2021-07-01 Item 1.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting July 1, 2021.
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of July 1, 2021, was called to
order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Rhonda McCarvel.
Members Present: Chairman Rhonda McCarvel, Commissioner Bill Cassinelli,
Commissioner Nick Grove, Commissioner Steven Yearsley and Commissioner Maria
Lorcher.
Members Absent: Commissioner Andrew Seal and Commissioner Nate Wheeler.
Others Present: Adrienne Weatherly, Ted Baird, Bill Parsons, Sonya Allen, Joe Dodson,
and Dean Willis.
ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE
Nate Wheeler X Maria Lorcher
Andrew Seal X Nick Grove
_X Steven Yearsley (6:05 p.m.) X Bill Cassinelli
X Rhonda McCarvel - Chairman
McCarvel: Good evening and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting
for July 1 st, 2021. The Commissioners who are present this evening are at City Hall. We
have staff from city attorney and clerk's offices, as well as city Planning Department. If
you are joining us via Zoom this evening, we can see that you are here. You may observe
the meeting. However, your ability to be seen on screen and talk will be muted. During
the public testimony portion of the meeting you will be unmuted and, then, be able to
comment. Please note that we cannot take any questions until the public testimony
portion. If you have a process question during the meeting, please, e-mail
cityclerk@meridiancity.org and they will reply as quickly as possible. If you simply want
to watch the meeting we encourage you to watch the streaming on the city's YouTube
channel. You can access it at meridiancity.org/live. And with that let's begin with roll call.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
McCarvel: Thank you. So, at this time first item on the agenda is the adoption of the
agenda. There are no changes. So, could I get a motion to adopt the agenda as
presented?
Grove: So moved.
Lorcher: Second.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. July 1,2021 5
Page 2 of 41
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All those in favor say
aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT.
CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item]
1. Approve Minutes of the June 17, 2021 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting
2. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Popeyes Drive-Through (H-
2021-0030) by Erik Wylie of JRW Construction, LLC, Located at 6343
N. Linder Rd.
3. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Topgolf (H-2021-0033) by
Arco/Murray, Located at 948 S. Silverstone Way
McCarvel: Next item is the Consent Agenda and we have three items on the Consent
Agenda this evening. We have approval of minutes for the June 17th, 2021, meeting --
Planning and Zoning meeting and Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for H-2021-
0030, Popeye's Drive-Through, and H-2021-0033 Topgolf. Can I get a motion to accept
the Consent Agenda as presented?
Cassinelli: 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: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT.
McCarvel: At this time I would like to briefly explain the public hearing process. We will
open each item individually and begin with the staff report. 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. They will have 15 minutes to do so. After the
applicant has finished we will open the floor to public testimony. Each person will be
called on only once during public testimony. The Clerk will call the names individually of
those who have signed up on our website in advance to testify. You will, then, be
unmuted. Please state your name and address for the record and you will have three
minutes to address the Commission. If you have previously sent pictures or presentation
for the meeting it will be displayed on the screen and our Clerk will run the presentation.
If you have established that -- let's see. Let's go on from there. After all of those who
have signed up in advance have spoken we will invite any others to -- who may wish to
testify. If you wish to speak on a topic you may press raise hand button on the Zoom app
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. July 1,2021 6
Page 3 of 41
or if you are only listening on -- on the 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 those extra devices, so we don't experience feedback
and we can hear you clearly. When you are finished, if the Commission does not have
any questions for you you will 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 questions and concerns, we will close the public
hearing and the Commissioners will have the opportunity to discuss and, hopefully, be
able to make a final decision or recommendation to the City Council as needed.
ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item]
ACTION ITEMS
4. Public Hearing for Orchard Park Pad C Drive-Through (H-2021-0039)
by Mandie Brozo of CSHQA, Located at 1245 W. Chinden Blvd.
A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a dual drive-through for a multi-
tenant establishment within 300 feet of an existing drive-through on
1.47 acres of land in the C-C zoning district.
McCarvel: So, at this time we will open the public hearing for Item H-2021-0039, Orchard
Park Pad C Drive-through and we will begin with the staff report and just wanted to make
note for the record that Commissioner Yearsley is present.
Yearsley: Sorry for being late.
Dodson: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. Good evening. Just
trying to get this all set up, so I can present this to you. The first project for you tonight is
for a conditional use permit. The site consists of 1 .47 acres of land. Currently zoned C-
C and located about a quarter mile east of Linder Road along Chinden Boulevard. It is
Lot 8, Block 1, in the Linder Village Subdivision, which is now being promoted as Orchard
Park. To the north is Chinden Boulevard and to the east, south, and west are C-C zoning,
with planned and I guess existing commercial development. History on this site is like I
noted. Linder Village Subdivision, which originally was an annexation, comp plan map
amendment, preliminary plat and variants for various reasons. Final plat has been
approved and signed and the plat has now been recorded. Recently went through MDA
to update the overall concept plan, but has generally little to do with this application. The
Comprehensive Plan designation on this property is mixed use community. This property,
as well as the -- the entire area should be taken into account and staff finds that the
proposed use, as well as the existing and proposed and planned uses in the area meet
the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed CUP before you tonight is for a dual drive
through, serving a multi-tenant building that is proposed as approximately 5,600 square
feet. The subject drive-throughs are within 300 feet of two existing or approved drive-
throughs, one to the west and one to the east. The building to the east has received
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. July 1,2021 7
Page 4 of 41
administrative level approvals and is nearly identical building as the one before you
tonight. The submitted site plan shows a rectangular building with both the northern and
southern most tenants as those utilizing the drive-through. The site plan shows 36 new
parking spaces for this site. The shared parking area between the two multi-tenant
buildings will be at least 74 parking spaces. Code would require 44 between the two.
The site plan -- or sorry. These drive aisles connect to the east-west drive aisle closest
to Chinden Boulevard and is the closest -- the entrance to the drive-throughs. So, this
drive aisle here and you have the north-south drive aisles that connect to it, which is the
entrance of the drive-through. Because the drive-through serve two separate tenants,
the traffic patterns reach across over one another midway through the site along the west
side of the building. The applicant provided a circulation plan, which is the one on the
left, which shows the intended traffic pattern. Staff agrees with this, but has
recommended some minor revisions that the applicant has agreed to. The submitted plan
shows that Tenant A, which is the north tenant, as utilizing the yellow path, which includes
the southern drive-through at the north end of the building noted here. Once a customer
orders along the north side of the building they continue to the west side and pick up their
order. They, then, stop at the determined drive-through crossing and go from being the
inside lane to the outside lane to exit the drive-through at the south end of the site. So,
again, order approximately here, pick up here, stop, crossover and, then, exit. After the
crossing point the yellow lane, the outside lane at that point becomes the escape lane,
which is required for the length of the drive-through lanes. Tenant B, which is the southern
tenet, utilizes the blue path according to the submitted site plan and, essentially, follows
the opposite path of Tenant A. For Tenant B the entrance along the north side of the
building is a stacking lane in order position. Once customers for this tenant order and,
then, stack determined crossing point, they would cross from the outside to the inside to
pick up their order. So, again, just want to make this very clear, enter here, order
approximately here, as noted on the one on the right, stop again here, cross over to the
inside to pick up for this tenant and, then, exit. After pick up customers would continue
south to turn east around the south side of the building and exit the drive-through. The
proposed drive-through design is obvious uncommon and complex, with the added
crossing point. Staff finds that with adequate signage and striping the proposed drive-
through can work. Therefore, staff is recommending not only striping on the pavement,
but also signage at the entrances and along throughout the drive-through lanes to ensure
customers know which business they are in line for and how to navigate the crossing.
Drive-through establishments must also adhere to specific use standards. Staff has
analyzed the submitted plans for compliance and finds that the proposed site plan to
comply with these standards. Based on the exhibits provided by the applicant, the two
ordering locations appear to be approximately 65 feet into the drive-through lanes, which
is this exhibit here. This should allow for three to four cars stacking prior to getting to the
menu boards. Staff does not perceive the proposed businesses requiring extended
stacking lanes like that of a Dutch Bros or a standalone coffee shop. However, staff does
recommend moving the menu boards further into the drive-through to help alleviate the
potential of this conflict. Other than these specific use standards, all landscaping,
dimensional standards, et cetera, will be further analyzed with the CZC and design review
applications. However, initial reviews of all of these requirements have been analyzed
and staff as shown -- sees that they have complied with all of those. Staff does
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. July 1,2021 $
Page 5 of 41
recommend approval of the subject CUP application and after that I will stand for any
questions you may have.
McCarvel: Would the applicant like to come forward.
Brozo: Good evening. My name is Mandie Brozo. 200 Broad Street. CSHQA. Madam
Chairman, Members of the Commission, tonight I'm here to present the CUP -- Pad C
CUP for --
McCarvel: Can you pull that microphone real close to you.
Brozo: Is that better?
McCarvel: Dean, is that okay? Okay.
Brozo: I do have a presentation for you guys and so -- okay. Perfect. So, if you want to
go to the next slide, kind of reiterating what Joe has already explained as far as the
conditional use permit for a dual drive-through at Pad C, Orchard Park, Linder Village
Subdivision. You can see Pad B to the west has already been approved through design
review CZC. Pad -- or building three to the east has also been approved. It's right in the
middle of the two of them and this, hopefully, helps clarify some of those traffic patterns
that we were talking about as far as -- if you look at the Pad B sites coming in and going
through -- the pink line actually shows that it is a valet parking pick up for that tenant.
That's a Tide Cleaners. So, we are intending people to drive through the valet, pick up
their laundry, and, then, actually exit through the far east exit lane, which would also be
kind of the escape lane for the drive-through. The orange indicates the northern tenants
drive-through. It's not a typical drive-through. It does not have an order board, it does
not have a speaker menu, it's specifically for that tenants' to go get orders. People have
called ahead, they are just going to drive through, pick it up, and go. That tenant is
actually a Chipotle and based on current health pandemic response, this is actually
something that these tenants are pushing for as they have their standard sit down eat
restaurant, then, also allow them to do a continual drive-through pick up kind of ordering
as well for those who don't want to sit in the restaurant. You can see from the exhibit for
Pad C the intention for the entering to the site, process through the drive-through. Joseph
explained kind of how we intend them to order, maneuver their way through and exit. Pad
-- or building three is the exact same thing, except mirrored on the opposite side of the
site and in response to comments from staff reports, we have added additional
explanations for signage. When you enter in for Tenant A you are going to get to your
speaker board first, order, and, then, turn the corner and, then, you are going to stop after
you get through -- the intention is you stop, you look for the oncoming traffic, they are
going to stop, too, hopefully, and they continue on, so you don't have that collision. Your
-- it's going to be very visible to everybody with stop signs and we are intending everyone
to just come to a complete stop before they continue on and cross the crossover and,
then, as you exit along the south of the building to the east, it should be just an exit lane
for them and, then, Tenant C crosses over, picks up, and, then, goes. If you want to make
a note that on this plan we have been talking to the tenants and we are thinking about
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. July 1,2021 191
Page 6 of 41
moving some of these drive-through windows actually further south along for Tenant A to
allow for some additional stacking and, then, also moving Tenant C's drive to the south
of the building to allow for some additional stacking as well. That was a concern as far
as just making sure that we had that addressed. Sixty-five feet at the beginning I think to
be adequate. However, if it's not we want to make sure that we provide enough beyond
the menu board so that we are not going to inhibit any kind of traffic in the drive aisles.
You can see here we intend on a Tenant C drive-through enter sign, a Tenant A drive-
through enter sign for identifying which lane they are supposed to be into as they enter
into the drive-throughs. It might take some people a little bit of time to get used to that,
but there is adequate site for them to circle back around if they need to or just stop and
look at the signage and, hopefully, see where they need to go. We will do some additional
exit signs that are vertical, in addition to any paint and striping signage. That way
everyone sees it vertically and on the ground, make sure that that's something that is
duplicated for everyone to see clearly and, then, obviously, the do not enter signs,
because now you have the potential of two cars coming at you, instead of just the one,
so we are going to have the painted sign and, then, the do not enter sign as you exit the
site. And, then, the rest of the pictures are kind of pretty pictures of the building and kind
of what we are looking at, but I will stand for any questions.
McCarvel: Okay. I do have a question. Where -- where else have you used this
successfully?
Brozo: Building three.
McCarvel: Is it up and running well now or --
Brozo: Yeah. We just kind of thought that this would work, trying to get the density of
two retail tenants in one building, especially for the Orchard Park. These are large 5,000
square feet buildings. So, a single tenant -- orjust one drive-through use isn't necessarily
in our prototype, so we tried to make sure that we could get some density, while making
it safe and really helping that Chinden Boulevard kind of look exciting and lively.
McCarvel: You don't know of anywhere else you have the -- this will be the first? Okay.
Brozo: Yes.
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: What about deliveries, especially for -- obviously, it doesn't seem like they will
be able to get deliveries in the rear of any of these, especially Tenant B in the middle.
Brozo: Yeah. So, Tenant B actually has the fire riser and, then, a little bit of the utility
and those are the -- that specific one is small enough that we are encouraging just the
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. July 1,2021 Flo]
Page 7 of 41
front load deliveries, working out with the -- early in the mornings and try to not affect the
business.
Cassinelli: So, basically, they don't -- none of these tenants would have rear deliveries
available to them?
Brozo: They have rear doors, if they can work it out to get it delivered after or before
hours, but it would be a matter of closing down those drive-throughs to get deliveries into
the back door.
Cassinelli: Okay. Madam Chair, I have another question if I may.
McCarvel: Yes.
Cassinelli: Did you look at any other patterns, any other traffic flows in the design?
Brozo: We did. This is one of -- it's a unique drive-through, the dual drive-through. We
just feel that this would be a great opportunity to try something like this to see if it works.
The whole concept is very unique and it took me a while to make sure that I understood
what was going on so I could present it to you guys tonight. I think that with the types of
businesses, the hours of operation, you are going to do a lot more for the Tenant A, more
of the breakfast, lunch, maybe dinner. Tenant C would be more of just a -- throughout
the day kind of a thing where you wouldn't really have a huge rush at both of them at the
same time, but with the response and trying to add for additional stacking and things like
that, that's why we are trying to move the boards around and drive-throughs around, just
to make sure that we have that without impeding the actual vehicular circulation of the
site, because there is going to be people who just want to go in, sit down, and we are just
going to make sure that those drive-throughs don't block that.
Cassinelli: So, there are already tenants scheduled for these spaces? There are.
McCarvel: Any other questions?
Lorcher: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Lorcher.
Lorcher: I don't know if this is for the applicant or not. When a tenant goes in and you
are kind of designing the space for them, there is no really guarantee that they are going
to stay there forever. So, it could be that you are suggesting that one of them may be a
dry cleaner and one would be a restaurant with a drive-through, but, then, down the --
you know, two or three years from now it could be something different. Would the city
require them to reapply for -- if a new tenant goes in for a drive-through?
Dodson: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, that is -- unless it's a complete
change of use, then, no, we would not require anything. There would be --
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. July 1,2021 Fill
Page 8 of 41
Lorcher: The drive-through doesn't change.
Dodson: Correct. Yeah. The drive-through portion would not be reevaluated later.
Lorcher: Okay. Thank you.
McCarvel: Any other questions for staff or the applicant?
Cassinelli: Madam Chair, I do have -- as long as we have gotten both -- and we are open
here. Joe, I think you mentioned -- you mentioned escape lanes, but on the one diagram
you put I just didn't -- I didn't see where that's possible until you get at least past the
window for Tenant A. Can you -- can you talk to that a little bit more?
Dodson: Absolutely. I guess I could just leave that one up. Madam Chair, Members of
the Commission, Commissioner Cassinelli, one of my recommendations was to remove
the curbing here, basically from here down, so that if somebody gets in this lane they can
use this outer lane as an escape lane. But once you get past this crossing point, this is
the escape plan. There is no reason to use it, unless you are leaving. You are not going
to be picking up any food from the outside. So, it, essentially, is functioning as both an
exit and an escape lane, which we--we see a lot with the --any of the dual drive-throughs.
I'm just glad it's not also a drive aisle.
Cassinelli: But before -- theoretically there is no escape plan unless we -- unless that
curb is removed there and they can jump over to the -- from the blue to the green. It
doesn't matter. Correct?
Dodson: Yes. And that's -- that's typical. We wouldn't have any -- if it -- if the building
stopped right there, they wouldn't be required to have an escape lane, because of the
distances for the stacking are not at -- at the mark, so --
Cassinelli: Okay.
Dodson: Because the overall length is -- is long enough that they need this exit lane and
escape lane.
McCarvel: Thank you. Madam Clerk, do we have anybody signed up to testify on this
application?
Weatherly: Madam Chair, we do not.
McCarvel: That being said, is there anyone in the room who wishes to -- or on Zoom who
wishes to testify on this application? Okay. That being said, I'm assuming the applicant
has no other comments. Okay. Great. With that could I get a motion to close the public
hearing for H-2021-0039?
Lorcher: Motion.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. July 1,2021 F12
Page 9 of 41
Cassinelli: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2021-0039.
All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: I like it. I think it's cool. And it will take some time for people to -- to get used
to it, but I think you give them a month and they will know exactly what to do.
McCarvel: Yeah.
Yearsley: I understand that the need for most restaurants anymore wanting a drive-
through and I think you are going to end up with something very similar to this in a lot of
areas, because most restaurants want drive-throughs anymore just because of what
happened with COVID. So, I think it's unique. I think it's cool. It if -- I think it will work. I
-- I think it's good. I like it.
McCarvel: Yeah. I think it can, too. Mean it will take some getting used to, but I think
people who tend to frequent drive-throughs are usually mostly the same people over and
over and I think as long as that striping is on there, it's -- it should be -- it's just like a
roundabout, once you get through once you get it figured out.
Lorcher: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Lorcher.
Lorcher: I think it would work as long as both weren't food purveyors. So, it was alluded
that one may be a dry cleaner and, then, the other would be, you know, food and the
business -- business hours would be -- even though they would cross over for timing, the
needs of the drive-through would be different. If both of them were food and everybody
was stacking up at the same time, I think you will probably find some long lines and, then,
you wouldn't have the ability for the escape lane, but if there are two unique businesses
that really complement each other, but don't contradict each other, that could -- it could
work.
McCarvel: I think the tenants will figure that out. Anymore comments or motions?
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. July 1,2021 F13
Page 10 of 41
Yearsley: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve
file number H-2021-0039, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 1 st,
2021, with no modifications.
Grove: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve H-2021-0039. All those in favor
say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Congratulations.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
5. Public Hearing for DaVinci Park Drive-Through (H-2021-0037) by
NeuDesign Architecture, Located at 4744 N. Park Crossing Ave.
A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a drive-through establishment
for a coffee kiosk within 300 feet of an existing residence and
residential district on 1.19 acres of land in the C-N zoning district.
McCarvel: At this time we will open public hearing for H-2021-0037, DaVinci Park Drive-
Through and we will begin with the staff report.
Allen: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. The next application
before you is a request for a conditional use permit. This site consists of 1.19 acres of
land. It's zoned C-N and is located at 4744 North Park Crossing Avenue at the southwest
corner of North Locust Grove Road and East McMillan Road. The Comprehensive Plan
future land use map designation for this property is mixed use neighborhood. A
conditional use permit is requested for a drive-through establishment for a 620 square
foot coffee kiosk within 300 feet of an existing residence and residential district on 1.19
acres of land in the C-N zoning district. The proposed development plan is in substantial
compliance with the provisions in the existing development agreement. A full access
driveway exists to this site from the west via North Park Crossing Lane and a right only
route -- excuse me -- right-out only driveway exists to North Locust Grove Road on the
east side of the lot. Direct access via East McMillan Road is prohibited. Because the
width of the area proposed for the one way drive aisle for access to northern parking and
stacking lane for the drive-through is too narrow to accommodate both travel lanes,
vehicles in the stacking lane will encroach into the drive aisle and this is this area right in
here that we are talking about, if you can see my pointer. Staff is recommending the
northern row of parking is removed. That's these spots right here. And a planter island
is added to guide traffic to avoid conflicts. A minimum of two parking spaces are required
per UDC standards. A total of 42 spaces exist and/or are proposed between the proposed
use and the existing 9,500 square foot retail building on the east side of this site. Even
with removal of the row of parking previously mentioned, there are still twice as many
parking spaces as required. Conceptual building elevations were submitted as shown
that incorporated a mix of materials consisting of Hardieplank lap siding, Accoya wood
siding and glazing. Per the development agreement some of the same design elements
are required to be incorporated into the commercial portion of the development as in a
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. July 1,2021 F14
Page 11 of 41
residential portion. Final design is required to be consistent with the provisions in the
development agreement and with the design standards in the architecture -- architectural
standards manual. So, these elevations are not approved with this application, they are
only conceptual. Written testimony has been received from Marla Carson, the applicant's
representative. She requests they be able to retain the five northern parking spaces as
employee parking. Staff does not support this request as stated previously, because
there isn't enough room spatially for the one-way drive aisle to access the parking and
escape lane and the stacking lane for the drive-through. Parallel parking may be an
option in this area for employees instead. Staff is recommending approval with the
conditions in the staff report.
McCarvel: Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward?
Allen: The applicant is online I believe tonight, Madam Chair.
Weatherly: Marla, you should have permission to unmute yourself and turn on your
camera if you would like.
Carson: Good evening. This is Marla Carson, architect, at 725 East 2nd Street in
Meridian.
McCarvel: Thank you. We can hear you. Go ahead.
Carson: Okay. Can you see my screen?
McCarvel: It looks like it's coming up.
Carson: Okay. I'm here tonight to ask approval for a CUP for a coffee kiosk at 4474
North Park Crossing. The location, as Sonya stated, is the southwest corner of McMillan
and Locust Grove. The same owner of the property has already been approved and
constructed a retail building on the corner of the property. The scope of the work for this
project is a pad ready site as shown here. We are requesting that we may be able to
retain these five parking spaces that could be shared with the stacking for the drive-
through. I believe code does have allowance saying that the stacking lane shall be a
separate lane from circulation lanes needed for access and parking, except stacking
lanes may provide access to staff parking. So, that's what we are asking. We do exceed
the needs for the parking requirement, but this coffee shop only requires two parking
spaces and we can see there being four or five employees that could use these spaces
and just keep the flexibility for this retail space as different tenants come and go, allow
enough parking for everyone. Also there is no real street parking in the area, so we are
thinking if we provide plenty of parking that's going to prevent overflow into this
neighborhood just to the south of the property. Here is our preliminary floor plan for the
project. There is not going to be indoor seating, but we will have patio seating. And here
is our preliminary elevations using similar materials to the existing building. And, then,
this kind of shows what the existing building looks like, the retail space. There is a Shapes
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. July 1,2021 F15]
Page 12 of 41
Fitness in there and a Precision Hardwood Floors in there right now. That completes my
presentation.
McCarvel: Okay. Any questions for the applicant or staff? With that is there -- Madam
Clerk, do we have anybody signed up to testify on this application?
Weatherly: Madam Chair, we do not.
McCarvel: Okay. That being said is there anyone in the room who would like to testify
on this application? Or on Zoom? Okay. Could I get a motion to close -- or -- and I'm
assuming with that the applicant has no other comments?
Carson: Correct.
McCarvel: Going once, going twice for questions. Can I get a motion to close the public
hearing on H-2021-0037?
Yearsley: So moved.
Lorcher: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2021-0037.
All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Grove: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Grove.
Grove: Jump in real quick. I see not a lot with this -- it's going to be a busy location.
Having lived in this area before there is a lack of coffee. Definitely be a welcome sight
over there. I'm -- I can go either way with the parking. I tend to agree with staff when
they have concerns though.
McCarvel: Okay. Any other thoughts?
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: I think it works. I think it looks good. I do agree with staff, I think that parking
needs to go. I think it's just going to be a conflict with people driving through with trying
to park there. So, I think it makes sense to -- to leave it the way it -- with the conditions
of removing that area of parking spaces.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. July 1,2021 F16
Page 13 of 41
McCarvel: I would tend to agree, even if they were employee -- clearly marked employee
would be the only way, but, man, I get nervous sitting in drive-throughs where it is butted
up right against where somebody is just begging to back out and everybody's stuck. So,
I would -- I would tend to agree with staff on that as well. Additional comments? Motions?
Grove: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Grove.
Grove: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve File
No. H-2021-0037 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 1 st, 2021,
with no modifications.
Cassinelli: Second.
McCarvel: I was going to say, is it written the way you want to --
Allen: May I clarify? The staff report requires removal of the five northern parking spaces.
May I clarify if parallel parking may be considered at the time of CZC if it meets
dimensional standards or if you just don't want any parking there at all?
McCarvel: I think leave it to staff to --
Yearsley: What do you recommend?
Grove: I will leave it to staff to make that decision.
McCarvel: Okay. It has been -- did we get a second?
Cassinelli: Yeah. It has been moved and seconded to -- to approve H-2021-0037 with
modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed. Or -- got it.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
6. Public Hearing for TM Creek Apartments Phase 3 (H-2021-0035) by
Brighton Corporation, Generally Located South of W. Franklin Rd. and
East of S. Ten Mile Rd.
A. Request: Rezone of 5.58 acres of land from the TN-C to the C-G
zoning district.
B. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development
consisting of 238 apartment units (including 2 live/work units) on 7.83
acres of land in the C-G zoning district.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. July 1,2021 F17
Page 14 of 41
McCarvel: Next on the agenda is Item H-2021-0035, the TM Creek Apartments Phase 3
and we will begin with the staff report.
Allen: Thank you, Madam Chair. Give me just a moment here. The next application
before you is a request for a rezone and a conditional use permit. This site currently is
zoned TN-C and C-G and is located south of West Franklin Road and east of South Ten
Mile Road. Development of this property is governed by the Ten Mile Crossing
Development Agreement. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is
mixed use commercial and high density residential in the Ten Mile Interchange Specific
Area Plan. The applicant has requested rezone of 5.5 acres of land from the TN-C to the
C-G zoning district as shown. Most of the area proposed to be rezoned is designated
mixed use commercial, with a narrow sliver along the east boundary designated as high
density residential. The proposed C-G zoning and multi-family residential and live-work
vertically integrated uses are consistent with the future land use map designations for this
property. Because the area proposed to be rezoned is governed by the Ten Mile Crossing
Development Agreement, a new development agreement or amendment to the existing
DA is not recommended. A conditional use permit is requested for a multi-family
residential development, consisting of 238 apartment units on 7.83 acres of land in the
C-G zoning district. A variety of studio, one bedroom, two bedroom, and live-work units
are proposed. The gross density is 30.4 units per acre. A total of 1 ,815 square feet of
nonresidential uses are proposed in the vertically integrated and residential structure,
which is a principally permitted use in the C-G zoning district and will allow a variety of
commercial uses. The vertically integrated residential use is proposed at the corner
where the private streets intersect Wayfinder. There are two live-work units proposed.
The remainder of the building frontage to the south along Wayfinder is proposed to be
entirely multi-family residential. This area was previously planned for commercial uses
along this street. The applicant has requested alternative compliance to UDC 11-43-27-
B3 to provide a lesser amount of private open space for each unit as noted in the staff
report and to UDC Table 11-3C-6, which doesn't include a requirement for parking for
studio units, to allow the vertically integrated residential standards to apply. The director
has approved these requests as stated in the staff report. Access is proposed via private
street from Wayfinder Avenue, a collector street, along the west boundary of the site.
With approval of alternative compliance, a minimum of 372 parking spaces are required.
A total of 379 spaces are proposed. Based on the size of the living area and the proposed
units, all between 500 and 1,200 square feet, a minimum of 1.37 acres of common open
space is required to be provided within the development. A total of 2.51 acres is
proposed. Although some of this area doesn't qualify, i.e., private open space along
Wayfinder and is not really usable, some of the parking lot planters, the internal common
open space and area along the Ten Mile Creek is 2.2 acres, which exceeds UDC
standards. And that 2.2 acres you can see is contained within the red dotted line here.
So, the other area is what consists of the 2.51 acres shown on the open space exhibit.
Based on 238 units, a minimum of five amenities are required, but the decision making
body is authorized to consider additional amenities if they believe their proposed
amenities aren't adequate for the size of the development. The applicant is proposing a
clubhouse with a fitness center, bike repair room, and pet grooming station. Swimming
pool. Open grassy areas of at least 50 feet by 100 feet in size. Fireside seating. Grilling
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. July 1,2021 F18
Page 15 of 41
area and sports courts. Smith ball and ping pong. The Ten Mile Creek multi-use pathway
also lies adjacent to the site for residents to use. An eight foot wide pathway is proposed
along the north side of the creek as shown on the concept plan. Conceptual building
elevations were submitted for the proposed four story structures as shown. Building
materials consist of stucco and brick in neutral colors. Final design is required to comply
with the adopted Ten Mile Crossing design guidelines. Written testimony has been
received from Mike Wardle, the applicant's representative. He requests condition number
4-H, which requires the sidewalk along the southern boundary of the site adjacent to the
ten Mile Creek to be widened to ten feet to qualify as a multi-use pathway as
recommended by the Parks Department as a condition of approval of the alternative
compliance request to the private open space standards to be changed to require an eight
foot wide pathway as proposed and that is this pathway right here along the southern
boundary that we are talking about. And deletion of Condition No. 8, which requires a
public-pedestrian easement for the multi-use pathway to be deleted, since an easement
isn't required for nonpublic pathways as proposed by the applicant. A revision is also
requested to Condition No. 9 to remove the language pertaining to compliance with the
design guidelines in the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan and the design
standards in the architectural standards manual to reflect compliance with the Ten Mile
Crossing design guidelines as required by the development agreement. That was a typo
in the staff report. So, staff is in agreement with that requested change. Staff is
recommending approval with the conditions in the staff report. Staff will stand for any
questions.
McCarvel: Would the applicant like to come forward?
Beach: Good evening. Josh Beach. Brighton Homes. 2929 West Navigator Drive here
in Meridian. So, we have a -- should have a slideshow. Get it pulled up there. Nice to
see you all in person again.
McCarvel: Welcome back.
Beach: Thank you. So, good evening, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. So,
as Sonya stated -- hopefully I can move this forward. Can I not, Sonya? Okay. Next
slide there, Sonya, if you would. So, as recommended by staff and, then, in the pre-
application meeting, they recommended that we rezone that portion of TN-C to C-G to be
consistent with -- with the area and what we are proposing and so not much else to say
in terms of the rezone. Other than that it -- it does comply with the Comprehensive Plan
with our overall development agreement. So, we were okay with making that application.
Moving on to the conditional use permit -- Sonya, if you will move it forward. So, as you
can see here on the slide, this is the -- will be the third phase of the apartments. There
is the Lofts and Flats just --just to the south and this would be phase three, which is north
of what we are calling the amenity corridor, the Ten Mile Creek there with the Ten Mile
multi-use pathway being on the south side of the creek and the gravel access road for the
irrigation district being on the north side and one of the reasons why in that condition of
approval that we asked to be modified -- there is a multi-use pathway on the south side
and in our minds it didn't make sense to have another multi-use pathway on the north
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. July 1,2021 F19
Page 16 of 41
side, especially because the access road for the irrigation district is -- is located there and
they typically don't like to -- like to have them on both sides. So, that's one of the reasons.
So, Sonya, if you can move forward again. So, the site plan -- as Sonya said, there is
238 -- what we are calling urban style multi-family units, kind of a breakdown there of the
unit count. The sizes. Sonya, if you can move it forward again for me. So, one of the
cool things about this is we have some live-work units, which is something that there isn't
a lot of in Meridian. Very excited about that and you can see here on the -- on the left for
Wayfinder that we have -- we put some on-street parking -- it's already constructed there
-- on-street free parking for those businesses, so that they can be better utilized by, you
know, customers and typically those live-work units are used by professionals; right?
Your architects, things like that, where they can have their office downstairs and live
upstairs. So, hoping that -- that that goes well here. Sonya, if you can move forward
again for me. So, Sonya has mentioned open space. We have got just over two and a
half acres of qualified open space, which is about 32 percent of the site. It consists of
landscape buffers and the landscape area around what we are calling the central amenity
core, as you can see there south of the central building and, then, the landscaping, again,
adjacent to the Ten Mile Creek corridor. So, as Sonya mentioned as well, there are quite
a few amenities for the project. These photos were taken from the -- the Flats project,
which is just to the south of this proposed site and -- and, you know, one of our -- one of
my co-workers was gracious enough to take some photos of that for me, so we could put
them in the slide. So, there is a workout room, there is a yoga studio, pet grooming, lots
of seating areas inside there. A game room. It's -- it's very cool, actually, the -- the size
and all the different amenities that -- that are just within the clubhouse. Next slide, Sonya.
Oh, back on. There we go. So, outside. So, in addition to the amenities that are -- that
are inside the clubhouse, there is a year round spa and a pool, some grilling areas and
seating areas around the patio. Lounges. Smith ball. Outdoor yoga. Outdoor ping pong.
And these really cool fire tables. You have seen those probably at The Village and other
places and they add some warmth and some heat to the areas so folks can gather around
those. Sonya. So, going back to the -- the pathways a little bit more. You know, this --
this pathway that's there, it's labeled as A or the Ten --Ten Mile Creek and Ten Mile Road
regional pathway. It goes along the south side of that amenities corridor of the Ten Mile
Creek and it's going to connect to a large pathway network just in the Ten Mile Creek
area and we are excited that, you know, this section of that will be just the internal
circulation, that eight foot pathway, that we will have there, but, eventually, there will be
pathways throughout the whole --throughout the whole area, as you can see there, about
three and a half miles of eight and ten foot pathways. So, it will be relatively easy to
connect just about anywhere in the area just with walking. Sonya. And Sonya went
through these a little bit. I'm not going to touch much on these, but these are the -- the
architectural elevations of the buildings. The next slide there, Sonya. Again, it's more
perspective. And, again, we are complying with what was approved in our -- in our DA
for the Ten Mile Creek design guidelines. So, they are a little different than the design
guidelines for the rest of the city, as well as the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan.
We had our own guidelines approved just earlier this year. So, we will comply with those.
Sonya. And as Sonya said, there is -- there is a few conditions of approval. One would
be 4-H, which is, again, that's what we had originally proposed as a seven foot pathway
--would be an eight foot sidewalk along the south side of the project, which is on the north
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. July 1,2021 F20
Page 17 of 41
side of Ten Mile Creek for internal circulation and as you know, that's not a public
pathway. An easement would not be required for that, which is why we asked that
Condition 8 be removed as well. And, then, as Sonya said, the typo there with the Ten
Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan and it would -- this project would meet the Ten Mile
Creek design guidelines. Next slide there, Sonya. That's all I had in terms of the
presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions on the project that you may have.
McCarvel: Before we get into a whole lot of questions here, Sonya, can you put that last
slide back up, so we have got that? Thank you. Okay. Any questions for the applicant
or staff?
Cassinelli: Lots.
Yearsley: Go for it.
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: I will knock them down. Josh, on the amenities, are they -- are these different
than the other buildings or are they pretty much duplicates? And, then, is there sharing
of the entities from one building -- so, the Lofts and the Flats, can they go to the different
pools, et cetera?
Beach: So, the amenities are slightly different, but we have some -- some themes; right?
The workout room with the aerobic equipment and the outdoor -- outdoor games. We
have tried to change those up a little bit in terms of what outdoors -- like ping pong or
Smith Ball or things like that are a little bit different. But there wouldn't be sharing between
the -- between the different projects of amenities; right? Each -- each -- each -- each
apartment development will have its own amenities and be restricted to those -- those
tenants of that.
Cassinelli: Okay.
McCarvel: Anyone else?
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: So, you -- you kind of tout this as a live-work facility, but yet only two of the
units are a live-work. Why not add more?
Beach: That would be a Jon question.
Wardle: Good evening, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Jon Wardle. 2929
West Navigator Drive, Meridian, Idaho. Commissioner Yearsley, thank you for asking the
question about the live-work. We haven't seen it done very successfully as of yet, but we
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. July 1,2021 F21
Page 18 of 41
felt like this was a good opportunity to do it and we -- we took the two units that were
closest to that private drive to be able to do that. We will look for other opportunities, but
we felt like this was a good opportunity to try it and make sure that it works. A lot of times
those live-work units are converted back to just residential, but we are hopeful that we
can make this work and do it in other places as well.
Yearsley: Okay. Thank you.
McCarvel: Other questions?
Lorcher: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Lorcher.
Lorcher: I had a question and this might -- because it hasn't come up during my time on
the Commission, but did I read it right or see it right that there is going to be no parking
for the studio apartments for the 42 units; is that correct?
Beach: Correct. At the time there wasn't a requirement for studio parking. We have
provided some parking for them, but there isn't a requirement in the code. Or there wasn't
at the time.
Wardle: If I can clarify that. We actually are providing parking one unit per studio. Sorry.
For the record, Jon Wardle again. One per studio, which is actually in compliance now
with the UDC amendment that's coming through as well. Currently there wasn't a
designation for studio units. It was one bedroom and it was one and a half. But in this
case the bedroom and the units all integrated. So, we -- we have asked for one unit -- or
one stall per unit on the studios. So, they will have -- they will have parking dedicated
one space.
Lorcher: Thank you..
McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant or staff?
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: Josh, is the number of units here -- is it consistent with the original
development agreement?
Beach: In terms of the number of apartment units allowed in the overall development?
Cassinelli: Correct.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. July 1,2021 F22
Page 19 of 41
Beach: I don't know that we have reached the threshold of how many are allowed and
so I'm not sure if I understand the question specifically. There aren't a specific number
of apartments allowed for a specific apartment development. And, maybe, Sonya, I don't
know if you --
Allen: Madam Chair, Commissioners, there wasn't a specific -- specific number. It's
what's allowed in the mixed use commercial designation and I believe it's no more than
30 percent, I believe. I would have to double check.
Parsons: Yeah. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, if you recall, when the
applicant came forward with their recent DA mod and design guidelines, this area was
slated for additional residential, if I'm not mistaken, and that's why they are rezoning it to
C-G as well, to allow for that through a conditional use permit. So, again, as Sonya gets
that number for you, I don't believe we capped them to any certain number, but if you also
recall, they also own some additional residential that we anticipate them coming back and
platting and doing and possibly providing you more design guidelines for the residential
component of this development. That's further to the east of this site. So, right now,
again, what Sonya said to you this -- this plan is consistent with the land use designation
and that DA modification that was recently approved.
Beach: Madam Chair, quickly if I could. Our understanding is that there was a minimum
threshold for residential in the -- in the development agreement and that we have already
met that and exceeded the minimum requirement for residential.
Cassinelli: Okay. And Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: Then this may be for staff. But as far as parking, are we more -- are we -- I'm
more confused on the alternative compliance and changing up the parking spaces, but
are we -- do we still have ample parking in there? I see there is a minimum of 372 with a
total of 379, but with -- with the alternative compliance do we still have enough parking?
Allen: Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli, yes, we do. It's in excess of UDC
standards. The funky thing about this is, like the applicant mentioned, staff does have a
text amendment in process right now. The -- the current UDC does not specifically have
a parking standard for studio parking. It's not that we don't require it, it just -- I think it was
inadvertently left out for studios. So, what the applicant's proposing as alternative
compliance is consistent with what staff is recommending as a text amendment currently
in process. So, there are extra spaces provided above the requirements.
Cassinelli: Okay. And kind of to piggyback on that, have -- have we -- has there been a
problem with parking in the existing complexes that would -- that would suggest that we
need more parking?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. July 1,2021 F23
Page 20 of 41
Allen: Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli, not that I'm aware of. The applicant may
be able to answer that. I'm not aware of any issues.
Cassinelli: How are the existing buildings handling the parking?
Beach: Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli, I'm not -- I'm not aware of any concerns
either. I think Jon can address that more, but --
Wardle: Sorry. We put Josh on the spot tonight without, you know, perhaps the
knowledge of the project. So, the -- the Lofts project is complete. We are fully occupied
and we don't have a parking issue. We -- and we would know that pretty quickly, because
of the spillover into Primary Health and into some of the other services there as well. But
we feel like the parking works and we also have garages and things like that. So, there
is not a parking issue. We are very comfortable with the standards that we have met and
we have stayed consistent with the Flats and now this phase three across the creek. So,
the parking seems to be working really well.
Cassinelli: Okay.
McCarvel: Any other questions?
Lorcher: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Lorcher.
Lorcher: Is this the first four story apartment building for Brighton?
Wardle: Madam Chair, Commissioner Lorcher, actually, this is -- out at Ten Mile this is
the third project with four story buildings. So, the Flats and Lofts both --
Lorcher: Any other four story?
Wardle: We have other projects as well where we have done four and five stories. The
thing that's interesting here -- in typical garden style it's just walk up from outside into the
building in different stairwells. This one's completely conditioned and so you come into
conditioned spaces, corridors, that are internal, so you kind of eliminate -- we have
eliminated those external stairways from the project. The live-work is a little different,
because you can walk right into it from the street, but the rest of the buildings are internal
corridors with a number of elevators as well.
McCarvel: All right. Madam Clerk, do we have anyone signed up to testify on this
application?
Weatherly: Madam Chair, we do not.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. July 1,2021 F24
Page 21 of 41
McCarvel: That being said, is there anyone in the room who wishes to testify on this
application? Or on Zoom? Okay. Does the applicant have any further comments then,
being no public testimony? Okay.
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Oh. Sure.
Wardle: Madam Chair, Jon Wardle. I just wanted to talk -- speak quickly about the
pathway and the sidewalk. So, we established a long time ago with Nampa-Meridian
Irrigation District that the public sidewalk or pathway would be on the south side and their
maintenance, which is a gravel access on the north side, north and west as we work
through the project. So, that starts at Franklin Road and will carry all the way through
and ultimately connect with the regional pathway the city had planned over by Twelve
Oaks and -- I'm trying to remember the other subdivisions over there. The --the sidewalk
that we are proposing on the north side is for internal circulation. Obviously, we want
them to be able to come down to the creek, but they won't have direct access to it until it
-- unless they go out to Wayfinder. Just to the south of that we will -- we will continue the
gravel access for Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. So, I just wanted to distinguish
between those. There -- this is not a public regional pathway. That exists on the south
side and we are going to continue that all the way through. This is just for internal
circulation coming out of those buildings for residents to move back and forth. Now, could
the public access it? Obviously, they would. But this is not the regional pathway and
that's why we are making the distinction here and asking for that sidewalk on the north
and the regional pathway on the south.
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: So, I understand the designation and I'm fine with that. But do you have an
issue of just leaving it at ten feet instead of eight or is there not enough room to make ten
feet in there?
Wardle: Madam Chair, Commissioner Yearsley, we actually do have a little bit of grade
issue there. On the second phase -- well, across --with our first project, but when we did
the gravel access on the north side, it sits pretty low in comparison to where the -- the
terrain is up above. So, we are going to have some terracing, some bouldering that's
going to be there. We would prefer to keep it at eight just to give us enough room to stay
back from that, so that's the reason we requested it to be eight.
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. July 1,2021 F25
Page 22 of 41
Cassinelli: Sonya, can we get your -- a little bit additional input on -- on that. Going from
ten down to eight and why you want ten?
Allen: Yes. The Parks Department recommended ten feet as a provision of approving
the applicant's request for alternative compliance to the private open space standards. A
reduction to those. It's not a giant deal in staff's opinion, but that was the Parks
Department's recommendation.
Cassinelli: And yet the --
Allen: There is a multi-use pathway on the south side of the Ten Mile Creek.
Cassinelli: Yeah. I mean the Parks Department was -- they were clear on the
understanding of that, that the multi-use pathway is on the south side. Okay. And, then,
I had a question and I'm trying to think if you answered it. There is separation between
the sidewalk, whether it be eight feet or ten feet, and the gravel access, is it -- and you
mentioned I think some bouldering. So, is there a -- there is a definite separation there?
Wardle: Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli, as we have looked at the design, yes,
there will be a separation. There will be boulders that will have to retain some of it. Will
it be the entire distance? No. But it drops quite a bit coming off a Wayfinder where that
gravel access is. So, I would expect that we would be stepping back and a couple layers
of boulder walls to make sure that that transition is -- is not too steep and severe between
the gravel access road and where the site would be.
Cassinelli: Okay. So, there is -- I mean -- then would you -- would you classify that as
kind of a natural fence or is it -- I mean is there going to be any kind of fencing between
those two?
Wardle: We haven't had to fence it as of yet on the other side. We have a similar
condition, but -- and given the way we have been able to step it back, it's -- it's not a
hazard. But we will need to look at that as we get out there and do a final civil analysis
of it.
Cassinelli: Okay. Thank you.
Wardle: Thank you.
McCarvel: Okay. Can I get a motion to close the public hearing on 2021-0035, TM Creek
Apartments?
Grove: So moved.
Yearsley: Second.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. July 1,2021 F26
Page 23 of 41
McCarvel: It's been moved and seconded to close public hearing on H-2021-0035. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
McCarvel: I will jump up. I -- I don't see a big deal of leaving that an eight foot sidewalk,
instead of ten, but -- and I think they have plenty of amenities and open space and being
able to do some decent design work around there. I think it's just as important as having
the other two feet, especially on an internal circulation. Other than that -- I mean it looks
compatible with everything else that is around there.
Grove: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Grove.
Grove: Echo your sentiments on this. I would also like to point out one of the things that
came through a while back with this project was the lack of a gathering plaza, as they put
it, and they have that on one of the maps that they showed of the overall project out there.
So, I think that is greatly appreciated. Having -- kind of tying in all of these developments
together. I know that's not directly tied to this, but it does help. I particularly like the
amendments -- amenities that they have and the large open space. It looks like it will fit
in well with what they have already done. The project overall I don't have any problems
with it and I'm okay with the modifications that they have presented.
Yearsley: Madam Chairman?
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: For the most part I'm -- I'm okay with it. Apartments never really excite me.
have to apologize for that comment. But, you know, you don't think two feet is a lot, but
for a ten foot sidewalk, if you have got two groups walking against each other, eight feet
feels very narrow and so I still have a tendency to call it a sidewalk and not a pathway,
but still leave it at ten feet, instead of eight, just to make it -- with that many -- you know,
200 and some homes, you know, you are going to have a lot of people out there wanting
to walk and stuff like that and so you are going to have people walk in different directions.
People on bikes. Having that extra two feet does provide a lot better access and safer.
Lorcher: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Lorcher.
Lorcher: I guess my only comment with Commissioner Yearsley is that if it's connecting
to another pathway or sidewalk, would it -- if it was already ten and, then, it's going to go
to eight and, then, it's going to get to ten again or -- it's going to be eight and, then, widen
out to ten -- whatever they choose it should be consistent. Unless it doesn't connect to
anything.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. July 1,2021 F27
Page 24 of 41
McCarvel: Sonya, correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think it connects to anything, does it?
Allen: Madam Chair, not at this time. Brighton also owns the land and will be developing
to the east of this property, though.
Lorcher: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Lorcher.
Lorcher: So, on their -- on the Flats and, then, the Lofts they have -- do they have the
eight foot sidewalk, then, on those projects or are they ten?
Allen: I don't believe there is anything north of the creek that's developed at this time.
Cassinelli: Can you go back a slide to that? I think the previous slide was the -- is the
pathways. Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: Normally I would -- initially I was going to say -- I would be okay with the eight
foot, but Commissioner Yearsley brought up the fact that--the number of apartments and
I agree, you know, even -- even two people -- you know, two groups of two coming head
on, eight feet is -- is not enough. I mean, you know, you kind of need to move a little bit
and with bikes as well. With that many residences it is a -- it's not part of the pathway
system, but I think given the -- the number there that I almost feel that ten feet is -- it
would just make for -- for more comfort there. I understand that the applicant has a little
bit of a space issue there trying to get the boulders in there and whatnot and, then, get
the access for the irrigation district, but I think they can do it, so I think I'm kind of leaning
towards that. I also want to make a comment on the live-work and Commissioner
Yearsley asked the question why only two? I like live-work. I don't -- to me it almost
seems like -- if you put just two in, why bother, because it's not going to attract -- you
know, if it was -- if it was a dozen in there it might attract enough people coming in to --
to be there. They are in there, it's -- it's being approved, I guess -- you know. And the
applicant even said that they could be converted in the future back to just stand-alone
residences. But, yeah, I would like to see -- because I like the idea of-- I have seen, you
know, live-work spaces in different parts of the country where it's -- it's real vibrant when
-- when they are there. So, I would love to see more is my issue there. But getting back
to the pathways, I would -- I would have to go with ten.
Grove: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Grove.
Grove: Just to jump in on the sidewalk aspect, having looked -- you know, driven around
that area before, the -- there is quite a bit of elevation change right along that area and
so I would be hesitant to force the template without having -- without having them, you
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. July 1,2021 F28
Page 25 of 41
know, take another look at it, I guess, with staff, potentially, maybe wording the -- what
we pass as a recommendation versus an ultimatum.
McCarvel: And I guess I would tend to agree with Commissioner Cassinelli. I'm actually
surprised that the live-work hasn't been successful in other projects, but -- because I think
going forward it might be a more desirable aspect and since a lot -- you know, we are
taking away -- it is kind of a commercial area. I wouldn't mind seeing more. Like they
said, they can always be converted, but it's easy -- I would imagine it's easier to convert
them back. I don't know.
Yearsley: Yeah. I -- Madam Chair, I would -- I would -- you know, I don't know if I would
condition more, but I would recommend more. I think it -- I think it might be -- you know,
again, it's kind of hard to say if it will work or not, but, you know, I would like to actually
see it a little bit more than that and my -- again, with the -- with the eight foot for the ten
foot, just give their civil engineers a little bit more to work on.
Grove: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Grove.
Grove: I don't think I have ever said this before, but I don't -- I don't know if I completely
agree with even wanting more of the mixed use, just because of how much other
commercial is in this general area. I'm usually a huge fan of having additional mixed use
integrated, but it -- I don't know. I -- I guess I wouldn't be opposed to having more, but I
don't see the absolute need for it, because of how much commercial office space is out
there.
McCarvel: Well, I think whoever makes the motion can wordsmith --
Yearsley: Sonya? Sonya, would you put that section back up. Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2021-0035 as presented in the staff
report for the hearing date of July 1st, 2021, with the following modifications: That
condition H -- or 4-H be modified to read: Widen the sidewalk along the southern border
to the site to ten feet. To strike condition eight to not require that it be in an easement
and to modify condition nine shown on the screen, if that's acceptable to Sonya for the
last one.
Allen: Clarification, Madam Chair, Commissioner Yearsley. The -- if you are wanting the
sidewalk to be widened to ten feet that is the typical width for a multi-use public pathway.
Are you sure you want to remove that requirement for a public pedestrian easement?
Because that's typically required with a multi-use pathway.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. July 1,2021 F29
Page 26 of 41
Yearsley: I don't know. Like I said, I -- I'm okay calling it a sidewalk, but just conditioning
it to be ten feet wide.
Allen: Thank you.
Cassinelli: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve H-2021-0035 with modifications.
All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
7. Public Hearing Continued from June 3, 2021 for Woodcrest
Townhomes (H-2021-0015) by Blaine A. Womer Civil Engineering,
Located at 1789 N. Hickory Way
A. Request: Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use
Map to change the future land use designation on 2+/- acres of land
from the Commercial to the Medium High-Density Residential
designation.
B. Request: Rezone of 2.10 acres of land from the L-O (Limited Office)
to the R-15 (Medium High-Density Residential) zoning district.
McCarvel: Next item on the agenda we will continue from June 30 -- June 3rd, H-2021-
0015, Woodcrest Townhomes, and we will begin with the staff report.
Allen: Just a moment, Madam Chair. Alrighty. The last item before you tonight is a
request for a Comprehensive Plan future land use map amendment and a rezone. This
site consists of 1.97 acres of land. It's zoned L-O, limited office, and is located at 1789
North Hickory Way, north of East Fairview Avenue on the southwest side of Hickory Way.
This property was annexed with L-O zoning in 1992 and was later resubdivided as a lot
in Mellane Commercial Complex in 2001. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map
designation currently is commercial. The applicant requests an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan future land use map to change the land use designation on 2.10
acres of land from commercial to medium high density residential and a rezone of 2.1
acres of land from the L-O, limited office, to the R-15, medium high density residential
zoning district. Approval of the map amendment will allow the applicant to develop 19
single family residential attached and townhome dwellings at a gross density of 10.8 units
per acre on this in-fill property, which will contribute to the range of residential land use
designations and diversity in housing types and densities in this area and provide a
transition in land uses from medium density residential to commercial and office uses to
the south. A conceptual site plan and building elevations were submitted showing how
the property is planned to develop with 19 single family attached and townhouse
dwellings, consisting of one single family attached structure, three three unit townhomes
and two four unit townhouses and a 2,500 square foot office building. The property is
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. July 1,2021 F30
Page 27 of 41
planned to be subdivided through a future application. Because this is an in-fill property
and has an irregular configuration, development of this site is difficult. The parking
proposed for the office building at the southeast corner the site encroaches within the
required land use buffer and does not comply with UDC standards. The Comprehensive
Plan states development in medium high density residential designated areas should
incorporate high quality architectural and site design to ensure quality of place and
incorporate connectivity with adjacent uses and pathways and include attractive
landscaping and a project identity. To achieve this goal and alleviate some of the spatial
constrictions on the site, staff recommended the concept plan be revised to remove the
office building from the plan and instead include open space with quality landscaping and
some parking -- excuse me -- pathway connections to the open space and the provision
of a gazebo with a seating area as an amenity, which can be shared between the
residential and commercial development to the south. The applicant did revise the
concept plan as shown on the right and staff is in support of the proposed changes.
Access to the site is proposed via a cross-access easement from an existing driveway
from Hickory Way, a collector street. No stub streets exists to this property. A private
street is planned to provide access to the proposed development and for addressing
purposes. An attached sidewalk is proposed along one side of the private street for
pedestrian access. Off-street parking is proposed in accord with UDC standards. Four
extra spaces are proposed for guest parking in the common area near the entry and five
spaces are proposed in the common area at the southeast corner of the site. On-street
parking is not allowed due to the width of the private street. Because the site is below
five acres in size, qualified open space and site amenities are not required by the UDC.
Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed residential structures as
shown with a mix of materials consisting of horizontal wood siding, vertical board and
batten siding, wood shake siding and cement plaster with stone veneer accents and
architectural asphalt roofing. There has been no written testimony submitted on this
application. Staff is recommending approval of the revised concept plan and is
recommending a development agreement with the provisions noted in the staff report.
Staff will stand for any questions.
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward?
Womer: Good evening, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. My name is Blaine
Womer of Womer Engineering. We are at 4355 West Emerald Street in Boise, Suite 145.
We appreciate the opportunity to bring this project before you this evening. We also want
to thank Sonya for her efforts in getting us here as well. We are in receipt of the staff
report and we have reviewed it with the client and we are just -- and we do agree, we
concur with the findings and the recommendations in the staff report and we are just here
to answer any questions you might have.
McCarvel: Okay. Any questions for the applicant or staff?
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. July 1,2021 F31
Page 28 of 41
Cassinelli: The -- this -- this is more for staff. Sonya, is this a -- I don't know if you recall.
Maybe -- Bill, maybe you do. A couple of years ago we were looking at a development
-- I think it was on this piece and it was some -- it was medium density residential. I think
there was -- I'm kind of surprised there wasn't a single public comment. There was a lot
at that time. Can you -- if you recall that one, can you speak to how this is different?
Parsons: Absolutely I recall it and we discussed it this afternoon at our prep meeting. So,
Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, yes, back in 2017 an application came
before this body for a conditional use permit for multi-family development and that
included 40 apartments, and there was two story and three story apartments -- garden
style apartments on this property. The difference here tonight is that this is not a multi-
family development. Well, let me step back a little bit. With that multi-family development
came requirements for open space and amenities to go along with that density. As you
are aware the city denied that request and that rezone and that CUP did not move
forward. This applicant and this property owner has been trying to sell this property since
then and hasn't been very successful and so we have met with this applicant and they
have brought forth another plan to go residential. Now, we did share with them the history
of this site and what happened back four years ago and they assured us that there -- it is
their intent to come forward with a subdivision -- subdivide the property and build
townhomes on this site. So, that's really the distinction is townhomes are treated more
like single family. I mean multi-family -- it's all residential in our code and we don't try to
differentiate between residential and residential. But the stigmatism between multi-family
and townhomes is a little different. So, I think that's probably why you are -- you are not
getting the public comments you are, because this is not a multi-family development, this
is a townhome development that they will again come back, subdivide it, create an open
space that they don't need to provide, but at the recommendation of staff we felt it was
appropriate to provide that transition if there are people living there, having their own
private backyards, it would be nice to have some kind of amenity for the overall
development, so that you, too, kind of soften that commercial parking from the residential
living units. So, really, that's the difference is this time completely different use, a new
use, less zoning. I believe they were asking for R-40, if I'm not mistaken, and this
particular applicant is requesting R-15 and it's -- as you can see by the proposed concept
planning it does provide for a nicer transition to the single family to the north.
Womer: And they will be individual ownership units.
Cassinelli: Will they be -- Madam Chair. I'm sorry.
McCarvel: Yes.
Cassinelli: What--what kind of a setback from the --from the rear property line? Because
I know that was a -- that was a concern, too, back then were -- and, again, it sounds like
part of it -- as Bill addressed, there was three stories there and only two here. But what
is the setback from the rear?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. July 1,2021 F32
Page 29 of 41
Womer: We don't have it dimensioned on this conceptual exhibit, but we are -- I think we
are in the 15 to 20 rear yard.
Cassinelli: Okay.
Womer: Twenty-five on some of them, actually.
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: So, just so I clarify, we are talking about each individual home would be a
separate owner, not each building; correct?
Womer: Correct. These will have individual lots.
Yearsley: Okay.
Womer: And they will be ownership.
Yearsley: So, looking at the -- the concept plans, I have to admit I'm a little concerned
about the four townhomes together being adjacent to the -- to the -- I think that's to the
residents and I'm just concerned, because it's -- the mass on that just seems really big. I
was wondering if that might be something to consider swapping that around a little bit to
maybe break that up a little bit more.
Womer: Absolutely. Well, this is -- this is a concept plan. We brought it here, so that the
Commission could kind of get a feel for what we are going to be back to you with and
certainly we can take your comments and try to incorporate everything we can to
accommodate.
McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions for the applicant or staff? Okay. Thank you.
Womer: Thank you very much.
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: On -- what is directly to the south? Is that the -- is that the bank? Is that --
Womer- Directly to the south is the Italian restaurant.
Cassinelli: Okay.
Lorcher: It's Louie's.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. July 1,2021 F33
Page 30 of 41
Womer: It's Louie's. Yes.
Lorcher: The bank is --
Womer: The bank is to the east.
Cassinelli: Okay.
Lorcher: Sorry. I was looking at a map. So, Louie's is right here.
Cassinelli: So, the park -- so, directly to south is their parking lot?
Womer: Correct.
Cassinelli: Okay. Thank you.
McCarvel: Madam Clerk, do we have anybody signed up to testify on this application?
Weatherly: Madam Chair, we have one person signed in to testify and that is Dave M.
McDonald: Madam Chair, Dave McDonald. 2579 East Grapewood. I'm also well aware
of the history of that previous meeting, so if I can fill in some of the blanks. This is the
second best project that I have ever seen proposed on this property. If it was a
professional office that would be the only thing that would beat this out. I am a proponent
of legal certainty and not flipping zones on a whim. However, you know, coming back to
the question of R-15, the previous proposal was splitting the zoning of the properties
adjacent to my home as R-15. So, changing the zone to R-15 can still put a foot in the
door if you flip the zone. One of our worst fears is the project for Village Apartments that
has been extended from 2015 by Devco on Eagle Road. They are still putting their foot
in the door and dragging that out. So, if you flip the zone it stays empty, because the
housing market goes south that would be bad. But if you -- you do have the ability to
propose the time limit and making sure this project is completed in a timely fashion that
would be desirable and as someone who has been maintaining that green grass strip, I
would be very happy for new owners to take care of that green grass strip and as
someone adjacent to an empty field that I'm worried is going to catch on fire in a few days,
I would like to see that go. So, empty land would be a desirable thing, but not putting a
foot in the door for the previous project to get their foot in the door would be an undesirable
thing. However, I have given out the handout and there is always a lingering concern
that's shared from this project to the next one and, you know, one of the things that
spoke with ACHD was that you can put conditions on time, you can put conditions on
safety issues and I -- I illustrate that Hickory Road is an abnormally busy road, even
though it meets standard by ACHD, it's at the bottom level of standard. The speed study
has said we do qualify for traffic calming measures. Those are some safety concerns.
We did successfully get the light in at the -- at the entrance to Hickory off of Fairview,
simply because of how busy this road is and the speed constraints. That's why we do not
have any memorial crosses at that intersection. We do still need markers along Hickory
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. July 1,2021 F34
Page 31 of 41
Way because of the speed and the traffic for no parking. So, talking to the ACHD they
said, you know, if you can get it through the development agreement or this process,
come back to me. But I wanted to be on record that there are real safety concerns on
this stretch of road. You can go two miles out from this project and you will not see any
collector road leading into a subdivision with this traffic. Two miles. I just want to be sure
that you are aware of those safety concerns. All those things being said, excuse me, are
minor costs. I mean there -- there are issues with the sidewalk that need to be fixed
because of the TDS fiber optic issues that damage the sidewalk. Those can be easy
fixes. With the 40 percent decrease in lumber prices he can absorb the cost of signage
and safety concerns for his development, but I just wanted to propose that whatever you
decide, whether you propose -- propose, recommend or denial or modifications, that each
one of you state your reasons for yes, no, modifications or whatever, that it's on the record
and be aware that there are safety concerns that I'm wanting to make sure are on the
record and it will be something that we will take to the developer and I hope this project
completes, that I won't have to listen to the construction noise and the dust for ever. That
there is a time limit on the construction project and also I would like the developer to talk
a little bit about the concerns of the masonry wall, maintenance, the maintenance of
amenities. Some of us work from home and need high speed internet. All of the -- all of
those services run between the masonry wall and our property lines. Of that 257 foot
shared border, I own one-third of that and so we just want to make sure that those
discussions are had in this forum before proposed one way or the other to City Council.
McCarvel: Okay.
Womer: Thank you.
McCarvel: Thank you. Madam Clerk, anybody else signed up to testify?
Weatherly: Madam Chair, no one else has signed in.
McCarvel: That being said, we will have the applicant come back after all the questions
are proposed. Yes, ma'am. In the green shirt. I know you had your hand up earlier. And
state your name and address for the record as you get to the mic.
Moon: My name is Shirley Moon. My address 2834 East Clarene Drive, Meridian. And
good evening to all of you. My voice is a little bit scared of you. Anyway. So, I -- I live in
Solterra and I was here four years ago. I was here for all the drama four years ago and
we, as homeowners, totally appreciated the view and the decision, then, that was made
and it was rejected and one thing that was not mentioned this evening was how do they
get into this property? And I don't know if any of you have ever eaten at Louis's, but part
of that property that's being proposed -- Louie's customers park on that property. So,
there is a parking problem when the restaurant fills up. But the interesting thing about
this project is there is no through streets. It's all business driveways. It's not streets.
And, then, they proposed off-street parking. Well, Hickory Way is already -- it's not -- it's
totally busy in the mornings. The traffic gets backed up from Fairview. Eagle Road and
Fairview Road have been declared the busiest streets in all of Ada county and yet Hickory
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. July 1,2021 F35]
Page 32 of 41
Way is probably less than a quarter a mile from there. So, it -- when the traffic proceeds
on Fairview going west, the traffic light on Hickory Way will stop the traffic and it backs up
all the way to Eagle. So, it's -- it's a tremendous problem. Four years ago when we spoke
about the parking problem, there wasn't the mass of apartments and homes that have
been built between Hickory and Locust Grove. That whole area is just -- it's just -- it looks
like a frenzy of building and so all that affects us. So, proposing last time what's a hundred
-- excuse me -- 70 buildings -- 70 homes. I don't remember if it was apartments or
whatever. So, we figured in our homeowners association, Solterra, we have 89 homes.
So, we figured that's about 180 to 200 cars going in and out all day. So, across -- directly
across the street -- the street that they propose on the information that I have, Hickory --
excuse me -- Solterra runs right into the parking lot directly access to this and so it's -- it's
like they haven't solved -- it seems like to me they haven't solved the parking problem
and it's --there is just a lot and there may be maps -- my profession was medical, so there
is some terms that I don't understand, but I can read a map and on here it says direct
parcel access to North Hickory or Fairview is prohibited. So, are they going to make a
new street? Are they going to use the driveway that's directly across from us on Solterra?
So, here is our traffic -- 200 cars coming and going every day. It's a working
neighborhood. And, then, I think 19 -- so, 20 -- so, maybe that's 40 or 50 more cars.
Hickory is already -- already has a problem. There is an island on the corner of Hickory
Way and Fairview and ACHD said they are going to take that out, but that's not until 2024.
So, that's three more years. So, I spoke to an ACHD person this last week about our
parking problems and he said the city allowed narrow streets providing there was
compliance with no parking on one side of the street and when -- when our people come
in and park it, if two large trucks park across the street from each other, then, it becomes
a city violation, because the street is too narrow just because of that. So, it's really
horrendous for us to think that maybe there is going to be more parking. We have people
that are now doubling up in homes, because of the price of rent. We have -- I'm -- I'm on
the board. We have one home that has three families living with them and there was
seven cars with this three families. So, each home theoretically should only have four
cars, two in the garage and two on the pad. But three extra cars just for one family, that
was even a problem.
McCarvel: Ma'am, your time is up. Could you --
Moon: Okay. So, mostly I am here because of the parking and they have not stated to
you -- or maybe I didn't hear how -- where is their entrance and their entrance goes right
into business driveways, not streets, and they are going to build 19 homes using business
driveways.
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. The applicant will answer --
Moon: Yeah. Okay. Thank you.
McCarvel: Thank you. Anybody else wish to testify? Yes, sir.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. July 1,2021 F36
Page 33 of 41
Nelson: My name is -- my name is Randy Nelson. I live at 1873 North Marnita Avenue,
also in Solterra. There is going to be some redundancy, but the portrayal that we see
here doesn't represent that -- that block where this -- that the homes are going in. It is
truly access with jaw dropping -- I'm also nervous. They have got speed traps on this
thing for people to not drive fast through there. So, it's truly just a trail to get access into
a mortgage company, a couple of things in the back. That isn't the road to put 19 homes
in. It is -- it's -- it's a sham that they think that that's supposed to work. It's dressed up
differently, but it's the same problem. Nothing was addressed. You brought that up when
you -- when you started that four years ago we had problems with all this. Nothing has
changed with the access in and out. The safety factors are still there. The busyness.
Business. Kids. All that's still the same -- same story. It's -- we changed the flavor from
apartments to townhouses, but that means nothing to the actual on-site problem. I had
somebody give me a ride home today that wasn't going to be any part of this. We went
over those four speed bumps, we got to the -- to the corner where access off Hickory into
this place. I says can you see? He goes what do you mean? He goes he can't see down
the street. When these people leave their residence, if it -- if it gets approved tonight --
pray it doesn't. If it -- they can't see to make turns, because it's a serpentine road. That's
also part of the problem. It's unsafe to pull out of there. If we are directly across 90
homes coming out, these coming out -- they can't see. We have access because the
serpentine goes this way. We can see. They cannot see leaving their property clearly
every -- I mean it's going to be -- it's an F issue every single time they leave. That isn't
brought up here. It's always just glossed and nice and pretty and good access and blah,
blah. It isn't there. Nothing's changed from four years ago. It's still a Iandlock odd shaped
piece of property that doesn't have a good road to it, it's not illegal, it's access to business
and they want to call that -- you know, have something -- it's just not the right thing.
McCarvel: Okay.
Nelson: Thank you.
McCarvel: Thank you. Yes, sir. Yeah. You have to come up to the microphone and
state your name and address for the record.
Baird: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Yes.
Baird: Point of order. I understand that you are --
McCarvel: Oh.
Baird: -- part of the applicant, possibly the owner. We should probably have the rest of
the public testimony --
McCarvel: Yeah. I'm sorry. I didn't realize --
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. July 1,2021 F37
Page 34 of 41
Baird: -- and, then, give you a chance to rebut. We want -- we want to keep this -- you
will have an opportunity, we just want --
McCarvel: Yeah. After all the public testimony, then, the applicant is going to have -- you
will have more time to answer all these questions. So, yeah, if you are part of the
ownership and the applicant, it's probably best if we listened -- finished listening to the
public testimony. Okay. Anyone else? Yes, ma'am.
Attarian: Hello. My name is Ann Attarian. Address 2875 East Apricot in Meridian. I'm
also a resident of Solterra. I'm part of the board. I do echo the sentiments of the two
other residents. There is a lot of parking issues in our neighborhood. People,
unfortunately, don't use garages for parking, so they are parking in driveways and what
street parking they have. It has spilled over into the Capitol church parking lot, which we
have had to address with our residents, because they should not be parking there. I also
echo the sentiments about Hickory being a serpentine road. Looking out, going left or
right, you do not have a good line of sight with the current foliage, the berm that is in place
with one of the office buildings. I'm also a commuter, so I exit off of Hickory onto Fairview.
The light there you will wait for quite a while in the morning or coming home when you
are trying to turn right off of Fairview into Hickory. So, there is a lot of parking issues,
there are road issues, and as they have said, we don't feel any of that is being addressed,
because there is only the extra parking in those office buildings and the bank buildings
and the restaurant around that area. Thank you.
McCarvel: Thank you. Anyone else in the room or on Zoom that wishes to testify on this
application? Yes, sir. And you are -- you are with -- yeah. Okay. Yeah. Okay. If there
is no one else for public testimony, would be applicant like to come back? And -- yeah.
If you are part of the applicant's group here, you guys have ten minutes to explain public
-- answer the public testimony. Yeah. Please state your name and address for the --
Mallane: My name is Louie Mallane. I have been a resident of Idaho --
McCarvel: And your address.
Mallane: -- for 62 years.
McCarvel: Sir, can you --
Mallane: I bought this property --
McCarvel: Could you give your address, please, for the record. Your address. Please
state your name and address into the microphone.
Mallane: My name is Louie Mallane. I'm at 569 Carnelian Lane, Eagle, Idaho.
McCarvel: Okay. Go ahead.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. July 1,2021 F38
Page 35 of 41
Mallane: I have been in Idaho for 62 years. I bought this property in 1995. It's been for
sale since then. As we drew the plans out, we put the road in that all these people are
using, the 40 -- 50 miles an hour that we had to put in those high speed bumps that you
read tonight that nobody likes, just to slow the traffic down. They are all also coming
straight through our parking lot to go over to the Blazer building. I don't know if you
recognize the Blazer -- that's what I know it as. The Blazer building. And outside. And
it's free wheeling. It was -- the way it was planned I know was to go back over through
the Ewing property and have back roads, so that -- and -- and we are the -- we are the
culprits that received that -- received that and now -- the people are now going in and out
constantly. I have had -- I have had this property up three times. I see different people
coming to complain all the time. It is -- it is the area -- dog poop area legally. They --
that's -- that's what my property is and that's what I'm paying the property taxes on. They
come in there, that's where they exercise their dogs and use it. It needs to be something
better than this. These -- they are never going to be happy. They know that they have
us going and I'm kind of really tired of it. I'm not a complainer, but the time has come
where we need to be able to move on.
McCarvel: Okay.
Mallane: I can't even get my will going because I'm waiting for this damn stuff and -- and
we are trying to do everything correctly and the -- that everybody wants. We have not put
one bit of argument on this. What we are doing wrong I don't know. We put the wall up
for the people next door, so that -- to make those people happy along there. They filled
it up with -- with garbage and, then, said I had to go clean it up, you know. There is a
time when I need to be able to get out of this predicament to -- and I don't think we have
got anything wrong going on. They are never going to be happy about it. People that
were there before were are all different people. They taught -- there is -- there is nothing
going to happen that's going to hurt anybody and we can move on. I do have another
option, you know, I'm -- I legally can still turn it back into agriculture and -- and plant. That
-- that seems to be the only thing that's going to make anybody happy here I guess. So,
that -- if that's where we are at --
McCarvel: Did you want the rest of your team to respond to some of those questions?
Please come forward.
Womer: Madam Chairman, again, for the record Blaine Womer, Womer Engineering.
would like to address some of the concerns that have come up this evening. In the
conditions of approval for the project, we are going to have to do a development
agreement and if there is -- if we can mitigate some of the concerns with regard to density,
given the past history that, for the record, we had no part of it. If we can mitigate some
of those concerns by incorporating into the DA a limited number of units at 19, we are
happy to do that.
McCarvel: Yeah. I think it would be tied to the conceptual plan that's in the record,
wouldn't it, Sonya? Or Bill? Yes. Yeah. So, it -- whatever we present here tonight is
kind of tied to the pictures you have shown.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. July 1,2021 F39
Page 36 of 41
Womer: Okay. Perfect. Then -- okay.
McCarvel: Resemble that.
Womer: Also when we had our neighborhood meeting, the only concern, really, that we
heard was traffic. The -- the concerns with regarding -- regarding traffic. So, before we
came here tonight we got together with a traffic engineer, we had him run some numbers,
based on what we are proposing and what it's currently zoned to allow and what we found
was that the residential development that we are proposing creates approximately 65
percent of the traffic that it -- it is currently zoned at. So, this proposal will actually bring
down the number of vehicular trips than what it's currently zoned and what somebody
could bring today and be in compliance with the zone and along those lines we heard a
lot of people talking about parking and where people are parking. This proposal -- we
have garages for the individual units. Each unit has a garage. Two-car garage. And,
then, the smaller units have a one car garage. And what we have done is set back the
units far enough that people can park in their driveways, they can have guests park in
their driveways to mitigate that concern, so -- and, then, I do understand -- there -- there
is some concern about where we are taking our access. That -- that driveway was
designed as a part of the entire development. We are conditioned not to go out into
Hickory and any other location. So, we do need to utilize this driveway that was
constructed -- and we are going to enhance it and it's going to be better from a traffic
circulation standpoint, but this driveway was put in place and designed in place for the
service of the property we are developing. So, we are taking access where we really
need to take the access for this particular parcel. And, then, lastly, as far as some of the
maintenance concerns that people have expressed with regard to landscaping, the wall,
the project will have an HOA that will be responsible for maintaining all of those aspects
of the development. So, with that I hope we have been able to maybe quell some of the
concerns, but I'm certainly, again, happy to answer any questions you might have.
McCarvel: So, you get -- you're accepting the staff's comment to take away the office
building; right?
Womer: Correct.
McCarvel: Yeah. I think it fits better.
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: Blaine, do you know -- right now I think coming out that driveway next to the
restaurant that you can still make a left onto Fairview; is that correct? And is that going
away anytime soon? Do you -- are you aware of --
Womer: I'm not aware. I mean that would be a better ACHD question. I apologize, I
don't have that information.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. July 1,2021 F40
Page 37 of 41
Cassinelli: But right--the way this is laid out, access can go through the --the businesses
there, is that -- that is correct?
Womer: Correct. There is nothing --
Cassinelli: They can -- they can access Fairview without using Hickory to access these?
Womer: That is correct.
Cassinelli: Okay. Thank you.
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: I just wanted to make sure with staff. This is just a rezone and a land use
change. In the preliminary plat we can at that point try to address the sight distance
issues at the entrance of Hickory; correct?
Allen: Chairman, Commissioners, the -- I'm not sure if I understand your question, but
the existing access is there. That's where it's at and this is what this development is going
to share that. It is in alignment with the Solterra Drive access.
Yearsley: I was just looking on the Google -- or, you know, Google Earth. There is a
sight distance issue, you know, trying to see cars coming as you are coming out of that
intersection and -- and I thought with some potentially relocation of landscaping and --
and opening that up we could probably solve a lot of that sight distance problems. But
that would come at the preliminary plat stage, not this stage.
Womer: And we could bring an exhibit in with us that demonstrates what the -- the sight
distance is and what -- if there is a problem what we can do to mitigate that.
McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions for the applicant at this time?
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: I just have a clarification with staff. We got rid of step up in zoning; correct?
So, I mean I think there was one -- there was one concern earlier of this being a foot in
the door to go potentially from R-15 to R-40. If we -- if we approve the -- this request
tonight, I mean we are -- we are locked into the -- to the R-15; is that correct?
Allen: Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli. If you approve the land use change to
medium high density residential, that's what it will be. The development agreement will
lock in the concept development plan with the density proposed.
Cassinelli: Okay.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. July 1,2021 F41
Page 38 of 41
McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant? All right. If you have no further
comments we are read --
Womer: Thank you. Good evening.
McCarvel: Could I get a motion to close the public testimony on H-2021-0015.
Grove: So moved.
Lorcher: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close public hearing on H-2021-0015. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: I remember -- I can't believe that was 2017, but I do remember that and I think
the first person that gave testimony said this would be the second best option going in
there. It doesn't sound like it's ever going to be perfect and, again, this is one of these in-
fills that's difficult. I think this is probably the best -- and I think if it comes -- you know,
once the -- once this comes back to us again we can address the site issues. That's the
concern is what it seems like and what -- what the applicant stated was that actually a
traffic count would be 65 percent of -- if it's -- if it's office buildings in there, something,
that, you know, you are going to see it at peak hours. So, I do definitely want to see some
changes in here. Commissioner Yearsley brought up kind of the layout there and I hope
that -- and maybe we can make some recommendations in a motion, depending on how
this goes, but I would like to see -- maybe if we can shift them around, maybe a little bit
of a redesign in that to allow for site changes going out onto Hickory and -- and whatnot.
But I think that can all be accomplished maybe moving some of the buildings around or
doing something. But all in all I think this is going to be the best -- really, the best plan for
this land and the owner has -- certainly has a right to do something with this and be able
to sell it. So, those are -- and, again, I just -- it's -- I think it's probably the best that they
are ever going to see on this.
McCarvel: Okay.
Grove: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Grove.
Grove: I have a question for staff real quick. Hickory is considered a collector; is that
right?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. July 1,2021 F42
Page 39 of 41
Allen: That is correct.
Grove: And just kind of looking at this overall area, if this were to redevelop -- or was to
develop now versus in the past, most of those -- or that business complex would take
primary access off of Hickory versus Fairview; is that how most of that would work? I
mean if this were coming in without any of those businesses there, it seems like there is
a lot of access off of Fairview that wouldn't necessarily be granted today.
Allen: Yeah. Madam Chair, Commissioner Grove, typically access is taken from the
lesser street classification. So, a collector street versus an arterial, yes.
Grove: Okay. So, the reason I'm bringing that up is this could easily have more accurate
-- or more traffic on Hickory if it were redone and so just kind of keeping that in mind when
we are looking at -- at this project in particular is that -- it's not increasing it as much as
this area could potentially take, based on standards of how access is taken off of the
arterial, Fairview, versus the collector street. So, keeping that in mind as we kind of
discuss some of this. Overall I think, you know, in-fill projects are always going to be
difficult. This seems to be a good compromise as to where it goes. I'm never a huge fan
of losing commercial, but as it is kind of tucked back there I -- I see commercial being a
difficult -- difficult ask for this property based on the size and location. So, with that I'm
more or less in favor of how this is moving forward.
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you.
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: You know, on my first blush with this, without reviewing the -- the site that they
were proposing, my initial one was like no, because I was concerned about losing the
commercial and in that respect, but -- but given -- to look at the site, what they are
proposing, it's not -- it's an R-15, but it's not considered high dense -- you know, not -- not
as high density as they could have. I like the layout and at this point all we are doing is
approving the rezone and the land use map. So, we are not actually approving what's
going on there yet and we get another shot at this to make sure we do it right. I do
appreciate the neighbors talking about the access on that and the sight distance problems
with that, which is I believe there is problems that need to be addressed, but we can
address that as the -- through the preliminary plat review. As for a parking issue, I don't
believe this site has the parking issue. I think it's the Solterra Subdivision that has the
parking problems and it's not this owner's responsibility to fix that problem. It sounds kind
of harsh, but that's -- that's my opinion. I think he has -- he has got -- he has got good
parking with that. He's actually added extra spaces on this property for more parking, if
he has more guests coming over and stuff like that. So, I think he's done a decent job
looking at that and I guess with Commissioner Cassinelli's comment, I am concerned
about the four units facing the -- or backing up against the homes. It's a lot of density or
bulk right behind those homes. If we could limit those to three or two, I would be a lot
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. July 1,2021 F43
Page 40 of 41
more comfortable when you come forward with the preliminary plat. So, with that I actually
would be in favor of this rezone.
McCarvel: Okay. I will jump in, unless you want to go, Commissioner Lorcher. Okay.
Yeah. I agree. I think this is as good as what we have seen on this back here and I think
it would be a tough sell on commercial. I, as well, can hear the voice of former
Commissioners in not wanting to let commercial go for high density, but I think this
particular spot is a tough one and it is in-fill and it would definitely be better than the fire
hazard that probably exists there right now. And, I agree, I think there could be some
minor changes that would make it better as far as the traffic and the mass of the building
behind the other homes. So, yeah, certainly address that in the future. But I think as far
as this concept plan is concerned and it's tied to this approval, I'm comfortable with this
moving forward and agree the traffic issues are not this owner's responsibility. There is
no -- there is no fixing those traffic issues with anything we do on this property, especially
now that it's less than half of what was proposed several years ago, so --
Yearsley: Madam Chair? Or Commissioner Lorcher. I was up for a motion if --
McCarvel: Commissioner Lorcher.
Lorcher: I actually don't have anything else to add. I bank at D.L. Evans every day, so
I'm actually swinging around these entrances and -- and driveways on a -- on a regular
basis and it's -- it's manageable. I mean I can go out any times of the day, 8:00, 9:00,
10:00, 2:00 -- 1 mean it's -- it's -- Eagle Road is right down the street, so it is what it is.
McCarvel: Yeah. Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: Madam Chair, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I
move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number H-2021-0015 as
presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 1 st, 2021, with no modifications.
Grove: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to recommend approval on H-2021-0015,
Wood crest Town homes. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
McCarvel: One more motion, please.
Cassinelli: Madam Chair, I move we adjourn.
Yearsley: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed? Motion carries. Have a great holiday weekend.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. July 1,2021 F44
Page 41 of 41
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:03 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
7 1 15 12021
RHONDA MCCARVEL - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED
ATTEST:
CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK