2021-02-18 Item 1.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting February 18, 2021.
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of February 18, 2021, was
called to order at 6:02 p.m. by Chairman Rhonda McCarvel.
Members Present: Chairman Rhonda McCarvel, Commissioner Bill Cassinelli,
Commissioner Andrew Seal, Commissioner Maria Lorcher, Commissioner Nick Grove
and Commissioner Steven Yearsley.
Members Absent: Commissioner Lisa Holland.
Others Present: Adrienne Weatherly, Andrea Pogue, Bill Parsons, Joe Dodson and Dean
Willis.
ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE
Lisa Holland X Maria Lorcher
X Andrew Seal X Nick Grove
_X Steven Yearsley X Bill Cassinelli (6:41 p.m.)
X Rhonda McCarvel - Chairman
McCarvel: Good evening and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting
for February 18th, 2021. The Commissioners who are present this evening are at City
Hall and on Zoom. We also have staff from the City Attorney and City Clerk's offices, as
well as city Planning Department. If you are joining us on Zoom this evening we can see
that you are here and 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 comment. 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 to you as quickly as possible.
If you simply want to watch this evening's meeting we encourage you to watch this
streaming on the city's YouTube channel. You can access it at meridiancity.org/live. And
with that let's begin with roll call.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda.
We do have Foxcroft Subdivision, H-2020-0113, which is currently open from the last
meeting, is requested to be continued again to March 1 st--4th in order to have more time
to work through the staff's conditions of approval in the staff report. So, that item will not
be heard this evening. If there is anybody here to testify in that particular application we
will not be taking testimony this evening. So, can I get a motion to adopt the agenda as
amended?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 18,2021 5
Page 2 of 49
Seal: So moved.
Grove: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All those in favor say
aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item]
1. Approve Minutes of the February 4, 2021 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting
2. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Human Bean (H-2020-0125)
by A&C Ventures, LLC, Located at 3285 W. Nelis Dr.
3. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law 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.
McCarvel: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and we have one, two, three
items on the Consent Agenda. Approve the minutes of the February 4th meeting.
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Human Bean, 2020-0125, and Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law for Northpoint Recovery Center. H-2020-0126. So, with that can I
get a motion to approve the Consent Agenda?
Seal: So moved.
Grove: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda. All those
in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item]
McCarvel: So, at this time I will briefly explain the public hearing process. We will open
each item individually and begin with the staff report and the staff will report their findings
on how the item adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code.
After staff has made their presentation the applicant will come forward to present their
case and respond to staff comments and they will have 15 minutes to do so. After the
applicant has finished we will open the floor for public testimony. Each person will be
called on only once during the public testimony. The Clerk will call the names individually
of those who signed up on our website in advance to testify. You will, then, be unmuted.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 18,2021 6
Page 3 of 49
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 are not speaking, you will have up to ten minutes. After all those
who have signed up in advance have spoken, we will invite others who may wish to testify.
If you wish to speak on the topic you may press the raise hand button on the Zoom app
or if you are listening on a phone, please, press star nine and wait for your name to be
called. If you are listening on multiple devices, a computer and a phone, for example,
please be sure to mute the extra devices, so we do not experience feedback and we can
hear you clearly. When you are finished if the Commission does not have questions for
you, you will, then, be muted and no longer have the ability to speak. Please remember
we will not call on you a second time. After all testimony has been heard the applicant
will be given another ten minutes to come back and respond. When the applicant has
finished responding to the 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 decision or recommendation to City Council as needed.
ACTION ITEMS
4. Public Hearing Continued from February 4, 2021 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 continue the public hearing for item H-2020-
0113, Foxcroft Subdivision, and does staff have any comments they would like at this
time or do we want to proceed to a motion?
Dodson: Madam Chair, I have no other comments other than what you said for the -- the
reason why.
McCarvel: Okay. Great. Can I get a motion to continue Item H-2020-0113 to March 4th,
2021. 1 guess if the Commission doesn't have any other discussion on the item.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 18,2021 7
Page 4 of 49
Seal: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Seal.
Seal: I move to continue file number H-2020-0113 to the hearing date of March 4th to
give the applicant more time to walk through the staff's conditions of approval in the staff
report.
Grove: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to continue H-2020-0113 to March 4th. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
5. Public Hearing for Ambles Run Subdivision (H-2020-0124) by
HomeFound Group, Located '/4 mile east of N. Locust Grove Rd. and
% Mile South of Chinden Blvd.
A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 2.88 acres of land with an R-2
zoning district.
B. Request: A preliminary plat consisting of 6 single-family residential
lots.
McCarvel: Next item on the agenda -- and we did have -- there was a typo on the public
agenda. It should be H-2020, not -- not H-2021 -- 0124, Ambles Run Subdivision, and
with that we will begin with the staff report.
Dodson: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for recognizing that minor mistake
there. As noted, the first item that we are actually hearing tonight is for Ambles Run
Subdivision, located about a quarter mile east of Locust Grove and South of Chinden
Avenue. It is a lot and block within the existing county Dunwoody Subdivision. The
applicant is requesting annexation and zoning of 2.8 acres of land with a request for the
R-2 zoning district and a preliminary plat for six single family residential lots. The property
lies within the low density residential future land use designation, which allows single
family dwellings at a gross density less than three dwelling units per acre. The proposed
project meets both the allowed use and the density requirements of the requested zoning
and future land use. The proposed density should function as a transitional density from
the Vienna Woods Subdivision to the --on the south to the existing Dunwoody Subdivision
surrounding it to the north, west, and east. Staff finds the proposed density as appropriate
in addition to meeting our Comprehensive Plan. Access into the site is proposed via
extending Chopin Avenue, which is abutting the site to the south and it's the only available
point of access into the site. The applicant is proposing to provide parkways with street
trees on both sides of Chopin. As currently proposed the project is proposing
approximately four percent open space. That would be qualifying should it -- if any were
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 18,2021 8
Page 5 of 49
required. This number is important, because if this property was required, if it was greater
than five acres to be exact, the project would only be required to provide five percent due
to the lot containing buildable lots or an ability to gain all building lots that are over 16,000
square feet. Providing open space for developments is a critical point within the
Comprehensive Plan to help create a sense of place and add green space for residents
to enjoy. Therefore, staff is recommending that the applicant revise the landscape plans
to show ten foot wide parkways, instead of eight foot wide, to increase the open space
for the project and meet that five percent threshold. Providing open space at this level is
not required by code, again, to be clear, but staff believes it helps the project meet the
spirit of the code and allows for even more of an identity for the small subdivision, because
ten foot parkways, one, allow trees more room to grow and they tend to be healthier with
that versus eight foot and with -- our code allows bigger trees within ten foot wide
parkways versus eight. In addition to wider parkways staff is recommending a revision to
the road layout to better comply with the Comprehensive Plan and help with future
development in this area. The applicant should provide a stub street to their western
boundary and preliminary conditions or discussions with ACHD have determined that this
applicant would be required to construct a full street section. However, the applicant
should work with ACHD on a reduced street section for the stub street to minimize the
impact to this property. By providing a stub street to the north and to the west provides
road connectivity and utility placement for future development in this area, which should
create a more cohesive design. Furthermore, this recommended change does not create
the need to lose any lots or change the request for R-2 zoning, as each lot would still
meet the minimum dimensional standards for R-2 after reducing the lot widths along the
western boundary. A submitted landscape plan also shows a raised berm with relatively
full landscaping along the rear of the building lots. This landscaping on private lots is not
regulated by code and, therefore, staff does not recommend adding any provisions
regarding this landscaping. The applicant intends to maintain the berm and landscaped
areas through the HOA and subsequent CC&Rs, Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions,
that the city does not regulate. Staff believes this is the appropriate way to regulate and
maintain the proposed landscaping on the private building lots. I would like to circle back
to my recommended changes to have a western stub street. The applicant did speak
with ACHD following my staff report and ACHD will not allow them to do a reduced -- a
reduced street section as a sub street to their western boundary, which is unfortunate.
They only allow that in cases where there are site constraints, which usually means
existing development, and because there isn't any they would like a full standard street
section. Therefore, with that knowledge, as well as understanding that, whether this
street is on this side of the north property line or the north side of the property line with a
future project, it will not make or break this project and, therefore, I am in a -- I am
expecting the applicant to request that that condition be waived and I'm amenable to that.
I do not -- I prefer these six lots be approved, rather than denied, over a short stub street
that will eventually be there with future development in this area. There was one piece of
public testimony submitted as of approximately 4.30 p.m. this afternoon that's from the
neighbors to the west that are in the Dunwoody Subdivision from my understanding, Mr.
and Mrs. Rammell, and they were noting that they would like a stub street to their -- their
eastern -- this western -- so, the shared property line on the west side for another access
point to their lot. Other than that staff does recommend approval of this application as
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 18,2021 191
Page 6 of 49
noted and I will stand for any questions that you guys have. Thank you.
McCarvel: Any questions for staff? I do have one for you, Joe. What number is the item
on the stub street that you are okay with us striking, if that's the direction the commission
goes?
Dodson: Madam Chair, there is multiple, because it -- it goes through the plat conditions,
as well as the landscape conditions and things like that.
McCarvel: Okay.
Dodson: I don't have that in front of me. I apologize.
McCarvel: So, are we -- we are probably good with -- if in the discussions and of just
talking about there being no stub -- stub street?
Dodson: Correct. I can easily go back through --
McCarvel: Okay.
Dodson: -- and do that afterwards.
McCarvel: Yeah. Okay. Okay. All right. Would the applicant like to come forward?
Miller: Hi, there. Michael Miller. Can you hear me?
McCarvel: Yes.
Miller: Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, my name is Michael Miller. My address
is 1308 North 12th Street, Boise, Idaho. I have a presentation. Can I share that with
you?
McCarvel: Yeah. I believe so.
Miller: Okay. So, I'm going to go here and -- excuse me. Okay. All right. So, give me a
second here. Okay. Can you see that?
McCarvel: We have a white screen right now.
Miller: Apologies for the complications.
McCarvel: No problem. There we go.
Miller: Got it?
McCarvel: We have it.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 18,2021 Flo]
Page 7 of 49
Miller: Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the
Commissioners for allowing this opportunity to present our application. Big thank you to
Joseph Dodson. We pre-app'd this application in August, almost six months ago, and he
has been very communicative and helpful throughout this entire process. So, as you
mentioned, our parcel here -- can you see my mouse?
McCarvel: Yes.
Miller: Okay. Our parcel here lies just outside of the Dunwoody Subdivision. Originally
this was an open space lot connected to the Dunwoody Subdivision. Each of these
residential lots were designated an open space lot and -- and two years ago in July during
a purchase and sale agreement, this open space lot was separated from this residential
lot and now has no access through Dunwoody. Our only access is through Chopin. As
you can see here, the Dunwoody Subdivision is all county and Meridian has grown around
us and our only option for utilities is to stub here through Chopin, the Vienna Woods
Subdivision. Traffic will flow down Locust Grove and come through Strauss and up
through Chopin. This is kind of a little image of what it will look like. It will terminate in a
cul-de-sac. We have six homes planned with a fence along the border here. The highest
and best use for this land is residential development. In our due diligence through this
last six months we spoke with the neighbors who do have an intention to develop. It was
important to staff that we show how a western interconnectivity could be possible and
they provide -- provided us this plan and I don't know if this is what they are still doing,
but this was an initial rough draft presented to us. They would go through here and, then,
out through Dunwoody, stubbing to this northern property. They would stub west and,
then, out and continue for the rest of their development. This is the idea of what we would
want if we were controlling the entire 15 acres, but we only have the 20 percent -- the
three acres -- 2.8 acres right here. So, we do not think that a western stub street is good
for our project or for future development. As you can see, if we were to stub at any part
of our western border here it would go directly into this property here. If we were to use
up the full length of our parcel here these lots would be like 50 by 50 and the road would
end right into this home and there will be double frontage. So, a western stub street
almost -- along the entire length of our western border provides several complications to
future development, but they do already intend to stub to the west here on this property
and this will allow them to continue through and we open the door for that development.
As Joseph said, we have six lots here. We originally started out with eight. My first
impression was that we would need to be zoned R-4, which is contiguous with the Vienna
Woods Subdivision -- Subdivision, but after our neighborhood meeting they requested
that we lower our density and change our zoning request and so we were amenable to
that and we changed it to six .4 acre lots. We also have in our landscape plan here you
can see a three foot berm with -- I think like over 90 pieces of vegetation and landscaping,
along with a six foot cedar fence to help provide privacy for the Dunwoody Subdivision.
Those neighbors right here along our eastern border. We are also proposing that the
homes be single level with a bonus room, so that the -- at least here on these three, so
that Dunwoody would have -- maintain its privacy. Just like a couple quick facts. The last
year in 2020 there were I think 13 -- 1,300 new construction sales on .4 acres or less and
only 16 of those were .4 acres or larger. We just make that point to show that we think
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 18,2021 Fill
Page 8 of 49
this is going to be a great fit for Meridian, these large open size lots. Regarding staff's
recommendation for the eight foot parkway to go to ten feet, we -- well, we are not in
disagreement with that. The Vienna Woods Subdivision right here, their parkways are six
feet. So, we thought it would be a good transition to just go two feet wider and -- yeah.
So, as he mentioned with our open space and these parkways our open space is about
four percent, which is close to what would be required for R-2 zoning and that's it. That's
all I have for you. So, if there is any questions I will be happy to answer them.
McCarvel: Okay. Any questions for the applicant? There being none at this time, thank
you, Mr. Miller.
Miller: Thank you.
McCarvel: Madam Clerk, do we have anybody signed up to testify on this application?
Weatherly: Madam Chair, we have some people signed up. The first of which is Jeff
Wilding. Jeff is the HOA -- is representing an HOA tonight.
McCarvel: Okay.
Wilding: Thank you. Good evening, Madam Chair and Commissioners. My name is Jeff
Wilding. I'm the HOA president of the Dunwoody Subdivision and I live at 1842 East
Dunwoody Court. I have prepared a small presentation that I would like to work through.
Some of it a little bit of history and, then, some to the narrative that was provided by the
Homewood Group. So, as you have learned, Lot 26 is the proposed Ambles Run
Subdivision. Lot 25 is important, because during the sale of Lot 25 that was referred to
before in 2019, that lot was allegedly split, but that violates our CC&R agreement and,
again, I don't expect that you folks will have time to read through all this. I'm not going to
read all of the details that are in the black, but it's information that I want you to have. So,
the HomeFound Group suggested that there was an agreement from the Dunwoody
Subdivision to split those lots in the sale. That was never done. No documentation.
Multiple requests for alleged e-mails approving the lot split have not been produced and
multiple requests --excuse me -- requests from Title One have also produced no evidence
on agreement to split that lot. So, they still should be under one ownership. This is just
a little bit of background for you. Also within our CC&R document, except for Lots 26 and
28, there can be no subdividing, but we do recognize that 26 can be subdivided and that's
what we are talking about tonight, but the resulting lots must contain a minimum of one
acre. The proposed Ambles Run Development, again, violates the CC&R document. And
so moving on to the next piece -- and this now is -- I have taken the Ambles Run narrative
and there is a few things that I would like to point out. The HomeFound Group claims
that Lot 26 has been separated from Dunwoody Subdivision and we are wondering how
that took place. Mr. Miller has -- did, in fact, meet with several residents requesting
deannexation from Dunwoody HOA. That motion was presented to the Dunwoody
residents, which there are 16, with 14 votes no and two in abstention. So, how did Lot 26
get separated from Dunwoody Subdivision? Our position is it has not been separated.
In 2007 there was a lot line redraw due to Richard Price building a shop over the top of
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 18,2021 F12
Page 9 of 49
the lot line between 25 and 26. So, it is recorded with the county that that lot line got
moved. That's why it's 2.88 acres and not three acres. So, we recognize that that got
moved. However, that does not separate the lot for purposes of selling or for subdividing
and the CC&Rs are still in place. The HOA was not contacted by Title One requesting
permission to split the lot. In fact, Dale and Lonnie Hope, who are here tonight, had their
own title company working on the sale and when the issue of splitting lots came up they
were suddenly told that Title One would now be handling that transition. Mr. Miller
referred to me to Lisa Britt from Title One to get the alleged documentation and through
several e-mails and phone calls to Lisa Britt, she informed me that there was nothing in
the file, nothing in underwriting, no notes, no documents or anything mentioned about the
CC&R stipulation of splitting that lot and when pressed Lisa Britt ceased to return my
phone calls. The HomeFound Group also claims that a single board member may have
granted split of the lot. So, when we first talked with the group they said this was a verbal
agreement and the former HOA president has no knowledge of that verbal agreement,
nor is there anything in writing, and so that never was -- there was never any business
conducted that way. Mr. Miller claimed that I -- in his narrative claimed that I felt
uncomfortable that the previous HOA president had allowed separation of lots and that's
just not true. I never expressed that, because that never really happened. So, I really
challenge Mr. Miller and the HomeFound Group and Title One to provide e-mails that they
claim are in existence granting permission to split the lot. It's in his narrative, so I think it
becomes very important. As I have stated before, Mr. Miller did approach the HOA with
a proposal of deannexation of Lot 26 and a vote was taken with 14 votes of no. He also
included that he was never asked -- or at least the homeowner -- not the homeowners,
the owner of Lot 26 was never included in that vote. Short sighted on my part. They don't
live there. Usually the votes just go to the people who live there. But it wouldn't have
mattered even if they would have been there, the vote still would have been a no vote. I
did suggest to Mr. Miller that he work with the developers of the rest of that area there,
that 15 acres, and try to include acre lots at least along the Dunwoody lot lines for a higher
density as it moves forward to Locust Grove, much in the same manner that Three
Corners Ranch on the -- on the north side of us has done. All of those lots are one acre
against Dunwoody and, then, they get more dense as they go and he declined to do that.
Also there is a claim that the HOA has agreed to smaller than one acre lots for Lot 28 and
he actually showed a diagram of that. We have not been approached by that homeowner.
I have seen his plan, but we have not been approached to vote on that, nor has that been
brought before this group and so there -- that has not been approved by the HOA. So,
I'm not sure where he's getting that information. Just a few final points that I would like
to make. Initially, the Hopes did not want to purchase that open space lot. The real estate
agent representing Mrs. Miller informed them -- informed them that the space behind them
would be subdivided in one acre lots. That helped them feel comfortable with what was
going to go in behind them and so they moved forward with the sale -- with the purchase
of their home. When they learned about the proposed Ambles Run development they
offered a very handsome price for that 2.8 acres and that was declined. Point. Lot 26
has not been deannexed from Dunwoody Subdivision. That cannot be unilaterally done.
The vote of the HOA was no. The split of Lot 25 and 26 was not done with any approval
and nobody has provided information that would suggest otherwise. The narrative
contains many non-truths and speculations. Under R-2 zoning one acre lots may be
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 18,2021 F13
Page 10 of 49
constructed on that property and so when Mr. Miller first came to us he said I cannot
develop it unless I go to R-4 zoning. We told -- we told him about R-2. Now he was going
to go to R-2, that's great, but he can still put one acre lots on that property. So, my final
point is that the Dunwoody Subdivision HOA opposes the plan is presented for Ambles
Run and we would ask that the Commission consider our longstanding 30 year old
CC&Rs and -- and help us with that piece of it. That is my presentation, unless the
Commission has questions.
McCarvel: Do we have any questions for the speaker?
Seal: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Okay. Commissioner Seal.
Seal: Just as a question of documentation here, do you have the -- the notes and the
vote documents from the HOA meeting that you had?
Wilding: I don't have them with me, but I do have all of the e-mails that I can provide that
would show us that -- that -- that information. I can -- that can be retrieved and presented
to you.
Seal: Okay. Thank you.
McCarvel: Any other questions for Mr. Wilding? Okay.
Weatherly: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Yes, Madam Clerk.
Weatherly: Next we have Jeff Thompson. He is online. Jeff, one moment, please.
McCarvel: Okay. Mr. Thompson, please state your name and address for the record and
right now it looks like you need to unmute your side.
Thompson: Thank you, Madam Chair. Jeff Thompson. I am at 1970 East Handle Court
in the Vienna Wood Subdivision. My property touches part of the property in question,
so I share a lot line and so, basically, just what I wanted to share was I -- originally my
family was involved in -- in the development approved by the City of Meridian for Vienna
Woods Subdivision and when we went forth with that project for Vienna Woods,
Dunwoody Subdivision members were very concerned and so working through the
process with the city, what we ended up having to do -- and which I think is a great thing
-- is we had low density large lots placed along the east-west border on the north side of
that 80 acres that constitutes Vienna Woods and that was done to -- for and behalf of the
Dunwoody concerning -- to address those concerns from Dunwoody -- the Dunwoody
homeowners and residents and -- and we also had specifics that were put upon us or that
were agreed to I should say that we would do single levels, which is mentioned as part of
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 18,2021 F14
Page 11 of 49
this plan with this new Ambles Run, but we did single level on certain sections and, then,
two stories were allowed only at certain locations and they were mandated a half acre at
a very very minimum point. So, we had -- that was the smallest we could go along that
stretch east to west and so I guess my point is living here now -- I have owned two homes
in this subdivision along that border and have followed and complied with all those things
and we did, of course, in the development as well. But my feeling is that that sort of set
a precedence of the -- the graduation or the blending of the densities and seeing that
Dunwoody also had that as -- that in their CC&Rs of one acre lots, it -- it totally -- it totally
fits and totally coincides with what the history that's there, right, that we -- we had with the
origination and the approval of the Vienna Woods Subdivision. So, my testimony is just
that. I really believe that -- that either one acre or half acre or larger is sort of the
precedent that was set by the board and the Commission in the past and I see that only
as reasonable moving forward and not that I'm against development, I am not against the
development of that property at all. I -- I am for that, but I think it should follow that
precedent that's been set and I also think that that kind of density -- low density needs to
be followed and if the CC&Rs are in place, in fact, of the one acre, then, I think that should
be honored and that -- that's all I have. Thank you.
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Anyone else, Madam Clerk?
Weatherly: Madam Chair, next we have Robert Phillips also online. One moment.
McCarvel: Go ahead, Mr. Phillips. You are -- you need to unmute your side and give
your name and address for the record. Thank you.
Phillips: I'm Robert Phillips. Can you hear me now?
McCarvel: Yes.
Phillips: Okay. Robert Phillips. 5576 North Chopin Avenue. So, my property is the
property just to the -- the south of the proposed subdivision and, by the way, I'm very pro
development. I think development is great. I do have one concern probably should be
brought before Council on this matter, which is if -- if -- if the applicant goes forward with
his proposed subdivision and -- which the Council or, you know, the Commission and
Council has the right to approve, that doesn't remove the CC&Rs. So, you are going to
have CC&Rs that restrict it one way and Planning and Zoning and the Council saying a
different way, those CC&Rs don't go away, which means when a person buys the home
their title policy will have excepted out the --the CC&Rs will be an exception to that, which
means people may be buying homes in that subdivision without valid title insurance and
that can create a real issue and so I just want to make sure that we are not creating future
issues for the neighbors there as it relates to a violation of the CC&Rs that will -- that will
stay in place after-- after this is approved. So, you are going to create an natural conflict
there, which isn't resolvable unless this Dunwoody Subdivision somehow deannexes that.
So, I just think that's a problem that you should make sure you consider when you
consider this application. And that was it.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 18,2021 F15]
Page 12 of 49
McCarvel: Thank you.
Weatherly: Madam Chair, next we --
McCarvel: Anyone else, Madam Clerk?
Weatherly: Madam Chair, next we have Susan Rammell.
McCarvel: And is she online or --
Weatherly: She's in-house, Madam Chair.
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you.
Rammell: I'm Susan Rammell and I -- my address is 5690 North Locust Grove Road,
Meridian, Idaho. My husband Dale O'Brien and I have owned the five acres that is directly
west of the property that's being developed. We have lived there for 31 years and have
been involved with all of the subdivisions and things that have -- have gone on. I
submitted a comment earlier and would like to read it into the record tonight. I just said
the first sentence. My husband Dale O'Brien and 1, Susan Rammell, own the five acres
-- I'm really not this scared. I sound like I'm going to cry, but I'm really not. Immediately
west of the proposed development Ambles Run Subdivision. We ask that the Millers stub
a street into the east side of our land. This is important because it will provide an alternate
route to enter and exit -- exit our property and helps in the long term maintenance of a
road that will connect us to Vienna Woods. A street stub into our acreage also offers an
improved zoning and would better fit with Meridian's planning principles and we
appreciate your consideration. It is not correct that if you put the stub there it would run
into our house. So, that is incorrect. We have been working with three of our neighbors
to try to develop the property that -- the five acres that we own -- have and so Mr. Miller
knows about those, because we have contacted him. I would also like to ask that the
development take steps to limit light pollution to the surrounding area, so -- and that's all
that I have.
McCarvel: Thank you, Ms. Rammell.
Weatherly: Madam Chair, next we have Dale Hope, who is in house.
Hope: Thank you. My name is Dale Hope. I live in 1985 East Dunwoody Court. My wife
and I purchased the home at -- at that site, which is on the map as Lot 25 and during the
sales process we were informed that the area behind us was limited to one acre parcels,
which Mr. Wilding expanded on. So, I won't go further into that. So, it was just part of the
sales enticement that we thought was pretty nice about the neighborhood and we were
kind of hoping that it would stay that way. Mr. Miller and his family have stated in their
narrative that they are separated from the Dunwoody Subdivision as a result of me
purchasing Lot 25 and the home from them --their family. Well, I don't see how that really
makes any sense. We don't agree with that and the HOA has also said that that does not
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 18,2021 F16
Page 13 of 49
constitute a separation from the subdivision. So, just briefly I just wanted to say that, you
know, the Mill -- Mr. Miller and his family lived in the home for 30 years, which he's
conveyed in his message. He enjoyed all the benefits that the CC&Rs brought to the
neighborhood, which brings a beautiful higher end type neighborhood with open spaces
and very appropriate nice neighborhood. So, as they are living there for 30 years they
are enjoying the benefits of the CC&Rs. Once they move out now they want to come to
the city and to the neighborhood and the rest of our neighbors and HOA and no longer
be bound by the CC&Rs which are clearly in place and I have talked and some -- my
understanding the only way to get out of CC&Rs is either through a homeowner
association vote, which Mr. Wilding has already done and the answer is no, and the only
other option that I understand to get out of a CC&R is through a civil legal lawsuit, which
has not happened yet. Thank you.
McCarvel: Thank you. At this time I would like to let the record show that Commissioner
Cassinelli has joined us at 6:41.
Cassinelli: Thank you.
Weatherly: Madam Chair, we have -- sorry, Commissioner Cassinelli. Madam Chair, we
have Monte Moore, who is joining us online. Monte, one moment.
Moore: Can you hear me?
McCarvel: Yes. Thank you.
Moore: Okay. Hi. My name is Monty Moore and I live at 1921 East Dunwoody Court.
live immediately north of Mr. Hope, Dale Hope, who just testified. I also own -- I own five
acres and there is a three acre agricultural lot -- roughly three acre agricultural lot that I
own immediately north of the Millers and I'm one of the neighbors who has been talking
to Tucker Johnson about putting my property into a development. I have always felt like
it would be better to have a one unified whole development, rather than piecemeal it, and
here after 27 years I think we are getting close to it. I'm in favor of Mr. Miller developing
his part. I am a member of the Dunwoody Subdivision and have been privy to discussions
among the subdivision, owner -- people who are owners in the HOA, and I just think what
I would like to come to is something that would be reasonable for everybody. I have tried
-- went to Ada county two or three years ago and tried to bring in a road or a driveway
from Dunwoody, so that I could develop my three acres. It would just be two -- two lots
and -- and I was turned down, they said there is no way I can do that. So, the only way I
can access -- if that's still true, the only way I can access my property would be through
Mr. Miller's development and, then, out the other side onto the west end of Dunwoody,
which is what we are talking about for our development right now. I have it on good
authority -- there may be some who disagree, but I do believe that if -- if there is some
compromise on the one acre issue, that there is a good chance that the Dunwoody
Subdivision would let us out of the CC&Rs and disconnect -- disconnect that property
from Dunwoody and allow it to be developed. What I'm doing is I'm going to have lots --
I'm going to have -- I would like to have four lots, three lots around three-quarters of an
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 18,2021 F17
Page 14 of 49
acre and, then, one other smaller lot, just because of the way the road would have to
come through and so what I would hope the Millers would do is on the east edge where
the Hopes are, take the three lots and bring them down to two lots and I think that the
neighbors would, then, look kindly on this, you know, as -- that would be a compromise
and I understand you have already compromised from eight down to six, but I would like
to see you bring that down to two lots, instead of three, and my lots will -- will be of similar
size, will be along the back of my property and the Fillmore's property, large lots -- not an
acre, but close to it, and I think that we would have consensus at that point. Also
appreciate our past discussions of -- of allowing me to have access through there --
through the Miller's subdivision into Vienna Woods, so that there is a -- there is a way for
traffic to -- to get to my piece and some compromise on the access to the Rommell-
O'Brien -- Rammell-O'Brien property, as Susan Rammell testified earlier. Any questions?
McCarvel: Don't believe so. Thank you.
Weatherly: Madam Chair, that's all that I show signed up in advance.
McCarvel: Okay. And is there anyone else on Zoom or in chambers that would like to
testify on this application? Okay. All right. Would the applicant like to come and
address --
Weatherly: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Yes, Madam Clerk.
Weatherly: We did have one person raise their hand in the online audience.
McCarvel: Okay.
Weatherly: Dick Price. One moment, please.
McCarvel: And, Mr. Price, you will need to unmute yourself on your side and, please,
state your name and address for the record. Mr. Price, you are still muted.
Weatherly: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Yes, Madam Clerk.
Weatherly: It looks like Marissa Price also has their hand raised. I'm going to go out on
a limb and say maybe they are together and if it's one having audio issues.
McCarvel: Okay.
Weatherly: Let's try Marissa. One moment.
McCarvel: Let's try that.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 18,2021 F18
Page 15 of 49
Price: Well, I think I got it.
McCarvel: Okay. All right. So, Mr. Price, are you and Marissa Price the same testimony
here?
Price: Yes. I'm one of the owners of the property.
McCarvel: Okay.
Price: And, first of all, I want to say I really respect Dale Hope. I think he's a real good
guy and in our development I want to make sure that he's a happy camper, because he
spent a lot of money on his home. When we originally applied for this we were looking at
four lots on his side and I hope it's a compromise that they can live with. We are going to
do half acre lots, which there are three, but I said in our development proposal I would
only want those homes on his side of the street to be single level or single level with bonus
rooms, because I want him to have privacy in his backyard. I don't want people to be
staring at his backyard and I guess the last thing I would say is just how this has changed
since we bought that property. I used to pheasant hunt in Vienna Woods. When
Dunwoody was put in I mean it was so rural 30 years ago and it's just amazing what's
happened over the last 30 years. Unfortunately, Meridian just needs a place for people
to put their homes and this is just one of them and I'm just hoping you will take a look at
it in that manner, especially where we are going to try and make Mr. Hope happy and --
and do nice homes and have them single level or single level with bonus rooms on nice
size lots. So, that's all I have to say.
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Anyone else wish to testify on this application? All
right. Would the applicant like to come forward --
Miller: Yes, Madam Chair.
McCarvel: -- and address any of the issues. Thank you.
Miller: Yes. Thank you. Can you -- can I share my screen again?
McCarvel: Yes.
Miller: Okay. Thank you so much. Can you see this?
McCarvel: Yes.
Miller: Okay. Thank you. So, originally, our home here, Lot 25, was owned by Maureen
Miller and Dick Price, my parents. They separated many years ago. She bought him out
of title of that home. So, this lot here was hold -- held sole and separate by Maureen
Miller. The lot we are talking about here, this open space lot, was held -- is held in title
by Maureen and Dick Price. When Maureen went to sell her home she had no intention
to sell the open space lot. She held title to 20 -- Lot 25 and she put just this up on the
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 18,2021 F19
Page 16 of 49
market to be sold. The issue of the CC&Rs did come up during that purchase and sale
agreement and title has cleared any issues with the HOA. They had to in order to get
pro-rations for Dale Hope's purchase. We have several e-mails -- e-mails detailing that.
At the time Mona Tippets -- I have blurred out her number. But Mona Tippets was the
president of the HOA at that time and they had a conversation about the CC&Rs and it
says here that Sandy Anderson and Mona Tippets reviewed the CC&Rs on their own and
realized you are in compliance, because as you can tell this was a hot issue at the time.
She could not sell both lots. She owned just the residential lot, Lot 25, and the HOA was
aware of this. It was cleared and the lot was separated. Now that it has been separated
there is no access through Dunwoody. We don't have access to their amenities and we
are clearly not getting a vote -- vote in their HOA. We weren't contacted about that. I
asked for them to deannex -- to just do that to approach this subject before we came
before you. They were not in favor of that and, then, they did not include us in a vote in
that. So, I don't understand how we can be part of a subdivision that we don't have a vote
regardless. The best access comes from Meridian through Chopin Avenue. We have
compromised on our lots. We went from eight to six and we think that that's a good
compromise, a good transition, as staff mentioned. Before we had done any of this we
had actually offered to sell this property back to Dale Hope. He declined. He didn't want
it. And so we went forward -- we asked the county if we could develop on it. You can't
develop on anything less than five acres. So, we are here presenting to Meridian in order
to get utilities to develop our land, which is the highest and best use for this land. The
western stub road -- it does run directly into their property. We would put, you know, two
lots here, maybe, and one here and it would go directly into that house that it just -- it
would not function to have lots here and, then, here and, then, double frontage here.
appreciate the other neighbors wanting to develop. This is their plan. We did not have
an agreement about that plan. There is an island here of homes, maybe 200 feet by 200
feet surrounded by asphalt. We don't think that's a good transition between Vienna
Woods and Dunwoody. We think the best route is to go north directly into Monte's
property, like he's proposed with his four lots. The transition looks good between these
two. Then they can go west and, then, they could do an open space lot here. But at the
end of the day we are here to present you our project, which we think is a good plan. We
have decreased our density at the request of the neighborhood. We have been
continually -- that's why it has taken us six months, we have continually tried to work this
project to make sure that all of the concerned parties have been navigated. With that
being said, we think that this is going to be a very good option, a very good plan for this
piece, and we are opening the doorway by developing for the neighbors to continue with
their options. Thank you very much.
McCarvel: Any questions for the applicant? Okay. With that, then, can I get --
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Yes, Steven.
Yearsley: This is Steven Yearsley.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 18,2021 F20
Page 17 of 49
McCarvel: Yes, Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: Given that there is -- there is a struggle between the two subdivisions with
regards to the CC&Rs, I wonder if maybe Andrea could respond to how -- I mean before
we close the public hearing I wouldn't mind having the applicant to comment on this. But
my concern is how do we proceed with this if there is a discrepancy in the CC --you know,
with their CC&Rs, which is not by us, but is there -- is there an issue proceeding I guess
with this?
Miller: The issue would be with the title company who has insured the sale. We have
cleared that. They cleared it through the HOA. That's part of their due diligence. On top
of that, we have e-mails saying that the -- the HOA knew about it and they have reviewed
it and we are in compliance and now two years later that we want to develop there is a
different president and I appreciate Jeff Wilding's testimony, he -- you know, he was open
working with us. We -- when he suggested R-2 we decreased the R-2 or changed our
request to R-2. But the president at the time Mona Tippets and Sandy Anderson, who
was on that board, knew about that and they allowed the separation of lots and now this
parcel has been separated. The best use for it is development and there are no issues
with the CC&R.
McCarvel: Thank you, Mr. Miller.
Seal: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: I think we are wanting to hear from our legal counsel here with us this evening
from the City of Meridian.
Pogue: Madam Chair, Commissioner Yearsley, this is Andrea Pogue. Basically this is a
private dispute. It doesn't involve the city. The applicant is acting at his own risk. He
could choose to withdraw the application and deal with the dispute or he could proceed
as he's doing tonight, indicating he wants to come in, if you approve it, and he could get
sued and, you know, it will be -- it's a private matter. It's a private dispute with regard to
the CC&Rs. So, Mr. Yearsley, the decisions before you -- this is an annexation. It's -- it's
to you -- within your purview to decide if you are comfortable or not comfortable. If it
doesn't seem like it's the right time given that there are other property owners looking to
develop as well and maybe you -- you might want to consider the timing of this -- this
parcel's development versus those. You might want to consider -- you know, there is just
a lot of considerations for you. I think the least of which is this private dispute matter.
Evaluate the -- the project on its own merits. It's the applicant's risk. It's -- I know in the
past this Commission has decided with very simple private dispute amongst neighbors.
You can continue the matter to try and give the applicant a chance to work through the
dispute or come back with a resolution or further proof if you are concerned there is
lacking in proof that the --the lot was successfully split or any other issues that might bear
on the decision of the merits of this application. There might be grounds to continue to
tonight, but if you are -- they are also -- you may want to make a decision and move it up
one way or another to Council to review. So, that's my basic comments, Commissioner
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 18,2021 F21
Page 18 of 49
Yearsley. It's a private dispute. I can't give legal advice. I'm neither one of their attorneys.
I -- I'm just learning of this for the first time tonight, so I can't say more than I have.
Yearsley: Okay. And that's what I was just asking for is -- is -- you know, that's kind of
what my thought was as well, that it's, first of all, between the two homes -- you know, the
association and homeowner or the property owner and I didn't know if we had any legal
standing on it as well. So, thanks for the clarification.
McCarvel: Okay.
Seal: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant?
Seal: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Seal.
Seal: Yeah. I mean I would like to ask the same thing that I asked of the -- the current
HOA president, which is the e-mail that was produced looked like it is of the former
president of the HOA. It doesn't look like any voting statistics or anything were taken on
that--or voting minutes were taken on that. Can either side produce the meeting minutes
from that where that decision was come to?
Miller: No, sir.
Seal: Was that a no?
Miller: Yeah. We just have the e-mails. There was no official documentation of the votes.
We just have a-mails documenting the exchange between the HOA and ourselves and
the allowance of us to separate.
Seal: So, you can understand where the -- the limit is, where we have -- this is one
person's word against, you know, an HOA and -- and I -- and I personally -- yeah. I was
going to say, I personally take issue with that. After serving in HOAs and being met with,
you know, powerless decisions sometimes in order to continue on because things like
this take place, I think that there is some kind of burden to produce some kind of factual
evidence that shows that at least a vote took place and something like that transpired
personally.
Miller: Sure. We have several a-mails documenting the exchange between us and the
title company, so --
Dodson: Madam Chair?
Seal: I understand that and that's why a title company does what it does. It's -- it's
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 18,2021 F22
Page 19 of 49
their --
Miller: Yeah.
Seal: -- it's their bill to -- to burden --
Miller: Yeah.
Seal: -- if something comes back on this. So, the legality of it is something that I don't
think has been flushed out completely. Even if it is a private matter between homeowners.
Dodson: Madam Chair? This is Joe.
McCarvel: Joe.
Dodson: No problem. To touch on this further and what our counsel has said, it is a
private matter in the sense of whether the lot was legally split as far as land records that
-- that occurred. There is a lot line adjustment record of survey that that occurred.
Whether that happened and the HOA allowed it, that is a civil matter. That's not in the
city's purview. What's before us -- whether or not the lot was legally split and can be
developed separate of Lot 25, that exists and it has -- my understanding from previous
conversations and previous decisions by counsel and legal determinations, again, not our
counsel, because we can't make these types of decisions for civil matters -- is that it -- it
is a civil matter and once the city annexes a piece of land those former county CC&Rs no
longer apply to this property, it applies -- the city zoning applies. So, again, that -- the
legal portion of that is not handled within the city realm. It should be handled in the civic
realm. It's a civil issue, not a city issue.
Seal: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Yeah.
Seal: I understand that and -- but I mean part of the issue that I have is we have Mr.
Moore and Mr. Miller, Mr. Fillmore, Mr. and Mrs. Rammell and Mr. Price involved in this,
who are either part of or have been part of the subdivision, who want to develop this entire
thing and it all hinges on the subdivision that you are either part of or have been part of.
So, I lack understanding as to why they cannot come to an agreement on how to develop
this entire parcel and I think that that's something that we should -- as people that are
going to see this come into the city -- foster in in good faith.
McCarvel: Okay.
Weatherly: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: If there is --
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 18,2021 F23
Page 20 of 49
Weatherly: Madam Chair, this is Adrienne.
McCarvel: Yeah. Uh-huh.
Weatherly: I did have one person identify themselves by raising their hand in the
audience. I wanted to give you the opportunity to address that.
McCarvel: How does the Commission feel on it? Do we want to hear more testimony or
are we ready to move forward, as the applicant has already come back and spoken?
Pogue: Madam Chair, this is Andrea.
McCarvel: Yes.
Pogue: I would recommend the Commission move -- continue to --
McCarvel: Move forward. Yeah. This is -- yeah. We can't keep debating this with the
members of the audience. At this time I would recommend, since the applicant has
already spoken, that we close the public hearing and move on to our discussions. And
on that note, could I --
Seal: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Yeah.
Seal: Move that we close the public hearing for Ambles Run Subdivision, H-2020-0124.
Grove: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2020-0124.
All those in favor say aye. Opposed. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT.
McCarvel: Okay. Now we will continue the discussion. Where would you like to pick up?
Grove: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Grove.
Grove: My initial inclination is to move towards continuance to allow more time and see
if further discussion among the neighbors and potential developing -- developers could
come to a solution. If-- if not, then, you know, I think we could take another look at it, but
that would be my -- my first impression of this. Similar to what we saw a while back with
a subdivision development off of Black Cat and Chinden, just to allow a little bit more
dialogue to occur.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 18,2021 F24
Page 21 of 49
McCarvel: Yeah. I think there has been a lot of dialogue, but I would hate to get in the
middle of a civil matter when just annexing this part into the city could actually make the
decision for them it sounds like, because, then, it would no longer be part of the county.
Grove; Madam Chair, for me it's not just the CC&R piece, it's also the -- the other
developing piece and making sure that they are on the same page with how they want to
develop, so that it's more of a unified vision and less piecemeal.
McCarvel: Yeah. Okay. Other thoughts, Commissioners? Steven, you came off.
Commissioner Yearsley and Commissioner Cassinelli are off mute.
Yearsley: You know-- thank you. You know, I don't know how to --where to go with this.
I think on its own merits I think it looks like a really nice subdivision. I like the size. You
know, I don't think that the association is going to want to compromise the way it sounds
from the applicant -- or from the -- the HOA president and I think, you know, maybe giving
them a couple of weeks to talk to the other homeowners to see if they want to include in
that development -- I do recognize that the developers current -- you know, has been
working on this since -- since August and so he's probably anxious to try to get into this
building season, so he can get his -- his lots sold and move forward. I would have a
tendency to -- you know, he gave him -- you know, there is opportunities for them to come
in and still meet, you know, lot sizes and -- and have a decent development through that
property. I'm inclined to move it forward.
McCarvel: Okay. And in moving it forward you like it as is?
Yearsley: I do. I like the subdivision. I think it's a nice size. If it was south of the -- south
of Meridian -- of the interstate I -- I would actually consider looking at one of the lots, but
-- so, no, I think it -- I think it stands good on its own merits.
McCarvel: Thank you. Commissioner Cassinelli, you are off mute.
Cassinelli: Oh, I'm just off mute. I will say that I'm going to --just because I missed some
of the dialogue here and I'm not totally up on -- on what was -- what was going on before
I joined, I'm going to abstain.
McCarvel: Okay.
Cassinelli: But I'm just --just my thoughts on it. It's -- you know, I mean to go into R-2, I
-- you are not usually going to get a complaint from me on R-2. I -- you know, things that
I typically like to see are good transition, the way it's shaped and the roads got to go in,
that's not -- you know, it's -- that thing could turn 90 degrees, but I -- again, I missed the
conversation with the -- with the CC&Rs a little bit with that, but, you know, all in all I like
it. I would like to see how it's going to future develop with the -- with the other parcels
around it, but, as I said, I'm -- I'm going to have to abstain from -- from the vote on this.
McCarvel: Thank you. Commissioner Seal? Commissioner Lorcher? Thoughts?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 18,2021 F25
Page 22 of 49
Seal: Madam Chair, I mean I have shared quite a few thoughts. I'm more with
Commissioner Grove on this, simply because if it wasn't all the property owners involved
in this that are all part of or have been part of the subdivision that's, you know, having the
issue with this, I would say, you know, it would be more likely that I would want to move
it along, but all of these people are part of or have been part of that same subdivision and,
you know, again, I -- I hate it when HOA stuff gets stepped on, because HOAs are
sometimes -- as much as they are the butt of a lot of jokes, they are often left powerless
to do anything like -- against something like this, because of the movement or the wording
or communication of one person. I have seen this happen in subdivisions I live in and I'm
not a fan of it. I think that what Commissioner Grove reflected on as far as having a more
complete vision for the entire area would be helpful for everybody involved. Instead of
tearing everything apart, it would help things come -- come together a little bit more. As
far as the project on its own, I'm with Commissioner Yearsley, I mean I live close to this,
so, you know, I mean if my wife and I were looking for a piece of piece of property in
Meridian, this is one of them I would look out for sure. I mean based on what it is and
where it is if it were to go forward. That said, I just don't think that-- I think that they would
be better off to have a more complete vision, a more complete plan of everything that's
going to develop in here before it moves forward.
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Lorcher?
Lorcher: The only thing I'm uncomfortable with is what Andy said with CC&Rs and HOA.
If we don't -- if we don't respect them, then, why should they be there in the first place.
We just kind of pick and choose the rules that we want. So, I think until the developer
and the HOA feel a little bit more comfortable with each other to be good neighbors, I
would probably be more favored for a continuance. It has nothing to do with the
subdivision. I think it's -- what their plans are is lovely. But it was also pointed out that
it's going to be piecemeal putting it all together, too. So, how -- how will they all be good
neighbors?
McCarvel: Yeah. Okay. Yeah. I guess my thoughts are that I think on its own it's a nice
subdivision. I think the through lots -- you know, you could do two or three there. I think
that makes -- that's making a nice transition as it is. But, yeah, I agree, I would like some
proof one way or the other on -- and not just one e-mail. Some title company proof or
something, you know, before we move forward on this if they come forward with that
would be helpful. Yeah. Because I don't think, yes, stubbing the street to the west if -- if
we were just looking at this on its own, I think the layout that they have shown is good
and would go forward in the future in a logical pattern. But, yeah, I'm -- I would say there
needs to be some clarity on whether this is still part of the HOA or not.
Dodson: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Joe.
Dodson: Thank you, ma'am. I just wanted to -- I don't -- obviously I assume the applicant
would prefer a continuance over a recommendation of denial, but I don't know what a
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 18,2021 F26
Page 23 of 49
continuance will do in favor of the applicant or in favor of the application, just because I
know they have already worked with the HOA for a while and I know that the HOA is,
obviously, because of what they talked about, is going to want the minimum one acre lot
sizes, which with Meridian zoning is not a requirement. So, we are still going to run into
this issue of do the CC&Rs have legal power to limit them to one acre lots and so that's
why -- I don't know if the applicant and the HOA will ever reach an agreement, as
Commissioner Yearsley noted. So, I just wanted to point that out that -- that those
discussions have already occurred. I don't know if the applicant would still like to try to
continue it out and do that again, but from what I have understood that issue is still going
to come up and we will be right back here talking about this again in a month or two
weeks.
Parsons: Yeah. Madam Chair, this is Bill.
McCarvel: Yes.
Parsons: I just -- I just want -- I just want to share some of the conversations that I had
with the surrounding neighbors with you as well, because I met with the HOA president
and we went through a bunch of different scenarios and I shared a lot of the same things
that you had talked about. Joe and I shared the same concerns with Mr. Miller and I tend
to agree with Commissioner Yearsley that we may not be able to get to a resolution in
two weeks or even a month. So, I don't -- I don't know what it gains us to continue the
project. But, again, that's still -- that's within your purview. But I do know that everyone
-- at least speaking with Mr. Miller and speaking with the HOA rep, they are very amenable
to working together and trying to get this resolved. At some point at the end of the day
they may not get to that point, but they do --the applicant does have 30 days from tonight's
hearing to City Council and I know you guys have always been -- I don't know if generous
is the right word, but at least acknowledge that there may be an opportunity for them to
work that out as they transition towards a City Council hearing. So, if you -- if you continue
the project two more weeks certainly you may not have a resolution, but if you kicked it
-- if you moved it along to City Council with the applicant and the HOA working together,
hopefully, again, everyone wants a nice development around them and that's the
impression that I have got in my discussions with both parties. So, I think they are mature
adults, I think they can get to a consensus and work this thing out. So, I would -- you
know, if it's your purview, certainly, you have the option to include in your motion that they
continue to have that resolved as they transition to City Council. But that's -- at least
wanted to give you some commentary that you have the ability to do that, to move this on
with them working that out, because I'm with you, it's -- from my experience with the city
we don't get a lot of R-2 lots and that's what I'm just going to share with the Dunwoody
residents out there, is this -- there has only been one R-2 development that -- or maybe
two since I have been with the city in 14 years and this is potentially the third -- number
three. So, it is -- it is something that a lot of developers don't take advantage of and
know past mayors and past council members have wanted to see more of that, particularly
in south Meridian and north Meridian. So, again, I have to commend the applicant for
even coming -- at least trying to make that attempt, losing some lots of coming in with the
.4 of an acre -- almost half an acre lot size next to -- to county residents. We typically
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 18,2021 F27
Page 24 of 49
don't see that type of transition. And, then, also restrict it to a single story, which is also
I think another win for Dunwoody. So, I would just encourage them to continue working
this out as they move through the hearing process and if-- if either side has any additional
questions of staff they can certainly reach out to us and we can have those further
discussions with them.
McCarvel: Thank you. Yeah. So, with that I'm not sure if we are ready for-- if somebody
was to take a stab at a motion one way or the other. I -- I tend to agree, I think with as
much discussion as was brought to us, it's -- I think it's obvious that the applicant and the
neighbors have had numerous discussions and I think at this point to move it along and
-- but with notes to City Council that -- of what our thoughts are as far as being respectful
of the potential HOA's -- but that's -- I mean we will take a motion and a stab at it. I will
give you a few minutes to see who wants to make the motion and what motion that would
be.
Yearsley: So -- so, Madam Chair? This is Steven Yearsley.
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: I'm trying to remember -- was there a -- from staff recommended -- changes to
the staff report that they recommended? I can't -- I remember him talking about that, but
I can't remember what it was.
McCarvel: I believe he was -- Joe was in agreement to strike the road stub to the west.
So, that -- it would -- it would be just basically the picture that we got.
Yearsley: Okay. Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: Give me a second and I will make a motion. After considering all staff,
applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file
number H-2020-0124. If I'm right. Yeah. 124. As presented in the staff report for the
hearing date of February 18th, 2021, with the following modifications. That the -- to strike
the condition to connect a road stub to the west.
McCarvel: Okay.
Grove: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Grove.
Grove: Commissioner Yearsley, could we add in a condition that the applicant continue
discussions with the neighbors concerning future development to the north and west?
Yearsley: Absolutely. I would be agreeable to that.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 18,2021 F28
Page 25 of 49
Grove: In that case I second.
McCarvel: Okay. It has been moved and seconded to approve H-2020-0124 and I
believe we will take a roll call vote.
Roll call: McCarvel, yea; Holland, absent; Cassinelli, abstain; Seal, nay; Grove, yea;
Yearsley, yea; Lorcher, nay.
McCarvel: Okay. Well, motion passes and I believe City Council will have all of our notes
and we will move on from there.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO NAYS. ONE ABSTAIN. ONE ABSENT.
6. Public Hearing for Compass Pointe Subdivision (H-2020-0100) by A-
Team Land Consultants, Located at the Southwest Corner of E.Victory
Rd. and S. Locust Grove Rd.
A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 7.69 acres of land with a request
for the R-15 zoning district.
B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 48 residential building lots
and 9 common lots on approximately 4.69 acres of land in the R-15
zoning district.
C. Request: A Planned Unit Development for the purpose of reducing
the rear setback of the R-15 zoning district for a portion of the
development due to site constraints.
McCarvel: In that case we will move on to the public hearing for H-2020-0100, Compass
Pointe Subdivision and we will begin with the staff report.
Dodson: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. As noted the next one
is Compass Pointe Subdivision. It is located in the southwest corner -- right. Yes.
Southwest. Southwest corner of Locust Grove and Victory Road. The site consists of
7.69 acres of land and the project was first heard by Planning and Zoning Commission in
December 3rd of last year. The Commission recommended denial of the project at that
time. Following this recommendation the applicant made a request to the Council to be
remanded back to P&Z with a revised plat and open space pursuant to the comments
made within the staff report, as well as by the Commissioners. The City Council agreed
with this request and remanded the project back. That's why we are here tonight. The
main changes made by the applicant following that recommendation of denial related to
the number of units, the road layout, the amount of usable open space and the applicant
is also no longer requesting a planned unit development. Therefore, the applicant is
requesting annexation and zoning of 7.69 acres of land with a request for R-15 zoning, a
preliminary plat consisting of 38 lots -- building lots and ten common lots on approximately
4.69 acres and, then, private streets for the road access for the development. That also
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 18,2021 F29
Page 26 of 49
requires an alternative compliance request, because the private streets will connect
directly to an arterial street. The proposed uses are all single family residential, but in
multiple forms. Attached townhomes, which are triplexes, attached duplexes, and four
single family detached homes as well. The project is proposed with a density of 4.94
dwelling units per acre and a net density of 9.8 dwelling units per acre, which is lower
than the previous submittal. The applicant is proposing to construct private streets within
the development of 24 feet wide, with five foot attached sidewalk on at least one side of
the street throughout the project. As seen the main thoroughfare through this site has
sidewalk on both sides of the street, which is not required with private streets. At the
north end of the main street within the development, which is Compass Lane, the
applicant is proposing an emergency only access out to Victory Road. This access is
required if more than 30 homes are to be constructed. The proposed access for this
development is to Locust Grove and lines up with East Coastline Street on the east side
of Locust Grove, which was the access into the Trade Winds Subdivision and a future
subdivision further east of that. Yes, the access point into the development does not meet
ACHD's district policy, but they are modifying their policy to accommodate the access, as
this is the only place that they can take access to the -- I should say if they took access
off Victory it would be even less compliant with ACHD policy as to the acute triangle we
have here. Therefore, again, ACHD is modifying their policies to allow this access as that
is the most logical and safest place for an access to Locust Grove. There are no other
public street stubs to this property from anywhere, mostly because the abutting site
constraints, which are the two arterial streets and the Ten Mile Creek, which there is no
bridge or even a pedestrian bridge over the creek. The site, as I noted, is a triangle shape,
bordered on two sides by the arterial streets and the Ten Mile Creek. As noted, again,
there is no opportunity for future road connectivity and that's why ACHD and the city find
it applicable for private streets to be used within the development. City code requires that
private streets are going to be used in either a MEW or gated community. The applicant
has proposed a gate, which can be seen here, sort of, that meets code requirements and
exceeds the distance away from the right of way as required. Code requires minimum 50
feet and this is well within that -- well beyond. There is a gray area here. Staff did
recommend changing this to a turnaround, instead of the parking. So, basically, remove
the parking and allow this area to be a turnaround area in case people accidentally pull
into the subdivision, pull into this access and cannot turn around adequately on the private
street and they can't get through the gate, because they are not part of the community.
The applicant did submit revised plans showing this, which staff does appreciate. The
proposed private streets are not wide enough to accommodate any on-street parking, as
they are only 24 feet wide. However, the applicant is proposing to construct additional
off-street parking along the main street as seen on the plat. There are no multi-use
pathways proposed or required with the development. However, the applicant is
proposing a five foot wide pathway on this side of the creek and behind the proposed
homes. This pathway connects to the private streets at the southern end of the project
and to the common open space a lot in the center of the development, as well as north
closer to Victory. Staff recommended an additional pedestrian connection to the
sidewalks, the arterial sidewalks, specifically that on Locust Grove, be constructed from
this -- the revised layout, which is here, this new loop. Connect those sidewalks there.
Which as seen the applicant has done that with their revised plans. There is no existing
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 18,2021 F30
Page 27 of 49
sidewalk along Victory or Locust Grove. Both arterial streets are scheduled to be widened
as part of -- sorry. As a part of the roundabout project at this intersection beginning this
year. According to ACHD with the roundabout project the applicant is required to dedicate
additional right of way for the intersection and future widening of both roads. ACHD is
requiring the applicant to enter into a road trust for the sidewalk improvements -- the
arterial sidewalk improvements that are adjacent to the site, since they will be constructed
with the widening project and with -- if they were constructed with this project they would
end up being torn out and, then, we would be spending duplicate money. I wanted to
show you this map here, which I usually don't show for Commission, but just to show
when the timeline is for all this. It has also come to my attention that the intersection
project for the roundabout at Victory and Locust Grove does extend all the way south to
the bridge, which abuts -- the bridge over the Ten Mile Creek, which abuts the property
directly to the south and that bridge will also be widened, which should help with a lot of
different pedestrian safety issues along the bridge there. That gets very skinny. A
minimum of ten percent qualified open space meeting UDC standards is required.
According to the property size, the applicant should supply at least .77 acres of qualified
open space or approximately 33,500 square feet. The applicant is proposing 3.9 acres
of open space, of which 3.4 is shown as qualifying on their submitted open space exhibit,
which is, obviously, vastly more than the minimum requirement. However, some of the
areas listed on the open space exhibit by the applicant as qualifying does not meet UDC
standards due to their not being the -- those areas not being at least 5,000 square feet or
not being anywhere near the 50 by 100 dimension. So, staff does have some discretion
as to whether we need every single qualified open space to be exactly 50 by 100 at least
or if there are some odd shapes allowing those to be qualified if they are greater than
5,000 square feet. For example, the open space lot surrounding this is not very usable,
because it abuts an arterial and has parking and homes. So, staff finds that that area is
not qualifying, but this area is, because it is over 5,000 square feet and is more usable
and a safer area for residents. Once the areas are removed from the qualified open space
exhibit that are not qualifying -- the qualified open space is approximately 2.97 acres.
More importantly, the open space for this development is largely made up of the Ten Mile
Creek, which is over two acres in size, and the arterial street buffers, which are 19,000
square feet of qualifying area. All of this area is qualifying, but the Ten Mile Creek will be
left natural and will be a buffer and more of a visual amenity than usable open space.
Abutting the creek and generally mid block with a micro path through it, the applicant is
proposing an open space lot that is approximately 5,700 square feet. It contains one set
of the amenities and the micro path as noted and connects to the private street -- well,
the sidewalks, as well as to the open space lot directly east of it as noted before here.
The 3,700 square foot open space lot is the most active and usable open space lot within
the development. In general the applicant has increased the usable open space areas
throughout the -- throughout the site following the Commission's recommendation of
denial. With the reduction in unit count and additional centralized open space, staff finds
the proposed open space not only in excess of code, but also as an improvement from
-- from previous layouts. Applicant submitted conceptual elevations for the proposed
attached single family homes for both the duplexes and the triplexes. They are not
required for the detached single family homes. They do not require design review. The
submitted elevations show all two story attached structures with two car garages and
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 18,2021 F31
Page 28 of 49
finishing materials of wood and stone, as well as stucco. In addition, the elevations show
modern architecture with shed roofs, secondary -- second story patios with glass railings
and stone accents that go from grade all the way to the roofline, which is actually pretty
uncommon. Attached single family homes do require design review prior to obtaining
building permits. Therefore, staff will ensure compliance with the architectural standards
manual when those applications are submitted. Since the previous meeting the applicant
has provided conceptual elevations of the proposed units offering different designs and
color combinations than previously seen. There were 41 pieces of written testimony
submitted for the project the first time this came through and the general concerns were
regarding the proposed density, the amount of open space, school overcrowding, and
traffic issues with additional homes in this area. The neighborhood also had issues with
the proposed access to Locust Grove and there only being one access for the
development, which I hope I answered sufficiently due to there not being any other place
to access this. After I sent the outline there were a few pieces of public testimony that
outlined some of the same issues as well from neighbors. With all these comments and
notes, staff does recommend approval of the subject applications with the conditions
listed and with the inclusion -- the requirement I should say of a DA and those provisions
within the staff report. And I will stand for questions.
McCarvel: Any questions for staff?
Grove: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Grove.
Grove: Joe, with the revised plan -- I hadn't seen that until just now. Did that significantly
change anything in your report? It does look like, you know, a bit different with the -- that
central Island and, then, some of the open space that they have used.
Dodson: Commission Grove, as far as numbers and data, no. Nothing that's going to
make them noncompliant that's for sure. All of the proposed lot sizes still meet the
minimum dimensional standards and it did reorient the lots in the center, which, frankly, I
think is an improvement and kind of breaks up the monotony of all of that. They are not
all going the same direction now. It did reduce that central open space lot here just
slightly, but I didn't touch on this enough the first time through, but there are no fences
between any of these homes, so it will look and function a lot more like a multi-family
project in the sense that there is -- none of this area -- I can't find my pointer. None of
this area will be fenced off. They will just have the open patios. So, all of this area will
still technically be out there and open with landscaping. But I guess -- sorry, I'm rambling.
In short, no, it shouldn't affect anything and they actually responded to all of my conditions
of approval.
McCarvel: Any other questions?
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 18,2021 F32
Page 29 of 49
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: Joe, does the -- does the density fit with a -- with the current R-8 in there? Is
this -- or does it fit with R-15?
Dodson: Commissioner Cassinelli, the density is tied to the future land use, not the
zoning, and it is three to eight dwelling units per acre and it's actually on the lower half of
that now with the reduced lot sizes at least in gross. Again, that's what our densities are
based off of. The net density once you take out the creek and you take out the roads and
the arterial buffers, it does bump it up to 9.8 or so I think I said, which is still significantly
less than what it was, which is in response to a lot of the comments received the first time
through.
Cassinelli: Okay. But the gross density is what that's -- it's tied to the gross, not the net?
Dodson: Yes, sir.
Cassinelli: Okay. And, then, I also had another question. You were mentioning on the
private -- with the private streets, the MEWs. Can you -- can you reiterate those
comments and how those tie together?
Dodson: Yes, sir. Commissioner Cassinelli, Members of the Commission, so when you
have a private street application, they -- the code requires that the development be either
a MEW development or a gated community. This applicant chose to go with the gated
community as a private street development. So, they meet the code and at the director
level are approved for the private streets. The MEWs, for those who do not know, are
like paseos or vistas through units. Theoretically you could say they have a MEW here,
but usually there is -- they are wider and more active than this. But other than that they
don't have MEWs and that's okay, because they have the gate and that makes them
compliant with code.
Cassinelli: Okay. Thank you.
Dodson: You are welcome.
McCarvel: Okay. Would the applicant like to speak?
Arnold: Yes. Can you hear me?
McCarvel: Yes. Please state your name and address for the record.
Arnold: Yeah. I'm going to share my screen real quick if I may. It says I can't start screen
share.
McCarvel: Madam Clerk, do we need to give him extra permission for that?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 18,2021 F33
Page 30 of 49
Weatherly: We just stopped screen sharing on our end. It should update now.
McCarvel: Okay. Okay. Thank you. Go ahead and try again.
Arnold: Can you see my screen now?
McCarvel: Yes.
Arnold: Okay. My name is Steve Arnold. I'm with A Team Land Consultants. Business
address is 1785 Whisper Cove, Boise. 83709. 1 would kind of like to -- I will go into some
of the larger elements of our redesign and, then, I will get into a lot of the specifics of what
we did change up. It was stated that we are asking for 38 lots, but when we made this
change here -- I'm assuming you can see my arrow.
McCarvel: Yes.
Arnold: Once we did this -- this was a staff recommendation to get rid of the two dead-
end streets here. So, as soon as we did that it -- it caused us to lose a lot. So, what you
have before you tonight is 37 lots. So, this was probably -- this was the main change
after we submitted to the city and we agreed with staff to do that, along with turnarounds,
the gate, and, you know, all the additional sidewalk changes. That was probably the most
significant, along with dropping down from 48 to 37 lots. Again, this was the original that
the Planning and Zoning Commission denied, and, again, we went to City Council and
asked to be remanded back to staff. This -- I know one of the concerns was that we --
we were going to get a lot of massing of buildings along the front. So, one of the things
we did is basically wiggle or make S curves in the road and that really changed the -- the
-- the massing of the buildings and, again, you know, as -- as Joe stated, this project will
come back before the Commission -- excuse me -- the Council has a design review -- or
I believe that might even be staff level. So, this is at the entrance off Locust Grove looking
north. To give you an idea of the -- the way it's going to look with the -- the massing and
notice we got rid of the ugly orange. So, that's not the proposed -- actually, that was a
mistake that we had submitted. All of the earth tones will be used in here. This is an
image from the northern side looking south and this also gives you another representation
of how our building orientation is going to look and you can see that one of the things that
staff was looking for was -- is our crosswalks and that there is a condition in there that
Joe and I spoke about earlier that we are looking to get modified. This is a view just kind
of looking north kind of in the center of the project. Give you an idea of the park and how
it is going to orient. But, again, it also gives you some feel of how the buildings are and
how the massing is going to change with the different meandering of the road. Here is in
the park looking east towards the -- the opposite side of the park. Again, you can see the
-- the raised crosswalks that we will have and, then, the -- the -- the different massing of
the buildings. Excuse me. We have read through all the conditions of approval and we
have concurred with staff and, actually, the revised map that got sent to staff today has
incorporated all the requested changes. One change to the -- a couple conditions and
it's -- we are not asking that they be deleted, but I think they were -- after talking with staff
these were the changes that we have kind of agreed to. The top condition states, you
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 18,2021 F34
Page 31 of 49
know, all sidewalks and -- and -- well, I think was a mistake or maybe not intended that
-- so, in speaking with staff we are requesting that it be all pedestrian crossings within the
subdivision be constructed with either pavers, stamped concrete, or raised striped asphalt
or similar to clearly delineate. So, it's, essentially, we are going to do normal sidewalk
and, then, at the crossings we will have something that delineates them and, then, it's
also stated in this other condition. So, again, we are just asking that it be associated just
with the crossings. Basically all the modifications to the map from the last time that you
guys reviewed this -- our building lots went from 48 to 37 lots. The density -- again that's
the gross density -- went from 6.24 to 4.8 and in doing so we eliminated the need for a
PUD. We also increased the housing variety, so when we wiggled the road around we
got rid of the majority of the triplexes on the east side of Compass Lane. So, we increased
with some single families and some towns throughout the --the entire project and actually
there is a place where I think we can actually include, without losing anything, two more
single families. So, we are going to probably end up breaking up one of the duplexes.
And one of the things that was brought up at our original meeting it looked like a couple
of our lots were an afterthought or I guess the buildings were an afterthought. So, we got
rid of those odd shaped housing units. If you don't mind I will scroll up real quick. So,
these -- these areas here and right here we eliminated. So, we got rid of those types.
We increased our open spaces, like Joe said, and it went from 35 to .68 percent with
nearly three acres of qualified and which is 44 -- we went from 35 to 44 percent. With the
increased open space we did add the dog park to the north and an additional central park
as noted by staff. Roadways. We will eliminated the two ends and created a lollipop or
what is also known as a loop roadway design and, then, again, we added the S turns in
the -- the north-south road and breaking up the massing. Sidewalk, which was -- we went
from 2,094 feet to 3,205 -- point five feet, which I have stated before in front of several
commissions sidewalk is your most used amenity in any subdivision. So, we really
focused on our connectivity. The sidewalk along the Ten Mile Creek, which, by the way,
you know, is -- we had concerns -- or neighborhood concern about the safety of children.
Well, as you can see we are going to put four foot open vision fencing on the west side
of that pathway to decrease those concerns. Then, again, as noted we added the gated
entry and added a turnaround at the gate as requested and added pedestrian crossings,
so that we can get clear pedestrian circulation throughout the development. So, basically,
all the requested changes from staff in the staff report we have met. There are maps that
were sent out today. I guess in conclusion you guys have seen this project once before.
We believe it conforms to the city code and the comp plan and we basically made all the
staff recommended changes. We have taken in the neighborhood concerns about the
density and greatly reduced it from 50 to 48, now down to 37. Something to keep in mind
-- and I know Joe's touched basically -- a little bit on it -- that the zoning request is not for
the density. We are kind of at the low end of the R-8 zoning designation density, but the
zoning is mainly so that we can create smaller lots and still have an open field with the
adjacent landscaping, but go down to those reduced dimensional setbacks, so that we
can get this product type that we are putting there. There has been I know -- and the
neighbors at our last meeting there was a lot of discussion about multi-family housing.
Well, the whole idea of why we are doing this -- the way we are doing it on their own --
their own lots -- so each home will be on their own lot and have the ability to be sold off.
So, these aren't multi-family. These are for sale. We believe it to be compatible,
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 18,2021 F35]
Page 32 of 49
especially with the Ten Mile Creek being a divider and all of the adjacent roadways around
us. We have -- I believe we got most of your concerns from our previous meeting and
made the changes -- the maps accordingly. One of the big one was open space. That
was a concern back in December and we have -- as stated by staff, it's been very greatly
increased. And something to keep in mind, you know, the -- the developer here is the
builder and will be building the units for sale. So, it behooves them to build a quality
product, because they are in this until the unit sells. So, I -- we plan on putting a nice
quality home. As you have seen by some of the images, minus the color, but our plan is
to build nice quality. The square foot of the homes will actually be very compatible with
what is in the surrounding area. The only thing that is different is, again, we are putting it
on a smaller lot and that smaller lot will be owned and maintained by the HOA. So, we
will have conformity of landscape maintenance, et cetera. This is -- you know, again, we
are providing a mix of housing type, which is consistent with Comprehensive Plan
policies. We got single family, town -- townhomes and triplexes, which we believe is in
huge demand. Our housing market right now -- we also work in the field of real estate,
but our housing market -- the real estate and the demand that's occurring right now is --
is kind of scary, because we are actually pricing all of our local people out and it's because
there isn't a demand. So, we believe that this product type is in a huge demand and the
area needs it. We are dealing, as staff has stated, with a very difficult site. It's got a lot
of constraints with the roundabout, the Ten Mile Creek, and -- and the -- the other arterial
road. We believe we have hit the highest and best use for it. We have tried to meet all
of staff's recommendations and we have tried to meet all the -- the Commission's
concerns in our modification. In that we will ask for approval and I will stand for questions.
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant?
Seal: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Seal.
Seal: Can we see the -- the amendments that you wanted to make to the staff report? I
would like to see that slide one more time. Yep. If you would just leave that up that would
be perfect. Thank you.
McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions for the applicant?
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Yeah. Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: I know -- I want to see those. Hopefully every -- everybody has had a chance
to see that slide. I wonder if, Steve, if you could put a plat map up or if you don't have it,
staff, do you have that?
Arnold: I can pull this -- this up.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 18,2021 F36]
Page 33 of 49
Cassinelli: Okay. Was there -- the Fire Department was okay with turnaround access.
I'm looking at that -- at the -- at the dead end there to the upper right. What about --what
about trash access there? Is there a central trash or is it individual cans?
Arnold: They are going to be individual cans.
Cassinelli: Is that -- is there going to be a -- that's not a turnaround, that's parking up
there; is that correct? That little -- that little cut out?
Arnold: Yes. That is proposed as parking.
Cassinelli: So, trash, will they have -- will they be able to maneuver up in there?
Arnold: They will back up a maximum of 150 feet, which is the same with Fire, and that's
what we have got here. We also could require these homeowners to bring their garbage
out over -- over on this side, if it's the Commission's direction, to lessen the distance that
they back.
Cassinelli: And, then, finally, if I could, how much -- the -- those parking cut outs, it looks
like there is two of them. How many spots total do you have set up for that remote
parking?
Arnold: Boy, it's on my plat. Let me --
Dodson: Commissioner Cassinelli, it should be nine with the removal of the ones outside
of the gate.
Arnold: Correct.
Cassinelli: Nine -- nine spots interior? Okay. Thanks.
Arnold: Madam Chairman, just -- but there is -- was a staff requirement and I -- I
apologize, I think we missed one of your requirements, Joe, that -- I believe you asked
for additional parking in here.
Dodson: That is correct. We are at the one further south. I said you had room to add
more along that. The one that has the six, you can add at least two more.
Arnold: And we will comply with that.
McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant?
Lorcher: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Lorcher.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 18,2021 F37
Page 34 of 49
Lorcher: Mr. Arnold, along the Ten Mile Creek, just so I'm seeing this right, so are those
backyards with a fence going across it or is that the front of the house with landscaping
and that -- so, the -- are the driveways in front?
Arnold: Madam Chair, Commissioner, yes, the driveways are in front. Our thought here
initially would be just to have a fence on the west side of this pathway and it would be an
open field and a backyard.
Lorcher: And would it be a solid fence or what -- I think you said it was going to be like a
wrought iron fence, so they can see through or not see through?
Arnold: See through.
Lorcher: Okay. So, they will be able to see through to whatever this space is that the
irrigation company maintains in Ten Mile Creek; is that right?
Arnold: That's correct.
Lorcher: And, then, just out of curiosity what's on the other side? Are those -- are those
existing homes?
Arnold: These are existing homes. That's correct.
Lorcher: And do they -- what kind of -- do you know what kind of fencing they have? Is
that solid or is it --
Arnold: It's a wooden fence here and a chain link fence here.
Lorcher: Okay.
Arnold: And it's -- this is six foot here and I believe this is about a five foot chain link.
Lorcher: Thank you.
Dodson: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Yes, Joe.
Dodson: Sorry. Thank you. Commissioner Lorcher, just to give you a little more
background on that, too. There is a -- the code requires that the fencing along the creek
be open vision, so that there is added safety to -- you know, if somebody falls in or
anything like that that you can see, as well as the -- it's what the irrigation district wants
as well. They don't want any kind of six foot fence abutting their easement. So, they --
that's why our requirement is four foot wrought iron or open vision --
Lorcher- Thank you.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 18,2021 F38
Page 35 of 49
Dodson: -- whatever that might be. Material that --
Lorcher: Okay.
McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Madam Clerk, do we have
anybody signed up to testify on this application?
Weatherly: Madam Chair, we do. In house we have Rhonda Unruh.
McCarvel: Okay. Please come forward and state your name and address for the record.
Unruh: Thank you. My name is Rhonda Unruh and I'm at 3246 South Murlo Way.
McCarvel: Okay.
Unruh: Wrong one. Sorry.
McCarvel: The floor is yours.
Unruh: Rhonda Unruh at 3246 South Murlo Way.
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you.
Unruh: Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chairman and the rest of the Council Members. I did
not see the new plat map that came out. I have printed out a previous aerial -- aerial map
before they changed and I was going to make the point, but that's been changed a little
bit that when you look at this aerial map and the old -- the previous plat map, it looks as
if this is the last piece of property in Meridian and we are trying to cram as much as we
can, so that we can accommodate the growth of Meridian and by doing that I don't know
if any of you have ever driven that -- through that intersection in the morning or in the
afternoon, but that is a very high traffic area. It's backed up on all four roads and the
thought of putting this many more cars on one exit and entryway trying to get into traffic
that's sitting there already doesn't make sense to me and that's not even mentioning the
northwest corner that has a proposed development there. That one I don't have a
problem with, because for the acreage that's there and the proposed amount of residential
units that are being built there, it makes sense and it works with the future planning of a
circle. But by jamming all of these here in an area and as the developer was mentioning
himself, now what do you do with trash? What do you do with the fire trucks if there is an
emergency? Well, they have to go in and they got to backup. I don't see the safety being
addressed here. And several points -- I have many others, but no time. With this new
proposal he's just showed tonight I do have a question. Does this bring this down from
an R-15 high density to what we are calling a medium high density? If it's still considered
high density, I went onto the City of Meridian -- their premier community -- the website
that describes what a premier community -- community is and what we would like for the
City of Meridian and, yes, we do want diversity in our neighborhoods, but it does state
immediately after that description -- and I quote: High density housing must be
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 18,2021 F39
Page 36 of 49
strategically located to public transportation, community services and employment areas.
End quote. If this is still considered a high density housing, when you look at the map of
this area we don't have any of that in this vicinity. So, to me this says an R-15 doesn't fit
here according to what is written in your own premier community site. Thank you.
McCarvel: Madam Clerk, do we have anybody else signed up to testify?
Weatherly: Madam Chair, next is Stan Unruh.
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you.
S.Unruh: I'm Stan Unruh. Address is 3246 South Murlo Way in Meridian. You might
have guessed I'm related to the previous person. I just wanted to touch on a point that
she made about the traffic and I wondered if you can -- if it's possible to put the plat back
up there. And I just wanted to -- to revisit the concern. There it is. Yes. ACHD has
already acknowledged the difficulty of this location and I want to just touch on that a little
bit more and ask the Planning Commission to query them further about the difficulty of
traffic entering in and out here, because we have potentially two car -- probably, you
know, in the neighborhood of 70 vehicles being parked in this development and with only
one exit it will come out right where the road narrows down -- after the roads are widen
-- after Locust Grove is widened it will --the exit will come right out where it narrows down.
This is already a high density, high traffic area. The traffic is already backed up in the
mornings probably to where that exit is. Our house looks toward that circle -- our back --
our backyard faces that circle and we can see the traffic backed up there every morning
and so what I believe likely will happen is that residents coming out of this development
will find it very very difficult to cross and head north on Locust Grove and so naturally
what I would do if I were them would instead turn right and, then, do an additional right
turn and come down Murlo Way and so I believe likely what will happen is by approving
this development what we are doing is -- is creating a situation where it will be most
natural and easiest for the traffic to flow through our neighborhood, where we have kids
on the corner of Ascaino and Victory waiting to get on buses. So, there is kids all over
that neighborhood. The neighbor -- it's a quiet neighborhood now and I believe what we
are actually approving is to have traffic just blazing through our neighborhood and so my
-- my request is just that the Planning Commission revisit this with ACHD and have a look
at that and make a --try to understand that intersection a little bit better, because I believe
we are going to create an unsafe situation in that neighborhood. Secondly, I would just
point out that through this whole process there has been a lot of resistance to this
development from the neighborhood. It is not anti-development, it is just asking for a
reasonable zoning for the -- for the development and with the changes it appears that
they have reduced the density down to what the neighbors have asked, but I think -- if I
understand right really what is going on is that this developer owns the canal area, which
is -- increases the size of property, so by math it appears to be a lower density than what
it really is. The fact of the matter is this is very high density housing that does not fit any
-- the neighborhoods in any direction from there. However, because of the property that's
owned with the canal -- it appears to be low density and I appreciate your listening.
Thanks.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 18,2021 F40
Page 37 of 49
McCarvel: Thank you.
Weatherly: Madam Chair, next is John Buckner.
McCarvel: Thank you.
Buckner: Good evening. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you for having me
here, Planning and Zoning Commission. I just want to restate -- well, I'm sorry.
McCarvel: Mr. Buckner, could -- yeah. State your name and address, please.
Buckner: John Buckner. I'm at 3877 South Picasso and I am not related to the two
previous speakers. Just to reiterate, I am pro-development. I'm not anti-development. I
am just for pro-development that makes sense. As has already been reiterated many
times, sticking up for R-15 zoning density right in the middle of R-4s and R-8s and low to
medium density zoning just does not make any sense. I would like to see the application
changed for rezoning to no more than R-8 and a redesign of the apartment style
townhomes that doesn't fit in with the rest of the character of the community. I want to
thank the support of the Planning and Zoning Commission during December for just your
words. This includes especially Steven Yearsley, who said the developers do their work
and, then, leave the community to pick up the pieces. Also Bill Parsons, who
acknowledged the 45 e-mails sent by members of the community, as well as you, Mr.
Seal, and Lisa Holland and as well Mr. Grove, who said that he wants to like it, but it's
isolated from the neighborhood. The members of the P&Z Commission unanimously and
with -- with agreement of the 2019 Comprehensive Plan, that while the designs look nice
they do not fit the character of the neighborhood. This conflicts with Action Item 5.01.02E
that to support and protect the identity of the existing residential neighborhoods. The
apartment as conjoined units differ drastically from the surrounding neighborhoods. This
also conflicts with 3.07.00, which says to encourage compatible use and site design to
minimize conflicts and maximize use of land and as stated by the P&Z staff, quote: The
proposed development is not like any of the detached single family homes adjacent to the
subject site. Like Commissioner Grove said, it's not like the configuration of the
surrounding density. The design does not allow for safe and efficient access by public
services as commented by Mr. Seal. It conflicts with 3.08.01A that states -- or that says
to require the development projects have planned for the efficient provision of all public
services as was recently just being discussed, the concerns about vehicles being able to
navigate properly throughout the private streets. The applicant has also failed to meet
the requirement for off-site parking. This conflicts with UDC 11-3C-6, which requires off-
street parking required and according to the application this was not met and I have not
seen any evidence to date to show that they have satisfied this requirement. Related to
this is also the fact that the conceptual designs look nice, but the parking garages, if you
look carefully, they only allow for two cars and the character and general combinations of
the diverse homes that are already in our community allow at least four trucks and SUVs.
This development will not. This also further compounds the issues brought up previously
by the Planning and Zoning Commission that if people use their garages for storage that
will compound the issues of mass and traffic. Again I want to state that I'm pro-
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 18,2021 F41
Page 38 of 49
development that is reasonable and that makes sense and I would like to address you,
Mr. Arnold. You said earlier in January that we are in it for the long haul. I respectfully
would like to say, Mr. Arnold, no, you and Butler Realty are in it for the short term. We
are in it for the long haul, because we will be stuck with the consequences. Please work
with us and let's do this together. Thank you.
Weatherly: Madam Chair, next we have Julie Edwards online. Julie, one moment,
please.
Edwards: Hi, can you hear me?
McCarvel: Yes. Thank you.
Edwards: Can I go ahead and start?
McCarvel: Yeah. Please state your name and address for the record.
Edwards: Okay. My name is Julie Edwards and I live at 1310 East Mary Lane, about a
mile and a quarter south of this location, and I -- some of the things have been addressed
with what the developer spoke about, but I just wanted -- I had written this up a little
before, so I just wanted to address everything. According to the city's future land use
map Compass Pointe Subdivision falls within a zone of medium density, yet they are
requesting R-15 zoning. I'm confused by this request, despite the time and effort put into
creating and designing a future land use map by P&Z and a number of public meetings
and others involved, why so often do the developers push the limits of what has been
planned zoning wise for a particular area and, then, they seem to be approved most of
the time. What's the point of the master plan if it's not followed? If it were an old plan
would understand, but this plan is just a few years old. Also in the adopted
Comprehensive Plan there is a table in there, Table 2.1, regarding housing goals,
objectives, and action items and one of the items 2.01.01 H says locate higher density
housing near corridors with existing or planned transit, downtown, and in proximity to
employment areas. None of which are in this vicinity. I also understand that this
development -- at that time it was 13 units per acre. I see that that has been reduced.
I'm also curious about what the distances are between the duplexes or between the
triplexes, just because some of the window designs on the homes, if you are standing in
your living room -- living room it looks like the windows are floor to ceiling and you may
be standing right next to your neighbor in their living room looking right at them. Also not
sure if this would pertain to you, but as far as impact fees, are duplexes and triplexes --
this is just a question I have -- counted as a single dwelling or are those two and three
dwellings. He did partially answer the question about the fence along the canal and he
had mentioned that it was going to run along the length of the pathway. I'm wondering
should it be extended or will it be extended the entire length of the canal, so that, you
know, it's not just a fence along a path with an open space at either end where it meets
the roadway. Also pertaining to -- let's see. It's unfortunate, I think, that the usable land
is taken into consideration in the gross density for zoning. So, therefore, I think this is the
way that it is right now, even though it reduced to 37 lots, it still is quite dense for the area,
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 18,2021 F42
Page 39 of 49
especially with R-2 across the street and -- and, then, the other surrounding, homes what
they are zoned. Also has future widening of the road. I know that Victory is going to be
widened. Locust Grove -- Grove to the south I'm sure will be widened, since it's going to
be widened down at Lake Hazel and Locust Grove and, then, already from Overland to
Victory on Locust Grove, five lanes up, three lanes to the south, so is this showing -- it
seems at the entrance to the subdivision, is that eventually going to get eaten up a little
bit more once that road is widened? And in that respect as far as landscaping and those
kinds of buffers along those main roads, is that something that, you know, they will put in
trees, they will do all this stuff and, then, you know, three years down the road the road
gets widened -- is widened and, then, all of those trees are wasted, all of the concrete
sidewalks are wasted and --
McCarvel: Julie, could you wrap up your comments, please.
Edwards: Yep.
McCarvel: You have had your three minutes.
Edwards: Okay. I'm good. I'm done.
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you.
Weatherly: Madam Chair, that's all I know of indicating a wish to testify.
McCarvel: Okay. Is there anyone in the audience that did not sign up that wishes to
testify, either in person -- in chambers or on Zoom, please, press the raise your hand.
Seal: Madam Chair, we have a gentleman that wants to testify --
McCarvel: Okay.
Seal: -- in chamber.
McCarvel: Okay. Please come forward.
Mooso: My name is Galen Mooso. I live at 687 East Forest Ridge Drive, which is to the
west and slightly north of this proposed development. This -- and we have lived there for
13 years. This development does not fit the character of the neighborhood, of the
surrounding area. There is no public transit as has been mentioned. I travel through this
intersection on a daily basis. It is always busy. I cannot imagine the thought of putting in
such dense housing. This is a little little triangle -- triangular lot and I just cannot imagine
37 units on this little triangle. And, frankly, the Ten Mile Creek is ugly. I mean I don't
know who owns it, but it is ugly and it needs to be cleaned up. It's not aesthetically
pleasing and I just see this as a disaster. Thank you.
McCarvel: Thank you. Okay. If we have no one else wishing to testify, would the
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 18,2021 F43]
Page 40 of 49
applicant like to come back?
Dodson: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Yes, Joe.
Dodson: Sorry. I would like to address a few of the comments before, since they probably
are more related to some city stuff, rather than the applicant.
McCarvel: I was thinking the same thing.
Dodson: No worries.
McCarvel: Go ahead.
Dodson: First of all, I mean if you want to come and write my staff reports -- that other
guy -- that would be -- you can come do that anytime. You were very good and I
appreciate that. I -- I understand that there are -- there are many conflicting
Comprehensive Plan policies. There are. I want to note that the density -- there is some
confusion. I need to start an education series with this about the zoning and, then, the
future land use map. The zoning has nothing to do with density in the City of Meridian.
Not anymore. The new Comprehensive Plan is what dictates the zoning. So, this site is
zoned -- or is noted as medium density residential, which allows densities at three to eight
dwelling units per acre. You could do R-40 here. It doesn't matter. That zoning is for the
dimensional standards. So, the lot sizes, setbacks, height, that stuff, not for the density.
So, R-15 is noted as I believe medium high density residential is the word that we use for
it, but it's still for the dimensional standards. R-8 is medium density residential. As noted,
the gross density for this, including the creek, is 4.8 or so, which is in the low end of the
medium density. If you even remove the creek it still does meet the medium density. It's
about 6.6. Even if you remove that area it's still in the medium density residential. So,
the project is not a high density development. High density would be over 15 dwelling
units per acre for our Comprehensive Plan and this is not even medium high, which would
be eight to 12. So, I just want to -- again, this is something that comes up a lot in
subdivisions and between the difference of our Comprehensive Plan and our zoning this
happens quite a lot and there is a lot of confusion. But, again, the density is going to be
tied to the zoning and -- or tied to the Comprehensive Plan and not the zoning. I
apologize. The points regarding access, again, it -- if you -- this is the furthest away you
can get from the intersection on this property. So, that's why ACHD is allowing it and
that's also why they don't want a public street, because there is not going to be any future
road connectivity. No one's going to give up a building lot in your subdivision in order to
have a bridge across, which would be, obviously, beneficial probably more for the whole
community, but no one's going to do that. It's unfortunate, but that's just the way this
goes. Building bridges over creeks is not cheap. I understand your comment, sir, about
the Ten Mile Creek being not aesthetically pleasing. City again -- this -- this is a -- one of
the creeks that is specifically noted in our code to leave natural and natural is natural,
ugly or not ugly. That's just one of those things noted in there and the irrigation district
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 18,2021 F44
Page 41 of 49
maintains that, not the city. The road widening and the roundabout project is slated to
begin this year. Locust Grove north of the intersection should be at five lanes all the way
up to -- whatever is north of Victory. Overland. That's right. And, then, south of it it will
be -- it will remain the two lanes or three that it is, except for outside of the -- within the
sphere of influence of the intersection, which the roundabout project will widen that, as
said, and widen the bridge as well, which is good for pedestrian safety. The -- I do also
believe Victory is slated to be widened again at some point. It's not in their CIP that I
know of right now, which means that it probably won't be for the next five years or so. But
all of that should help and that's the point is to fix the traffic problems here. So, the city
and ACHD have worked diligently on that to try to address that for now and well into the
future. So, I just wanted to address those comments from the city's perspective,
especially the density stuff, because that's a big misconception and a lot of the comp plan
policies regarding high density do not apply here, because this is not a high density
development. Not by our standards and not by our definitions.
McCarvel: Thank you, Joe. I had made those -- those exact same notes almost word for
word from him. So, would the applicant like to come back.
Arnold: Yes, Madam Chair. If I can share my screen again if I might.
McCarvel: Sure.
Dodson: You should be good now, Steve.
Arnold: There we go. So, I was taking some notes, because -- there we go. So, I think
what I would like to do is just kind of go through one by one. I think I can hit them pretty
quickly based on some of the comments that I heard tonight. So, traffic -- I used to work
at ACHD and it has always been kind of the main concern with most developments and
typically, you know, it's -- you are building a -- a subdivision and, then, they will come.
They do an ACHD and they widen the roads. Well, in this case we are actually working
with ACHD ahead of time on winding the road before the development is actually
approved. So, the concern with traffic -- you are going to have some -- you know, a five
lane arterial to the north with Locust Grove, you know, and --and south and east-- excuse
me -- west will be a three lane minor arterial. So, we have got -- and it will be improved
with the roundabout. So, the backing that the -- the neighbors are seeing -- they are
correct, I have been out there at 5.00 o'clock and it backs up quite a bit, so -- but that will
all go away by the time we finish our project -- before we get it built, so -- and, then,
density just -- again, I think Joe did an excellent job explaining that. The whole reason
we are coming in with that zoning is not so that we can get high density, it's just so that
we can meet dimensional standards for the product type that we are using. If I met the
R-8 dimensional standards that wouldn't meet what our intent is on the product type. So,
it's only to fit our product type in there. It's been said several times -- they are concerned
about apartments. I have done a lot of apartments and these are not apartments. I don't
put apartments on their own lot. These are, again, for sale, which we are hoping to market
for the developer. So, again, I'm here to reiterate to the Commission it's for sale, they are
not apartments isolated from a neighborhood was another thing that brought up that we
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 18,2021 F45]
Page 42 of 49
are -- somehow we are not a part of the neighbors or the neighborhood. Well, there is no
way we could ever be a part. We have got arterials and a hundred foot canal right of way
separating us from -- so, there is really no way that we can integrate physically and I think
from a product type we have -- we have got a very nice product that we are proposing. I
didn't really touch much on it, but in our previous discussion -- let me go to the site layout.
It was stated are we providing enough parking. Well, we have got additional parking here
that we are doing and we are going to add some as staff recommended. Plus we got two
parking stalls in front of each unit with a two car garage. So, essentially, both -- all of the
units will have four -- four car parking ability, if you will. So, I think we are well adequate
in the parking arena. I tried to not take this too personal, because it was stated that, you
know, I'm not in it for the long haul and I -- you know, I'm going to -- as soon as we are
done here we are on to -- we are out of here. Well, I have been doing this for 25 years.
We have done a lot of nice projects in Meridian, few to state are the Tuscany Subdivision,
Bear Creek, Scentsy Campus, Lochsa Falls,just to name a few, and I have probably done
another 15 to 20 more. Unfortunately, city, I'm -- I'm here, I'm stuck, my family's here.
I'm not -- not in it for the short haul. Something came up about window designs and I
don't know why it was important with the neighbors, but -- unless they are planning to
move there, but the -- for the Commission standpoint what we typically do is we stagger
the windows, so that, one, you are not looking right into the next one and -- and so the
windows will be staggered, but the other part of that is the Commission should know that
they are all fire rated because of our setbacks. Impact fees was brought up. Just for the
record, again, I worked at ACHD and I worked on the impact fee ordinance, but those --
those are the same as single family towns. For that matter, a four-plex which is multi-
family, typically pays four times the rate of a single family. So, the impact fees will be the
same. Question came up about the fence at the back of the walk. Yeah. Our plan would
be to extend it and connect it into our fence that we are going to have along Victory Road.
Landscaping. It was brought up about our stuff getting ripped out along ACHD. We are
not going to do that. We are not going to put anything in in their construction easement.
We will likely bond for that and, then, install it after the roundabout is done. That is correct,
there is no public transit adjacent to the site. We anticipate as growth occurs that we will
get a transit out there. So, a mile north of us we do have transit along Overland Road,
but, you know, it's a -- transit is a Catch 22. If you want it you got to get density. Now,
again, we are at 4.8 units per acre. We are not dense. So, this development alone won't
drive the need for density, but that is correct, there wasn't any transit. Ten Mile Creek
does get a little bit ugly and that was stated, especially in the wintertime. But in the -- in
the spring and summertime when the water is flowing you have got ducks, you have got
all sorts of wildlife that goes in there and, you know, I guess pretty is -- pretty is in the eye
of the beholder, but it's a -- I think a great natural area that will be a great amenity to this
site. Just to sum up to the Commission, you know, we -- we heard your -- your concerns
back in December. We are trying. With that I will end my rebuttal.
McCarvel: Thank you, Mr. Arnold. Any questions -- any further questions for the
applicant? Are we ready to close the public hearing?
Seal: Madam Chair?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 18,2021 F46
Page 43 of 49
McCarvel: Commissioner Seal.
Seal: Just a quick -- on the no public transit there for the busy intersection and all that
stuff, considering the uniqueness of the layout of the sub there is -- have you worked with
anybody to put in possibly a bus stop or a park and ride or anything along those lines?
Arnold: Madam Chair, Commissioner, no, we have not, but I have in other projects we
have -- behind the sidewalk is put little, you know, shelter areas or a pad or a shelter area
that can come. That is something we can do on this site.
Seal: And that might just alleviate some of the public transit piece of this. I mean any
opportunity that there is to have that I think should be taken advantage of and I think the
uniqueness of the -- of the layout there provides for that to possibly happen. So, without
getting too crazy about it, especially with the road construction that's coming your way
very very soon.
Arnold: What I might suggest on that, so that -- if we poured concrete it might deteriorate,
you know, because it could be several years, maybe what we do is we provide an
easement for it in the future.
McCarvel: Okay.
Seal: A follow up to that. Who would you provide the easement to?
Arnold: It could be an easement stated on the plat that it's for a future bus stop and not
necessarily call out specifically, because there is a good chance there may be another
public transit that comes in.
Seal: Okay. Thank you.
McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant? If not, can I get a motion to close the
public hearing on H-2020-0100?
Seal: So moved.
Grove: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2020-0100.
All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT.
McCarvel: Who wants to jump off?
Seal: Madam Chair?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 18,2021 4 F7
Page 44 of 49
McCarvel: Go ahead, Commissioner Seal.
Seal: Just looking at the improvements that they have made -- well, I will start before
then and I have said it before, it would be nice if this was going to be, you know, a small
area with some shops and stuff like that in it. That said it's not zoned that way and that's
not the way that it's being presented here. So, everything that's being presented within
the confines -- it works within the rule set of the Comprehensive Plan, as well as -- as
code -- city code. So, we kind of got to work with what's in front of us. With that said I
think that the applicant has worked to provide everything that they can in order to work
within this -- this spot. So, the density seems to be the real -- the rub with a lot of folks
here, so with the product type that's there and ownership part of it. I think it's going to be
a more welcome addition where people are going to come in -- it's probably going to be
their starter home, more like a condo type, you know, piece of property that they can own
and, you know, eventually move into a bigger -- bigger piece of property. So, that tends
to mean that people are going to try and take care of it, because they know that's not their
forever home that might, you know, fall down around them. I do like the changes that
they have made where they put the loop in. I'm happy to see that they are willing to put
more parking in without taking away too much usable open space. The emergency
access I think takes care of any kind of safety issues as far as a firetruck being able to
get in there. Instead of them having to back in they will be able to use the emergency
access. Unfortunately, that won't work for the trash service and things like that. So,
hopefully, they can work to make that easier for the trash service -- you know, recycling
service to be able to pick up the receptacles as they take them out. You know, kind of
like when we have common driveways we have the same kind of issues in some of the
bigger subdivisions. So, I don't see that as a huge issue, just something that they need
to be aware of and hopefully work to improve upon that. Other than that I think it's -- it's
unique and I -- I personally have a son that's looking for something like this in this area,
especially something that's very low maintenance as they said, where, you know,
essentially, you are going to live there, you are not going to have to mow the lawn or own
yard equipment or anything along those lines. So, I think it's a good product for Meridian.
I wish it fit a little bit better into the piece of property that it's in, but I think they have done
a good job on trying to work it in there.
McCarvel: Okay. Commissioner Grove, you came off mute.
Grove: Yeah. I would echo a lot of what Commissioner Seal said. I appreciate the work
that they have done to reconfigure and rework this site and working to incorporate the
staff recommendations, especially with this revised plat that they have shown tonight.
The loop does improve the flow within this development and I really like the S curve, so
that we don't end up with a wall of homes. It-- it gives a lot more character to this general
layout and the -- that central section with the MEW in the middle, it -- it hits some of the
things that I had problems with the site when we first saw in December where it didn't
have a sense of community, it just felt very blah, for lack of better description, but I like
what they have done with this. I know the architectural elements of it are not necessarily
for everybody, but I happen -- I think it-- I like it. It adds a different character to this corner
and, you know, will create a new identity for this area that, you know, will help -- help it --
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 18,2021 F48]
Page 45 of 49
help the entire area to kind of stand out and have a different sense of identity, as
somebody put it, but probably flipped on what they were intending. Looking at the
surrounding area, the number of homes in here dropping down to 37 is almost identical
to the street directly to the west of this with the number of houses, so I'm not concerned
with the density as presented and I appreciate the changes that they have made and I
think that this works for me going forward.
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Any other Commissioner comments? Commissioner
Cassinelli --
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: -- you have come off mute.
Cassinelli: I have come off mute. I wasn't here in December for -- for the first go around
on it. I do like the -- my comments here would be I like the loop. Just to address the
design, that's a tough one. It definitely doesn't fit. I mean everything nearby seems to be
craftsman style and this is definitely modern, so it would definitely stick out. However,
you know, that's one side and the other side says it's -- you know, to have everything
looking the same gets boring. So, it's a -- that's a tough one. What -- what bothers me
on this one -- and I have already brought it up once tonight -- is that transition and not
necessarily from a -- not on this for a density standpoint, but the transition with all the
homes that line up against the -- against Ten Mile Creek there were essentially two to
one from what I counted. Nineteen to ten from one end to the other there going up to the
-- to the homes on the other side of the creek. I would prefer maybe cutting that down a
little bit, just to spread that out, if they could do that somehow. And my other thing is I --
I do not -- I do not think that there is enough parking off -- off-street parking, if you will,
the nine spaces for 31 -- it's for 36 homes or whatever it is. It's -- it is -- it's not nearly
enough. I think that's going to be a big issue. You get -- you are going to get some
visitors, you know, you drive in any subdivision and probably every other home has a car
on the street. People use their garages for storage. Park the cars on the lot. They want
to pull the car out to -- you know for kids to play in the driveway or whatever it is, it's -- I
don't -- I'm really concerned about the parking. Some of these neighborhoods like that
it's always an issue. Parking is always an issue. That said, an in-fill project like this,
tough to do anything. It -- most -- most -- I like most of it in there. I'm not crazy about the
design, but it is nice to have something different, but my issue is parking and the transition
along the creek. I just -- I can't get behind it yet with those two issues. But as far as trying
to get something in that corner where most things won't fit, I -- I would commend the
applicant on what they have done here. They have -- I don't know what else you can do
in there and -- and, you know, if I saw more parking and cut maybe two lots out of that
backside to bring the -- the transition down a little bit, I might be -- I could probably get
behind it, but as it stands right now those -- those -- those things I just can't get behind it.
McCarvel: Okay.
Dodson: Madam Chair?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 18,2021 F49
Page 46 of 49
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: Madam Chair, thank you. I have to commend the applicant for coming back,
making the changes that we have requested. I -- it looks -- I know I'm going to get heat
for this, but it looks amazingly different to me with the more open space and this space.
I do agree with Bill Cassinelli that -- Commissioner Cassinelli, it would be kind of nice to
maybe spread out -- I don't know if I have problems with the --the triplexes, the duplexes,
but having maybe a little bit more space in between the different units might be a little bit
more nice to try to break up that -- that plain a little bit. With regards to the density,
Tuscany, which is across the street, has a section of homes very similar to this within our
subdivision and -- and -- and next to the school. There is townhomes would be -- or
attached products as well. So, it's not unfamiliar with the area that we -- that's there. I
know it's a challenging site with the limited access to it and how small it is. I think they
have done the best that they can. So, like I said, I prefer to see a little bit more spacing
along that frontage against the canal. But other than that I think it looks amazingly better.
Dodson: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Is that Joe?
Dodson: Yes. Sorry.
McCarvel: Okay. Go ahead, Joe.
Dodson: I just wanted note on the -- the parking, a lot of these units -- I don't know the
ratio. Steve, obviously, you know that better than me, but I would -- at least a portion of
them are two bedroom, so the parking pad in front is not required. So, that all is extra
parking according to the parking counts. I just wanted to note that for everybody.
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you.
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: One other thing I wanted to address that I didn't was the applicant was -- was
looking for a couple of exceptions there on a couple of the conditions and I am -- I'm
behind staff's recommendations on -- on those that have to do with the sidewalks and --
and the crosswalks and such. I would like to see the pavers that staff is -- is requesting.
I think that would give it a nice touch. So, I wanted to add that in. Thank you.
Dodson: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Joe. Yeah. Joe.
Dodson: I should have touched on that earlier. I apologize. The recommendation I have
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 18,2021 F50]
Page 47 of 49
in my staff report regarding that was more of a precaution, because some of these private
street developments when they have sidewalks they claim it's sidewalk, but it's just like
an extension of the asphalt street and we didn't want that, so that's why I made that
comment, knowing that he is going to construct them as concrete I would not have written
my condition that way. I should have asked the applicant to be specific, but I'm okay with
the sidewalks just being general concrete and the crossings being the way that the
applicant has proposed them as raised -- I guess they are known as tabletop crosswalks.
We will verify with Fire that they are okay with that, but it is my understanding that they
usually are. But in general the crossings will be delineated. If Commission still preferred
my condition that's also in your purview to keep it as is.
McCarvel: But your original condition was there, because you didn't realize he was going
to do curb and concrete sidewalk, you thought it was going to be asphalt; right?
Dodson: Yes, ma'am. That's correct.
McCarvel: But that's --okay. So, you are okay with it being stripped the way the applicant
has written -- has requested?
Dodson: Yes, ma'am.
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Yeah. I would say -- this is night -- I think it's drastically
different from what we saw last time, especially the revised one that showed up today
with the loop. I think that takes away a lot of that just, you know, driving in and the feeling
that you can't get out and I think the odd shape it just calls for -- calls for some creative
thinking and I think they have done that. I don't think it seems near as crammed in and
-- let's see. Oh, yeah. I really liked the rock features going all the way up. You know,
you usually see that just a few feet. The decks and everything look really nice. I think for
the product that this is it's got some kind of nice features and I think, you know, they -- I
think they have done just exactly what we asked from the last time we saw this right down
to I think Commissioner Yearsley asked them to reduce it by at least ten, which I think it
looks like it's come down 11 units and, yeah, the density it -- I know it's sometimes hard
to understand --we call it-- it's R-15, that doesn't mean we will take 15 units, it-- it's really
in that medium density range and at the lower end of it. It's just with the attached units
we need the setbacks that are described in an R-15. So, I would be in support of it.
Commissioner Lorcher, did you want to add any comments or are you good to --
Lorcher: Madam Chair, I -- I actually like the product that they have. I wasn't here for the
December meeting. Because it's behind a gated community it doesn't seem -- I know
that's a busy corner. I drive it all the time from Cole and turn down Locust Grove to get
over to southwest Meridian on a regular basis, especially during Snowmageddon when
Overland and the freeway where -- were compromised. It's a very challenging corner. I
think with the roundabout going in that's going to change the whole dimension of that
corner as far as traffic is concerned and the way traffic is going to flow, which is the
concern for the residents in the area it is going to be a hundred percent different and
roundabouts are a blessing and a curse all at the same time. It takes us a while to get
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 18,2021 F51
Page 48 of 49
used to them. First, the design that the -- the developer is suggesting is -- if somebody
didn't say it before, it's in the eyes of the beholder. If everything is exactly the same, then,
we are all the same color beige. But to be able to invite young families or professionals
to live in a small starter house in a neighborhood that they couldn't usually afford, now
this builder is offering that product. The Ten Mile Creek behind it -- I live behind Ten Mile
Creek as well and there is parts of it that are super nice and in the winter, of course, it's
kind of barren and so it is what it is because the city doesn't have any control over that.
So, I'm -- and they have -- and the builder has done everything that -- from the
conversation I have heard, everything that you have asked them to do --
McCarvel: Okay. Any other comments?
Seal: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Commissioner Yearsley, could you mute. Thank you.
Seal: Touched on it a little bit earlier, but the -- one of the major problems that I had with
it was just the entrance and access and it didn't seem like the road -- basically the planning
and the -- and the rebuild of the road was going to happen for-- it sounded like five years,
if I remember right from the December meeting that we had, but it's actually starting in
this year will be finished by the end of next year, which coincides with when, you know,
they will break ground and start to have people take residents in here. So, with that out
of the way, you know, we are kind of -- again, we are stuck with what's in front of us and
does it -- does it fit, does it work. The other comment I will make is I would really like to
thank the gentleman that very very concisely quoted all of us. A lot of times I go home
from here scratching my head wondering if anybody ever listens to anything that we say
at all. So, I want to thank that person and hopefully anybody else that's listening, bring
that with you, because it does actually help when we make our decisions, especially if we
know that we got to pay attention to what we are saying and stick with our guns. So,
thank you. If there is nothing else I can take a stab at a motion.
McCarvel: Please do.
Seal: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend
approval to the City Council of file number H-2020-0100 as presented in the staff report
for the hearing date of February 18th, 2021, with the following modifications: That A-1-
E and A-3-F be modified to strike sidewalk and replace with pedestrian crossings and to
include raised paved pathways. That the applicant work to provide an easement for a
mass transit stop and that they provide more parking along the existing common areas.
Grove: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded -- seconded to recommend approval of H-
2020-0100 with modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed nay.
Cassinelli: Nay.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. February 18,2021 F52
Page 49 of 49
McCarvel: Okay. Motion carries. And, Madam Clerk, did you need roll call on that or did
you get them?
Weatherly: Commissioner Cassinelli, I heard you as a nay.
Cassinelli: That is correct.
McCarvel: Okay. I think all others were yea. Okay. With that I will take one more motion.
Seal: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Seal.
Seal: I move we adjourn.
Grove: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed. Motion carries. Good night.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:50 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
RHONDA McCARVEL - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED
ATTEST:
CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK