2021-02-04 Item 1.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting February 4, 2021.
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of February 4, 2021, was
called to order at 6:09 p.m. by Chairman Rhonda McCarvel.
Members Present: Chairman Rhonda McCarvel, Commissioner Lisa Holland,
Commissioner Bill Cassinelli, Commissioner Andrew Seal, Commissioner Maria Lorcher,
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 Maria Lorcher
X Andrew Seal X Nick Grove
_X Steven Yearsley X Bill Cassinelli
X Rhonda McCarvel - Chairman
McCarvel: Okay. Welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for
February 4th, 2021 . The Commissioners who are present for this evening's meeting are
at City Hall and on Zoom. We also have staff from the city attorney and clerk's offices,
as well as the city planning department. If you are joining us on Zoom this evening we
can see that you are here. You may observe the meeting. However, your ability to be
seen on screen and talk will be muted. During the public testimony portion of the meeting
you will be unmuted and, then, be able to make comments. Please note that we cannot
take questions until the public testimony portion. If you have a process question during
the meeting, please, e-mail cityclerk@meridiancity.org and they will reply as quickly as
possible. If you simply want to watch the meeting we encourage you to watch the
streaming on the city's YouTube channel and you can access that at meridiancity.org/live.
And with that let's begin with roll call.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
McCarvel: Okay. The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. We have
Foxcroft Subdivision, H-2020-0113, that will only be opened for the sole purpose of
continuing this item. It will open only for that purpose. So, if there is anybody here tonight
to testify on that particular application we will not be taking testimony this evening. So,
with that change could I get a motion to adopt the agenda as amended.
Seal: So moved.
Holland: So moved.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 4,2021 5
Page 2 of 51
Cassinelli: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All those in favor say
aye. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item]
1. Approve Minutes of the January 21, 2021 Planning and Zoning
Commission Regular Meeting
2. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Village at Meridian Cafe Rio
Drive-Through (H-2020-0116) by Layton Davis Architects, Located at
3243 E. Village Dr.
McCarvel: Next item on the -- on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and we have two
items on the Consent Agenda. We have approval of minutes for the January 21 st, 2021 ,
P&Z meeting and Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for The Village at Meridian
Cafe Rio drive-through, H-2020-0116. Could I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda
as presented?
Seal: So moved.
Holland: 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.
McCarvel: So, at this time I would like to briefly explain the public hearing process. 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 Unified Development
Code. After the 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. Each person
will be called on only once during the public testimony. The clerk will call on the names
individually of those who have signed in on our website in advance to testify. You will,
then, be unmuted. Please state your name and address for the record and you will have
three minutes to address the Commission. If you have previously sent pictures or a
presentation for the meeting it will be displayed on the screen and our clerk will run the
presentation. If you have established that you are speaking on behalf of a larger group,
like an HOA where others from that group will not be speaking, you will have up to ten
minutes. After all of those who have signed up in advance have spoken, we will invite
others who may wish to testify. If you wish to speak on a topic you may press the raise
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 4,2021 6
Page 3 of 51
hand button on the Zoom app or if you are listening on a phone, please, press star nine
and wait for your name to be called and, please, if you are listening on multiple devices,
a computer and a phone, for example, please be sure to mute the extra devices, so we
don't experience feedback and we can hear you clearly. When you are finished, if the
Commission does not have questions for you, you will be muted and no longer have the
ability to speak and, please, remember we will not call on you a second time. After the
testimony has been heard the applicant will have another ten minutes to come back and
respond. When the applicant has finished responding to questions and concerns we will
close the public hearing and the Commissioners will have the opportunity to discuss and
hopefully be able to make final decisions or recommendations to the City Council as
needed.
ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item]
ACTION ITEMS
3. Public Hearing for Foxcroft Subdivision (H-2020-0113) by Gem State
Planning, LLC, Located Directly West of Ten Mile Road, on Both Sides
of the Proposed Pine Avenue Extension and East of the Ten Mile Creek
A. Request: Annexation of 23 acres of land with a request for the R-8
zoning district.
B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 85 building lots and 31
common lots on 35.7 acres of land in the proposed R-8 zoning district
and existing R-15 zoning district.
C. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development
consisting of a total of 216 residential units on 12.74 acres in the
existing R-15 zoning district.
McCarvel: So, at this time we would like to open the public hearing for Item H-2020-0113,
Foxcroft Subdivision for the purpose of continuing. So, if we could get staff's comments
on Foxcroft. They have requested continuance to February 18th in order to continue
working through comments by staff. Does staff have any other comments at this time?
Dodson: Madam Chair, no, I do not. Thank you.
McCarvel: Okay. Okay. So, could I get a motion to continue Item H-2020-0113 to
February 18th if that's --
Holland: So moved.
Seal: Second.
Cassinelli: Second.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 4,2021 7
Page 4 of 51
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to continue H-2020-0113, Foxcroft
Subdivision. All those in favor say aye. Opposed. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
4. Public Hearing Continued from January 21, 2021 for Aviator
Subdivision (H-2020-0111) by The Land Group, Inc., Located Near the
Northeast Corner of N. Black Cat Rd. and W. Franklin Rd.
A. A Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to return the subject site
back to the future land use designation of Medium-High Density
Residential (MHDR) for the purpose of developing the site with
residential instead of a school site as previously approved.
B. A Rezone of a total of 9.8 acres of land from the WE zoning district
to the R-15 zoning district to align with the proposed map
amendment.
C. A Modification to the Existing Development Agreement (Inst. #2018-
079763) for the purpose of removing the subject property from the
boundaries and terms of the previous agreement and enter into a
new one, consistent with the proposed residential concept plan.
McCarvel: Next item on the agenda is H-2020-0111, Aviator Subdivision, and I would like
to thank the applicants for coming back this evening, as we ran a very late meeting last
time, so -- but we will begin with the staff report.
Dodson: Thank you, Madam Chair. I second that. Thanks to the applicants. Appreciate
that very much working with this. As noted the subject application before you now is
Aviator Subdivision. It's not really a subdivision, unfortunately. I guess it's just Aviator.
The size of the property is 9.8 acres. It's currently zoned WE and it is located near the
northeast corner at Black Cat and Franklin, as seen on the maps on the screen. It is the
hashed parcel here north of the Compass Charter School and to the east of the Hensley
Station. So, to the north is the railroad. North of that is some county residential land. To
the east is also county residential. As noted south of the property is Compass Charter
School and to the west is R-15 zoning with an approved attached single family residential
project. The property was annexed in 2018 as part of the Compass Charter School
annexation and comp plan map amendment. It is in the mixed employment future land
use designation of the Ten Mile interchange specific area plan and does have an existing
DA. Hence, the summary for this request is three parts and all of it hinges on the first
one. The applicant is requesting a Comprehensive Plan map amendment to return the
subject site back to the future land use designation of medium high density residential for
the purpose of developing the site with a residential use and after that there is a request
to rezone the property from WE to R-15 to match the existing residential property nearby
and, finally, to modify the existing development agreement for the purpose of removing
the subject property from the boundaries and terms of that agreement and to enter into a
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 4,2021 $
Page 5 of 51
new one consistent with this proposed residential development. Sorry. I was going to
click and --there we go. This is the existing concept plan and the development agreement
when Compass Charter School owned the property. In short, if the map amendment is
not approved the associated rezone and development agreement modification are not
applicable, because they are both contingent upon the future land use changing back to
the residential designation. The applicant is requesting to modify the comp plan map for
the subject parcel in order to allow for residential zoning and uses, instead of mixed
employment or other industrial uses. The current future land use is mixed employment,
as noted, which encourages research and development office, light industrial, information
and other ancillary commercial uses. Instead, the applicant is requesting to return the
property to its original future land use of medium high density residential. This designation
allows for a mix of dwelling types, including townhouses, condominiums and apartments.
So, with the 2018 annexation Compass Charter School --when they annexed into the city
this was their path of annexation and they also requested a comp plan map amendment
at the time, so that they could -- well, to be more specific, they received the approval for
the Comprehensive Plan map amendment at the time to change the underlying land use
from the medium high density residential to mixed employment. This request and
subsequent approval to change the future land use was so that the new school could be
constructed and an adjacent county landscaping business could also be annexed into the
city and still comply with code. At the time it was determined that the map change was
applicable, because the subject parcel was conceptually shown the sports field track and
stadium and was the school's avenue for annexation. However, in 2020 Compass
Charter received approval to modify their concept plan and DA to move their sports field
to the parcel directly adjacent to their east. Therefore, this 9.8 acres is no longer part of
their long-term plan and was subsequently sold to its current owners. Because the
applicant is proposing to return the parcel back to its original future land use designation
and becoming more compatible land use to its neighbors, staff supports this requested
map amendment. Thus the subsequent MDA is to modify the concept plan and
incorporate new provisions based on the new plat. The same can be said for the rezone
request of R-15, which would allow future development of the property with the residential
use in line with the proposed concept. To be clear, the applicant is not proposing a plat
at this time. Future development will be driven by the development agreement and the
provisions associated with this concept plan. Specifically it is important to discuss access
for this project in a separate section, regardless of the fact that no preliminary plat is being
proposed. Access is proposed to be extension of the collector street West Aviator and a
subsequent local street off of said collector. Plus Aviator currently provides access -- one
access for Compass Charter School to the south and will provide access to Hensley
Station directly west. Due to the pattern of development Aviator would only be extended
to the east boundary of this subject site, not connect to any other road until such time that
more parcels to the east develop and annex into the city. This is one more reason why
the applicant is not choosing to submit a plat at this time. Because of this it is imperative
that the conceptual layout of Aviator is well thought out and shown in a position that allows
for fair and convenient extension in the future. Staff shared these concerns with the
applicant and they revised the concept plan to show a more appropriate extension. Staff
is appreciative of the applicant's ability to work with staff and revise the layout for these
above reasons. The revised concept plans now show Aviator heading northeast into the
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 4,2021 191
Page 6 of 51
parcel from its terminus in front of the Compass Charter expansion, crossing the drain
once in this site and, then, stubbing to the east property line north of the irrigation pump
station in the southeast corner of the site. This new configuration allows for future
extension of Aviator to occur without a need to cross the drain again and not require this
applicant to acquire land from either of the two county parcels directly to the south. This
new layout generally depicts the same internal layout with some shifting of the site to the
east to accommodate easements and some loss of the internal green space that is
replaced with other green space. With the future preliminary plat staff will analyze the
open space for the property and make sure it conforms with the UDC requirements. There
is only one piece of public testimony provided in -- at least as of this afternoon and that
was with the property owner directly to the south boundary parcel. Because the original
concept plan showed Aviator continuing straight across and across her parcel. There has
not been any agreement to acquire any land between the two owners, so that, in
conjunction with my comment to the applicant, the applicant revised the layout and
understands that this is a more appropriate layout for that. Once Mrs. Valerie spoke with
the applicant and understood what was happening she voiced to me that she had no other
concerns. The applicant has stated that they are in agreement with the staff report and
staff does recommend approval of the subject applications. After that I will stand for
questions.
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
Dodson: You are muted, Madam Chair.
McCarvel: Yeah. Yeah. It wouldn't unmute for me. Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: So, the drain runs through the middle of the property. Are they going to relocate
that drain or what's -- or -- because the -- the -- what they were showing concept wise
looked like they were having houses on top of the drain.
Dodson: Commissioner Yearsley, yes, sir, the -- you can kind of see it here.
Yearsley: Okay.
Dodson: If you can see my pointer.
Yearsley: Yeah.
Dodson: This black line is what they are kind of showing us, the gravity irrigation, and,
then, you can kind of see that they are going to reroute it, so they can utilize --
Yearsley: Okay.
Dodson: -- more of the site. That is the plan, yes.
Yearsley: But this is just a concept plan, not a -- an actual plat; correct?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 4,2021 Flo]
Page 7 of 51
Dodson: Yes, sir. And the DA would be absolutely tied to this.
Yearsley: Okay.
McCarvel: Any other questions for staff?
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: I just -- I want to just bring up a point of -- a point of order. I just want to let
everybody know -- my fellow Commissioners know that I serve on the board at Compass
Charter School, so I have got a relatively close tie here, but I do feel I can be objective on
this and impartial, so -- but I just wanted to let my fellow Commissioners know if they had
a concern.
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Cassinelli. Any concerns from the other
Commissioners?
Seal: No. Not here.
McCarvel: No? Okay. Okay. Any other questions for staff? Okay. Would the applicant
like to come forward?
McNeill: Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Joe, for a great review of the
project. I do have a few slides to share and I'm not sure if they are going to get -- is the
clerk going to post them or should I share my screen?
Weatherly: Madam Chair. Kristen, if you could go ahead and share your screen. I have
changed it so you should be able to bring your screen up on -- on your computer now and
share.
McCarvel: And thank you, again, Kristen, for coming back this evening.
McNeill: No problem. It's going to take me just a minute to make sure I'm sharing the
right screen. Okay. This is sharing a little bit differently. It shares a little differently
than --
McCarvel: There we go.
McNeill: Okay. That's not showing presentation mode though. Oh, there we go. Okay.
Are you seeing the full screen of this slide?
McCarvel: Yes.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 4,2021 Fill
Page 8 of 51
McNeill: Okay. Great. Thank you. So, thank you, again, Madam Chair, Members of the
Commission. I am Kristen McNeill with The Land Group, located at 462 East Shore Drive
in Eagle. 83616. As Joe -- as mentioned by staff, we are going for a Comprehensive
Plan amendment, rezone, and subsequently a -- one second. And, then, a modification
to the existing development agreement. This is another view of the project site. You can
see Compass Charter School here and the project site is dashed in white. This is a new
diagram that we added. This was not submitted with the original application. This graphic
kind of shows a little bit more, as we are not submitting a pre-plat, as Joe mentioned, this
graphic really highlights some of the more important parts of this application, which is, as
Joe mentioned, a collector road going up through the -- through the parcel, as well as the
general open space plan and blocking for residential areas and showing some pedestrian
connections as well and as Joe mentioned, we originally anticipated that Aviator Street
would continue directly along the southern part of the parcel, but after the meetings with
staff, ACHD, as well as conversations with the neighbors, including Ms. Bowery, who
spoke with on the phone, the neighbor -- she's the neighbor to the south here, based on
that feedback we were able to resolve those concerns by moving the collector road up
through the parcel, as well as there is a pump station in this corner here, so that way that
-- it routes around that as well. Because of this, though, this site offers -- definitely offers
some challenges for development with the Purdam Gulch stream running through the
center and this pump station in the corner. But we actually feel that this offer is a great
opportunity to stretch the creative imagination and explore dynamic solutions for site
planning, housing type, and distinctive open space plans and here we have the concept
plan that was submitted with the original application. This shows the townhouse --
townhouse style product on this parcel and it -- you can see it's -- what we are showing
here is how it -- how it speaks to the development -- the future development on -- for
Hensley Sub and the existing Compass Charter School, as well as the new parking lot
that Compass Charter School is working on right now. So, we -- what we are showing
here is just how this will fit in with that residential character of the neighborhood. These
parcels down in the southeast corridor are not annexed yet. While this application does
not formally include a preliminary plat, we have evaluated appropriate options to create a
premier Meridian neighborhood that supports the Ten Mile interchange and specific area
plan. This includes exploring a variety of products suggested for medium high density
residential districts in the Ten Mile area, including townhouses, duplexes, four-plexes, et
cetera. The area plan envisions residential lots of future walkable neighborhoods and a
community feel with the intent to compliment existing and planned neighborhood
developments nearby. With the site constraints mentioned before, this site offers unique
and exciting opportunities for creating a dynamic and very original open space plan that
will be unlike others in the area due to the layout of the site. We anticipate further
exploration of integrating pathways and amenities to maximize open space, as well as
opportunities for unique walking and gathering spaces involving natural play or potentially
sport areas, all to encourage an interconnected community. In addition we would be
exploring architectural characteristics, such as various facades and materials to create
greater architectural variety and interest. So, in summary, the application, again, includes
the Comprehensive Plan map amendment to medium high density residential, which will
be bringing it back to its original -- original designation. A rezone to R-15 and -- from
M-U and development agreement modification just subsequent to leaving the existing
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 4,2021 F12
Page 9 of 51
development agreement and as well as -- as for the staff report we are in agreement with
the staff report. That one diagram that we -- that we included we think kind of further
clarifies since the -- since it was not originally included in the documentation. So, we do
think that that would be a -- beneficial to include in the staff-- along with the development
agreement documentation, but -- but we are in full agreement with the staff report. So,
with that we respectfully request your approval tonight and will stand for questions. Thank
you.
McCarvel: Any questions for the applicant?
Seal: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Okay. Commissioner Seal.
Seal: Just quickly. Just the diagram that was up there -- and I know it's a -- you know,
not a plat, but it still looked like it was kind of going in on the corner of the -- of that lot --
the private property where that comes through there. Is that going to swing through there
like that or is it going to be completely on -- I mean is it not going to breach that property
line at all?
McNeill: You are referring to this -- can you see my --
Seal: Yes, I can.
McNeill: -- my mouse? Okay. So, you are referring to this corner right here?
Seal: Correct.
McNeill: Yes. No, I guess in -- this looks like it -- the way that it's drawn here it looks like
it could be kind of going over that, but, ultimately, no, it would not. It will be routed so that
-- so it will not go into that property line. There has not -- not been an agreement between
that property owner and the owners of this parcel. So, that's why this --this will be routing
up through the -- through our site completely. Which also, as Joe mentioned, helps out
with an area further east where it would ultimately -- the original -- if it would just go
straight across it would have had to cross the drain twice and this way we kind of skipped
over and are able to continue it a little bit more cleanly further on. Not we. Future
developers of those parcels.
Seal: Thank you.
McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Adrienne, do we have any
public testimony signed up?
Weatherly: Madam Chair, we do not.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 4,2021 F13
Page 10 of 51
McCarvel: Okay. Is there anybody on Zoom or in chambers that would like to testify on
this application? Okay. I don't see any hand raises and I -- Commissioner Seal doesn't
see anybody there, so we will move on. So, Kristen, did you have any other comments,
since we don't have any public testimony?
McNeill: No.
McCarvel: Okay. One last chance at questions for the applicant, then, before we close
public testimony.
Seal: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Seal.
Seal: Just quickly, has there been any kind of engineering review on the modification to
reroute the -- the drain or is this just completely conceptual?
McNeill: I -- at this point I believe it's completely conceptual. If -- I think Matt is on here
as well from The Land Group and if he has anything to add he can add, but I don't -- I
don't -- I believe at this point we have -- we have just been doing conceptual.
Seal: Okay. And the reason I ask that question is just the -- the concern that if that isn't
going to meet engineering requirements for that reroute, then, is there a Plan B?
Adams: Madam Chair, this is Matt Adams. Can I address that question?
McCarvel: Sure. Go ahead.
Adams: Thank you, Madam Chair and Commissioners. So, we have done analysis on
three specific things. One is sewer and we have confirmed that the sewer stub from
Hensley does, in fact, allow us to service the furthest lots to the east with adequate depth.
So, we are good on sewer and that is -- it's shown in this conceptual plan. We have
confirmed with Public Works that water service is adequate and will work just fine, which
is also good for fire protection and drinking. And, then, we did do a grade analysis,
because we do have a full topographic survey of this parcel and there is enough fall in
the Purdam Drain that we can do what is clearly a little bit longer length than a pipe and
we have --we have met with Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District and they are in agreement
with piping this section, as it's very challenging for them to keep it clean from silt and
things like that. So, Nampa-Meridian has seen this and is in favor and we have, in fact,
confirmed the engineering on it. That's an excellent question. Thank you.
Seal: Thank you.
McCarvel: Thank you, Matt. Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Can I
get a motion to close the public hearing on H-2020-0111?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 4,2021 F14]
Page 11 of 51
Seal: So move.
Cassinelli: So moved.
Holland: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing. All those in
favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
McCarvel: Yeah. I think -- you know, I appreciate the question being asked about the
drain, because that's certainly a concern seeing all that building going on on top of that,
so -- and other than that I think they have done well to, you know, push that road to the
north just a little and it does kind of solve some of those issues. But any other-- be happy
to hear everybody else's comments.
Holland: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Holland.
Holland: My only heartburn when I first read this was -- I remember when the project to
the west of this came into us, we were excited about this being a sport field, because it
allowed for more open space for kind of that neighborhood and for the -- the charter
school. So, I was a little bit bummed to see it not stay a field and I always hate seeing
houses right up against the rail line, but I know our Comprehensive Plan calls for houses
to be right up against the rail line. So, I don't know that we have much -- much play there.
But I would make the suggestion that when the applicant comes back to bring this forward
that they would be cognizant of -- of how those houses against the -- the back of a lot
interacts with the rail, because I know houses against the rail can be very noisy when rail
is going through and right now we are lucky that that's kind of a quiet rail line, but it does
still see some service that comes through there. I work in an office that's right next to a
rail and I can just say that it's -- it's noisy and interruptive a lot of the day. So those were
a couple of my comments. Otherwise, if -- if the Commission decides they want to allow
this applicant to change the Comprehensive Plan map, I don't see a huge concern,
because everything around it is already planned for that medium high density. I
appreciate that they are trying to add some extra open space in there and be a little bit
creative with it, but I would prefer to see more open space than less when we look at this
project, especially because it was originally proposed that this was going to be an open
field that was going to kind of help provide some green space for the surrounding
community. So, it's always sad when the green space goes away. But those are my
comments.
Seal: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Seal.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 4,2021 F15]
Page 12 of 51
Seal: I completely agree with Commissioner Holland on the -- you know, trying to do
something different with, you know, the property that lines up there with the rail. The only
other comment I would make is the -- the shared driveway, hopefully, before that comes
back before us that is a whole lot less than six lots sharing that -- that shared drive. I
know that that -- I know code right now allows six, but that's really -- it really doesn't do
our -- our services departments any -- any great favors to have that many there. Other
than that I think everything is well in line.
McCarvel: Yeah. I would -- I was actually surprised Commissioner Holland didn't mention
that, because shared drives are usually her --
Holland: I was glad that you said it, because I remembered that after I stopped talking,
so I was going to --
McCarvel: Yeah.
Holland: Thank you.
McCarvel: I was waiting -- I was waiting for it. But, yeah, the applicant should know that
that-- that will give us heartburn, the shared common drive with all those homes on there.
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Yeah. Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: Well, as long as we are prepping the applicant, we might as well address
parking, too, so when they come to us with -- with a concept plan they will want to have
adequate parking in there, because that's -- that's another one of our hot buttons. So,
figured I would share that. Otherwise, the staff and the applicant are in agreement and it
is being returned to its original, because I'm somewhat familiar, Commissioner Holland, I
can say that the -- what Compass did was move their open field area adjacent, so that --
that neighborhood, if you will, still has some added green space because of that.
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: So, I also echo Commissioner Holland's comments. I have to admit, looking
at the concept plan, I'm not very well -- as compared to what they presented in the -- in
the -- the -- their comments today. I hope that they come back with what -- what they are
proposing. I think the open space and trying to make this together into a community
would be really nice. Given what they are showing it's kind of hard for me to see that
open concept plan like they are showing on their -- their photos. So, that's my only
concern. I guess I'm in favor of the rezone and the land use map.
McCarvel: Okay. Any other comments or motions?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 4,2021 F16
Page 13 of 51
Lorcher: I have one question. Does ACHD or I -- whoever owns the roads plan to make
it a five lane?
Dodson: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Yeah. Go ahead, Joe.
Dodson: Thank you. I'm sorry, Maria, what is your last name?
Lorcher: Lorcher.
Dodson: Lorcher?
Lorcher: Yes.
Dodson: Okay. Commissioner Lorcher. Good to meet you. This is going to be a collector
road, which is not five lanes. Collector roads are going to be -- at most it's going to be a
three lane collector, but I believe it's actually a two lane. Commissioner Cassinelli, if he
has been out there more than I have he might know more of what Aviator is currently.
But it -- I think it's a 36 foot wide street section for a collector street. So, it will not be five
lanes. And, then, furthering that, east of this property line of the subject site, the master
street map does not call for the collector roadway to continue. So, it actually will likely get
downgraded to a local street and then -- which would just be more residential internal
local streets.
Holland: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Holland.
Holland: I know one of the concerns that's come up with this Commission in the past,
too, is about Black Cat, not necessarily Aviator. Because I think Black Cat is slated to be
a five lane road. Commissioner Lorcher's comment there. But I'm not sure what the
timing of that is with ACHD. So, it's always nerve-racking when you put a lot of higher
density projects in and that road is not improved yet. But the roads don't get improved
until there is enough density to demand the roads be improved. So, there is always that
Catch 22.
Grove: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Grove.
Grove: If it's okay I will just go ahead and put a motion forward. After considering all
staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of
file number H-2020-0111, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February
4th, 2021.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 4,2021 F17]
Page 14 of 51
Seal: Second.
McCarvel: Do we have a second?
Seal: Second.
Holland: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Holland.
Holland: Commissioner Grove, I don't know if you want to add any comments in there
with recommendations to the applicant to reconsider their concept plan when they bring
it back for a couple of the items we discussed or -- I don't know that we need to
necessarily, since it's just a concept plan, but I don't know if you want to note that to
Council, so that way make sure it gets across.
Grove: I can do that.
McCarvel: You thought you were getting an easy one.
Grove: I know. I got one. Madam Chair, I would like to amend my motion to include
Commission feedback on open space and shared -- or common drive recommendations
as presented in this meeting. Is there another one? Commissioner Holland?
Holland: I think you could just reframe it to say that we would prefer the applicant go back
to the drawing board on their conceptual site plan before it comes back for the pre-plan
request. Maybe that's a good way to put it. And I will second that.
McCarvel: If you are okay with those words.
Grove: I like Commissioner Holland's wording.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to recommend approval on H-2020-0111,
Aviator Subdivision. All those in favor say aye. Opposed. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
McCarvel: Thank you, Kristen.
McNeill: Thank you.
5. Public Hearing for Chewie Subdivision (H-2020-0120) by Kent Brown
Planning, Located at 2490 W. Franklin Road and the Lot Directly North
A. Request: Preliminary Plat for six (6) industrial lots on 43.87 acres of
land in the I-L zoning district.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 4,2021 F18
Page 15 of 51
McCarvel: At this time we will open the public hearing for Item No. H-2020-0120, Chewie
Subdivision, and we will begin with the staff report.
Dodson: Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes. The application before you is only for a
preliminary plat. It is for six industrial lots being requested to be platted for ownership
purposes. The site consists of 43.87 acres of land that is already zoned I-L, which is Light
Industrial, generally located at 2490 West Franklin, but as you can see in the maps it's a
quarter mile or so east of -- no, that's about a half a mile I guess east of Ten Mile and just
off of Franklin Road. To the north is railroad property, just like the last one. North of that
is R-8 and R-15 city residential. To the east is the West Ada School District bus barn and
Republic Services transfer station and existing I-L zoning. To the south is Franklin Road
and, then, south of that is undeveloped C-C zoning and west is also I-L zoning and that
contains the new FedEx distribution center. The property actually has two future land use
designations on it, mixed employment and -- what was the other one? High density
residential. It's about 20 acres of the mixed employment and about 23 and a half of the
high density residential -- high future land use designations for reference can be floated
across parcels -- that it is not parcel specific. The subject site is located within the Ten
Mile interchange specific area plan and, like I said, has two future land use designations
on it. However, the property has had I-L zoning for decades. It was annexed sometime
in the mid '70s and this zoning entitlement actually predates the Ten Mile plan. In addition,
Lot 1 of the subdivision, which is approximately 30 acres, has already received
administrative approval of a large e-commerce delivery station that will be operated by
Amazon. This is a good point to note that that project and its site design is not up for
review at this public hearing, only the submitted preliminary plat. Because of the existing
zoning and entitlements, strict adherence to the Comprehensive Plan is not feasible -- in
that sense strict adherence to the Ten Mile interchange specific area plan. The existing
industrial zoning and approved delivery station align with the mixed employment future
land use designation that exists on site. Also because of the existing entitlements and
zoning staff believes placing a high density residential project on the site would not be in
the best interest of the city, as it is shown on the future land use map. The city should be
getting this high density residential further to the west as part of the Gateway At Ten Mile
project that we received approval from -- or we gave approval for last year. Despite not
being able to strictly adhere to the Ten Mile plan, staff believes the proposed project
generally complies with the Comprehensive Plan and those specific policies were outlined
within the staff report. All proposed lots meet the dimensional standards for the I-L zoning
district and access is proposed -- proposed via a new collector street extension from
Franklin Road shown as north of New Market Avenue here, which will align with the New
Market Avenue on the south side as part of the Ten Mile Crossing Ten Mile Center with
17 DAs to the south. The New Market is proposed to continue into the site and, then,
head east and west as an extension of West Fred Smith Street, which already exists on
the FedEx site to the west. As discussed, the applicant has already received CZC and
design review approval for the new delivery station, which is 141,000 square foot
warehouse. Yet that administrative application triggered the TIS and, therefore, this plat
does not include the TIS. However, because the road extension and overall road layout
circulation element of this area are the main issues of this project, I have included the
main points of the TIS and ACHD comments, as well as analysis on the existing access
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 4,2021 Fig]
Page 16 of 51
points. The new collector street that is required to be constructed with a delivery station
will have access to Franklin in two places in the future. The noted New Market Avenue
here and further to the west Wayfinder Avenue. This offsite connection, the Wayfinder
Avenue one, is not yet constructed and the timetable for when it will be is currently
unknown, as the adjacent projects, FedEx and Gateway At Ten Mile as discussed -- so,
FedEx is here on this parcel. This parcel here is the Gateway At Ten Mile. They do not
include parcels that directly abut Franklin and, therefore, they cannot construct the
required right of way. So, that would be these parcels -- I lost my cursor. There we go.
These parcels here. So, these are still county parcels and, therefore, they cannot
construct this collector street segment and connect to Franklin. The TRS did not include
estimated traffic from -- oh, I guess, first of all, because the Wayfinder Avenue access is
not constructed, all traffic from this site will go through the New Market Avenue connection
to Franklin. TRS that was submitted with the CZC for the Amazon delivery station did not
include estimated traffic from the additional industrial lots along Franklin, because no end
users are currently known. Future developments should be monitored to ensure that the
allowed trip count on one access for a collector street, which is 3,000 daily trips, is not
exceeded without constructing the additional access point and right of way to Franklin
further to the west. This may limit future development until such time the second access
is constructed and the applicant is aware of this. In addition to the traffic volumes
produced by the delivery station, the applicant's TIS did include traffic from the West Ada
School District bus barn and the Republic Services transfer station. Because they should
also access the new east-west collector street and the new signal at New Market and
Franklin. The existing private road for West Ada School District and Republic Services is
an exit only access to Franklin and cannot be closed with this application because it is
not a part of this property or application. In addition, the city cannot force them to use this
new collector roadway once it is constructed, because they already have their
entitlements and zoning. However, this applicant and representatives from both West
Ada and Republic Services are working on a binding agreement to close this exit only
private drive and utilize the new collector street. So, this is the new private -- or the
existing private as noted and they are working together to have access here and share
the access. Not only share it, but also enter into a cross-access and maintenance
agreement to maintain that collectively and not put it fully on this applicant. Staff is very
appreciative of this work being done by the applicant and the other outside agencies, as,
again, I noted that we cannot require that, because they are not part of this application.
To help ensure that this access can occur for all parties involved, ACHD recommends
constructing this segment of West Fred Smith Street as a private street east of the
intersection of East -- East -- or West Fred Smith Street and New Market Avenue,
constructed as a private street instead of a public road. This recommendation is being
made because this segment of the collector roadway is over 150 feet in length and would
require it to be terminated in a temporary cul-de-sac near the eastern property line, which
would take up a lot of usable industrial space. Staff agrees with ACHD's recommendation
to construct a short segment as a private street, instead of a public road. For that reason
and also because this collector roadway did not expect to continue further east as a public
road due to the existing industrial development already discussed and chances are this
is not going to be developed anytime soon, so the chances of this continuing as a public
road and, then, having a temporary turnaround would more than likely end up being a
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 4,2021 F20]
Page 17 of 51
permanent turnaround. As noted, the applicant, West Ada, and Republic Services should
also enter into a cross-access and maintenance agreement for this segment of the private
street to ensure that there is shared costs with the maintenance and use of this access.
Other than the road extension and access points discussed within the GIS, the submitted
plat and landscape plan show existing accesses to West Franklin still existing. They are
roughly around here. This does not align with code and they will have a lesser classified
streets to take access off of. So, these accesses should be closed. In addition, this lot
here is not part of the project as noted here and this plat surrounds it. They have -- it
contains an existing home that is legal nonconforming in the I-L zoning district and this
home currently utilizes Franklin as their access. Again, because it's not part of his
application we cannot require them to close that, but this applicant is required to provide
a curb cut for this property along the new collector street, so that when this outparcel does
redevelop it will have access to the collector, instead of Franklin. The submitted plans do
not show access being provided to this parcel and this should be corrected prior to final
plat submittal. I do recommend approval of the subject preliminary plat with the conditions
listed in the staff report. As of this afternoon there was no written testimony. So, I will
stand for any questions.
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Do we have any questions for staff? Okay. Seeing none,
would the applicant like to begin? Okay. Can't -- you are on our side, but you need to
unmute.
Brown: How about that?
McCarvel: There we go.
Brown: Does that work?
McCarvel: Yes, we can hear you.
Brown: Okay.
McCarvel: And see you. Thank you.
Brown: This is pretty simple. It's just a straightforward subdivision with existing industrial.
Joe's covered how the accesses and the collector road work. Our New Market, when it
comes out, it's a signalized intersection, which makes it better for everybody to enter and
leave out of the -- out of the site. Our intent is just subdividing and trying to get this done
as quickly as possible to help the construction of the existing building or the proposed
building that's underway on the site. I can stand for any questions.
McCarvel: Any questions for the applicant? Okay. Hearing none, we will move --
Adrienne, do we have anybody signed up to testify on this application?
Weatherly: Madam Chair, we do not.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 4,2021 F21
Page 18 of 51
McCarvel: And is there anybody on Zoom currently or in Chambers that would like to
testify? Okay. Hearing none -- and, Mr. Brown, I'm assuming you are not wanting to
make any other comments?
Brown: That's correct. We are in agreement with the conditions and --
McCarvel: Okay.
Brown: -- that's all I have.
McCarvel: I will ask the Commission one more time if they have any other questions for
you or if somebody would like to make a motion to close the public hearing.
Holland: So moved to close the public hearing.
Grove: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close public hearing on H-2020-0120,
Chewie Subdivision. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
McCarvel: Any first comments or do we want --
Holland: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Holland.
Holland: I will just jump in. I think it seems like a fitting use and a -- I'm approved for -- I
said I wasn't going to have words for it, so I can't come up with words. I think that this
looks like a good proposal and I would agree with staff's recommendation that putting
high density housing between the FedEx shipping center and what's in there would be
kind of a clunky use. So, I would much rather see this stay industrial and I think it's a -- a
good layout. There is definitely a need for more industrial land in Meridian and this will
create some better shovel ready properties that they can help market to get some good
users in there. So, I'm in favor of it and I think they have done a lot of work with staff on
the roadway. So, I appreciate how much they have presented to us on that.
McCarvel: Any other comments? And I appreciate -- oh, go ahead.
Grove: I'm sorry. I just echo everything that Commissioner Holland said. I think anytime
we can increase the industrial footprint in our city is -- where it makes sense it's good to
do it. We don't have a lot of it and this seems like it makes sense to keep up with what's
surrounding that area already.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 4,2021 F22
Page 19 of 51
McCarvel: Yeah. I appreciate all the property owners around and working together to do
those easements on the road -- the east-west collector roadway. They are shown in
green. I think that makes a lot of sense to not use up that space on a turnaround that's
not going to be needed. Yeah. Any other comments or motions?
Seal: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Seal.
Seal: About the only concern I have is the 3,000 vehicle trips per day and that's -- I mean
it's going to be FedEx and Amazon and stuff like that, but, hopefully, that's -- it doesn't
turn into an issue. You know, with Amazon right next to FedEx that is going to cut down
somebody's trips for sure, so --
McCarvel: Yeah. Correct me if I'm wrong, but did they say it -- with what's going in there
now they weren't concerned about it, it would be when those front parcels get developed
they thought that would be the tipping point --
Dodson: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: -- on the -- yeah. Go ahead, Joe.
Dodson: Thank you. There is a couple things there. So, the TIS estimated 2,400 and
that included West Ada School District, Republic Services, and, then, the Amazon facility.
It did not include the FedEx numbers, because FedEx has their temporary driveway as
shown here and, then, when the Wayfinder access gets constructed, you know, it would
be -- it would waste their time to go all the way down further east, rather than they could
use the access here. So, FedEx should not be using this New Market Avenue and this is
the intersection that the 2,400 trips counts is being generated from within the TIS, so --
but to your other point, yes, as more industrial users come up along Franklin those may
be limited depending on what those uses are.
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you.
Dodson: You are welcome.
Seal: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Seal.
Seal: I will just make a motion here. After all applicant and public testimony I move to
recommend approval to the City Council of file number H-2020-0120 as presented in the
staff report for the hearing date of February 4th, 2021.
Holland: I will second.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 4,2021 F23]
Page 20 of 51
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to recommend approval on H-2020-0120.
All those in favor say aye. Opposed. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
6. Public Hearing for Human Bean (H-2020-0125) by A&C Ventures, LLC,
Located at 3285 W. Nelis Dr.
A. Request: Conditional Use Permit to allow expanded business hours
for a drive-through coffee shop.
McCarvel: Next we will open the public hearing for item H-2020-0125, Human Bean. We
will begin with the staff report.
Tiefenbach: Can you hear me and see my screen, Planning Commission?
McCarvel: We can hear you, Alan, and we can see your screen.
Tiefenbach: Terrific. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Good evening, Madam Chair,
Members of the Planning Commission. This is a conditional use to allow a drive-through
coffee shop to operate between the hours of 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The size of the
property is roughly a little bit bigger than a half an acre. It is zoned C-G. You can see
the little blue box here. I'm sorry, but it's kind of blurry.
Seal: Alan?
Tiefenbach: Zoned C-G. It's located at 3285 West Nelis, which is northwest of the West
Ustick, North Ten Mile intersection.
Seal: Hey, Alan?
Tiefenbach: To the north is zoned R-8, although that's a little misleading. That's actually
an Idaho Power substation. To the south down here is zoned C-G, which --
McCarvel: Alan?
Seal: Madam Chair, yeah, we need to fix Alan's -- we can't -- can't quite understand. It's
not coming through.
McCarvel: Alan, it's a little warbly --
Tiefenbach Are you not seeing or not hearing?
McCarvel: No. It's a little warbly on your sound, but I'm not sure -- to me -- I'm not sure
if it's your sound or -- it looks like city clerk might be trying to connect to audio again and
I'm wondering if that's causing interference.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 4,2021 F24
Page 21 of 51
Tiefenbach: I don't think it's on my side, because I actually saw that there was some
problems and I checked my internet speed and I'm screaming fast over here.
McCarvel: Yeah. I think -- right now we can hear you clearly, but I can see where --
Tiefenbach: Let me try moving in closer to my speaker. Is that better?
Weatherly: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Yeah. We will -- yes. Okay. Hold --
Weatherly: Madam Chair, the audio stays that way on our end. That has nothing to do
with our audio connection.
McCarvel: Okay. But, yeah, the warble seems to have gone away, whatever -- whatever
anybody moved or touched, bravo. We will go ahead and continue, Alan.
Tiefenbach: Well, just call me warble for the rest of the evening I guess.
McCarvel: Okay.
Tiefenbach: So, I will go back to the zoning. Warbles here. Adjacent zoning -- north is
R-8, which is an Idaho Power substation, which is here. To the south is zoned C-G, which
is a pawn shop and commercial. Directly east is zoned R-4 and RUT. That's a parking
lot, Reta Huskey Park and the Five Mile Creek pathway and, then, we have single family
residential here. Everybody still hearing me loud and clear?
McCarvel: Yes. Thank you.
Tiefenbach: Terrific. The property was annexed in 2004. There has been a couple of
DAs that were there that have been modified. The most recent development agreement
allows a drive-through establishment, but it allows the -- it limits the hours to 7:00 a.m. to
10:00 p.m. The Comprehensive Plan recommends it's for mixed use nonresidential. So,
again, this is a conditional use to allow a drive-through coffee shop to operate between
the hours of 5:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. The reason why they are doing this conditional
use purely is for those expanded hours. So, again, property is for a Human Bean kiosk.
Based on the type of use the applicant requests these hours to be expanded -- expanded.
I want to mention that the applicant has worked very well with staff. They have addressed
everything that we have had concerns about and, in particular, they have done some --
they have done quite a bit of redesigns for us. We originally had some concerns with the
access. This is the first version here. I just thought I would kind of show you a before
and after. The first version was not very clear regarding the right turn, which -- which was
here. There is a pawn shop down here and we wanted to make sure they had access
and this was kind of messy here. It wasn't real clear about whether you could go left or
whether you could go right. We also-- both of the accesses came from the same entrance
here and, then, there was an issue with the parking lot where people backing into this
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 4,2021 F25]
Page 22 of 51
would be coming into the same place as that drive aisle, so -- so, we had multiple issues
with that one. The current version is what you see on the right. This one the cars will
enter the site down here at the south and they will go in a counterclockwise orientation
and they will come out to the north. There is also an escape lane that comes down to the
south here and also allows these same cars from down here to enter in and sort of merge
in past the kiosk and, then, even better what we liked is with this version these two are
separate. So, the drive-through aisle and the parking lot are separate, so people can
come in, park, back their cars out and not impede this drive aisle at all. This, again, was
done sort of collaboratively. The applicant worked with staff and came up with this version
that we thought was much much better. At the time of the staff report going out we had
three additional recommendations. The first one is that the width of the two-way drive
aisle, which, I'm sorry, you can't read the numbers. That was here. Be widened from 24
to 25 feet. That just is per the code. The second thing is that there is a pathway here, a
bicycle pathway -- if you remember there is a regional pathway that runs over here that's
ten feet wide. We wanted to -- you know, we, obviously, thought about bicyclists coming
in here and picking up a cup of coffee. So, we wanted to make sure it was easy for them
to do that. So, we asked them to widen this to ten feet. The third thing was that the --we
didn't -- you know, drive-through aisles are not always the most visually appealing thing.
We -- they originally had give us a screening fence, which you can see here on the top
right, but we didn't think that it really screened it well enough from Five Mile, especially
from the houses down to the southeast, so we requested that they add some additional
screening, which they did here, and I apologize you can't really make this out on this
particular plan -- is somebody bleeding into the -- sorry. I think I heard somebody else
bleeding in the audio. That kind of confused me. There is additional landscaping here
that -- it's hard to tell on this landscape plan, but this was updated today and this is,
basically, Juniper type bushes, which are opaque up to four feet high. So, they -- bottom
line is the applicant has addressed all of staff's comments. We don't have any other
comments. It would be my recommendation to you tonight, Planning Commission, that
because they have updated these plans today that if you were to support this with staff's
recommendations, I recommend that you approve it with the plans that were submitted
tonight with the Planning Commission. And with that I will take any questions if you have
any.
McCarvel: Okay. Do we have any questions for the applicant?
Holland: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Holland.
Holland: Alan, just a question on the access point that's on the southeast corner coming
into it.
Tiefenbach: Yes, ma'am.
Holland: Coming in and out of there, not able to jump into that drive-through lane, that
was my only concern looking at it.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 4,2021 F26]
Page 23 of 51
Tiefenbach: Well, I mean that was -- that was our concern with this one. Is it possible?
I think it's possible, but it's not probable. I mean certainly they could put a sign there that
was a do not enter and maybe I will defer that to the architect. I don't think they would
have an issue putting a sign here saying one way or do not enter or something like that.
It would be harder to do it on this one than it would be on this. Sure, it's possible, but it's
not probable. But, yeah, easy enough to sign that.
Holland: Yeah. The only reason I ask that is I'm pretty familiar with this area and a lot of
people will drive through the parking lot side off of Ten Mile instead of the backage road.
So, I was just worried about how many people would try to cut through there to get in the
drive-through line.
Tiefenbach: Well, I can't say it won't happen. Whether or not they are supposed to is a
whole other story.
McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions for staff?
Holland: And one more follow-up question. Does Nelis -- Nelis Drive to the north, is that
already an existing road?
Tiefenbach: Yes, ma'am.
Holland: Okay.
Tiefenbach: Actually, there is not much -- well, there is not much to it. It's -- it's a vacant
lot. I believe that the -- I will probably have to defer to the applicant. To Kent. It's -- it's
not super improved, but, yes, it is there now.
Holland: Okay. Thanks. That's it.
McCarvel: Okay.
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: Kind of follow up to Commissioner Holland's point there about traffic coming
in from the pawn shop from the -- from the south to the -- to the north there and jumping
in. Alan, is there anything that can be done to -- that you can require to make sure that
that doesn't happen, that they can't come in that way? Because I could, then, see traffic
backing up into Pawn One's parking area, if somebody trying to do that, and creating a
messy situation. Can they -- can there be a -- some sort of a divider there that will force
vehicles to -- to go around to the right and avoid the drive-through lane?
Tiefenbach: I'm pausing because I'm looking at the -- the diagram and I'm trying to
ascertain what kind of pork top or what kind of divider would be -- could be put in there
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 4,2021 F27
Page 24 of 51
that could keep cars from turning left while still allowing cars in the drive aisle to turn right.
It's possible. I don't have an answer for that. That would be something that probably I
and the architect would have to look at. I don't have a quick answer for that one, other
than a do not enter sign at this point. It's not impossible, I just -- trying to think through it
right now, I have to think about how it would go.
Cassinelli: If there was some sort of a curb on the -- the drive-through aisle that would
virtually make it impossible for somebody to come in there and turn left and, then, turn
right into the -- into the drive-through --
Tiefenbach: There could be something in the middle I think. I'm just -- I'm just, again,
kind of eyeing this. I think by -- it's possible that there could be a curb. If you see the two
arrows there and the updated design -- I'm not a traffic engineer. I think it's possible you
could have some kind of curve in between where those arrows are, so that the cars in the
drive aisle could turn right still and go out and the cars coming north -- could they still do
it? Possibly. But it gets harder and harder at that point. I'm trying to think of a way that
you absolutely can't do it. It's possible, I just don't have a brainstorm right now, sir.
Cassinelli: Okay.
Parsons: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Go ahead.
Parsons: Yeah. Bill Parsons.
Cassinelli: Sorry.
McCarvel: Go ahead, Bill Parsons.
Parsons: Well, I just wanted just to remind the Commission this really is about hours of
operation. Staff still has to continue to work with the applicant on the site design. If there
was no restriction in the DA this application wouldn't even be before you. The applicant
would be working with staff and complying with the code. In listening to Commissioner
Cassinelli's concerns and the Commission's concerns about that, it's -- it was our
understanding in working with the applicant that there is a requirement of that subdivision
for that drive aisle to connect into this and it's really -- the difficulty here is when you have
a drive-through use next to a retail use and the requirement of a CC&R that requires that
connectivity. So, we can't -- we can't prohibit people from entering and exiting this site.
We have to -- per our code we have to have an exit lane -- any drive-through that's over
-- a stack lane that's over a hundred feet has to have an escape lane. So, I think it --what
we might want to do, if you want, certainly put a condition on this CU to -- to me the enter
-- just inform the customers leaving the pawn shop to access the drive-through from the
western drive aisle. That's probably the easier way than them heading out -- out of that
driveway heading north is merely an exit or an out only, as to Alan's point. But I think we
can continue to work with the applicant on kind of massaging the site design and see if
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 4,2021 F28
Page 25 of 51
we can improve upon it based on some of the concerns that we are hearing from you.
That's probably the best way to move forward on tonight's application.
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you.
Parsons: Both of the -- yeah. Both the restaurant use and the drive-through are
principally permitted. So, it doesn't really require any action from this Commission. That
-- the design -- the layout here, it's really hours of operation.
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: I do have some that's a little bit more pertinent to the hours of operation. Alan,
directly across the street from this -- it would be across Ten Mile I guess, what is -- can
you describe that parcel and what's going in there? Because my thought is at 5:00 a.m.
it's headlights of cars coming in from that direction would be -- their headlights would be
directly aimed to the lot directly to the east. So, can you speak to that parcel over there?
Tiefenbach: Sure. Directly to the east is a parking lot. I believe that it is owned either by
ACHD or ITD. I don't have -- don't have the GIS in front of me. So, that's basically the
parking lot and I think it's being used as a park and ride and that's for the park and the
regional pathway that's directly across the street. So, it -- it is vacant, it will continue to
be vacant and that's one of the reasons even -- even being that, that's the reason why we
have recommended that the applicant continue to beef up that screen along the drive
aisle up to at least four feet to help -- and I was thinking more of to the south and the east
-- about 250 feet to the southeast there is residential, but it's not directly across the street
from this site.
Cassinelli: Yeah. I see that -- I see that residential, but there is nothing -- so, it --
headlights at 5:00 a.m. aren't -- it doesn't look like they are going to shine into anything
really.
Tiefenbach: No. It's just parking there.
Cassinelli: Okay.
Tiefenbach: Parking for the park and parking for the trailhead and I think park and ride.
Cassinelli: Okay.
McCarvel: Any other questions for staff? Okay. At this point we will have the applicant
come forward. I apologize for the noise before. I thought -- I had to go close the door,
so --
Wallgren: Madam Chair, Commissioners, can you hear me?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 4,2021 F29
Page 26 of 51
McCarvel: Yes. Go ahead, sir.
Wallgren: All right. My name is Jarrod Wallgren. I'm with JGT Architecture, 1212 12th
Avenue South in Nampa and, you know, I don't have a whole lot to add. I think Alan did
a great job of presenting the project. As he stated, we worked with him early on to iron
out the circulation and I think, you know, based on some of the concerns we do have the
application in for design review and CZC -- CZC review, so we can continue to iron that
out with staff, perhaps some striping or -- or even a small median or maybe bumping the
curve just a little bit to kind of guide traffic, but as far as the -- the intent of this application
I think the -- the hours of use are compatible with the area. It does not adversely affect
any surrounding properties with headlights and such. So, with that we just respectfully
ask for your approval on this and I would be happy to answer any questions.
McCarvel: Okay. Any questions for the applicant? Okay. Adrienne, do we have any
public testimony?
Weatherly: Madam Chair, we have one person signed up to testify and that's Colby
Halker. Colby, one moment.
Halker: Yeah. Good evening. This is Colby Halker. I'm actually with A&C Ventures,
LLC, and we will be the developer in the property.
McCarvel: Okay. Colby, could you give me your address as well?
Halker: Yeah. Sure. Address is 451 West Enchantment Street, Eagle, Idaho.
McCarvel: Thank you.
Halker: So, again, I'm representing the development --we are development partners with
A&C. We will build and own the Human Bean restaurant and, then, lease it back to
Human Bean as the operator. We are in agreement with staff and would ask for your
approval. So, those are my only comments.
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Any other public testimony in the Chambers or online?
Okay. We will go back to the applicant. If you have any other comments or if the
Commission has any questions for the applicant at this time.
Halker: I do not have any other comments and I think we have met the staff's conditions
and agree with the staff report.
McCarvel: Okay.
Halker: So, if you have any other questions.
McCarvel: Okay. If there is no more questions from the Commission, could I get a motion
to close the public hearing on H-2020-0125, Human Bean.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 4,2021 F30]
Page 27 of 51
Seal: So moved.
Grove: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2020-0125.
All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Any comments? Yes, Mr. Yearsley.
Yearsley: I -- I think this is a good spot for this facility. I think the hours of operation --
expanded hours of operation are -- you know, it's in a good area to have those expanded
hours of operation and I don't think there will be any issues from the neighbor. So, I'm in
support of this project.
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you.
Seal: Madam Chair?
Holland: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Seal I think first.
Seal: I -- I live pretty close to this and I use the bike path and -- and ride along the Nelis
Drive quite often, so I'm pretty familiar with all of that. One thing that I will put out there
is this drainage area that they are putting in, it's nothing that's been talked about so far,
but that's going to clean up a huge water holding area, for lack of better terminology, that's
there. It's -- it's kind of an eyesore on the Ten Mile corridor there. So, this is going to
really help clean that up. Number one. I like that staff put in the expanded -- basically
walking-biking path that's in there, because this is -- there is a -- there is walking -- what
do you call it? Signalized walking intersection there that connects the paths in and out
and there is a park and ride parking lot that's across the street from it. One other remark
I will make is the common street that's behind pond one -- it's actually behind pond one
and the little strip mall there, as well as O'Reilly Auto Parts and everything. That's
probably where the majority of people are going to be coming in and out of this off of Nelis
Drive and if they come through the parking lots they are going to probably come through
and hit this common street a little bit sooner to get into the drive aisle for that. So, I don't
envision there is going to be a lot of people that are going to be coming through the -- on
one parking lot over into it, because there is -- there is other drive aisles between the
buildings already to get to that common -- that common drive. But I really like the plan
and happy to see this going in there, so I think it's going to be a good fit.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 4,2021 F31
Page 28 of 51
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Holland, you were off mute for a second.
Did you have anything?
Holland: I would just say ditto to Commissioner Seal's comments. He stole what I was
going to say. I think he did a great job summarizing. I'm in favor.
McCarvel: Okay. Any other comments or motions?
Grove: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Grove.
Grove: Just a really quick thing, just because it's about hours. I will say I live a lot closer
to a Human Bean than the neighbor that's going to be closest to this product and they
have, you know, similar hours operation and it's not an issue, so --
McCarvel: Okay.
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: Yeah. I'm not -- I'm -- I'm in favor of it. There is a -- you know, just a couple
hundred feet to the south you have the 20 -- you got 24 hour Maverick there, so if that's
not an issue this certainly wouldn't be an issue, so I'm in favor of the hour -- hours and I
would be willing to make a motion if we are ready.
McCarvel: Always.
Cassinelli: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
recommend to approve file number H-2020-0125 as presented in the staff report for the
hearing date of February 4th, 2021, with the only modification being a recommendation
to work on that -- the traffic flow in there.
Pogue: Madam Chair, this is Andrea Pogue. It's a CUP, so the Commission is the
decision maker on this one.
McCarvel: Okay.
Cassinelli: And make that approve file number, instead of recommend to approve.
Holland: Commissioner Holland seconds.
Seal: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Oh. Commissioner Seal.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 4,2021 F32
Page 29 of 51
Seal: There was also -- Alan said that he would like the -- it to read that the modifications
to the site plan and landscape plan as presented in the Planning Commission, because
of the -- the current proposal that you see on the screen wasn't in the public record as of
yet.
McCarvel: Okay. Commissioner Cassinelli, would you like to amend your motion as
stated?
Cassinelli: Madam Chair, love to. You bet you.
Holland: My second stands.
McCarvel: All right. It has been moved and seconded to approve file number H-2020-
0125 with recommendations. All those in favor say aye. Opposed. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
7. Public Hearing for Northpoint Recovery Center (H-2020-0126) by Cole
Architects, Generally Located East of N. Webb Ave. Between E. State
Ave. and E. Pine Ave.
A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a 30,000+/- square foot
residential care facility on 3.86 acres of land in a C-G zoning district.
McCarvel: Next item on the agenda -- we will open the public hearing for H-2020-0126,
Northpoint Recovery Center, and we will begin with the staff report.
Allen: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. Give me just a moment
here. Get my presentation up. Can you all see my presentation?
McCarvel: There we go. Yes.
Allen: Alrighty. The next application before you is a request for a conditional use permit.
This site consists of 3.86 acres of land. It's zoned C-G and it's located east of North Webb
Avenue between East State Avenue and East Pine Avenue. Adjacent land use and
zoning. To the north are apartments that are in the development process, zoned R-40.
To the east is office zoned I-L and to the west and south is vacant undeveloped land
zoned C-G. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for this property
is mixed use community. A conditional use permit is proposed for a new 30,000 square
foot single story residential care facility on 3.86 acres of land in a C-G zoning district as
required by the UDC. The facility will be an in-patient, out-patient addiction treatment
provider with 48 beds and administrative and treatment uses. The proposed use is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation of mixed use
community in that it will contribute to the mix of uses in this area and a variety of
healthcare options available in the city. It will provide for the physical and mental
healthcare needs of the community in relation to addiction recovery and is in close
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 4,2021 F33
Page 30 of 51
proximity to housing, arterial streets, and businesses. The use should be compatible with
residential uses to the north, as well as the industrial use to the east and future
commercial uses to the west and south. A segment of the city's multi-use pathway system
is proposed along the boundary of the site between State and Pine Avenue as a public
amenity, which will connect different land use types and that is this road right here, which
doubles as an emergency access. Only the eastern 315 foot wide portion of the property
is proposed to develop with this application. The western 70 foot wide strip, the shaded
area of land, is proposed to develop at a later time. Access is proposed via State Avenue,
with an emergency only access via Pine Avenue. Parking is proposed in excess of UDC
standards. Based on the number of beds, which are 48, a minimum of 24 spaces are
required. A total of 43 spaces are proposed, resulting in 19 extra spaces. Street buffer
landscaping is required along State and Pine Avenue in accord with UDC standards. Staff
recommends buffers are installed with this development for the full width of the property,
including the western portion proposed to be developed in the future. Building elevations
were submitted as shown that incorporate materials consisting of horizontal fiber cement
siding and stone with vertical wood siding --
McCarvel: Sonya?
Allen: Yes.
McCarvel: Sonya, we are still on your first slide.
Allen: Oh. It's -- hum. It's saying my screen sharing is paused. I don't know how to
unpause it.
McCarvel: Yeah. We didn't --
Allen: Oh, wait a minute.
McCarvel: -- see the mouse moving or anything.
Allen: Oh, I'm so sorry.
McCarvel: Yeah.
Allen: Let me know when you can see the elevations. Can you see them?
McCarvel: No. We are still -- okay. Keep going. There we go. Thank you.
Allen: Were they moving? We get that lag.
McCarvel: We have elevations now. Thank you.
Allen: All right. Did you -- did you guys see the site plans at all or no?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 4,2021 F34
Page 31 of 51
McCarvel: No.
Allen: Okay.
McCarvel: It was stuck on the first slide.
Allen: Let me back up here and, again, this -- the shaded area is the western portion of
the site that's not proposed to develop with this site. The access is from State, with an
emergency access from Pine, and the driveway that's shown along the east boundary of
the site and, then, the parking area.
McCarvel: Okay.
Allen: Again, it is in excess of UDC standards. Staff is recommending that the entire
width of the buffer along State and Pine, even on the portion that's not proposed to be
developed at this time, is constructed with this development. All right. Hopefully that
catches us up and we will go on to the elevations. Building elevations incorporate
materials consisting of horizontal fiber cement siding and stone with vertical wood siding
and exposed wood beam accents and standing seam metal roofing. The development
agreement requires windows, awnings, or arcades, totaling at least 30 percent of the
length of the facade to be provided for faces that are viewable from other structures. Final
design should comply with this requirement and the design standards listed in the
architectural standards manual. The design review application will be processed
separately with the certificate of zoning compliance application. No public testimony was
received on this application. Jennifer Mohr, the applicant's representative, submitted a
response in agreement with the staff report. Staff is recommending approval with the
conditions in the report. Staff will stand for any questions.
McCarvel: Okay. Any questions for staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to come
forward.
Hoffman: Yes. My name is Ian Hoffman. I'm not Jennifer Mohr, but I am the applicant.
Cole Architects. So, thank you so much for having us.
McCarvel: And could you give us your address as well?
Hoffman: Absolutely. 1008 West Main Street, Boise, Idaho.
McCarvel: Okay.
Hoffman: And as Sonya mentioned -- I think she summed everything up pretty good with
everything and we do have some additional slides that we could present if we need to to
kind of give you a little bit better sense of the site development, but we just wanted to
speak in favor of this project and thank you for the opportunity to speak to you all.
Northwest -- Northpoint Recovery is a growing business that's been around since 2009.
They fit a very specific market that currently the City of Meridian does not seem to have
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 4,2021 F35]
Page 32 of 51
a large amount of these kind of facilities. So, we think that this will be a great use for the
city and great amendment to this property and so we really do appreciate the opportunity
to be a part of this project with the owner. Sonya, I do have additional images that we
can share if we would like, but I think you have pretty much covered everything.
McCarvel: Would the Commission prefer to see the additional photos or are we good
with the staff report?
Seal: Madam Chair, if they have different elevations and stuff that could be presented
that -- that would be good to see that.
McCarvel: Okay. Sure. Yeah. So, if you would like to load those pictures, would be
happy to take a look at them.
Hoffman: Just let me know when you can see my screen. Is that all coming up --
McCarvel: We -- yeah, we can see your screen.
Hoffman: All right. So, the site as currently proposed for Northpoint, as Sonya mentioned,
is between Pine and State Avenue. This kind of large green dot here. We are showing
a lot more facilities towards the Boise area. So, we really do feel like this is creating a --
or filling a need that the city has in Meridian and that's what we wanted to show you here.
As Sonya mentioned, this is a one story facility in a future developed area. It's currently
a -- kind of green site that's going to be developed with existing commercial use off to the
east over here. That fire lane pedestrian pathway connection between Pine and State
Avenue is on the east side of the street and that will be landscaped with -- in the guidelines
of the city and the CUP and development agreement. We will be developing along State
Avenue for the landscape and Pine Avenue on the south side of the site with -- in
agreement with the development agreement and the city's recommendations. The facility
itself, as I mentioned, is a one story facility. Sonya talked briefly about the architecture of
the site. We are going to be complying with any recommendations for the design review
application when we submit later after approval and also approval of the CUP application.
So, these are not finalized at this moment and this is -- the earlier image is the image of
the main entry off of State Street and, then, the next image is the image off of Pine. So,
this is that pedestrian walkway here. And, then, one of the interior courtyards that it will
be used only for facility staff and patients and that is all I had to share. I do appreciate
the opportunity and, hopefully, we have your consideration.
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Could you go back to that overview?
Hoffman: Yes, ma'am.
McCarvel: Oh.
Hoffman: There we go.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 4,2021 F36
Page 33 of 51
McCarvel: The one -- yeah. So, I think in the staff report, too, it made comment about
taking care of the landscaping, so the -- those things that are out of scope there on the
west side wouldn't become kind of trash areas.
Hoffman: Yes. That is all -- and we have agreed to the -- the requirements of the CUP
and so that was part of that report, is that we maintain that area. So, yes.
McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Do we have public
testimony on this application?
Weatherly: Madam Chair, we do not.
McCarvel: Okay. Commissioner Seal, do you have anybody in Chambers or is there
anybody online who would wish to speak on this application?
Seal: Nobody in chambers, Madam Chair.
McCarvel: Okay. Okay. If the applicant has no more comments, do we have anymore
questions for the applicant? Can I get a motion to close the public hearing for H-2020-
0126, Northpoint Recovery Center?
Holland: So moved, Madam Chair.
Seal: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for H-2020-0126.
All those in favor say aye. Opposed. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
McCarvel: So, again, we have a conditional use permit and the final okay on this. So,
any comments from the Commissioners? We are a quiet bunch tonight. Okay. I -- yeah,
I think it's a great use, especially in that area. It seems to have all the accesses it needs
and the surrounding should be good for what's going on there.
Seal: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Seal.
Seal: Yeah. I think -- I agree, I think it's a good location for the facility. I mean good --
good access and everything. I mean if I had a concern it would just be maintaining hours
for anybody that's going to be coming in as an in-patient, out-patient, that kind of thing.
But that's --that's about it. It's good to see something like this coming into the community.
I think it's going to be helpful as we continue to grow.
McCarvel: Any other comments or motions?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 4,2021 F37
Page 34 of 51
Holland: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Holland.
Holland: I think it looks like a good use and looks like they have done a nice job with the
site plan. So, I didn't hear anybody else jumping up to make other comments, I'm happy
to make a motion if we are ready for that. I believe -- it's just a conditional use permit, so
that's our body to decide that, so after considering all staff, applicant, and public
testimony, I move to approve the conditional use permit request for Northpoint Recovery
Center, H-2020-0126, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February
4th, 2021.
Grove: Second.
Seal: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve H-2020-0126, Northpoint
Recovery Center. All those in favor say aye. Opposed. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
8. Public Hearing for Shafer View Terrace (H-2020-0117) by Breckon Land
Design, Located on the east side of S. Meridian Rd./SH 69, midway
between E. Amity Rd. and E. Lake Hazel Rd.
A. Request: Annexation of a total of 40.48 acres of land with R-2 (10.66
acres) and R-4 (29.82 acres) zoning districts.
B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 50 buildable lots and 10
common lots on 39.01 acres of land in the R-2 and R-4 zoning
districts.
McCarvel: And moving on through, before we even get to the two hour mark, We will
open the public hearing for Item H-2020-0117, Shafer View Terrace, and we will begin
with the staff report.
Allen: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. Let me just make sure
my presentation is caught up to me this time. Can you all see the zoning maps?
McCarvel: No, we are still -- oh, there we go.
Allen: Alrighty. The last application for you tonight is a request for annexation and a
preliminary plat. The site consists of 39.01 acres of land. It's zoned RUT in Ada county
and it's located on the east side of South Meridian Road, State Highway 69, midway
between East Amity Road and East Lake Hazel Road. Adjacent land use and zoning.
To the north, east, and west is future single family residential, zoned R-4 and R-8, and to
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 4,2021 F38
Page 35 of 51
the south is single family rural residential zoned RUT in Ada county. This property is part
of Shafer View Estates Subdivision to the south recorded in 2002. It was deed restricted
and was only allowed to be used for open space for a period of not less than 15 years
from the date of recording of the plat. That time period has since elapsed and it is now
eligible for development. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is
low density residential, which calls for three or fewer units per acre. The proposed
annexation is for 40.48 acres of land, with R-2 zoning, which consists of 10.66 acres on
the east end of the site and R-4 zoning, which consists of 29.82 acres on the west side.
This does include a -- adjacent right of way to the section line of South Meridian Road
and State Highway 69 and to the centerline of Quartz Creek Street to the north. A total
of 50 residential dwelling units are proposed to develop on the site at an overall gross
density of 1.76 units per acre, consistent with the associated --
McCarvel: Go ahead.
Allen: Okay. The density is consistent with the associated low density residential future
land use map designation for the site. Although the proposed density is more consistent
with an R-2, low density residential zoning district, the applicant is requesting R-4 in order
to provide a transition in lot sizes between the existing rural residential subdivision to the
south, Shafer View Estates, and the future urban residential subdivision approved to the
north, Prevail Subdivision, zoned R-8. Larger lots are proposed along the southern
boundary adjacent to rural residential lots that gradually transition to smaller lots to the
north. A common lot that contains a 41 foot wide easement for the McBirney Lateral,
separates the proposed lots from the existing rural lots. You can see a little bit better on
this color map. The McBirney Lateral is right there, if you can see my pointer.
McCarvel: Yes.
Allen: And the proposed plat is a subdivision of Lot 4, Block 1, Shafer View Estates, as
previously mentioned, and is proposed to consist of 50 buildable lots and ten common
lots on 39.01 acres of land and be developed in three phases, as shown on the phasing
plan. The third phase is under separate ownership and it consists of one 10.66 acre lot
that is proposed to develop separately with the Apex Development to the east. If you will
remember, this corner section was -- was previously included in the Apex annexation
application, but it was later withdrawn, because that parcel was split off through means
that we don't recognize as a legal parcel. So, they withdrew that annexation request and
that parcel from their application and now it's being included in this application. But will
develop in the future with the Apex development. Two accesses are proposed via East
Quartz Creek Street, a planned collector street along the northern boundary of the site.
Direct access via East Shafer View Drive, an existing local street along the southern
boundary of the site, is proposed for the lot south of the McBirney Lateral. An emergency
only access is proposed between the cul-de-sac and East Shafer View Drive and that is
this area right here, if you can see my pointer. Access to the R-2 zoned portion of the
site is anticipated to be provided from the east, as I mentioned, with the Apex
development. Direct lot access via South Meridian Road and State Highway 69 is
prohibited. The proposed street sections accommodate on-street parking on both sides
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 4,2021 F39
Page 36 of 51
of the streets, which should be sufficient to serve guests, in addition to driveway parking
on each lot. Development of the subdivision is required to comply with the subdivision
design and improvement standards in the UDC, which include block face standards. The
face of block three -- and that is this block right here where my pointer is at -- exceeds
the maximum block length allowed and does not provide a pedestrian connection, other
than the emergency access driveway and, again, that's right here, which may serve as a
pedestrian connection between the proposed subdivision and Shafer View Estates to the
south. The applicant is requesting a Council approval of a waiver to allow Block 3 to
exceed 1,200 feet due to existing site constraints that include the following: The narrow
configuration of the subject property. The location of the McBirney Lateral, a large
waterway irrigation facility that runs along the southern boundary and through the western
portion of the proposed subdivision. And the existing Shafer View Subdivision that abuts
the site to the south, south of the lateral, which does not include any pedestrian pathways
or stub streets to this property. If not approved the plat should be reconfigured to comply
with this standard. An emergency access road for Fire Department is proposed between
the end of the cul-de-sac and East Shafer View Road, but it's not a public access. Again,
that's just right here. A ten foot wide detached multi-use pathway is proposed along South
Meridian Road and State Highway 69 within the street buffer as required in the pathways
master plan. A detached sidewalk is proposed along East Quartz Creek Street. A
combination of attached and detached sidewalks with parkways is proposed within the
development. A 35 foot wide street buffer is required along South Meridian Road, an
entryway corridor, and a 20 foot wide buffer is required along Quartz Creek, a collector
street. Noise abatement is required to be provided for residential uses adjacent to State
Highway 69. A four foot tall berm and six foot tall Simtek wall is proposed as noise
abatement in accord with UDC standards. A minimum of ten percent qualified open
space, 3.9 acres, and one site amenity is required to be provided with the subdivision. A
total of 4.05 acres or 14.27 percent is proposed, along with four site amenities, consisting
of a multi-sport court, tot lot, gazebo shade structure and segment of the city's multi-use
pathway system in excess of UDC standards. A mix of six foot tall wrought iron and six
foot tall solid vinyl fencing is proposed adjacent to common areas. Wrought iron fencing
is proposed along the McBirney Lateral. Two waterways cross this site. As I mentioned
earlier, the McBirney Lateral, it's a large open waterway within a 41 foot wide easement
along the southern boundary and through the western portion of the site and a 38 foot
wide slough or drain on the eastern portion of the site that the applicant has confirmed
with Boise Project Board of Control is not within an easement and that is this area right
on the backside of these lots right here. The UDC allows waterways to remain open when
used as a water amenity or linear open space as defined. The Council may waive this
requirement if it finds the public purpose requiring such will not be served and public
safety can be preserved. The applicant is not proposing to improve the McBirney Lateral
as required in order for it to remain open and request a Council waiver to allow it to remain
open and not be piped, as allowed by the UDC. A six foot tall wrought iron fence is
proposed along both sides of the waterway to deter access to the waterway and to ensure
public safety. No public testimony was received on this application. The applicant
requested some corrections to the staff report, which have been made. Staff is
recommending approval with the requirement of a development agreement per the
provisions in the staff report, with the following added conditions that are contained in
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 4,2021 F40
Page 37 of 51
your hearing outline. The 38 foot wide drain on the eastern portion of the site shall be
contained -- contained entirely within common lots. Fencing is required on both sides of
the drain consistent with the standards in the UDC. If piped, the common lot containing
the drain on the eastern portion of the site shall have vegetative ground cover to prevent
fire hazard and unsightliness and modification to condition number nine to allow the option
for the waterways on the site to be improved as a water amenity as an alternative to being
piped, as allowed by the UDC with submittal of construction drawings and relevant
calculations prepared by a qualified licensed professional registered in the state of Idaho
that demonstrates compliance with the requirements for water amenities as defined in the
UDC. Staff did discuss these recommended changes with the applicant and they are in
agreement with the proposed changes and the staff report. Staff will stand for any
questions.
McCarvel: Any questions --
Allen: I did forget to mention the conceptual elevations -- excuse me, Madam Chair --
that were submitted as shown for this development. Thank you.
McCarvel: Thank you. Any questions for staff?
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: Sonya, can you go back to that -- the -- I think it was the previous slide, the
color -- one more back. The color seems to be the easiest one to view. There you go.
Lot -- what did -- what are the lot widths on 15, 16, 17 in there?
Allen: I'm not sure. Give me a moment and I will pull up the plat.
Cassinelli: Okay. I'm just curious the transition between the properties to the south.
Allen: Did you say 15, 16 and 17?
Cassinelli: Yeah.
Allen: Okay.
Cassinelli: They are going to lineup to the ones along the north, too. Two. Three. Four.
Allen: Lot 15 is 90 feet wide. Actually, they all are. Fifteen, sixteen and seventeen are
90 feet wide.
Cassinelli: Okay. Thank you.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 4,2021 F41
Page 38 of 51
McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions for staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to begin?
And, please, state your name and address for the record.
Breckon: Yes. Jon Breckon. Breckon Land Design. 6661 Glenwood Street, Garden
City.
McCarvel: Thank you.
Breckon: I have a PowerPoint presentation. Can I share that?
McCarvel: Sure. Get Adrienne to let you do that.
Weatherly: Jon, you should be able to share your screen now.
Breckon: Okay. Okay. Can you see that?
McCarvel: Yes.
Breckon: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Sonya. I think Sonya did a great job explaining
a few intricacies to the project and it's a little bit challenging due to the odd shape and
there is a substantial grade change across the site as well that has led us to this latest
concept. We worked with staff, as well as the neighbors to the south, to come up with
this concept. You know, our goal was to provide a quality development and to allow or
provide appropriate transition from the larger lots to the south and to the smaller lots to
the north, which -- which is the R-8. So, that's why we have chosen the R-4 zoning
designation and I will explain that a little bit more here as we go. Here is an overview of
the site location and you can see the larger lots to the south and Meridian Road on the
west. You may be familiar with the Prevail Subdivision to the north. That's -- that's the
R-8. Apex, then, wraps the east side and here is a quick shot that depicts the existing
city limits that wrap around the property in the light gray. Our project is the dark gray.
So, here is a snapshot of the current zoning. You can see Prevail to the north, R-8. Apex
development on the east is R-4. We have the parking lots in the county to the south of
us and, then, I believe Apex is proposing R-2 -- or would like to do larger lots, so that's
why we have included that as R-2 zoning and, then, we have R-4 and I should note that
even though we are proposing R-4 for phase one and phase two, that 32 of those 50 lots
actually exceed 12,000 square feet, which is the R-2 minimum lot size and that was
intentional to provide larger lots particularly adjacent to our neighbors to the south and,
then, here, again, the color plan. So, you can see these lots on the south here are fairly
large and all these lots that are directly adjacent to the neighbors are of that larger variety.
And, then, we have transitioned lots to the north of -- that will border Prevail to the north
of us, are a little bit smaller. The McBirney Lateral, I would like to speak to that a little bit.
That's a really relatively large irrigation ditch. It's owned by the Boise Project Board Of
Control and initially our intent was to beautify that so that it could be utilized as an amenity
with a pathway on the side. We met with -- out on the site with Boise Project and they
informed us that we would not be allowed to provide any improvements within their
easement there. Due to the size of it -- we did research what it would require to pipe that
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 4,2021 F42
Page 39 of 51
and it would be a minimum of a 30 inch pipe for over 2,000 feet and the cost of that would
be substantially prohibitive. The initial estimate is about a half a million dollars to -- to
pipe that. You can see that we have a pond here. That would be for irrigation purposes.
Our water supply comes from the east and there is an existing pump station kind of right
where my cursor is shown. We also did quite an exploration to -- in an effort to provide a
better connectivity. One of the thoughts was to extend this road -- this dead end road
here and connect it up to the Shafer View Drive and that proved to be very challenging.
There is some substantial grade change there and there -- there are all the existing
irrigation improvements. There is a pump station, as well as large irrigation pipe that
comes through and feeds in McBirney from east, all -- it comes together with diverge
boxes, et cetera, right at that location. So, it would make it extremely challenging. Let's
see. Other items to maybe explain. There was some concern by the neighbors down in
-- in this area regarding, you know, density and adjacency to open space and so one of
the changes we made from the original design was to provide a landscape buffer between
the new lots and they are all -- other things I can share are that --we have tried to provide
additional improvements in the form of amenities. One -- I believe one amenity is required
and we are -- we are proposing three, with a tot lot, a multi-sport court, and a picnic
gazebo. Here is another shot just to kind of depict that -- that transition that we were
trying to achieve. You can see the -- the Prevail laid out to the north and how the lot sizes
transition as you -- as you move to the south. Here is a slide that touches on the schools.
That would -- where, you know, children would attend. The Mary McPherson Elementary
School that just finished up a classroom expansion. There is Victory Middle School and,
then, the Mountain View High School. Here are emergency services located on this map.
Project site. Fire Station Number 6. This location. And the police station. And response
-- response time is three to five minutes. So, here is a shot of what that multi-sport court
might look like. Along Meridian Road -- no, that -- Meridian Road, as you know, comes
busier and busier every year and in an effort to mitigate that we are proposing a berm, as
well as a solid Simtec type fence on top of the berm. The berm would be four feet in
height and, then, the fence six. So, that would provide a net ten foot buffer, as well as
the landscape and a ten foot path. Here is a shot of what we would like the -- the homes
to look like and, then, this is just a compilation of what Sonya already spoke to about the
waivers and exceptions that we are -- we are requesting.
McCarvel: Thank you.
Breckon: Thank you.
McCarvel: Do we have any questions for the applicant?
Seal: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Seal.
Seal: I just have some questions on some of the open space that's there on the -- the
open space that's south of the lateral, it looks like there is another pond there. Yes. What
is that?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 4,2021 F43
Page 40 of 51
Breckon: Yes. That's a -- that's an existing drainage area that -- that takes -- it's a
stormwater swale and it takes runoff from this existing street and right now it's kind of a
dryland seed mix and so what we would like to do is green that up and, then, retain the
drainage swale.
Seal: And, then, the common area on the -- kind of the northeastern side, same thing,
there is an irrigation -- I mean a pondish area there. Is it for irrigation?
Breckon: Yes. This is a proposed irrigation pond. That was one of the requests from
Boise Project when we were researching how to utilize water right -- surface water right
for pressurized irrigation. They recommended we provide an irrigation pond.
Seal: That will be dry during the wintertime?
Breckon: No. We intend to -- it would just -- the water would lower during the wintertime.
Seal: Okay. Thank you.
McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant?
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: Jon, did you get any feedback from the neighbors on the south there about
those -- I brought up those lots, 15 to 17, that are kind of -- they are 90 foot wide. So,
kind of long and skinny there. Did you -- that puts about a two to one transition. Did you
get any feedback and, if so, what was -- can you talk about that from the neighbors to the
south?
Breckon: No. The neighbors directly the south of those didn't really give us any feedback.
We did get some feedback from the folks here over on the west side. They were mostly
concerned and so, like I said before, we were just trying to mitigate that by providing a --
more of a landscape here for them. These lots, you know, I mean -- I think we are all
used to seeing the -- the R-8 variety that's very prevalent or smaller and, you know, these
are -- these are actually pretty nice size lots in today's marketplace. While these are 90
feet wide and look a little skinnier, they are pretty close to 200 -- you know, one of them
is 215 feet deep. The other one is 194. So, they are --they are not what you see typically
these days.
Cassinelli: Yeah. Not the depth, though, it's -- the width that -- because you are getting
a two to one transition. That's my only -- when I looked at that that's -- that was the
question I have. But if you are not getting any -- if you weren't getting any feedback, any
opposition from the neighbors --
Breckon- Yes, sir. No, we did not.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 4,2021 F44
Page 41 of 51
Cassinelli: Okay. Thank you.
Seal: Madam Chair, I have a follow-up question.
McCarvel: Sure. Commissioner Seal.
Seal: Just on the -- the lots that border the subdivision to the south there, are they going
to be limited to one story or is there any limitation on the height that you are going to put
on those?
Breckon: Wasn't planning on it. You know, that -- I remember back in the neighborhood
meeting I don't know that -- we talked about that. Just touched on it. That, you know, we
are planning on a variety of home styles and that they would be of a similar design to --
to what exists to the south of us. You know, that--that style and stature. But I could add,
too -- and say that, you know, the intent is to have a tight architectural control standard
there to maintain the quality.
McCarvel: Great. Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant?
Lorcher: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Yes, Commissioner Lorcher.
Lorcher: The lateral that runs between the two subdivisions, I think, Jon, you mentioned
that's being run by the irrigation company; correct?
Breckon: Yes.
Lorcher: So, they will not let you do an improvement, so do you anticipate that just being
a dirt road?
Breckon: Yes. Unfortunately, we do. Yes. It was our hope that we could beautify that
and provide a pathway and green that up, but they were very specific. If there is some
way to persuade them we would be interested in pursuing that.
Lorcher: And will the homesites on the edges of that road have fencing behind it or would
be open view?
Breckon: Correct. That was one of the items that came up with conversation with staff
that the edges of this entire ditch would be fenced, so that it's essentially inaccessible
from a safety standpoint.
Lorcher: Would homeowners be eligible to make a gate, so they have access to it? I
assume that becomes a -- kind of a walking path or is it completely inaccessible to
people?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 4,2021 F45
Page 42 of 51
Breckon: I think -- I suppose you could. I -- you know, I think the intent was that it would,
essentially, be gated off due to safety, since we want to keep it open.
Lorcher: Open canal?
Breckon: Correct.
Lorcher: Got you. Thank you.
McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions for staff -- or for the applicant? Sorry.
Seal: Madam Chair, I have got one more question. Sorry.
McCarvel: Commissioner Seal.
Seal: The -- the waterway that's on the -- the northeast side of it, that's on the other side
of the homes there -- yes. Is that going to be covered or improved or what -- what is the
-- it sounded like from the staff report there was no improvement, but no plan to cover it
as well.
Breckon: Correct. That's a -- that's a great question. We were looking at that today,
because it's -- it's not what you were used to seeing. It is an historic drainage way runoff
route, if you will, that collects field runoff. It's an open facility. It's -- it's kind of a broad
open drainage way and the -- we had talked about potential for piping it. However, since
it accepts runoff --just historic runoff -- natural runoff from -- from side -- from the sides,
piping it does not seem to be a feasible option. Yeah. The -- the intent there would be to
seed it and not improve it. I think that -- did that answer your question?
Seal: And the reason I asked that question is because -- and, especially, after if you said
you would seed it and not improve it. I mean it's a part of the subdivision that's behind
those houses. That seems like it's just -- it's going to be something that's going to be a
hassle for them to maintain. It doesn't really serve a purpose it sounds like, but it can't
be filled in and it can't be covered over, so, then, it just becomes a weed patch that's
going to sit behind these homes.
Breckon: Yeah. I guess our intent would be to plant it with a natural grass and -- and
allow it to continue to function the way it has.
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: Jon, I had another question on the -- the emergency access there at the end
of the cul-de-sac on the south -- I guess the southeast portion. I'm assuming there is a
-- there is an easement through to -- through the -- those properties there.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 4,2021 F46
Page 43 of 51
Breckon: There is. There is a -- well, the property -- that property actually connects here,
but it allows for irrigation access -- irrigation -- there is an irrigation access easement that,
you know, encompasses the McBirney and it also extends over to the east.
Cassinelli: Okay. So, that irrigation easement, that's where you will be taking the
emergency access?
Breckon: Yes.
McCarvel: Okay.
Cassinelli: Okay.
McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant? Hearing none, do we have any public
testimony, Madam Clerk?
Weatherly: Madam Chair, we have two people in house. The first of which is Marvin
Ward.
McCarvel: Okay. Please state your name and address for the record.
Ward: Sure. Marvin Ward.
McCarvel: And if he could pull that microphone real close to you.
Ward: This one?
McCarvel: Sorry.
Ward: How is that?
McCarvel: Yeah.
Ward: Is that better?
McCarvel: There you go.
Ward: Okay. Marvin Ward. 152 East Shafer View. I am the first house in the subdivision
of Shafer View there coming off of Meridian Road. Several concerns that we mentioned
during the neighborhood meeting that we were hoping would be kind of looked at maybe
a little bit better. These first four lots here I can't see on here the lot numbers that are
adjacent coming off of the Shafer View. The access there would be into our subdivision
and that also is a blind corner coming in off of Meridian Road and if you have been off of
Meridian Road into that subdivision, getting across there sometimes the traffic is moving
quite fast, we are pretty concerned about safety of children and residences on that corner
with those four lots there. I appreciate the little access pathway there, but it's still -- you
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 4,2021 F47
Page 44 of 51
know, I'm -- I'm concerned -- we are really concerned about the -- the safety of the -- of
the people in that little corridor right there in -- in coming into the subdivision and adding
that much more traffic to the subdivision as -- as it is -- as it is right now. It might be too
many lots. I don't know. Of course when we all bought into this Shafer View Subdivision
we were one acre lots, with the idea that the plan going forward around us would be
minimum of one acre lots and, of course, times change and now we are looking at lots
that are much smaller than that, which seem to kind of go against our grain a little bit, of
course. But, you know, working on half acre lots we kind of understand that. The buffer
of the canal is making some difference. But I remember, at least in my mind, from the
neighborhood discussion that we had, that the -- the lots to the south that bordered the
canal and Shafer View were going to be one story, so we -- they would not block the
views that we have of the mountains at this point. We have some nice views of Shafer
View. Thus Shafer View Subdivision. Shafer Butte. Excuse me. And so we were, you
know, kind of hoping on that area there. The -- the emergency access is there at the end
of the cul-de-sac, comes into where that -- the no access is allowed from the canal
company and we are -- we are coming across that access there with all the irrigation and
the pumphouse and all that stuff and make it an access road through the -- the Boise
Board of Control access. So, anyway, some of the lot widths and stuff, trying to get
through there, so -- a little concerned about those things and the development around the
entryway and those four lots coming in as a safety concern for children and stuff playing
there, that is a very volatile -- it's coming around the corner and it's an up hill. It's a blind
corner coming around there and it sometimes gets a little -- a little worrisome there, so --
McCarvel: Thank you.
Ward: Thank you.
McCarvel: Madam Clerk?
Weatherly: Excuse me. Sorry, Madam Chair. Next is Gayle Ward.
McCarvel: Thank you.
G.Ward: My name is Gayle Ward. 152 East Shafer View. Also my husband. We live in
that very first house. You know, I know progress brings all these homes into our
neighborhoods and, you know, you want a country atmosphere and it's getting taken away
and it's getting gobbled up real fast. But what really concerns me, too, is those four lots
in the beginning of our subdivision. Like Mark said, safety is an issue first and the other
thing is you are coming into acre lots. You are putting four little houses coming into acre
lots and I don't know why. I mean you could easily put, you know, two houses in an acre
each. I just think it kind of starts tearing down our subdivision and it's not meant to be
that way. It's supposed to be acre lots in that section. So, that's my opinion. I don't think
it's appropriate to put four houses there. So, thank you.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 4,2021 F48
Page 45 of 51
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else in Chambers or online that wishes to speak
on this application, if you would press the raise hands if you are online. Okay. Seeing
no other public testimony, Jon, would you like to address those comments?
Breckon: Yes, please. Actually, I'm going to switch screens, pull up the landscape plan.
Here is the preliminary plat landscape plan, which depicts these four lots and you can see
the landscape buffer here we are proposing. Also like to -- you know, I didn't actually talk
about this, but I would like to address it. You can see here the vision triangle on the one
side. This landscape plan we have only addressed the area immediate -- or included in
the plat. However, I would also like to just speak to the entrance and we talked about this
at the neighborhood meeting and there -- there definitely is some concern about visibility
coming in or going out as there is a substantial grade change coming up Shafer View
from Meridian Road. There is some landscaping that is fairly mature March trees and it
is our intent -- we would like to redo this area, actually, on both sides. I would be glad to
make it a condition of approval -- to address that to increase the visibility and to mitigate
any of the safety concern there and to beautify this frontage at the same time. The other
item mentioned is these four lots here, with the exception of number five, are all
approximately a half an acre in size. Five is a little bit smaller. However, it's adjacent to
the -- to the open space. Additionally, you know, there was some discussion about the
views to Shafer Butte -- and I'm going to flip back to the overall view here. But there is
quite a bit of grade change through this property. It all slopes down from Shafer View
Drive down to this drainage and, for example, across these lots through here there is
approximately five to seven feet of fall and there is also a grade change across these
lines as well and so it's our feeling -- strong feeling that even though we would have two
story homes there, it will not impede views to the north. There is about -- as you go -- as
you transition here to the east there is even more grade change, approximately 15 feet
across this, and -- you know. And that was one of the reasons here to provide some of
this open space in between, just to provide as much buffer as possible to the existing
homes.
McCarvel: Any questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you, Jon. If you don't have
any other comments, it looks like we don't have any other questions for you, so at this
time I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing on H-2020-0117, Shafer View
Terrace.
Seal: So moved.
Grove: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2020-0117.
All those in favor say aye. Opposed.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
McCarvel: Okay. I know we had a lot of questions for the applicant. Did we get -- do we
have comments going on from there?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 4,2021 F49
Page 46 of 51
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: Question for staff. Sonya, was there any feedback from ITD on -- on this?
Were they requiring anything -- any upgrades to the entrance to the -- to Shafer View
Drive or anything? Because there is --there is nothing in the agency comments from ITD.
Since Meridian Road is theirs.
Allen: Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli, no -- Cassinelli. Excuse me. No, there
were no comments from ITD submitted.
Cassinelli: Okay. So, does that mean they didn't review it or they just didn't have any
comments?
Allen: No idea.
Cassinelli: Okay.
McCarvel: Okay.
Seal: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Seal.
Seal: This -- this is a tricky one for me. So, there is some things about it that I like. I do
like, you know, the fact that there is a transition that's happening in here and there is a
grade change that will help with that. It would be nice if they were, you know, sensitive
to -- to the view scape. I mean we have had several applications come in where, you
know, I mean we -- we are not the protectors of viewscapes, so, unfortunately, if you are
on the south side of something that faces Bogus Basin or that area, eventually, there is
going to be something in your way, which is unfortunate, but it's also inevitable at this
point in time. But the open space is what's kind of got me tied up a little bit on this, where
there seems to be an abundance of it, but it's more -- I mean we have drainage, we have
irrigation facilities and things like that, where, you know, a tot lot here, considering what
it is and the size of the lots, I don't -- I don't know if that's really a good fit here. I mean
the multi-sport area I see that as something that would probably be more utilized and I
have kind of got an issue with that drainage or whatever it is on the -- on the northeast
corner of it where that's -- to me something needs to be done with that, so that it's not a
burden on the subdivision itself. I have lived in a subdivision where there was an area
like that that was just an afterthought, where we are just going to seed it and see what
happens and it ended up just being a huge mess that, you know, was a burden on the
subdivision that I lived in. So, I just think something needs to happen there. Plus there
is several waivers that they are asking for in order to get this thing in there. So, it just
seems like there is an awful lot to it that doesn't quite -- doesn't quite match up yet. To
me it's just -- it's -- it's not quite ready for -- for some of those reasons.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 4,2021 F50]
Page 47 of 51
McCarvel: Other thoughts? I -- you know, I appreciate what they are trying to do and I
think we add that recommendation into the motion about the landscape on the entry on
the north and south side of Shafer View Drive. I appreciate them being willing to address
both sides of that. I guess the open space is not as big a deal to me, just because they
are a little bit bigger lots, but it would be -- like to hear other comments on that and, yeah,
that grassy area should probably be addressed and I think, you know, with the elevation
difference, I think some of those views are naturally going to be a little bit protected as
much as they can be. But, yeah, we are not the protector of people's view sheds. I would
comment that the four lots at the entry, I might -- I agree that maybe as the entrance to
that subdivision maybe that should be two or three lots. That's my take on it at this point.
I'm happy to hear what others have to say. Commissioner Holland, you came off mute.
Holland: My -- my biggest concern was around ITD, since we didn't receive comments
from them. I know that this road is a very busy road with a lot of people growing in
subdivisions that connect off of it. So, whenever you can limit accesses off of the main
highway the better and I know this one does put a few more cars on the highway, but
relatively speaking it's -- it's more appropriate in density to enter, because you are not
going to have a lot of cars in an R-2, R-4 type subdivision than you would in an R-6, R-8.
So, I'm okay with it. But I would love to see your interconnectivity with trying to route cars
off of using the highway directly, if that's possible. I would have liked to have seen these
two neighborhoods actually looped and have one access point off the highway instead of
two. But I don't think that that's something we can necessarily do. Let me make sure that
I'm understanding that. Do they have -- that northern subdivision that's the newer part,
they have an access point on the north that's going to connect. They don't? Okay.
McCarvel: Yeah. I think they --
Holland: They are connecting to the R-8.
McCarvel: To the north instead.
Holland: Okay. Thanks. I just wanted to click back. So, it looks like there could be a
rode there and I got confused on that one. I don't see a huge issue with adding the homes
to the Shafer Butte Subdivision, but I agree that there is not really a need to have four.
Maybe they could compromise and come in with three, instead of four. I don't know that
I necessarily want to restrict them on that. I don't see having four additional houses being
a huge burden on the traffic coming in out of that loop, but I'm -- I'm open either way on
that. And I don't see a huge issue with the green space or open space, just because they
are larger lot sizes, so they probably don't need as many community amenities either.
Sorry. Those are a kind of some rambling thoughts.
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: I was going to say, Commissioner Cassinelli, you are off mute now. Go ahead.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 4,2021 F51
Page 48 of 51
Cassinelli: I'm -- I'm really surprised ITD didn't weigh in. I would -- coming in off of-- this
is their opportunity with more development there to require an accelerate -- you know,
accel-decel lane and there really isn't one there at Shafer View. I would -- you know, I
would kind of like to condition for at least something. If ITD says we got nothing, then,
they got nothing. But I would like to hear from them or have Council hear from them.
Personal opinion looking at this -- I mean I -- I have got a couple of concerns about the
transition. I'm okay with the open space. I don't think it really -- I do think the tot lot is
probably not necessary, but I think that sport court would be -- would be well utilized, as
Commissioner Seal said, but I would like to see a little bit better transition on the -- along
the canal and the north, those -- specifically those lots that I mentioned, maybe pulling a
lot there. They are only 90 feet wide backing up to acre lots and, then, just -- I get that
they are long, so they are larger lots, but they are narrow and, then, maybe lose a lot,
you know, at least just one of those four coming in on Shafer View, the -- the developer
can certainly put -- put houses that -- that are fitting of those lots and -- and -- and I think
the comments we always hear, you know, it's got a pencil, it's got a pencil. I think that if
they pull a couple of lots in here that the homes that they put on them will -- will sell
accordingly and they can put -- put the homes that they need to -- I mean this is -- again,
it's, you know, R-2 and R-4, it's going to be larger homes and I think they can afford to
lose a couple lots in there and do it properly and have a better transition. That's what I
would like to see.
McCarvel: Okay. Other thoughts? Commissioner Grove?
Grove: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Grove.
Grove: I'm largely in favor of this project. The lots looks small or smaller in comparison
to the lots that are to the south, but when we start looking at some of the other projects
around town, like these lots are pretty big and so I -- when I first looked at it I had a hard
time adjusting, I think, because I was trying to compare it to the lots directly next door
versus kind of what normally would go into an R-4 like size or the R-8 size to north of it.
So, I'm not as concerned. The only-- like small concern that I had would be with the four
lots on the south side, it feels like they are completely disconnected from the rest of the
subdivision, because there is no direct access to the rest of the other, what, 46 homes
and so that was my -- my only concern, is that, you know, even with like a footbridge or
something across the canal it would be nice to be able to connect, but with four homes it
-- I don't -- I don't know if it's feasible, but that would be my -- my biggest concern there.
Other than that I mean I'm okay with the open space on this project and I hear the
concerns that have been addressed, but to me I don't have as much heartburn about
some of the concerns that have been raised.
McCarvel: Thank you. Commissioner Yearsley? Commissioner Lorcher? Anybody else
have any comments or does somebody want to take a poke at a motion? I don't know
that we are in a place where -- and correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not hearing like we
are in a place where we want to recommend denial or a continuance, but maybe an
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 4,2021 F52
Page 49 of 51
approval with some thoughts on conditions. But we are a quiet bunch tonight, so any
comments or motions to move it along? Wow. Commissioner Yearsley, you came off
mute.
Yearsley: I was just going to say I agree with most of what everyone's talking about. So,
I'm not as -- you know, I think it's -- you know, it's kind of hard to compare to the other
ones, because the lots are so big. I think these lots are pretty good size. I think it will be
a good comparison to them. It might be a little bit smaller, but they are still bigger homes.
So, I think it's fairly complimentary to the other homes.
McCarvel: Okay. Would anybody like to take a shot at a motion?
Grove: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Grove.
Grove: I will do my best.
McCarvel: You and Commissioner Holland were having a grin warfare there who was
going to jump in.
Grove: Commissioner Holland, you can correct me as I go.
Holland: I will let you have this one.
Grove: Yeah. All right. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move
to recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2020-0117 as presented in the
staff report for the hearing date February 4th, 2021, with the following modifications: That
an ITD review be completed before going to Council. That the applicant improve the
southern entrance off of Meridian Road and that the -- that we recommend removal of
one of the lots -- four lots two through five.
McCarvel: Do we have a second?
Allen: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Oh, yes. Sonya.
Allen: Excuse me. Is that motion to include staff's recommended new conditions and
modification?
Grove: Yes.
Allen: Thank you.
Yearsley: I will second that.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 4,2021 F53
Page 50 of 51
McCarvel: Okay. It has been moved and seconded to recommend approval of H-2020-
0117 with modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed.
Seal: Nay.
Cassinelli: Nay.
McCarvel: Madam Clerk, did we -- did you get the recorded votes there?
Weatherly: Madam Chair, we did. Thank you.
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Motion passes.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO NAY.
Pogue: This is Andrea Pogue. Would you just confirm, Commissioner Cassinelli, you
were the nay vote?
Cassinelli: I was an nay. That is correct.
Pogue: Thank you.
Seal: Commissioner Seal as well.
McCarvel: Okay. Great. I only heard one. Thank you. So, I would just like to take just
one minute before the final motion and welcome our new chairperson -- or new
chairperson -- new Commissioner Maria Lorcher. So, thank you for being here with us
and we look forward to having you with us the next several years.
Lorcher: Thank you very much.
McCarvel: And can't wait to see you in person.
Lorcher: I know.
Cassinelli: You're all fuzzy.
Lorcher: I know. I will have to get better equipment.
McCarvel: I think we are almost turning the corner. We might be able to meet in
Chambers -- and you are welcome to meet in Chambers, by the way, whenever you are
comfortable, so --
Lorcher: Okay. Thank you.
McCarvel: So, with that do we have one more motion?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 4,2021 F54
Page 51 of 51
Yearsley: Madam Chair, I move we adjourn.
Cassinelli: Second.
McCarvel: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed. Motion carries.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:45 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
2 118 12021
RHONDA McCARVEL DATE APPROVED
ATTEST:
CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK