neighborhood is located next
to this project or that this project is located next to that neighborhood, which ever way you
put it. That's my only heartburn.
McCarvel: Mr. Yearsley.
Yearsley: Yes, Chairman -- or Chairwoman. You know, it's -- I guess for me is the
homeowners, you know, to the east--to the west has had a great opportunity for 20 years
to live out in peace with -- with nobody around them and, unfortunately, growth has finally
caught up to them. As I have been listening tonight I have -- I have tried to determine is
the use appropriate for the area. Initially I thought that the hospital was five stories, but
three stories I don't see as a big an issue, especially as far away as it is. My one
concession is they are going to do an eight foot wall -- masonry wall. I would consider
making a motion go ten feet tall if-- if, you know, as an option just to give a little bit more
screening for the homeowners if they prefer. I have watched and seen other areas have
the same issue with remote residents out in the -- out -- out in the fringes getting caught
up and it is tough, I feel for them, but at the end of the day, you know, development has
come close up to them. It may not be the development that they want, but I think it is an
appropriate use given the location to the highway and the future State Highway 16 and
so I think with that -- and, then, also I echo Commissioner Fitzgerald. We asked them for
some rough commercial and I like where they put that and added the story there just to
give -- and it's far enough away that I don't think it will be as big of an impact as more
commercial use on -- closer to them. So, with that I would be in favor of the project.
McCarvel: I guess I will go ahead and throw in my two cents. I think with the highways
where they are -- I mean they just -- we need to have -- it begs for a regional use and I
feel bad that they have -- you know, that their houses were once upon a time next to a
much slower moving highway or way less traffic, but the growth has come and I think it's
an appropriate use and, yeah, personally I think I would rather have this than a big R-40
development right behind me and that's -- you know, a 15 or a 40 is what could potentially
be there. I think this is probably a better transition and saves the view and probably less
noise for more of the homes there, because you have got, you know, parking lot for the
most part not obstructing several of the home views, so -- and I think the applicant as well
as done a lot. I mean a lot of what we have asked in working with neighbors, you know,
like I said, it doesn't -- sometimes it's just not everything you want, but I think they have
done a good job in providing better access in the future for what's coming. Anybody else?
Comments? Motion?
Yearsley: Madam Chair, I will make a motion.
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F45]
Page 41 of 84
Yearsley: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
recommend approval to the City Council of file number H-2020-0047 as presented in the
staff report for the hearing date of January 21 st, 2021, with the following modifications:
That the block wall to the east be raised to ten foot upon approval of the homeowner's
association of that -- that increase at City Council.
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley --
Allen: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: -- did you mean west? Yes, Sonya.
Allen: Clarification. Yes, I believe he meant west.
Yearsley: Yes.
Allen: But city code restricts the maximum height of fences in the commercial districts to
eight feet in height.
Yearsley: Okay.
Allen: However, you could -- you could require a two foot berm with an eight foot tall
fence on top --
Yearsley: I like that, Sonya. You are awesome.
Allen: -- for the same result. And they could also apply for alternative compliance to that
section of code that restricts height to eight feet as well. So, either one of those options
and you could -- you could allow for either of those options if you would like. Alternative
compliance has to be approved by the director, so there is no guarantee in this forum that
it would be approved.
Yearsley: I like the -- I would like to amend my motion to add a two foot berm with an
eight foot block wall to the west.
Seal: Madam Chair, quick --
McCarvel: Oh. Could we --
Seal: -- if I could make a point. We -- I mean the whole argument started out we were
trying to protect a view. If we put a ten foot fence and they are going to have a view of
concrete.
Yearsley: Well -- and I -- you know, for me it was -- is based on, you know, if the
homeowners association doesn't want that that they can say no. That was my -- my
motion is based on approval of the homeowners association.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F46
Page 42 of 84
Seal: Okay.
Yearsley: My only concern was the noise from the hospital, trying to help block the noise.
Seal: Understood.
McCarvel: Okay. Is there a second?
Holland: Second the motion of Commissioner Yearsley.
McCarvel: We have a motion for approval of H-2020-0047 and a second with
modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed?
Cassinelli: Nay.
McCarvel: Motion carries. Thank you, Mr. Connor and Stephanie.
MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE NAY.
McCarvel: Next on the agenda is -- I think I will stop real quick. Does anybody -- do we
want a five minute break or do you want to plow through? Okay. It's 8:32. So, let's do
five minutes.
(Recess: 8:32 p.m. to 8:38 p.m.)
8. Public Hearing Continued from January 7, 2021 for Vicenza North
Subdivision (H-2020-0108) by Bridgetower, LLC, Located in the
Northwest Corner of N. Ten Mile 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 (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.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F47
Page 43 of 84
McCarvel: Okay. So, we will reconvene and start -- next item on the agenda is the public
hearing continued from January 7th for Vicenza North Subdivision, H-2020-0108, and we
will begin with the staff report.
Dodson: Thank you, Madam Chair. Joe Dodson, associate planner. Bear with me
through this one. It's a complicated project and I will probably explain a lot. I am going
to do my best not to get too far into the weeds and rather let you guys ask those questions
if you want them. I hope that you all have reviewed my staff report, as it has a lot more
of the detail. Secondly, I do -- I have heard that the applicant is in attendance and I will
be running their presentation from home -- or madam clerk. So, now we can get going.
As you can see on the images in front of you, this is a project located generally in the
northwest corner of McMillan and Ten Mile, but behind -- all the undeveloped land behind
the existing Walmart. The property consists of two elements. The MDA, the development
agreement modification, consists of approximately 76 acres, while the plat and rezone
request consists of 63 and a half acres of land. The rezone request -- or currently it is
zoned C-C, C-G, and L-O as -- and R-15 for the remaining piece along the south. North
is R-8 and residential zoning. To the west is R-4 and residential zoning. To the south is
R-8 and residential zoning is -- or residential uses. Volterra South and, then, also to the
south as C-G with the noted Walmart and some other smaller commercial uses. East
across Ten Mile is more R-8 zoning and residential uses, some L-O and, then, on the
northeast corner of McMillan and Ten Mile is more C-G, but it should be noted that the
largest lot in that area was approved for a large 55 and older multi-family community.
This application is located in the mixed use community future land use designation as a
very small area of medium density residential along this western boundary that is basically
part of the existing Bridgetower Subdivision. As noted the applicant is requesting a
rezone and it totals 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 37 acres to approximately
three and a half. Reducing the L-O zone from approximately ten acres to one and a half
and increasing the C-G zone from approximately 13 acres to 16.7 acres. It includes a
preliminary-- preliminary plat request that consists of 169 single family residential building
lots, detached residential, six commercial building lots and eight common lots on 56.9 --
or 57 acres of land and the development agreement modification as noted as part of the
request -- well, they want to amend the existing development agreement for the purpose
of developing the site with detached single family and general commercial consistent with
their new development plan as seen here with the new zoning exhibit. Excuse me for a
second. One correction. The -- this portion here, if you guys can see my pointer, this
small -- it's about three and a half acres -- is actually supposed to be C-C and not C-G.
The rezone exhibit submitted by the applicant are wrong and I -- one of my conditions of
approval is to correct that to include this area as C-C. They would have to revise their
other rezoning exhibits as well. And, then, north would be to the right on this image for
reference. Moving along. The applicant is proposing to construct the project with six
acres of qualified open space, which amounts to the minimum ten percent. The qualified
open space consists of the Ten Mile buffer, the collector street buffers, the pathways,
multi-use and micro, and other smaller landscaping lots. The applicant is not including
any of the open space from the existing development, but is removing some of the existing
park area for some lots within this plat. As you can see there is a dotted line on this. That
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F48]
Page 44 of 84
is the boundary of the existing park right now where the fence line is. So, they are taking
just these -- this little area here. The applicant has submitted a master open space plan
for both -- which I should say it shows compliance with the overall required minimums
and approved amounts for Volterra North and South, which were previous approvals.
Specifically as noted, the existing park is over 13 acres in size and that was constructed
and improved in 2017. It was approved to be a minimum of 10.2. So, it is currently larger
than what it is intended to be. With this plat the applicant is leaving 11.4 acres of the park
untouched and, therefore, exceeding the approved park size. One qualified site amenity
is proposed in this development consisting of a segment of multi-use pathway as required
by the master pathways plan. It is going to be on the north side of this collector street.
Connect all the way to Ten Mile, run along it, cross the local streets, then, connect back
into the multi-use pathway existing in Bridgetower. The proposed plan as noted is over
40 acres in size, so that requires at least two amenities. I have recommended a
conditional approval that the applicant add an additional amenity within the proposed
subdivision or within the shared park. I would like to note that there have been some
discussions of potentially adding one in the park in Volterra South. In order to make that
work staff needs to see an overall amenity list as well and make sure that there is enough
amenities nearby this subdivision for that to work. Otherwise, the amenity will have to be
on this side of McMillan and within the subdivision. Access is proposed via new local
street connections to an existing -- to an extension of the collector street as noted that
goes through the site from the southwest all the way to the northeast and is shown as
West Gondola Street. The commercial portion of the site has driveway accesses to this
collector street as well, but only on the east side of the street. West Gondola will be
extended from the center of the development where existing North San Vito Way and
North Vicenza Way intersect. North San Vito Way is this western one and Vincenza Way
is this eastern one. Both are shown as collector streets and end right in these points.
Gondola will continue east and north and connect to Ten Mile Road. The applicant is
proposing to construct all internal local streets of the subdivision as brick pavers, as he
did in Bridgetower, and extend the two local street stubs from the Bainbridge Subdivision
to the north. Through the traffic impact study the applicant is required to construct
dedicated westbound right turn lanes on McMillan Road at both existing collector streets,
San Vito Way and Vicenza Way. So, again, those are westbound turn lanes on both of
those. The TIS provided by the applicant did not incorporate any of the future commercial
-- any of the future commercial traffic, because no end users are currently known and the
applicant does not intend on constructing the commercial until at least phase five of the
development. Because of this exclusion, ACHD is requiring that an updated TIS be
submitted prior to the first application for any use within the commercial portion of the
development. Staff fully supports this condition by ACHD. The applicant is requesting
preliminary plat approval of 169 detached single family lots, eight common lots, on 41
acres of the 63 acre rezone request and will -- as I noted with six commercial lots.
According to the phasing plan, the residential and commercial is constructed over seven
phases with residential being in the first four. The applicant is also proposing to fully
construct a collector street extension in phase five, which staff does not support, and has
recommended it is constructed fully with phase one for added connectivity and overall
circulation. The applicant is requesting to modify the existing DA, which is the existing
concept plan that is in front of you now, which is, again, as I noted, approximately 76
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F49
Page 45 of 84
acres, because it includes the existing R-15 piece, which is right about here. It should --
it is now being proposed to include detached single family dwellings as discussed.
General commercial, a small area of office, and conceptually multi-family along McMillan.
The existing DA includes a concept plan for this mixed use area from 2008. There was
a modification to the DA last year--or, sorry, we are in 2021 now. In 2019 and it continued
-- which they brought forth this concept plan with it and the majority of the existing DA
provisions. This existing concept plan received a -- and, again, it's from 2008 when the
property received a comp plan map amendment to change the property for medium
density residential to mixed use community. The current concept plan depicts a large
scale business park consisting of a private hospital or other large employer, large and
small scale commercial, and a large area of assisted living facilities with supportive
medical offices in the area that is zoned R-15. To put it more bluntly, this was intended
to be another Silverstone or El Dorado type of business park. That was the initial intent
when this came forth in 2008. It was intended to be an employment center here in
northwest Meridian. The applicant believes the existing concept plan depicting this
business park and medical campus is no longer obtainable on this site, because of various
market factors and the fact that no hospital or large employer has requested approval.
Therefore, the applicant is proposing a new concept plan and plat with a significant
reduction in the existing commercial in order for the single family residential to be
developed. As part of the rezone request the applicant is requesting the overall
commercial zoning from approximately--sorry. Is reducing the overall commercial zoning
for approximately 63 acres down to approximately 22. This loss of 41 acres equates to
approximately 65 percent of the existing commercial zoning out here. The percentage
itself is large. I apologize. But just as important is the loss of potential employment. The
remaining smaller areas of commercial proposed will likely be, you know, strict
commercial with a majority of minimum wage service jobs, instead of the higher wage job
seen in larger buildings or those with complex uses that require more expertise. Staff
does not believe the remaining 22 acres is enough. Hold on one second. Clearly I'm
talking too much because it's telling him stuff. I apologize. Staff is amenable to additional
residential on this site as noted in my staff report and as discussed with the applicant, but
there is significant loss of commercial and potential employment with the applicant's
request. Because of this staff recommended specific revisions to the development plan
to retain more commercial zoning and include more integration within the development to
be more compliant with the Comprehensive Plan and the mixed use community
designation. The main recommended revisions are as follows: Construct Gondola Street
further west and deeper into the site, generally located where the existing North Calcutta
Street is. Connect the easternmost stub street along the property's north boundary from
Bainbridge directly to Gondola Street and still meet the ACHD offset requirements. With
the movement of Gondola Street further west you would, then, be able to expand the
commercial east of Gondola Street. I would recommend that that new area of commercial
as noted on the right-hand side would be C-C or L-O, preferably C-C, and that is what the
applicant did show on the left there and in addition I recommended depicting the existing
R-15 piece, maintain the existing concept plan of assisted living and other specialized
nursing, medical uses as discussed in the 2008 application and, then, shown on the
subsequent existing concept plan. To go a little bit more into detail here, the applicant
did --well, before-- before I do that I will finish the other part. This new area of commercial
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F50
Page 46 of 84
that I noted would allow buildings to front on Gondola Street and have shared plazas
along that street within walking distance of the residential and the parking area between
the sets of buildings, rather than parking and, then, Gondola Street and, then, homes. It
would offer a better buffer and more integration of the uses and a better transition from
the residential to the commercial and, then, subsequently the residential to Ten Mile
Road. The main reason for this rezone request is for -- is to reduce the amount of
commercial area due to market factors, as stated by the applicant. In line with this if the
applicant chooses to zone this area C-C there is potential that the multi-family residential
could be approved later on with a conditional use permit, which gives the applicant an
opportunity to turn some of this commercial area into residential in the future, while also
allowing the city to keep more commercial. Another option in the commercial zone could
be vertically integrated as well, which includes residential and commercial in the same
structure. Staff recommends -- well, as I noted, the applicant did submit a revised plan
prior to the Commission meeting in response to my recommendations, as is shown on
the left-hand side. It is not what I envisioned. It's more changed in that than I anticipated.
There might be some just miscommunication between what I wrote and what the applicant
saw. With that being said, what I tried to draw up on the right, so I apologize for my
second grade art skills with computers, was just generally showing how this -- how this
could work. What I -- what I -- as simple as it can be is just shift Gondola Street and the
residential west and remove some of those lots, but still maintain the same format and
the same design, just shift everything west and, then, that new space to the east of
Gondola Street is now an area for more commercial. I don't find it necessary to shift the
road north as shown in the new concept plan by the -- on the left or to change the internal
circulation of the other side. I do appreciate that they showed the connection from the
eastern most stub street for Bainbridge as well to help minimize any cut through traffic.
But, again, I think that some of the revisions were just overly complicated and maybe not
necessary. Obviously, the applicant will have their time to speak as well and maybe give
some more insight into why that was changed the way it is. In addition, Commission has
the opportunity to recommend that we continue the project to work together and kind of
get our concept plans more aligned or recommend denial of the project, stating any
number of reasons as known, or recommended approval of the existing plan as proposed.
There were 15 pieces of testimony submitted as of about 5.30 this afternoon and this
evening. Some are in favor and some are against the project. The main issues presented
by the neighbors were as follows: First, of all, how the first neighborhood meeting
occurred and its validity -- validity. This was the reason for the original continuance in
December. We recommended highly and the applicant listened to us to hold another
neighborhood meeting in November -- or in December in order to make sure that
everybody had the opportunity to participate and it met code. In addition, there were
concerns about the loss of acreage in the park. As noted they are still leaving more than
what the required amount is for the park, so there should be no issue there. Concern with
the addition of more homes and the increase in traffic. Utilization of the existing amenities
and park space with more homes and, then, the lack of supportive commercial. On the
second hand I did have other -- other pieces of testimony that -- that there wasn't enough
residential and a preference for less commercial. The applicant did receive letters of
support noting the overall quality of the existing community and its general upkeep. Those
are generally the main comments from the estimate. Overall with my recommended
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F51
Page 47 of 84
revisions and conditions of approval outlined in my staff report, I do recommend approval
of the subsequent applications and after that I will stand for questions. You are muted,
Madam Chair.
McCarvel: Thank you. Any questions for staff? Hearing none, do we have the applicant?
Dodson: Should be in person. I will run their presentation.
McCarvel: Do we have the applicant there, Commissioner Seal? Okay.
Seal: Yes. She's preparing right now.
Dodson: Can everybody see my screen?
McCarvel: Yes.
Dodson: Okay.
McCarvel: And so would the applicant state their name and record for the -- name and
address for the record and the floor is yours.
Layton: All right. Can you hear me?
McCarvel: There we can. Yes.
Layton: Thank you, Madam Chair Woman and Members of the Commission. I'm Bonnie
Layton with NV5 at 690 South Industry Way, Meridian, Idaho. Suite 10. 83642. And I'm
here tonight on behalf of our client to represent this project that Joseph has laid out for
you. So, just to touch base quickly on the project, it has quite -- quite a history with it and
we appreciate the work that we have been able to do with staff and the feedback that we
have had from them. We have been working with staff since July on this. We have had
two formal pre-application meetings, several conversations in between them and some
other meetings to really look at how we can revise the site and -- okay. Thank you. So,
what I did just for your reference was put together a bit of history of the site and so what
you should see on the screen is this project was originally annexed in 2005 and at that
time the project included 312, almost 313 acres and 44.23 acres of that was
nonresidential. So, as you can see on the slide the prop -- property boundary is in yellow
and, then, the nonresidential zoning is in blue. Joseph, if you can switch to the next slide.
Thank you. And, then, in 2008 the previous owner applied for a rezone and a DA
modification and so what I have done is tried to illustrate what that request actually was.
So, it converted 93 acres of-- of residential from the original application into an additional
73.64 acres of nonresidential and 20 acres into the R-15. That was further broken down
into -- and I have it on the slide here -- 37.84 acres of C-C zone, 25.10 acres of C-G zone,
10.7 acres of the L-O zone and 20 acres of the R-15 as I mentioned before. If you could
go to the next slide, Joseph, please. So, effectively, what that did is the owner was
specifically rezoning this property from primarily residential for the purpose of a hospital
and surrounding facilities similar to a hospital facility located at Eagle Road and 1-84. So,
this was something that was envisioned at the time and that was why this request was
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F52
Page 48 of 84
brought forward. A revised concept plan was created with that to accommodate a main
hospital building and ancillary support buildings. Various zoning designations were
requested as well to support those ancillary uses and so -- oh. So, as this next slide
identifies, the reason I have referenced in that site plan revision and how these zoning
designations came about, it was very specific to this site plan. Again, that is -- that
contemplated a hospital site and ancillary uses that would support and be complemented
by each other. Let's see. In the C-C zoning there were some specific -- there was some
specific language in the intent of the application, as well as in the L-O zoning and the R-
15 zoning and while this plan contemplated the -- the complementary uses to the main
building, which would be the hospital, which is -- it's hard to see, but under the C-C
designation kind of in the middle of the site, even though those uses were contemplated,
the development agreement and the application at the time did leave room for any of the
uses proposed would be part of the underlining zone. So, in the R-15 zone, for example,
the resident down at the bottom that have underlined, the proposed R-15 residential area
will help meet the city's objectives. The area also acts as a transition use for the proposed
residential areas to the west and will be developed with uses listed in the city's Uniform
Development Code. With that effort, the plan was changed in 2008. Unfortunately, that
deal did not happen and the hospital did not locate in -- in this location. So, the plan that
was envisioned, although it was a great idea at the time, did not come to fruition. Joseph,
you could switch to the next slide. Thank you. So, then, in 2010 with the hospital concept
gone away, the user finding another site, a portion of the project was sold --or the property
was sold to Walmart. It was 21 .52 acres in the northwest corner of Ten Mile and McMillan.
The remainder of the project at the time stayed the same, so -- and I have identified that
in -- in the red box there. That was the remaining nonresidential from 2008 and, then, the
zone changed to R-15 in 2008. That also stayed the same. The property was, then,
purchased by the -- the current owner, our client Bridgetower Investments, in 2011 and
the owner -- our owners kept that land as commercial, because they build commercial
space. They prefer commercial space. From 2008, though, until now there has been
essentially no demand for commercial users. There has been absolutely no demand for
well paying employment jobs. There has been some interest in the R-15 zone. However,
no senior housing or assisted living developers have expressed any interest in that site.
Then in 2019, 1 think it should be noted, that there was another DA modification that
supersedes all the other DAs that had come before, I believe there were four, and all of
the designations remained for the project. However, all of the other details were stricken
from that, leaving it fairly open with the underlying zoning designations. I should also note
that during this time our client has widened McMillan Road and Ten Mile Road. The right
of way has already been dedicated, so ACHD has the ability to widen the road further and
put a stoplight in at San Vito Road. They previously widened it to three lanes across the
property frontage and reserved room for a signal. So, what you can see from this -- sorry.
back and forth here. So, essentially, what we are doing is we are trying to revise -- revise
our plan to revert some of the property back to residential as it was originally annexed
and zoned in 2005. With that said, we are still at a net gain of --
Seal: Commissioner Cassinelli needs to go on mute.
Cassinelli: Sorry about that.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F53]
Page 49 of 84
Layton: Back on here. So, in the -- in the original zoning we are still -- with the rezone
-- I apologize. The rezone we will still have a net increase from the original zoning of the
site. We are just reverting some of it back -- what we believe to be more appropriately
the highest and best use of the land in this area. We have tried to lay it out mindfully with
the line -- with the spine street in the purple dashed line being the buffer between the two
uses and with our rezone will result -- it will still result in 54.77 total acres of the original
project that had been annexed of nonresidential, which equates to 2.3 million square feet
of commercial land available. Overall we believe that consistent with the other projects
that our owner has done in this area as part of Bridgetower, we are delivering a quality
project. We have, as I mentioned, had several meetings with staff. We appreciate their
time and their help in developing this plan. Again, we intend to do brick paver roads,
consistent with the other-- other portions and subdivisions that we have done in the area.
It's our intent to have the same quality of builders continue on. This is really a continuation
of the subdivision to the west. With that I think I have touched on everything and I know
it's late for everyone, but I can stand for any questions that you may have.
McCarvel: Any questions for the applicant?
Cassinelli: Madam Chair, this is Commissioner Cassinelli?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: First of all, sorry about the interruption there. I didn't realize I wasn't muted
and had a bit of an interruption. And, Bonnie, may have touched on it, but what is --
what's your plan for the -- I guess it's the southwest corner? And if you touched on that
my apologies.
Layton: Commissioner Cassinelli, the southwest corner -- do you mean the R-15 zoning
district -- zoning designation?
Cassinelli: No. I'm sorry. Isn't that -- because isn't that on the southwest corner of the
intersection there isn't that part of your property? Is that part of it as well? Do you own
that?
Layton: Yes. That is correct. We -- our client does own the southwest corner of Ten Mile
and McMillan. That zoning designation -- we are not requesting that as -- as a change
as part of this application. In the previous slides I was trying to illustrate what the original
nonresidential zoning area was of the overall property that was annexed. That corner is
vacant and has sat vacant. Our owner has talked to a couple of different commercial
users, but felt that they weren't the appropriate type for the area. One was a strip -- a
strip retail type user, like a Dollar Store type tenant and there was a -- I believe one fast
food operator that had looked at the area and not the --to staff's point, not the high paying
jobs that they were looking for. Really, though, overall with the project -- and, Joseph, if
you could, please, flip back to a couple of slides a little bit -- one more I think. Really,
when you look at this, you know, the -- what was contemplated in this -- or this rezone
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F54
Page 50 of 84
that happened in 2008 was a pretty ambitious development that really centered around
the hospital locating on this site and that just did not come to fruition and aside from the
northwest corner of the intersection being sold off to Walmart and developed, the rest of
the project has sat empty. It's, you know, planned this way and our--our client has strong
relationships with a number of high tech companies looking in the area. This is not a site
that they are interested in. We believe the highest and best use is to rezone some of this
-- not all of it, but some of it back to residential. Joseph, if you could flip ahead one more
slide. Another slide. Thank you. And, really, what we would be doing is -- you know,
obviously, we have got residential to the north. We have residential to the west. If we
look along the corridor of Ten Mile you have got Costco up there along Chinden. We are
still retaining some of the commercial along Ten Mile. We think that's appropriate for
some retail users and I believe in your packet there are some concepts of what that retail
would look like. But until -- until we have a user the concept plan for the commercial was
just that, a concept. And, then, using the R-15 as zoning designation, which would comply
with the land use code.
Dodson: Madam Chair? Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Yes.
Dodson: Sorry. I was hoping to clarify Commissioner Cassinelli's question. I wasn't sure
if he was referring to this southwest corner of McMillan and Ten Mile or the -- the C-C
zoned piece that's shown as neighborhood commercial in this slide.
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli?
Cassinelli: I was curious about it, because in some -- in some of the illustrations there
that southwest corner of McMillan and Ten Mile was -- was brought into that and I -- it's
-- I understand it's not part of this development, but I didn't know if they had an overall
plan to tie that, because they do own -- this is an extension of the development to the
south, so I didn't know if they had a -- kind of a master plan that tied in that corner as well,
even though that's not part of the application we are looking at. So, I was just kind of
curious on that, because some of the slides there showed that it tied that in with some of
the -- some of the renderings. So, I was just curious if they had -- if that was -- if they had
plans to tie that in to all that, if that makes sense. But I realized that's -- that's not part of
the -- it's not really part of the discussion tonight, I just didn't know if they had some plans
to tie that in eventually and what that might look like.
Dodson: Understood. Thank you for clarifying, sir.
Cassinelli: Thank you.
Holland: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Holland.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F55
Page 51 of 84
Holland: Bonnie, I'm -- I'm curious on what efforts were made to try and market the
property the way that it was established originally in the DA. I'm certainly not opposed to
seeing, you know, another element of residential, but I really like the concept that was in
the DA, because I think the one challenge we have in northwest Meridian is there is a lot
of retail potential, but there is not a lot of those higher paying office jobs and there is not
a lot of great places to put office projects or some of those higher employment centers
and so my concern if we are changing this all back to residential as its proposed here, we
are going to limit the type of users that come in in the future to retail and maybe some
office or daycare centers or senior living complexes or have someone come back and say
we want to see this be multi-family. But I'm just curious on what some of the marketing
efforts were to try and find another anchor tenant besides the hospital.
Layton: Madam Chair and Commissioner Holland, thank you for that question. Our
clients -- our clients are owners of multiple high tech professional campuses that
encompass millions of square feet and have very strong relationships --
Dodson: We can barely hear you, Bonnie. Just to let you know.
Layton: Can you hear me now?
Dodson: Yes.
Layton: Thank you. Our owners of this property are owners of multiple high tech
professional campuses that encompass millions of square feet. They have strong
relationships with various tenants that they lease to. These tenants include folks like
Oracle, Intel, and Google and I can't speak specifically to some of those conversations,
but in the conversations with folks and users like that that are their clients and their tenants
and looking at the valley, I know that our owners also own another 80 acres out on Ten
Mile and 1-84 and so when they have -- with their close personal relationships with these
folks brought them out, this location is not where they are interested in locating. They
have tried to shop this and work with people that they know to get this developed and it's
just not a location where folks want to be. Does that answer your question,
Commissioner Holland?
Holland: It does. I still have the same concerns about rezoning it back to residential and,
you know, the way that the site plan is presented it doesn't look like there is a lot of
additional amenities that really make it that exciting of a new residential component to me
either. It feels like it could be using something that would give it a little bit more flair to
match Meridian's, you know, desire to be a premier community. It just feels like we have
a lot of R-4 and I know I was reading the COMPASS report and, you know, I'm making
these comments now, because I -- it's -- it's good to have this conversation, but reading
the COMPASS report the jobs-to-housing ratio in this area is .3 and a good jobs-to-
housing balance is a ratio between one and 1.5. So, I do have concerns that we have
2,860 homes already within a mile of the site, but only a thousand jobs within a mile and
most of those jobs are related to retail uses, not high employment needs. So, that--that's
one of my biggest concerns and I -- I would be interested to know what the Economic
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F56]
Page 52 of 84
Development or Community Development Department thought about the economic
development possibilities of this site as well.
Dodson: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Sure. Go ahead, Joe.
Dodson: I don't know if that was a question for me or not. The -- the economic
development portion of Community Development does have major concerns with this loss
of commercial, yes. I'm not a long range planner. I will note that as well. But with
discussions with our long range planning team and it's been ongoing with multiple
projects, there -- there is overall seams in the city that are very worrisome when it comes
to applications just like this with -- with general loss of commercial. There is -- there is
two facets to this. There is what we are seeing now, the existing zoning, where over the
last seven, eight years we have -- we are -- there is a trend of losing C-G specifically, but
also just all of the commercial zonings, except for maybe the C-N and C-C district. But
both C-G and I-L have been consistently dropping and as a ratio of, you know, per one
hundred acres of residential they are both lower than 20 per hundred, so -- and it's been
consistently dropping over the last seven years, which is concerning, obviously, for that
tax base that the city wants and needs to thrive. Second to that is the -- looking ahead in
a very macro view, 75 percent of the remaining land to be annexed in the City of Meridian
is residential, according to the future land use map. So, 75 percent of all this remaining
land is very likely to be residential and, then, of the remaining 25 percent, a lot of that is
mixed use, which, again, portions of the mixed use will very likely be residential as well.
So, then, you have a very high chance that the remaining commercial zoning is probably
going to be less than 15 percent of the remaining land. So, a lot of this land that we are
rezoning we are not going to be able to get back for a very long time. I have heard multiple
times from developers that the redevelopment cycle of scraping a building and starting
over is somewhere in the 30 year range. So, if we have -- when we get to homes that's
even longer. But that's for commercial. So, when we -- we are talking about losing this
kind of commercial zoning, we are not just picking on this applicant and it's not just with
this site, this is something that we are trying to become more and more aware of and
bring up with every application that proposes these types of things in order to help plan
for the future and not just the housing market demand that we have right now. So, I --
the Community Development Department seconds your concerns, Commissioner
Holland.
Holland: Thank you. I appreciate that, Joe.
Dodson: You are welcome.
McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant?
Grove: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Grove.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F57
Page 53 of 84
Grove: Yeah. I had a question that was brought up in a few of the public testimony pieces
regarding amenities or-- and the perception of a lack of amenities or the use of amenities
not being adequate for the combined uses of the different subdivisions. Can you address
that concern?
Layton: What we have done is we have looked at this -- this will all be managed under
the same HOA and our owner has worked with the residents to address their concerns to
make sure that there are adequate amenities. There was concern about the size of the
pool, the existing pool not being large enough. Our owner has gone ahead and stated
that he would be building an additional pool to that. We believe that the rest of the
amenities throughout the project are in compliance and meet the -- meet the city's
requirements. But there was some back and forth between the residents of the existing
-- of the existing homes and so we worked through that with them to make sure that we
addressed their concerns.
Grove: Thanks.
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Did that answer your question, Commissioner Grove?
Grove: For now I guess. We will --
McCarvel: Okay.
Grove: -- see what the public comment is and I'm guessing there is going to be some --
some feedback on -- on that that we will come back to this again.
McCarvel: Okay. Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: So, as a former Parks Commissioner, the loss of acreage of the -- the park
really concerns me, especially with the size of the lots and the homes that are going to
be put on there with -- with no really amenities. I think my -- my concern is -- I know
overall for the site it's -- it meets the minimums, but given what we are asking, you know,
to get rid of commercial and add more, in my opinion, high density housing, I have really
concerns about limiting the --you know, cutting down the open space for--for parks. Can
you -- can you talk to that?
McCarvel: The floor is yours, Bonnie.
Layton: What we did actually when the --when the subdivision to the west was built there
was a line in the field that made sense to overseed that park, so it wasn't really part of the
original of the subdivision to the west, but for the sake of maintenance and not being a
weed patch, the owner went ahead and overseeded that and maintained that just -- just
to keep that area clean. So, while that area shifts a little bit it really doesn't -- it's -- it's not
necessarily a loss, it's just a reconfiguration of the park, but to make sure that both -- the
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F58
Page 54 of 84
community to the -- to the west and, then, this new plat that we are proposing, that all of
that open space meets the requirements, if that makes sense.
Yearsley: Yeah.
McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you, Bonnie. We
will have -- we will have you come back up after the public testimony.
Layton: All right. Thank you.
McCarvel: Adrienne, do we have people signed up to testify?
Weatherly: Madam Chair. So, we have a situation where we did have two people that
were in-house originally, Janice and Raymond Borchard. They both signed up to testify
and, then, they subsequently left, but said they would be on Zoom. I'm thinking it's Mike
Borchard here, so I'm going to transfer them over first to see if that's -- and I want to give
them precedence.
McCarvel: Okay. Mr. Borchard, if you would like to unmute your mic and give your name
and address for the record and the floor is yours.
Borchard: Full name Raymond Michael Borchard. Address 5466 North Botticelli Avenue.
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you.
Borchard: Okay. Begin? We, along with a few of the other existing homeowners, are
very very concerned about the intrusion into what has been used as the park area for
quite a few years and with the -- as expressed by some of your Commissioners, the
design of the very small lots of 50 by 110, the -- kind of a row housing effect, the long
straight line streets and -- and no meandering curve, so that it's just -- it's almost like an
apartment complex and the lack of any playing area for young children, we have a
statement from Bonnie Layton that -- to address some concerns of overcrowding and the
pool right now, that the developer is toying with the idea of putting in a pool. We have
seen no substance to that conversation. We have no proposed location. Yeah. I
contacted Matt Munger, both by phone, leaving a message and also a written letter
requesting information about the impact on the park area and the lot placement. Got no
response at all. So, we are just--we have got questions and they are not being answered.
When I look at the -- the 109 lots, I ask where are people going to park? Okay. You got
a 50 foot opening. If you put in a cut for a two car garage what's left? So, we have no --
a play area for children. Are they going to be playing in the street that's already been
packed with some vehicles trying to park there? There are a lot of questions here. The
-- the layout that John Dodson -- Joe Dotson, excuse me, proposed really looked a lot
nicer in terms of the street layout and getting away from the row housing effect that I see
in this proposed plat map. Then one other concern is to minimize the height to one story
housing on the westerly edge where the houses come up to the existing development, so
that the view shed that does exist can be preserved somewhat.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F59
Page 55 of 84
McCarvel: Thank you.
Weatherly: Madam Chair, next is Tammy Paxman. Tammy, one moment.
McCarvel: Thank you. Hi, Tammy. If you would state your name and address for the
record and the floor is yours.
Paxman: I'm Tammy Paxman. I live at 3646 West Balducci Street in Meridian. 83646.
And I just wanted to comment that I had been at other community meetings where our
neighborhood was together and we asked about more park spaces and about -- the pool
was addressed and things like the geese being a problem, things like that, and we had
no response at all from the property owners, the development people. So, the things that
Bonnie was saying I have seen none of that and my neighbors have -- my neighbors on
my particular street were at that meeting, too, and they have seen none of that where
there has been nothing -- when no one's talked to us about really going to do something
to make more play areas or more grass or more -- a bigger pool. The pool is already very
crowded and there is one little basketball thing. It's just -- I mean our neighborhood is a
large neighborhood and to crowd in more homes without more facilities and to say they
are talking to us when they aren't talking to us, they are not talking to all of us if she thinks
they are talking to us. That's all. Thank you for listening.
McCarvel: Thank you, Tammy.
Weatherly: Madam Chair, next is Patricia Buckholtz. Patricia, one moment.
McCarvel: Patricia, if you would like to unmute, the floor is -- and give your name and
address for the record, the floor is yours. Oh, did we lose -- did we lose Patricia?
Weatherly: Madam Chair, I'm looking for her.
Fitzgerald: She shows back up in the early attendees side.
Weatherly: Commissioner Fitzgerald, do you see her? I can't see her. Oh, there she is.
Fitzgerald: Yeah.
Weatherly: Sorry. One moment, Patricia. Thanks, you guys. I'm scrolling up and down
and could not see her.
Fitzgerald: Patricia, you're on mute still, but we can see you.
Buckholtz: Thank you for your time tonight and thank you for bringing me back in. I want
to reiterate what some of the other residents have stated. There has not been any
communication as far as the process has gone, as far as the meetings and everything.
Bonnie literally filed a notice saying that the first neighborhood meeting was attended
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F60
Page 56 of 84
when nobody was able to actually attend and she canceled it and said that she was going
to reset it and never did and, then, we received a city notice. So, there has been a lot of
errors in the -- when the processes come down the line to begin with as far as the last
time that the meeting was set for -- to be before you guys there was no proper public
notice posted. We did receive, however, mailers from the city, which we did not receive
this time, but a public notice was posted out on the one. So, I don't know exactly what
city process is required to do. It's my understanding that public notice is required. As far
as what Bonnie stated about communication, we have expressed concerns about the lack
of our public area being reduced. The density of the population for what's used at the
pool. We knew that this was going to be developed, but it was our understanding that
this development was going to stay consistent with what we had. We purchased half
million dollar homes -- in excess of a half million dollar homes with the idea that that
development was going to be in continuation with what our current flow and vibe was.
We never purchased this with the idea that we were going to be inundated with
apartments behind us or row housing, patio homes, tiny homes, whatever you want to
call them and so it's kind of disheartening to know that everything is being so
misrepresented as far as what's being communicated to us, what was presented to us
when we were purchasing this home. Some people paid additional money to ensure that
that park stayed open and not reduced and I just would really like to hope that you guys
are taking a step back and saying what -- how would I feel if this was my home. We
understand that Idaho was going to grow and develop and this is actually the second time
that I have moved to Idaho. I have lived here for 11 years between '94 and 2005 and
recently moved back in 2018. 1 also understand that the density of this traffic is also
based on a report that was generated in 2018 that has no bearing on today's population.
The -- the growth that has incurred in the Meridian location between 2018 and today is
20 times fold. So, I don't think a traffic report -- and to talk about the density is accurate.
I think when you stop and look at how you have travel down Meridian Road you are going
to build that here on Ten Mile. You are going to build an hour commute -- it's already an
hour commute. I had to travel from the intersection of Highway 16 -- is it Highway 16 and
Chinden and go into downtown Boise and it took me over an hour and I had -- I thought I
had appropriately timed myself to make that appointment and it took over an hour. Every
place that you look on every street in Meridian currently is being developed to some level.
There is so much growth and density going on in Idaho and I understand the shortage of
homes and I understand the need for housing. People aren't moving here to be back in
San Diego or San Francisco or these other dense areas where literally it takes an hour to
travel seven miles on the freeway and in Meridian in Idaho you can't even get to the
freeway. So, I just think as a whole the density that they are putting in this four mile block
between Ten Mile and Black Cat and McMillan and Chinden is just insane. It's absolutely
over densified. You are still planning to put into different apartment buildings and from
tonight --
McCarvel: Patricia, if you could wrap up your thoughts. You have gone over the three
minutes.
Buckholtz: Yes. I'm sorry. Just one second. There is two more developments --
apartment complexes that are going to be put in this area. I think -- I just think the density
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F61
Page 57 of 84
is just too much and thank you for your time.
McCarvel: Thank you.
Weatherly: Madam Chair, next is Carrie. Carrie, one moment.
McCarvel: Okay. Carrie, if you would like to unmute your mic and give your name and
address for the record, the floor is yours.
Zummersch: Yes. Okay. So, I'm Carrie Zummersch. I live at 3924 West Wapoot Street.
And just to tag on to what everybody has said, I wasn't even invited to the neighborhood
meeting that Bonnie had discussed. I found out for one specific kind of meeting from
Joseph Dodson that I was out of range. I'm in the first loop right across from that
basketball court. Very close to the pool house. So, I just want to -- want to express that
I was not invited to any kind of community meeting to discuss this by Bridgetower West,
nor MGM Management Company, and I just wanted to confirm a couple of things for later.
Seeing Joseph's two maps and, then, Bonnie's map that we are looking at right now, I
just want to confirm that this is the current proposal or is it the line drawing on Joseph's,
which is much different. That one on the left. So, I think we should just confirm that,
because the lot sizes look to be a lot different. The residential density seems to be a lot
different. I think when we have a final proposal it would be very important to take a look
at the actual comparative lot sizes and the number of units with the larger lots and kind
of like the range of the current -- the current lots on the current homes as compared to
this new development. It seems to be quite different. But I think we should take a look
at ratio and also numbers. I love everybody else's concerns. Let's see. Regarding the
pool. Yes, I agree. I -- per Bonnie's concern that -- Bonnie's -- how do you say --
contention or claim that they worked through the concerns and have promised to build
another pool, there is nothing -- there is no communication, there is no -- it's not in this
plan. That sort of thing needs to be in writing. I know a lot of my neighbors that have
lived here longer have expected a lot of things and I'm wondering if it's from this kind of
communication potentially that says one thing or hints at something, but doesn't actually
do it or I don't know that, I'm relatively new from 2018. 1 know that you are still interested
in -- you know, very concerned about the commercial element here as a group and that's
great. Unfortunately, I just can only focus on the residential and I think that was about it.
Thank you very much.
McCarvel: Thank you, Carrie. And I think, you know, we are definitely hearing a trend
that the people testifying this evening are talking about some frustration with
communication with the developer and the second meeting was not held. Definitely
frustration with the amount of open space and the pool and the area and the lack of the
commercial. So, if we have new comments that would be great. So, if you still wish --
Zummersch: I'm not-- I don't have any new, but I wasn't even invited to your first meeting.
I'm just saying that -- like others were invited to a meeting, I had received zero invite --
invite to meetings and I was in communication with Joseph Dodson trying to figure out if
I would be and I never received anything for one of those and I can't technically tell you
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F62
Page 58 of 84
the term of the meeting or what the name of it was, I was considered out of range and I
live across from the basketball court.
McCarvel: Yeah. Thank you, Carrie.
Zummersch: Yeah. Thank you.
McCarvel: So, Adrienne, do we have other people wishing to testify?
Weatherly: Madam Chair, next is Chris Williams. One moment.
McCarvel: Hi, Chris. If you would like to unmute your mic and give your name and
address for the record, the floor is yours.
Williams: Yes. Good evening. Can you guys hear me?
McCarvel: Yes.
Williams: Chris Williams. 4476 North Girasolo Avenue. 83646. A couple things I just
wanted to clear up as I have been hearing a little bit there -- not that I think that the
communication was done very well, if I'm being honest, but there was a second meeting
that I did attend. Neighborhood meeting. I was not invited to it, much like everyone else.
I saw it on social media and did dive in. One of the things, though, that Bonnie mentioned
earlier when she was speaking is that, you know, the -- they relayed a lot of the
neighborhood concerns. I was part of that meeting as I said and, you know, talked about
those concerns. The only thing from her e-mail as of December 31 st that she e-mailed
us that was in attendance in that meeting was the developer says that they would consider
a second pool and that was it. All the other concerns about greenspace, you know,
additional kids playgrounds, et cetera, was not addressed. They said that they did
address with the developer the small lot sizes, the 50 foot lot sizes, but that's it. They
addressed -- you know, spoke to the developer. We didn't hear anything else on that.
So, yeah, I would like to echo that the communication has been poor. On that, though, a
couple other things that a Commissioner-- I believe it was Holland said -- I agree with the
fact of losing our commercial space. I do. You know, it's unfortunate there, you know,
hasn't been much interest in there. I think as time goes on hopefully there will be, maybe
if they continue to market it a little bit better. If something does have to go into there,
though, and if it's not going to stay commercial, you know, at least the staff concept that
we are looking at on the screen on the left here, a little bit better. Definitely way better,
will say, than what they are proposing. To echo -- again, small lot sizes, 50 foot lot sizes,
row housing, traffic with all the extra cars. That just doesn't make sense. Again, with the
-- you know, I understand the developer as far as the Bridgetower West communities,
that the developer did do amenities, but they have done very minimal amenities in that
and with such a large community it would be nice to have more amenities if they want to
add more homes. From there everything else has already been discussed. I'm not going
to go into that. But, definitely, would highly suggest that this application be recommended
for denial. Maybe go back, redo, hold some neighborhood meetings and figure out a way
to maybe expand the invite list than just a small little area.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F63
Page 59 of 84
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you, Chris.
Williams: Thank you.
Dodson: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Yes, Joe.
Dodson: I apologize. I wanted to wait until everybody was -- all the public was done, but
this has come up a few times and I just want to clarify for the public's benefit and ours
that the -- on the screen right now -- if you don't mind, Madam Chair.
McCarvel: Yeah. Go ahead. Thanks, Joe.
Dodson: The screen right now -- the plan on the left is not mine. That is not a staff plan.
That is from the applicant in response to my recommended changes. The one on the
right is a very poor rendering that I came up with of what I was -- more in line with what I
was proposing as the changes. The -- how do I put this? The inclusion of the 55 foot
wide lots -- I mean 5,500 square foot lots are not that small in general and, then, the
inclusion of the other lots -- I guess I will show the other open space image. These -- the
change in lot sizes were done because of staff's recommendation. The applicant
originally wanted to have all of these -- the, you know, 7,000 or more, but because of the
future land use designation, mixed use community, you know, we want transitional lot
sizes. We don't want two -- you know, 2,500 square foot homes abutting C-G. It's usually
not a good -- good mix and there is not a transition and there is no shared space between
those types of uses. So, that -- that is not on the applicant's fault there, that is staff. Staff
wants that and that meets a lot of Comprehensive Plan policies. Other than that, the --
the park portion that keeps coming up -- and, again, I'm not speaking on behalf of the
applicant. This is just Planning's perspective of what can and cannot occur here. The
park -- the existing park, whether -- whatever is seen visually now is more than what's
supposed to be there. So, it can be reduced to 10.2 acres at anytime by the applicant
regardless of any additional development going on over here, because that is what was
originally approved. So, the fact that the applicant is only requesting to take 1.6 of the 13
acres out and keep 11.4, which is -- again, is a whole acre more than what should be
there -- is a blessing and do understand the concerns regarding the amenities and I noted
that in my staff report there needs to be some more thoughtful explanation of that and
inclusion of additional amenities, either within this plat and/or in the shared park, but
wanted to clarify some of those points as they keep coming up and make sure that
residents understand that the plan on the left is not mine, I didn't draw that, but the plan
on the right is more in line with what we were referring to and the transition of lot sizes is
a staff recommendation for the past six months and not the applicant.
McCarvel: Thanks, Joe. Yeah. I think as the Commission we are probably very ready
to discuss, you know, the open space in the area and the commercial uses and the layout,
you know, the differences here. So -- and it looks like we have several more people who
would like to add their comments. So, if we have new ideas it would be great. I think we
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F64
Page 60 of 84
are getting to a point if we are going to -- if the same comments that are coming. I think
we understand the comments that have already been brought up. So, if you have
something new I will turn it back to the clerk.
Weatherly? Madam Chair, next is Dan Buffum -- Buff ham. One moment.
Buff ham: Hi. Can you hear me?
McCarvel: Yes. Please state your name and address for the record and the floor is yours.
Buff ham: Thank you very much. My name is Dan Buffam. I live at 3554 West Balducci
Street, which is actually the south side of the northern of where this development -- or the
west side -- or the opposite side of where this development is being put. I have several
concerns. One I want to start with -- I recently moved here approximately was -- in July
2019. The reasons I chose this space is I'm a CEO of a global software consulting firm.
I have offices all over the world and one of them we just announced in 2021 that we are
going to be opening in the Boise-Meridian area. We have to choose Boise, because when
you say the word Boise, because it's known, you know, as a more sense area. Nobody
knows where Meridian is. But I chose this area for two purposes -- well, three -- many
purposes, actually. One, there was -- we were told that it was going to be, you know,
quote, unquote, the next Eagle. Everybody told us this. It wasn't just coming from my --
my salesperson, it was coming from everything I read on Facebook, everything I read
from the management, the developer. I did a lot of research on this area. This specific
area I saw that it was going to be built for commercial purposes and -- which is great for
somebody like me who wants to be within a one mile working area of his office and I don't
have to commute all the way down to Boise or even to those up by the freeway or anything
like that. But there is nothing that exists for -- you know, or very few things are not -- that
I find appealing, you know, for a 75 to one hundred employed company full of consultants,
that I could rent here or -- you know. Or lease. It's not going to happen. If this doesn't
happen I don't see where it could go. The other part is is right across the street -- if you
guys are going to rezone this -- this smaller 50 to 110 space, which, you know, to me it
-- and I agree with all of my neighbors on every single point. I won't reiterate them and
waste your time on that. But if you make it that dense and, then, you take that R-15 over
here and you turn that, because what's going to stop them saying, oh, well, you know, we
are not getting any bites on the senior living either, so we are going to turn those into
apartments. You just killed this entire area and you made it one giant living space, which
is cool, but there is no workspace. There is no community. There is no money coming
in here, because there is no place to work and doing something like that would destroy it.
I think--you know, I agree with, you know, everything that everybody said. Commissioner
Grove said that, you know, he was curious about, you know, the HOA. None of that. I'm
not going to reiterate it, but it hasn't happened. And to put these 2,000 square foot homes
and a house that, you know, I paid a half a million dollars for that's now appreciated up to
a hundred -- or 650,000 dollars and you are going to go put a smaller home in there, you
are -- there is no place to, you know, grow for these guys. I'm older. My fiancee. We --
our kids are grown. Everything's like that. I don't have it, but I see kids out here, they are
playing in the streets. That's cool. But we are having to put signs everywhere. There is
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F65
Page 61 of 84
not enough places for people to go do things. They need -- we need more amenities.
We need more open spaces. We need green space. We need commercial space. We
need businesses. We don't need a thousand more homes or 169 more homes that they
are going to take the R-15 and two years from now -- well, that didn't work out. We are
going to rezone that, too. I don't think it's right. I -- that's -- that's pretty much it. I -- you
know, I think -- you know, we already have a lot of traffic. You know, my house -- I don't
-- you can't really see it on this plot map, but my house is the keystone map on the corner
of Vicenza and McMillan. It's the largest lot on this side of the fence or it was until they
built the new -- new stuff. I already see all night long trucks coming out of Walmart.
Invested 6,000 dollars in trees in my backyard to try-- hopefully they will grow big enough
and fast enough that I won't have to see these trucks literally driving down my residential
street. If you guys keep doing stuff like this, it's just going to make it more dense, more
loud, more annoying and I will move it, you know, and that's not why I moved. I didn't
come here to--you know, to pick up and go someplace else, because somebody changed
their mind, because somebody is not buying their property based on their plan from
whatever. Doesn't work that way. Thank you for your time. Appreciate you listening to
me and that's all I got to say.
McCarvel: Thank you, Mr. Buffham. Who do we have next, Adrienne?
Weatherly: Madam Chair, next is Christian Jensen. Christian, one moment.
Jensen: Good evening. Can you hear me?
McCarvel: Yes. Please state your name and address for the record and the floor is yours.
Jensen: Hi. Christian Jensen. I'm at 3833 West Daphne Street. I'm one of the -- the
loops that would be -- that would abut the R-15 area that is dedicated. So, I appreciate
all the comments my neighbors made and I would reiterate them. My house is one of the
smaller houses in the neighborhood and my lot is 9,700 square feet. So, to go to 5,500
square feet, with all due respect to Joe Dodson, I don't agree with and I think that that
would be a radical departure from the quality of our neighborhood. But I -- my real
comments are asking for two bits of clarity. One, as I looked at the R-15 notes in -- on
your website, that is -- as I understood those -- and I'm looking for clarification. That's not
an apartment building, those are 2,500 square foot or larger and not more than 40 feet
tall and so could I get some clarity on --on what that is? And I know we are not necessarily
questioning that piece. And, then, secondly, there is -- at the top of the R-15 space is an
area called neighborhood commercial I believe it was designated as and I'm not familiar
with what that is and what would we expect there. That would seem a good place for
greenspace, another pool, kids amenities, etcetera. But what exactly would
neighborhood commercial be? Those are my questions. Thank you.
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you.
Weatherly: Madam Chair, next we have Curtis Dabb. Curtis, one moment.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F66
Page 62 of 84
McCarvel: Curtis, if you would like to unmute your mic and give your name and address
for the record, the floor is yours.
Dabb: Thanks. My name is Curtis Dabb. I'm at 4335 West Philomena Drive, Meridian.
will be very brief. I am extremely concerned, as well as my wife, of having these smaller
lots, specifically around the density and the population in our schools. We have three
children that are currently attending Pleasantview Elementary, which was brand new this
past year and my understanding is that they are already at capacity and -- or very near.
I know at Ponderosa previously they were very much over capacity and we were excited
about the new school, but as we continue to grow in this area, just shoving more and
more -- whether it's apartment complexes or high density home areas, we are just very
concerned about the strain that that's putting on already highly populated classroom sizes
and, essentially, over -- reaching over capacity in our schools. So --
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you, Curtis.
Dabb: Thank you.
Weatherly: Madam Chair, next we have John Wycoff. John, one moment.
McCarvel: Okay. John, if you would like to unmute your mic and give your name and
address for the record, the floor is yours. John, if you are talking we are not hearing you.
You need to unmute on your side. There you go. Then can give your name and address
for the record. Mr. Wycoff, I'm sorry, we are still not hearing you. I know you are unmuted,
but I wonder if your microphone is working. Oh. There we go. Mr. Wycoff, we are not
hearing you. Yep. Okay. Sorry.
Weatherly: Madam Chair, next we have Brian Lenz. Brian, one moment.
McCarvel: Mr. Lenz, if you would like to unmute your mic -- there we go. And give your
name and address for the record.
Lenz: Brian Lenz. 5362 North Schio Way. I'm kind of learning on the fly a little bit tonight,
because I wasn't privy to some of the previous meetings either, but I would just like to
echo some of the sentiments of the previous neighbors. Largely agree with them. One
extra thing I wanted to add about the -- the green space, the park. A lot of the space
that's being encroached upon is the usable space of the park. Much of the park is hilly
and sloped down to the pond. The area up there is where, you know, we go to play whiffle
ball and my son will hit golf balls around where it's actually flat and that's what will be
encroached upon. So, that's a consideration anyway, that like, yes, it's acreage and
understand they can claim it, but it would be unfortunate that it is the most usable space
that would be lost. I'm also a little bit concerned about drainage and runoff and the
impacts that the new houses might have on that. The area is already very marshy. I don't
know if it's due to overwatering or what it is, but that's something I would definitely want
people to take a look at. The -- another concern is the traffic volume and just safety on
San Vito. I would be curious about the --what types of intersections they are going to put
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F67
Page 63 of 84
in, particularly with Gondola. A light at McMillan would definitely help, but there is already
a lot of speeding on that road and the volume is going to be over doubling. So, I -- that's
a concern that I would want to make sure is considered and mitigated. And, then, just the
general density and the character of the neighborhood is -- it matters; right? This is an
extension of our current neighborhood and the HOA and I feel like this doesn't really fit
what's proposed due to the density and the rural housing. The lack of amenities, like the
lack of green space and parks and just overall busyness and traffic. So, that is my
thoughts. Thank you for your time.
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you.
Weatherly: Madam Chair, next we have Richard and Chris Boyle. One moment.
McCarvel: Richard and Chris, the floor is yours. It looks like you are unmuted, but if you
are speaking we can't hear you.
Boyle: Thank you. My name is Richard Boyle. We are 5430 North Botticelli Avenue.
83646. We would backup or do backup to what is the park currently. One of the -- one
of the issues I have with reducing the size of the park -- when we purchased our block
that we have built our custom home on, we paid an extra considerable amount in the
neighborhood, probably 20,000 additional, to be backed up to the park area, which now
they are trying to reduce in size. So, a little -- a little unhappy that that happened or that
they are considering reducing it. As the gentlemen prior to me had said, it's really the
only area that I see anybody use in the park is the corner that they are considering taking
out. I would be -- yeah, plus the trees and -- and the fact that we have -- as homeowners
we have all paid to maintain the whole park, not less one acre of it, however they want to
slice it up. We do approve of the residential area behind us versus commercial. I would
far rather have residential and assume that we would have residential behind us. That
was what we were told, which is neither here nor there. The concern, as everyone else,
is the density of it. I would like to see the larger block sizes, so the home values are
maintained and, then, the rest of it has been covered pretty much by everybody else.
will jump on the wagon that there has been very little communication, other than one e-
mail and one meeting -- well, a meeting that went array and a second meeting and a
single e-mail and no -- no real idea of where this pool might end up being. It's got to
service an awful lot of homes and there is very little land left in this development to add a
pool outside of this park. So, I would be very curious where they plan on adding this --
this pool in this extended area for open areas.
C.Boyle: And we are very much opposed to commercial backing up to our home, because
that's not what we purchased here for.
Boyle: That is all I have.
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you.
Boyle: Thank you.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F68
Page 64 of 84
Weatherly: Madam Chair, next we have Jeff Deforest. Jeff, one moment.
Deforest: Hello. Can you hear me?
McCarvel: Yes. If you would like to give your name and address for the record, the floor
is yours.
Deforest: Perfect. Jeff Deforest. I'm at 3821 West Riva Capri Street, Meridian, Idaho.
83646. Yeah. I appreciate your guys'time here. I know there is a lot of discussion around
a lot of common themes. I do second all those. I'm in the first phase of Vicenza here.
It's that first loop and the entrance to my neighborhood would look east to the R-15
development. Now, some of the plot maps I have seen indicate that there is going to be
a turn into that R-15 off of San Vito Way. I have an issue with that, just because of already
the amount of cut-through traffic that we encounter on San Vito, we are only going to be
adding to that traffic and, quite frankly, I think a lot of that cut-through through traffic is
folks making their way to the south in the Bainbridge neighborhood where they do
connect. So, I do take a lot of issue with where the -- how that R-15 is proposed with the
-- and this one I don't know if it's showing it or not, the one looked at previously looked
like there was a turn in off of San Vito Way there, so I apologize if I'm not up to date here,
but the previous one I looked at was. Again, I think there just needs to be a lot of focus
on the density. I know that's been said a few times here, but I think the thing I want to
just, you know, communicate here the most is these drawings -- I know there has been
amendments to them over the last, you know, 11, 12 years here since this land has been
purchased, but it really feels like this new section of the neighborhood is taking a step
back from what Bridgetower West looks like and feels like; right? It feels like the
developer is trying to backpedal a bit and cover up selling that property to Walmart. I
don't think the residents of Bridgetower West should pay for the developer selling that.
Now, I do appreciate commercial businesses needing to have a home and having a place
in our -- in our community. I understand that. But, you know, these layouts -- they don't
go with the flow that Bridgetower West currently has and it just feels really poorly put
together trying to just hide the commercial development that's on the other side. I don't
know what the right answer is, to be honest with you, but I just want to keep that in mind
-- have you guys keep that in mind that there is just no flow there compared to the rest of
the subdivision and we shouldn't have to pay because there is a Walmart, you know, 300
yards away or across the field, so -- and, then, my last point here is because I'm right
there at the corner of San Vito and McMillan, basically, I am very concerned about a light
being put in at San Vito. That would shine directly into my master bedroom, into my dining
room. The trees around this area there is -- there is plenty. We do appreciate the
developer putting the amount of trees they did. However, they are not mature and that
-- those lights are going to shine straight through my windows day and night. That's all I
have got. Thank you so much for your time.
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you.
Weatherly: Madam Chair, Robin Moore. Robin, one moment.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F69
Page 65 of 84
McCarvel: Thank you. Robin, if you would like to unmute your mic and give your name
and address for the record, the floor is yours.
Moore: Hello. Can you hear me?
McCarvel: Yes, we can hear you. Please --
Moore: My name is --
McCarvel: Okay.
Moore: My name is Robin Moore and I live at 3604 West Balducci. I have never seen an
HOA have a separate apartment complex in small housing. I don't understand why they
are being included with the HOA, unless they are just trying to lump it all together. We
don't have enough amenities as it is. The pool is already an issue. Communication is an
issue. For an HOA this size there should be a monthly newsletter. Right now we don't
have anything -- or any communication. The other thing about amenities and upkeep is
there is not a single trash can anywhere. There is not a dog poop station. There is a lot
of feces all over. There is a lot of trash all over from the construction. And the gardeners
-- I don't know if they are responsible for it, but they just run the trash over. We are not
getting what we have here maintained and I imagine it will be cheapened with the
apartments. The traffic is out of control as it is and the schools. So, I don't think this
seems well thought out. I think it needs to go back to the planning phase.
McCarvel: Okay.
Moore: But I thank you for your consideration.
McCarvel: Thank you.
Weatherly: Madam Chair, Shillington is next.
McCarvel: Okay. Okay. Shillington, if you would like to unmute your mic and give your
name and address for the record, the floor is yours. Shillington, your mic is still muted.
I'm sorry, but we can't hear or see you. Adrienne, do we have everything done on our
side?
Weatherly: Madam Chair, I did ask Shillington to unmute.
McCarvel: Okay.
Weatherly: And that seems not to behaving an effect. I can transfer them back over and
try again after we give --
McCarvel: Yes, please.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F70
Page 66 of 84
Weatherly: Okay.
Grove: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Yes, Mr. Grove.
Grove: Could we remind the participants -- the attendees that if they have spoken once
that they can't --
McCarvel: Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. Yeah. We are -- yeah. Attendees, if you have your
hand raised and you have already spoken, that is your one time to speak. It's just one
three minute shot here.
Weatherly: Madam Chair, I'm going to try John Wycoff again. He did have technical
difficulties earlier.
McCarvel: Yes. Hi, Mr. Wycoff -- oh. No, we cannot hear you. So, your -- your mic is
muted now. One more? No. Okay. All right. Thank you.
Weatherly: Madam Chair, next would be an unidentified caller.
McCarvel: Yeah. One moment.
McCarvel: Let's try the number. Okay. 862-467-8784, if you could give your name and
address for the record and I see your mic is unmuted, but we do not hear you.
Guyer: Hello.
McCarvel: There you go. Okay. My name is Bob Guyer. 4066 Philomena. And listening
to the presentations here this evening, I wish there had been more of a participation
provided to the community. Commissioner Holland brought up the point about the -- the
large parcel behind the Walmart that in a perfect world it would have been a hospital or
some sort of professional arts structure in there. I think that would be a great buffer in
that area there, as opposed to going in that area. One of the neighbors commented about
the marshiness coming from that downslope area down to the existing pool structure and
it does get very very marshy in that area and as far as the school, just hearing from the
neighbors and talking to grandkids and whatnot, it's getting pretty packed over there when
you check the density in the classroom and that -- next to that -- or the access off of
McMillan into the neighborhood, there should have been a light in there, because the --
the speed coming out of there -- somebody is going to get hit and there is just some very
fast traffic coming through there. So, there is some things that don't need more density
at this time, because there is some concerns and there is some improvements that just
haven't been met yet and I have heard so many times from neighbors in the area about
the lack of trash cans and whatnot in the area and so that neighbor lady, she hit the nail
right on the head as far as that. So, there is things that have not been taken care of or
ignored and to put more density in there right now is not headed in the right direction.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F71
Page 67 of 84
McCarvel: Thank you. And it looks like we have one more.
Weatherly: Yes. We will give Shillington one more try. One moment.
Shillington: Can you guys hear me?
McCarvel: There we go.
Shillington: All right.
McCarvel: State your name and address for the record.
Shillington: Yep. Scott Shillington. 4174 West Mazzeo Drive, Meridian, Idaho. 83646.
So, I would like to backup what all my neighbors have already said, with the kind of going
in the wrong direction and not being heard. Real quick, though, for my contribution I
would just like to add a sample of what -- why I bought in the Bridgetower and it kind of
goes with their mission statement and so I will just kind of share that with you now.
Surrounding and contribute enormously to the lives of those who reside in a chosen place.
Bridgetower West is a place of classic timelessness, reminiscent of Old World countryside
living, bridged with the latest in smart home design, planned convenience and community
connectivity, emphasizing the idea of a place to live, shop, and play. Bridgetower West
is designed for you. To me we are not hitting the amenities or living up to this mission
statement. That's personally why I bought here. The current model I bought under met
those needs. After hearing they are going to start taking away from the park, bringing the
potential apartment complexes and those kind of things don't mix -- meet the standard of
what they are advertising online. I just want to add my input on that. Thank you.
McCarvel: Thank you. Okay. Adrienne, it looks like we have one more.
Weatherly: Madam Chair, that would be Matthew Maschler.
McCarvel: Yes.
Weatherly: One moment.
Maschler: Hi, there. Can you guys hear me?
McCarvel: Yes, Matthew. Go ahead.
Maschler: I just want to say thank you to all the neighbors that have stepped up and I
agree with every single one of them, what they had said. It's all very true. For me my
family and I moved here to escape overcrowded cities. We bought here just based on
the space of the subdivision. If all this stuff happens there is going to be way too much
noise, way too much disturbance. The roads, like everybody said, are not prepared for
the traffic. This will cause -- it's just very unfortunate. I hope you guys have listened to
everybody, what they have said, and taken it into account. A couple more things, though,
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F72
Page 68 of 84
1 want to add is -- is the R-15 going to be a part of our HOA? Is one question. And, then,
also I think there was a mention of two other apartment complexes. Just curious to know
why -- there is so much development here, why is it -- why is it so -- why do you have to
make it so dense. And the last thing in closing about the park is that's where a lot of the
kids -- we have three kids ourselves and that's where the kids go to unwind, go to play.
You take that away from them, it's going to be really hurtful and, anyway, it's pretty
emotional, but that's all I have for you guys. I want to thank you again, Madam Chair and
the Commission, and thank you to all the neighbors for stepping up and being here
tonight. I know it's late. So, thank you again.
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. And it looks like we have no one left in the audience who
is eligible to speak.
Dodson: Applicant does -- just from the city side of things there were some questions
there.
McCarvel: You bet.
Dodson: Thank you. Just to clarify for the public, the R-15 piece on this is -- well, first of
all, this area's already zoned, so any proposed use that is allowed in those zones could
be applied for without a public hearing and part of that would be a -- the multi-family,
which is conceptually proposed on this R-15 piece, but there -- it is not part of this
application. So, I just want to clarify that for the neighborhood. That would have to go
through a conditional use permit and that is not part of this application. Secondly, with
the McMillan Road, ACHD representatives did not -- they do not attend the Planning and
Zoning Commission meetings, but they will be at the City Council and before the City
Council I can ask to clarify if there is a planned light there. I don't know that for sure. At
least that -- in regards to the road width of McMillan the applicant mentioned and other
neighbors have mentioned -- McMillan is, from my understanding, is never going to be
widened to be more than what it is because of the constraints of the canal and ditch and
the power lines. So, that's a constrained corridor because of the increased density and
increased number of homes in general out here. So, that's just unfortunately what is
there. It just would be very very costly in order to widen that. In addition, the -- I guess
I already touched on that. Yeah. Again, just want to reiterate that I understand the
neighbors don't want commercial behind their homes, but the commercial zoning already
exists and, therefore, with the certificate of zoning compliance, if it's allowed to use, it
could already be built here. So, I just wanted to reiterate that. After that I -- the applicant
should answer all the rest of the questions.
McCarvel: Okay. All right. Bonnie, do you want to -- the floor is yours to answer --
respond to the public testimony.
Layton: Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, Members of the Commission. Appreciate your
time again this evening. I think there were a number of comments that we would like to
touch on and I will just go through my list here, try to make it as quick as possible, so we
can all get home here. First and foremost, the neighborhood meeting, yes, we did hold
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F73
Page 69 of 84
actually two neighborhood meetings. The first one we did have some technical difficulties.
We -- we did notice that, a 500 foot radius, that was prior to the zone -- the ordinance
changing from a 300 to a 500. So, we knew that the ordinance was changing. We sent
out mailings to -- to that increased radius to try to capture people. We did have some
technical difficulties. There were a handful of people that were on the call at that time.
There was a lot of talking over each other and a lot of comments that were raised that
were really HOA related issues and maybe frustrations with their HOA that didn't -- that
weren't part of what we were holding the meeting for, which was to discuss this
application, and so I had suggested that they reach out to their HOA. So, it was
unfortunate. We submitted the information. Staff came back to us. I think it was in
December and -- or November -- Joseph, I don't have the date right in front of me. We
went ahead and we held this second neighborhood meeting. That lasted for over two
hours. Both myself and Matt Munger were on that call with a number of the residents.
So, we tried to our best to communicate that. Again, there were some issues and
frustrations that were brought to light just as we have heard tonight from the neighbors
that are HOA related issues that we suggested that they follow up with the HOA president
and that we would do our best to pass those concerns on to the developer, which we
have. In terms of the concerns about the park intrusion and the size of the pool and some
of those amenities, we did address that with the owner and the developer. I would like to
say that the pool is under contract to be constructed. The initial plan was to have it in the
south side of the development. Staff has requested that we consider putting that in the
north side of the development, which we are happy to do. The park intrusion -- and,
again, I guess no good deed goes unpunished sometimes. When you are sold your home
you are sold a copy of the plat. The park was over developed to try to maintain some of
those weeds. We are not taking park space away. As Joseph mentioned in his report
we are actually increasing the -- the park space, just going to be reconfigured a little bit.
And, Joseph, I don't know if you could put that slide up on -- where we can see the line,
if maybe you could bring that slide back up if you are there.
Dodson: Sorry. Trying to. Give me a second. I don't know why it's not working.
Layton: Joseph, if you can move the cursor to sort of where that line -- where that ground
was over built initially.
Dodson: Can everybody see this?
Layton: Yeah. That exceeded the actual required area of the plat. So, we have heard
those concerns. We are -- we are including the amenities in the open space. We are
exceeding what we are required to do and doing our best to work with -- with the existing
residents. I know that the owner has been in touch with -- there was one of the neighbors
had started a petition about the pool and he had been -- he has been in direct contact
with her and, again, as I mentioned, the pool is under contract to be constructed. So,
hopefully -- hopefully that addresses that issue. I do want to also clarify -- there were
some comments that we shouldn't have to pay for the developer selling property to
Walmart. I do want to be very clear, in the history that I presented previously the Walmart
property was sold long before -- it was sold in 2010. From the previous owner. Our client
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F74]
Page 70 of 84
and the owner and developer of this project did not own the ground, did not sell it to
Walmart. That had been purchased prior to him purchasing the rest of the property. So,
just wanted to be clear on that. And, then, in terms of the rezone and the loss of
commercial and, Commissioner Holland, to -- to your point -- and I know this is sort of
your area of focus professionally. We did receive comments from staff about their
concerns. We -- we looked at the staff report. Joseph did forward to me in an e-mail that
ratio that you mentioned that -- I wasn't sure where the source came from, but it looks like
you were referencing -- it's the same one, the nonresidential zoning for every hundred
acres. So, we looked at that and, you know, from our client's standpoint this property was
zoned commercial since 2008. So, that's been for 13 years and nothing has come and
he likes commercial, he likes to own commercial and lease it out. That's -- that's what he
does. But in this location it seems that there is -- there is no takers and so really what are
we losing, but vacant ground that has not -- not had the demand of the market and so I
looked at that and I said, well, you know, I want to understand this a little bit better. So, I
pulled the 2017 existing conditions report from the City of Meridian and on page 2-18 it
went through different square footages and vacancies and back in 2017 there was 3.2
million square feet of office available, according to the report that was information from
Colliers. In 2019 in 2Q I found a Colliers report that had office at three point -- almost 3.6
million and, then, in Q4 now they have started splitting it out between south and north
Meridian, but the total is right at about six million square feet. So, just from 2017 to Q4
of last year there has been a significant increase and yet this property has remained
vacant and not for the lack of our client touring and vetting very competent high paying
job type employers, but this is not where they want to locate. So, with that request we
are saying it's -- it's vacant land, how much longer should he wait? It's been 13 years of
trying to get somebody in place. That hospital went away. I think we saw earlier this
evening some discussion on some commercial locating two mile radius from this site.
One point three miles as the bird -- as the crow flies and so just really want to put that in
-- into perspective. We still have the corner -- the southwest corner of the intersection
that's open and our client is -- it's his goal to bring high paying, good quality jobs, not just
develop a bunch of strip retail that's going to have a couple of tenants in it until they decide
they need to move on or they move out of state and, then, it's -- then it's vacant space.
He's incentivized to bring high quality tenants to those commercial properties as well. But
that's just -- that just hasn't come to fruition. So, there is a demand for some residential.
I appreciate Joseph clarifying for folks and for the Commission that the density of lots --
initially we had planned those to be 70 and 80 foot wide lots. Joseph, I think you have
that original plan. And, then, upon feedback from staff is when we went to the plan that
you see before you that has some 50 and 60 foot wide lots to increase the variety of -- of
lots in the area and housing options for folks. I did want to touch on the schools. I think
the Commission -- and I'm not sure folks on the call, but in this staff report it would appear
that the school capacities are addressed on page three in the West Ada School District
in terms of Pleasantview Elementary and currently the capacity of that school is 650
students and the number of students enrolled is 368. 1 can go down the list, but it's in
your report to save time. The light at San Vito and McMillan, I just want to clarify -- I think
Joseph touched on that as well. That was something our client initially had wanted to put
an entry monument at that location and what he was told by ACHD was, well, that's great,
you can build it, but when we want to put a light in there we will tear it out and so that area
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F75]
Page 71 of 84
is reserved for a light, but that's per ACHD requirements. It's not something that our
clients had intended on -- on having there and that was something that was part of
ACHD's purview. And, then, also to clarify for folks that the R-15 is separate. It's not part
of the HOA for this subdivision. It would have its own -- set up an HOA. It would have its
own amenities that would be run save and separate from the rest of the community, as
Joseph mentioned. Currently it's zoned R-15. Any type of use that would want to go in
there would have -- depending on if it's approved or conditionally permitted would have
to go through that approval process. At this time we are not requesting any change to
that zoning and that's to remain as it was, as it has been rezoned that zoning designation
since 2008.
McCarvel: Okay.
Layton: I think I have touched on most of the questions that folks had. If there is
something that I have left out, I would stand for any last questions.
McCarvel: Okay. Any questions from the Commissioners for the applicant?
Dodson: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Yes, Joe.
Dodson: Sorry. One more -- my last interruption. I promise. I just wanted -- there was
one last question that a resident asked regarding the neighborhood commercial and what
that means. I didn't touch on it in my presentation either. So, I thank him for that question.
I just want to clarify that that's intended to be a very walkable, pedestrian friendly type of
commercial area with maybe food trucks here and there, some -- some plaza space,
things like that that is very neighborhood friendly, not intended for a big box commercial
or retail like that, just something smaller, more local kind of neighborhood. More of a
Hyde Park feel, but, obviously, not on that scale. Just a condensed version of that with
just pedestrian friendly, bicycle friendly. That's what that's intended to be.
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you.
Layton: If I may, Madam Chair, a couple things. Joseph, thank you for mentioning that.
On page 52 of the staff report -- I don't know if you have that slide, that conceptual exhibit
that we had put together in our presentation. It's -- it's the one that's got the elevations.
It's in the staff report on page 52. And, really, again, that neighborhood commercial -- we
understand that times are changing. There is a lot of folks that are working from home
-- home offices. I think we had a gentleman testify, Mr. -- Mr. Buffham tonight, talking
about owning a global company and working from his home in Meridian. Our owner and
the builders -- the builder team in this community has seen the request for home offices
even before the pandemic really be a strong -- strong desire of residents. We have a lot
of folks who work from home. And so the neighborhood commercial was really envisioned
to be a place that would be walkable, that would have outdoor plazas. Again, in your staff
report we have got some examples of what that was envisioned and we really worked
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F76
Page 72 of 84
with staff to say how can we develop this to be kind of a center node for folks that they
can go get an ice cream, it's close to the park, you know, maybe stop there on their way
back from getting groceries or whatever other retail that might occur in the commercial
zone that's adjacent to Ten Mile. So, it is intended to be that. It would complement both
the single family residential, as well as the R-15 residential and really provide a good
community hub and gathering place. Thank you all for your --
McCarvel: Bonnie, we lost you.
Layton: Sorry about that. With that I just want to thank you all for your -- the time this
evening. I know that the -- that our client is really -- really a desire to continue the quality
development, the brick paver streets, and continue to add to the City of Meridian quality
community for residents and for businesses in the area. So, thank you, again, for your
time this evening.
McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant?
Grove: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Grove.
Grove: I don't know if this is -- if we can ask this now or not, but I'm just kind of getting a
sense that we could be headed towards a continuance, so before we close the public
piece and, then, have to open it back up, can we ask if she's open to that as an option or
is that --
McCarvel: Yes, I --
Grove: -- that time ask her or should I wait to do that?
McCarvel: Yeah. I think there is just a lot here. I don't think we would send this -- just
my feeling we wouldn't send this on to Council without having some definite drawings
come back. I think it's a matter of how much time do we feel that staff and the applicant
are going to need. If -- if it's the Commission's direction to continue this how much time
would you like?
Dodson: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Yes, Joe.
Dodson: Thank you for wondering and thinking of my busy schedule, but before we get
to the continuance I just wanted to note that it -- me and -- well, staff and the applicant in
general are -- don't agree on the amount of commercial. I think that's pretty clear. I don't
know if having an extra two weeks or a month or six weeks to hash that out is really going
to net anything. I don't know that for sure, but I definitely cannot guarantee that.
McCarvel: Okay.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F77]
Page 73 of 84
Dodson: Second to that, I think that some of the other issues brought up by the neighbors
and everything else involving the overall DA, those aren't really on the table between the
applicant and I, unless the Commission wants it to be so. So, if there is a continuance I
would just ask that it be very precise and to what -- what needs to be revised and then
-- just to give me some direction of where -- what parts of the project you do support or
don't support, just to make sure that if it is continued I have that guidance with the
applicant.
McCarvel: Sure.
Dodson: Thank you.
Holland: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Holland.
Holland: I could save my comments towards when we close the -- the public hearing for
comments, but I think it's -- it's worth having this discussion here. The way I see it where
it sits right now -- I understand where the applicant's coming from and I understand some
of what they are -- they are trying to propose here. But to me it -- I don't think it's the
highest and best use of what we could do for this site and so at a minimum I don't think
we could approve this tonight and I'm at the point where I would -- I would almost prefer
recommending denial for what Joe just shared, that the applicant and staff don't agree on
the amount of commercial needed here and I -- while I don't want to tell them that they
need to stick with the original DA and try to come up with another site plan that -- that
works better, I do think that going back to the drawing board at some level needs to
happen for this project. I think that -- you know, I would encourage the applicant to reach
out to the economic development staff at the city, if they haven't done so already, to try
and market this property. But I'm really really concerned that -- if you look at the
comprehensive plan for the city, this is really an area that we have planned for that --
higher occupations to go into and I know that they haven't had success selling that yet,
but the Comprehensive Plan is a 20 year vision and so if we eliminate some of those
opportunities now, we don't -- you don't get to remove houses later and the same thing
with park space, it's -- it's almost a challenge and a detriment to them that they over built
the park, because once you build a park and green space, if you try to take any of that
back residents will always panic and not be content about losing some of the open space
that was there, even if it was overbuilt from what was promised. It's -- it's hard to take
away greenspace from people. So, I -- I'm really struggling with this, because I -- I would
like to see it stay. I really like the original DA plan and would love to see if there is a way
to help them accomplish the original intent of how that was designed, because I think all
of the residential that came in around it was planned for the purpose of knowing that this
had a significant portion of commercial plans that they did need it in other areas. So, I
have some high concerns about the way this came forward and I -- looking at the way this
residential is laid out, too, there is not a lot of special traits to it that made me look at it
and say this is a desirable community to move into and I hate to say that to the applicant,
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F78
Page 74 of 84
but there is not a -- while they have got walkways and pathways and they are connecting
to an existing development that has open space, there is not anything additional that they
are really adding to create a desirable community within this area in my perspective and
I know that might sound harsh. I will leave it at that for now.
McCarvel: Okay. If there is -- I think that kind of gives us a direction as far as comments
from the applicant and staff on continuance versus other options. So, I think if we are
ready we can close the public testimony if someone would like to make a motion for H-
2020-0108 and move on to deliberation.
Holland: I move we close public hearing --
Layton: Before you close the public hearing --
McCarvel: Oh, who is that?
Layton: It's Bonnie. I'm sorry, Madam Chairperson. Before you close the public hearing
I do want to say, you know, we -- we have worked with staff, we have been working back
and forth. When we received the staff report just on -- on Friday, you know, we worked
to revise the plan to try to address staff's comments and to come up with something that
was more consistent with what those comments were -- trying to reflect what those
comments were and I think we could get there with a little bit more time to fine tune the
plan that you see on the left on the screen and, you know, work with Joseph and the rest
of the staff to -- to -- to fine tune that.
McCarvel: Okay. So, you would prefer a continuance over-- and some more time, rather
than denial and move on to Council? Okay.
Layton: Yeah. If -- yeah, if we -- if we can get some direction on that, yes.
McCarvel: Okay. All right. We will take that under advisement. Commissioner Holland,
did you want to continue with your motion?
Holland: Well, that's a question for the Commission, if they want to continue the
application. I --
McCarvel: No. I thought we were -- the motion to close the public hearing. Sorry.
Holland: I would still be inclined to close the public hearing, because I -- I'm still leaning
towards recommending denial at this point. I -- while I understand what Joe is trying to
propose here and adding a little bit more commercial, I -- I still have challenges with the
way that this -- this new concept looks. I don't think it solves some of the issues that we
are looking at. So, in my mind I don't know that time is going to fix those challenges for
me, but if others feel that no one has to second my motion. I'm still going to make the
motion to close the public hearing.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F79
Page 75 of 84
Grove: I will second that motion.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2020-0108.
All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion passes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
McCarvel: Comments?
Holland: I have made mine known. I'm going to be quiet, so --
McCarvel: Yeah. Okay.
Seal: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Seal.
Seal: Yeah, I'm right there with Commissioner Holland. I mean -- you know, I mean kind
of had me at 65 percent reduction in commercial space. So, I mean if -- and if that's a
sticking point to the whole thing, I just don't know that more time is going to overcome
that. So, I mean this corridor right here is prime space for that. There are businesses
popping up all over the place. So, I mean the notion that one big provider is going to
come in here and buy this up and -- and make it viable is maybe not going to happen, but
I think that there is plenty of space for other things to come in here that we are -- you
know, will be good for our community as far as commercial use. So, I just -- I -- I can't
get behind the overall reduction in commercial space. I just -- I mean I see where Joe's
going with it to try and accommodate what they are trying to -- you know, what their vision
of it is, but I just think the overall reduction in commercial space is way too much for this
corridor that it's on.
Grove: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Yeah. Commissioner Grove.
Grove: All right. I won't belabor the points too much, but we definitely have a -- on the
same page as everyone in terms of lack of commercial. We have to maintain that. We
don't -- we don't get -- we don't get another shot at this and there is not a lot of other
opportunities. It's already in place with the comp plan for a reason, so -- and just looking
at the -- if we even take it -- I have problems with it just looking at it from a residential
layout standpoint. Even -- you know, if the commercial piece was taken out and we -- we
left, you know, as is or whatever, which I don't agree with, obviously, but there is just a
lack of open space, there is a lack of identity, kind of like as Commissioner Holland was
saying in terms of the layout, it doesn't feel connected with the rest of the subdivision that
it's, you know, supposed to be connecting to. It feels disjointed in that aspect and I think
that is also kind of -- you know, I don't know. I have some other concerns that probably
don't meet the standards of what we can discuss and not discuss, but I have a lot of
concerns with this. I will say, though, that I -- I like the -- what they briefly touched on with
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F80]
Page 76 of 84
the neighborhood commercial. It sounds like a great concept of integrating some
commercial aspects into the fabric of the neighborhood. So, that -- that seemed great.
But there is -- there is a lot of things that need to be addressed and some of them, you
know, I think could be done with just some better communication and -- and having -- but
for us we -- we need to have the long-term success of the community in mind and not the
short-term success of the project I guess.
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: So, the -- the nice thing about annexations and rezones is it kind of gives us
an ability to ask for what we want and my opinion, listening to the -- the homeowners, I
think, you know, keeping the -- the park the way it is and size it is is something that we
can ask for as part of the rezone. I do agree with Commissioner Holland that this -- this
layout is not -- it doesn't fit and -- and I would -- I would actually be more inclined to
continue this, because more than likely Council is going to remand it back down to us any
wise is my guess and so why not give the developer -- give them some ideas of what we
would like to see and the staff and see if they could come up with something that we can
support. My personal opinion is I would like to see a little bit more open space, maybe
remove some of those lots that are in the -- the current park zone right now and keep a
portion of that park that's still there. Come up with a mix that we feel good for commercial
and -- and I think -- I understand staff wanting to have a transition close to the general
commercial, but I think we can actually just leave it as the exterior perimeter with the
smaller lots and have the interior and adjacent to the bigger lots be bigger and have a
shorter transition, instead of having just a row of -- or a sea of homes. So, that would be
my recommendation to just continue this to allow them some opportunities to try to work
together a little bit more and come up with something that -- that both of us -- that all of
us could support.
McCarvel: Yeah. I think we are -- you know, I think the general theme has definitely been
consistent and if -- to continue the applicant needs to understand that we will stand firm
on not having such a reduction in the commercial. Otherwise, we would recommend
denial, so they need to work with that and, you know, I agree as the -- even the residential
part of it that they have proposed in that original one it's not anything I'm excited about
and it needs definitely its own open space and I would almost recommend, you know,
some of that open space be in the form of the existing park and not taking the -- the
existing area away and maybe expanding on it and creating, you know, what's left in the
residential, something that we can support. Commissioner Fitzgerald or -- did we lose
Commissioner Cassinelli?
Fitzgerald: I'm here. I -- I think you want to -- I think I echo a lot of the -- the comments
that -- I think you nailed it on the head. I think the theme is we are taking way too much
commercial out of the -- out of the mix. That -- that reduction that Commissioner Seal
mentioned is just huge and, you know, we -- this is a zoned property. It's already set up
--this is what they thought was going to be there. The neighbors that built around it, that's
-- we talked a lot about certainty in what they expected to be there and they are shifting
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F81
Page 77 of 84
gears significantly and I know that Bonnie's comment about no good deed goes
unpunished, but when you build a park and people are using it and, then, they go and
turn it into homes, they -- that is a bait and switch. I mean it is -- whether it's on a plat or
not, the neighborhood feels like they got something taken away from them. So,
unfortunately, that's the situation we are dealing with now and I think that's -- it's a rough
gig. I understand it. But I do agree with the majority of your comments. I -- Commissioner
Yearsley and I kind of-- we are on the same page. I think we have an opportunity to say
exactly what we want and if they don't get that, then, I think the denial comes quickly
following afterwards. It doesn't have very far leave to get there. But knowing that -- the
feeling of the Commission probably would give them an impetus to try to work out the --
the balance that Joe is looking for. So, that would be my only comment.
Holland: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Holland.
Holland: Yeah. For me if we were going to continue it I would have to see a radically
redesigned site plan and I don't know if it's better for them to just come back with a new
application in that case or whether it's better to keep this moving forward and seeing if
they could come back with something different for us, but I would agree that -- I think at
a minimum they would need to keep the open space that was there, even though, again,
their-- they over built the park, it's for the same reason that Commissioner Fitzgerald just
explained. I think you can't really take that amenity away and I think you have got a great
opportunity with where the commercial integrates with that open space that exists right
now. You could do a really cool neighborhood commercial that would tie in with the open
space. So, if you want to be a premier living community that does attract that other
commercial user, have some really cool plaza spaces that open up into that open park
and, then, you have got the walkability and the neighborhood connections that -- I mean
I would be excited to live next to that if I could go play with my kids in the park and walk
next door and have a cup of coffee and still be really close to my kids and be able to have
that work-life integration. Or, you know, if they want to add some residential that's a great
spot for that live-work unit where if they want to do a couple stories and have some
apartments on top and have the -- the cool frontage. I know that that's a trendy thing and
it's maybe a little more expensive to do, but I think they have a lot of opportunities still for
this site. So, I'm still leaning towards denial a little bit, because I'm afraid that we are
going to get back a rendition of what's in front of us right here and it's not going to be
much better than what we are looking at and that's what I'm concerned about if we
continue it.
Grove: Madam Chair?
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Grove, go ahead.
Grove: Okay. I'm kind of leaning towards what Commissioner Holland said. I feel like
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F82
Page 78 of 84
they have had really good resident feedback through this process, you know, tonight and
with written comments, that they have an engaged group next to them and I feel like they
could really harness some of that to --to build out like -- especially some of the, you know,
neighborhood commercial pieces of this or the mixed use pieces that could potentially go
in and make it into something that more people could get behind.
McCarvel: Okay. Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: Yes, I guess I was -- I was muted. I am -- I definitely want to see a continuance
or-- or a denial, which I don't know which one is going to be the best, but just my thoughts
and comments. I think this was -- I think this parcel was -- was -- was changed on the --
or updated on what I want to say on the future land use map based on the previous
development agreement and plans that were submitted back in 2008 1 think was the date
there. Prior to that it was -- it was leaning more towards residential, but so -- I don't want
to penalize him for that necessarily, even though it is what it is. But in all actuality it's --
it's a mixed use community and I don't think that necessarily means that they have got to
bring in a -- you know, some high tech employer, make this a tech center or something, I
think we have got the Ten Mile interchange, we have got what we discussed earlier tonight
of two medical centers across the highway from each other just a mile and a half away.
But I do think they are missing the mark on -- on that -- the concept of mixed use
community and I don't necessarily think that we have to tie them to a number of how much
commercial we are losing or something, I just want to see -- I want to see something that's
-- that with all that acreage that they have got there, something that will blow us away in
terms of putting together a real neat concept. I don't want to say it has to look like El
Dorado or -- or Silverwood -- I think it was Silverwood -- Silver whatever. It doesn't have
to look like that, but it's got to be something that ties in the -- the components of a mixed
use community, which is what it is. It does not have to -- I'm not -- I don't want a hard
defined commercial area necessarily that says, okay, this is -- you know, we got a little
tech center over here and we got -- got some retail here, whatever it is, but I just don't
see it. And, then, I have an issue, too, with the -- that all the streets are -- they are parallel
and perpendicular streets there. I want to see some like through Bridgetower and in the
homes in the areas around it, I want to see some curvature in the streets and I want to
see something a little -- a little different than just -- you will look at it and -- and it's kind of
blah, especially when compared to what's next to it. And, then, the other comment -- and
this has been brought up -- is definitely open space. I mean they are hitting it right now
at ten percent and, you know, this many acres and I realized it's part of other
developments, too, but I want to see more -- more open space in there, too. I mean -- I
think I'm speaking for all of us here and several of you have made the comment, when
you come in at the minimum we are not impressed. You know, give us more. Give us 12
percent, 14 percent, whatever it is. I guess the -- I guess the -- the minimum is ten
percent, but, you know, let's have something more. I just -- with the acreage that's in
there there is really I think some cool things that can be done with this --with this property.
I don't necessarily share the same thoughts as far as having a hard line number with --
that X amount has to be commercial or something, but I do think that -- oh, you know, a
lot of -- you got -- you got Walmart on one end and you got Costco on the other, let's --
there is just some -- I think there is some really neat things you could do that would make
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F83]
Page 79 of 84
it a vibrant little center up there and it's -- this isn't it, so -- but I don't -- I don't have the
answer. If it's -- I think Commissioner Yearsley said if we -- if we deny it Council is just
going to remand it back to us and we are going to be in the same spot in -- in four months.
So, I don't know what the answer is on that one, if it's continue or deny. But I -- it needs
a lot of work.
Holland: I think if we recommend denial and it goes to Council and Council thinks there
is some saving grace with it and do remand it back to us, it's almost about the same as
continuing it regardless. But it might give them more time to get some extra feedback
from Council and direction. So, I'm going to throw out a motion and see if it goes
somewhere. Madam Chair, I -- I -- after hearing all staff, applicant, and public testimony,
I move to recommend denial of the Vicenza North Subdivision, H-2020-0108, for the
reason that it doesn't comply with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan in reducing the
commercial, that there were concerns from the Commission about the integration of the
residential and compatibility with the neighboring structures, that there was a loss in some
of the existing open space and that the Commission would have liked to have seen better
mixed use development in the plan and -- I think that's what I -- all I need to say. We will
see if there was other things I needed to include in my reasoning.
Cassinelli: I will second that.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to recommend denial of H-2020-0108. All
those in favor of denial say aye. All those against denial say nay.
Yearsley: Nay. Sorry.
McCarvel: Motion to recommend denial is approved.
Holland: Madam Chair, do we need to do roll call on that one?
Pogue: Yeah. Just for the record was that Commissioner Fitzgerald?
McCarvel: No. I believe it was Commissioner Yearsley that had the nay. Correct me if
I'm wrong.
Yearsley: That's correct.
Pogue: That was Commissioner Yearsley?
McCarvel: Yeah. I think --
Fitzgerald: I voted yes.
McCarvel: So, one nay, the rest affirmative.
Fitzgerald: I'm not going to be here to watch you guys deal either way.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F84]
Page 80 of 84
Holland: Thanks, short timer.
MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE NAY.
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Yes, Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: Just -- I know we have got one more on the docket. I need to -- I need to take
care of something and probably will need to just mute my phone and walk away here for
about ten minutes.
McCarvel: Okay. I think at the minimum we are going to probably need to take a break,
but I know there has been support of staff and this Commission to have an end time. So,
do we want to take a break or do I have a motion to continue the next item to the next
meeting?
Holland: Madam Chair? Always my biggest concern whenever we get to 11 :00 o'clock
is that if there were people who wanted to share public testimony by 11 :00 o'clock they
stayed out and so I feel like we are not being as transparent if we start an application at
11:00 p.m. I would be in favor of continuing the application, but I know that the applicant's
also hung with us probably through this point in time, too. So, I -- I sympathize with that
as well. But I will do whatever the Commission wants and I will rally on if we decide to
stay with it.
Seal: Madam Chair? The question I would have to that, too, is when -- when is the next
available if we do continue it, because it is late.
McCarvel: Yeah. Joe, do you have -- I think the next -- is the next one pretty full? What
have we got?
Weatherly: Madam Chair, there are currently five hearings scheduled for February 4th.
There are currently two hearings scheduled for February 18th.
Dodson: Both those are mine already.
McCarvel: Okay. So, Joe, are you comfortable with moving this one to the next meeting
and, then if we have to bump whatever is last on that one to the following -- I mean I know
it gets to be a vicious cycle, but --
Dodson: Madam Chair, I -- on that question I will default to my -- my boss man Bill. Mr.
Parsons. I will say that the next application is not nearly as contentious. There was only
one piece of public testimony provided. So, if we do move forward -- I don't-- I understand
Commissioner Holland's point a hundred percent. I don't know if that would apply in this
case, but, you know, I could be very wrong. Maybe there is a hundred people that want
to testify.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F85
Page 81 of 84
Holland: Madam Chair, I just see 22 participants still in the attendee panel. That's what
I worry about.
Dodson: Yeah. I can't see that panel. That's not fair.
McCarvel: Yeah. There is still quite a list and they -- a lot of them look like new
names --
Dodson: Understood.
McCarvel: -- from the last one. So, I would think it would be most fair -- I mean to -- if
they -- if we did continue it to move it to the next meeting at the top of the agenda. So,
I'm open to motions or suggestions on a five minute break or a motion.
Holland: I think Commissioner Fitzgerald needs some practice making motions.
Fitzgerald: I made a motion earlier.
Holland: I'm just giving you your last opportunity. We are going to miss you.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, I -- this one -- it's always hard, because I don't want to have
people who have hung with us for a long time, but I don't think this one's going to be as
cut and dry as it may appear. So, I think we may be here until 1:00. Just -- and that's my
concern for you guys and your families and everybody involved. We get a little punchy
at -- when we hit about midnight and I'm not sure we make good decisions then or not.
So, I would be -- I mean not because I'm not going to be here the next meeting, but I'm
okay if we want to continue it, you put it at the top of the list the next meeting. I mean it
makes sense. But it's completely up to the team that has to take it on, because I don't
want to be the person who is deciding that. But I think long days start getting difficult.
McCarvel: Yeah.
Holland: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: We have had a lot of support from staff to end them at a reasonable hour.
Fitzgerald: Yeah.
Holland: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Holland.
Holland: I'm going to jump in and make a motion.
McCarvel: Okay.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F86]
Page 82 of 84
Holland: I move to continue the public hearing for Aviator Subdivision, H-2020-0111, by
The Land Group, to the hearing date of February 4th for the reason that the hearing ran
long and we want to make sure we get adequate opportunity to public to participate and
make sound decisions and that we would put it as the first agenda item of that meeting.
Grove: Second.
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Yes, Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: Do we need to just get the applicant up and check and confirm that that date
will work with them before we --
McCarvel: Andrea, do we need to do that or move forward?
Pogue: You could do it if you would like. I don't know if the applicant is remote or in
person.
Dodson: Should be remote.
Weatherly: Madam Chair, one moment. Brady, I'm going to transfer you over. Madam
Chair, I'm transferring -- excuse me -- Brady Lasher and Kristen McNeill of The Land
Group.
McCarvel: We appreciate you guys hanging in with us, but we definitely want to give you
the attention you are due and we hate to start this and have it need an hour or two. Our
--the motion has been made and we would prefer to continue this to the top of the agenda
on February 4th.
McNeill: Madam Commissioner and staff and Members of the Commission, this is Kristen
McNeill with The Land Group and, yes, of course we would love to present tonight, but
we understand and we are available for the next date and appreciate being offered the
opportunity to be the first on the agenda item -- first agenda item there. So, thank you.
McCarvel: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded to continue Item H-2020-0111
to the hearing date of February 4th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
McCarvel: I believe before we have our last motion, Bill, did you have some
announcements and things you want to say?
Parsons: Well, I'm always willing to talk to all of you, but I did want to extend my
appreciation to you, Ryan. Unfortunately, due to these -- this -- this COVID situation that
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F87
Page 83 of 84
we are all dealing with we couldn't have a formal -- a proper send off for you, but I did
want to send my appreciation to you. I -- it just -- it seemed like yesterday you and I were
in that conference room and I was there training -- Caleb and I were training you on your
duties as a Commissioner and here we are several years later and it's time for you to
retire as chairman and as a commissioner, but I want you to know that the team really
appreciated your insight throughout the years and you are going to be sorely missed and
I hope when we are done and past this I have your e-mail address, I will look you up and
we will get caught up and send you off in a proper format.
Fitzgerald: We will go have a beer at that time.
Parsons: Yes.
Dodson: I completely -- completely second that, Bill. Thank you again.
Parsons: Yeah. We appreciate your service, sir.
Fitzgerald: Well, it's been a pleasure. Thank you for everything. We greatly appreciate
the opportunity and I will miss all of you. I will definitely come say hi.
Dodson: Thank you, sir.
Pogue: Is Adrienne on?
Weatherly: I am.
Pogue: Adrienne, do you wish to discuss the certificate of service for Ryan?
Weatherly: Ryan, because of your years of service that you have given to the City of
Meridian, the Mayor's office has prepared a certificate of service for you that we would
like to give you. If you prefer that I mail it to you I'm happy to do that, along with your --
have your nameplate here, too. So, you might want to keep that for memory purposes.
But I will have it in the City Clerk's Office, too. But if you prefer I mail it I'm happy to do
that as well.
Fitzgerald: I appreciate it. I can come by and grab it.
Weatherly: That sounds good. We will have it for you in the clerk's office whenever you
are ready to pick it up.
Fitzgerald: Thank you. And thanks for all -- the team has been amazing. I can't tell you
how much it's been a pleasure to work with everybody. So, Bill, Joe, Sonya, Andrea,
Adrienne, thank you guys for everything. It's been a blast and, Chris, I know you are not
on here, right? But you are probably somewhere. And tell Caleb we appreciate
everything. So, thank you.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 21,2021 F88]
Page 84 of 84
Pogue: Thank you, Ryan.
Fitzgerald: The honor of the final motion goes to --
Parsons: Ryan.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, I move we adjourn.
Pogue: I like the fireworks.
Cassinelli: I will second that.
Fitzgerald: To my fellow Commissioners I love you all. Thanks for all the fun. It's been
a blast. Carry on and do good work.
McCarvel: All right. It has been moved and seconded to adjourn the meeting. All those
in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
MEETING ADJOURNED 11:17 AT P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
2 I 4 12021
RHONDA MCCARVEL - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED
ATTEST:
CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK