2021-10-21 Item 1.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting October 21, 2021.
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of October 21 , 2021 , was
called to order at 6:02 p.m. by Commissioner Andrew Seal.
Members Present: Commissioner Andrew Seal, Commissioner Nick Grove,
Commissioner Steven Yearsley, and Commissioner Nate Wheeler.
Members Absent: Chairman Rhonda McCarvel, Commissioner Bill Cassinelli and
Commissioner Maria Lorcher.
Others Present: Adrienne Weatherly, Kurt Starman, Bill Parsons, Joe Dodson, Alan
Tiefenbach, Caleb Hood, Brian McClure and Dean Willis.
ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE
X Nate Wheeler Maria Lorcher
X Andrew Seal X Nick Grove
_X Steven Yearsley Bill Cassinelli
Rhonda McCarvel - Chairman
Seal: Good evening. Welcome to Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for October
21 st, 2021. At this time I would like to call the meeting to order. The Commissioners who
are present for this evening's meeting are at City Hall and on Zoom. We also have staff
from the City Attorney and Clerk's office, as well as the City Planning Department. If you
are joining us on Zoom this evening we can see that you are here. You may observe the
meeting. However, your ability to be seen on screen and talk will be muted. During the
public testimony portion of the meeting you will be unmuted and, then, be able to
comment. Please note that we cannot take questions until the public testimony portion.
If you have a process question during the meeting, please, e-mail
cityclerk@meridiancity.org and they will reply as quickly as possible. If you simply want
to watch the meeting we encourage you to go to watch this -- watch this streaming on the
city's YouTube channel. You can access that at meridiancity.org/live. With that let's begin
with the roll call.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Seal: All right. Thank you. So, the first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda.
Let me see. I don't think there is any amendments to the agenda. Okay. Can I get a
motion to adopt the agenda?
Grove: So moved.
Wheeler: Second.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. October21,2021 6
Page 2 of 70
Seal: It's been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All in favor say aye. Any
opposed? All right. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT.
CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item]
1. Approve Minutes of the October 7, 2021 Planning and Zoning
Commission Regular Meeting
2. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Burger King Drive-Through
(H-2021-0051) by Legend Engineering, Located at 6211 N. Ten Mile Rd.
3. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Southridge Apartments
Phase 3 (H-2021-0055) by The Land Group, Inc., Generally Located
South of W. Overland Rd. and East of S. Ten Mile Rd.
4. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for TM Creek Storage (H-2021-
0054) by Brighton Development, Inc., Generally Located South of W.
Franklin Rd., Midway Between S. Linder Rd. and S. Ten Mile Rd.
Seal: For the Consent Agenda we have four items on the Consent Agenda. The approval
of the minutes of the October 7, 2021, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Burger King Drive-Through, H-2021-0051.
Findings of Facts, Conclusions of Law for Southridge Apartments Phase Three, H-2021-
0055. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for TM Creek Storage, H-2021-0054. Can I
get a motion to accept the Consent -- Consent Agenda as presented?
Grove: So moved.
Wheeler: Second.
Seal: It's been moved and seconded to adopt the Consent Agenda. All in favor say aye.
Any opposed? All right. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT.
ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item]
Seal: So, at this time I would like to briefly explain the public hearing process. We will
open each item individually and begin with the staff report. Staff will report their findings
on how the item adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code.
After 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 once and only once during the public testimony. The Clerk will call the names
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. October21,2021 7
Page 3 of 70
individually of those who signed up on our website in advance to testify. You will, then,
be unmuted in Zoom or you can come to the microphones here in chambers. You will
need to state your name and address for the record and you will have three minutes to
address the Commission. If you have previously sent pictures or a presentation for the
meeting it will be displayed on the screen and our Clerk will run the presentation. If you
have established that you are speaking on behalf of a larger group, like an HOA, where
others from that group will allow you to speak on their behalf conceding their time, you
will have up to ten minutes. After all those who have signed up in advance have spoken
we will invite any others who may wish to testify. If you wish to speak on the topic you
may come forward in chambers or if on Zoom press the raise hand button in the Zoom
app. 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, sure -- please be sure to mute the extra devices, so we do not
experience feedback and we can hear you clearly. When you are finished if the
Commission does not have questions for you you will return to your seat in Chambers or
be muted on Zoom and no longer have the ability to speak. And, please, remember we
will not call on you a second time. After all testimony has been heard by the applicant will
be given another -- 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 final decisions or recommend -- recommendations to City
Council as needed.
ACTION ITEMS
5. Public Hearing Continued from August 12, 2021 for Centerville
Subdivision (H2O21-0046) by Engineering Solutions, LLP, Located at
4111 E. Amity Rd. (Including the Outparcel to the South) and 5200 S.
Hillsdale Ave., at the Southeast Corner of S. Hillsdale and E. Amity Rd.
A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 40.49 acres of land from RUT to
the R-8 (13.35 acres) and R-15 (27.14) zoning districts.
B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 190 total lots (124 single-
family residential lots, 35 townhome lots, 2 multi-family lots, 1
commercial lot, 1 clubhouse house, and 27 common lots) on 38.95
acres of land.
Seal: Okay. At this time I would like to open the public hearing for Item No. H-2021-
0046, Centerville Subdivision, which was continued from 8/12/2021. We will begin with
the staff report.
Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Chair. You stole some of my thunder there, the continuance,
but thank you. Jump into this here. As noted this is for Centerville Subdivision. On the
screen here we have the view of the land use maps associated with the site. Because
it's been almost two months I will go briefly over the entire project and, then, I will come
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission ❑
Item 1. October 21,2021
Page 4 of 70
back and hit on what has been revised since the last Commission hearing. In general,
the site consists of 40 and a half acres of land, currently zoned RUT, near the intersection
of Eagle and Amity, about a half mile to the east. It includes three existing parcels, as
you can see by the three different shapes. I will just wait there. There is no history with
the City of Meridian with this site, so no zoning history or anything like that. It is -- has
two future land use designations on the site, mixed use neighborhood and medium
density residential, with medium density residential being the vast majority, about 31
acres, versus eight acres on the site. The original request was for annexation and zoning
of all 40 and a half acres from RUT to the R-8 zoning district, the R-15 -- and the R-15
zoning district. It showed 159 single family units and 168 multi-family units with a plat
consisting of 190 total lots, which included 124 single family lots, 35 townhome lots, two
multi-family lots, one commercial and one clubhouse a lot, with 27 common lots. There
was no CUP and still is no CUP, which is a conditional use permit, proposed for any multi-
family. The project is still proposed in four phases. I have not been told otherwise. With
a majority of the detached single family in the first and second phases. The access is to
Hillsdale and Amity and the large center open space is proposed with the first phase of
development. Again, that has not changed from my understanding. Let me just -- access
to the site -- I will go to this one here. Access to the site has not changed either. The
main access point is from South Hillsdale, which is here, and to East Amity up here. The
applicant is also extending two local stub streets from the southeast, one from the south,
one from the east, with a pedestrian connection in between. There was a TIS required
with this, because it has more than a hundred units, with -- well, not to spoil it, but the
applicant has reduced the number of units, so the anticipated trips will be reduced as well.
Originally it estimated to be about 2,600 additional vehicle trips per day and the TIS
recommended some requirements. Those are still being recommended from both city
and ACHD. Those improvements are to include an interim signal at the Hillsdale and
Amity Road intersection, which is planned for a future roundabout at some point and
where the Amity Road entrance is to what is shown Amorita Avenue. ACHD is requiring
a dedicated eastbound right-turn lane and a dedicated westbound left-turn lane. Staff is
recommending that both of these, the interim signal as well as the turn lanes, be
constructed with the first phase, which is consistent with ACHD's recommendation. In
addition, safe access to Hillsdale Elementary is imperative. ACHD recommends and the
applicant has agreed to install a rapid rectangular flashing beacon, which most people
just say RFB beacon or RFB crossing at the Hillsdale and Hill Park Street intersection.
There is an existing RFB beacon, in my understanding, further south directly in front of
the school. The school district, the city, and ACHD believe that this is the best location
for an additional one, especially with the addition of more units -- more homes in the area.
The project area as noted does have two different land use designations on the site. The
relatively small area of mixed use neighborhood allows six to 12 units per acre and
medium density residential allows three to eight dwelling units per acre. The mixed use
neighborhood area is part of a larger area that encompasses most of the area to the west,
as you can see here. So, it's about eight acres of -- more than 70 acres of mixed use
neighborhood. Approximately half of this area is already residential -- was already
approved for residential development, which is the Hill Century Farms North. The
remaining area is comprised of commercial zoning that includes self storage, an urgent
care, medical and dental offices, assisted living facility and some vacant commercial lots.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. October21,2021 191
Page 5 of 70
Within the overall site -- and this has not changed with any revisions. The applicant is
proposing transition a lot sizes and density within the project. This is done by -- around
the perimeter and matches the lot sizes to the existing development of the east and the
south and it has the higher density along Amity and further to the west, further away from
the existing development. Staff does find that the proposed project is compatible with the
surrounding uses because of this transitional density. Now, for the changes that have
occurred since the Commission hearing, this is probably the best way to see it. On the
left is the original plan that shows the apartment units. On the right is their new revised
rendering. They have removed all of the apartment units and included more of these
attached townhomes, which is about three-plexus here. The only multi-family remaining
are four four-plex buildings here, which are new to the site -- a new use to the site. In
addition, the applicant has added three additional commercial lots to basically comply
with some of the mixed use neighborhood regulations. This is still proposed to be a
daycare and these propose to be flex space lots. Flex space can have a number of uses,
but there are certain specific use requirements that would be -- have to be complied with
in the future as those sites develop. This has required the applicant request some
commercial zoning, which was not previously requested. The applicant did provide
revised legals with that and that was in the record. Overall, as I noted, all the apartments
were removed. The total unit count is now 219, which is down from originally 327. So,
it's a loss of 108 units. The only remaining portion of the site, as I noted, is multi-family
and will require a future CUP for those four-plex units along Amity. This is specifically
placed along Amity near the commercial, because of the higher density. That is -- that's
Planning 101. So, staff does support the location of the proposed flex -- or both the
proposed flex space and the four-plexes. The multi-family was replaced by more
townhomes as noted and all of those previous drive aisles, which are all these, were
replaced by 28 foot wide private streets, that, essentially, function as alleys for the
townhome units. The applicant is required to submit for private streets -- for these private
streets prior to the City Council meeting, which, to be clear, private street application is
an administrative level only. There is no need for Commission or Council to act on that.
They did add three additional commercial lots and removed two and a half acres of the
existing residential zoning because of that new commercial zoning as I noted. Therefore,
the overall area of the residential portion is now 36 and a half acres, give or take. The
gross density is now six dwelling units per acre, which -- and originally it was 8.4. So,
again, that's about two and a half units per acre difference that they have done. Because
of this -- and they have lost, again, 108 units, staff does find that the applicant has made
significant adjustments to the site to mitigate the Commission's concerns over the density
and that general impact to the schools, as well as the transportation element. For the
additional commercial properties, the applicant did also include and is proposing a right-
in, right-out access to Hillsdale, which would be this access here, that was not previously
proposed. That would be a new access. It is directly across from the existing access on
the west side and ACHD has approved this with their latest revision to their staff report.
The applicant also moved the pool amenity, which was previously here, to the central
open space, which was also discussed at the previous Commission hearing as wanting
to provide equal access for everybody in the development and have that centralized in
the site. The initial review of the landscape plan does show continued compliance with
all open space requirements. I would like to note that there has been new additions of
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. October 21,2021 Flo]
Page 6 of 70
linear open space for these townhome units to front on, which staff does appreciate, which
is these --this large area here, as well as this open space here and the -- it is, essentially,
a parkway, but a larger width area than just a parkway along here and the previously
proposed parkway here is also remaining. Since the Commission hearing there were --
at least as of about 3:00 o'clock this afternoon there were eight pieces of testimony since
the previous Commission hearing. They noted the same issues as before, which was a
discussion of traffic, school impact, and overall density. Staff does recommend approval
of the subject applications, especially with the revisions that have been in place and I
have noted that in a memo dated last week at some point -- I don't remember. I apologize.
The specific provisions that I'm recommending to be changed. So, if you do make any
motion tonight you could just say per the memo -- or the staff memo. After that I will stand
for any questions.
Seal: All right. Thank you very much. Would the applicant like to come forward? Name
and address and away we go.
McKay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. I'm Becky McKay with
Engineering Solutions. Business address 1029 North Rosario in Meridian. I'm
representing Challenger Development on this particular application. Just to kind of give
the Commissioners kind of a brief summary of where we left off in our August hearing,
we appreciate the Commission provided us the opportunity to go back and rework our
plan, rethink it, work with the staff and come up with some new ideas and I just kind of
wanted to go through the instructions that the Commission provided us. One, we were
asked to eliminate the high density apartments that they were -- that you were convinced
that this area was not appropriate for like three story apartments and based on the impact
on traffic and schools, that you wanted to see an incorporation of more townhomes and
that providing a larger commercial component would be preferred, so that we could meet
the mixed use integrity that's talked about in the Comprehensive Plan. One of the other
statements was -- you just need to reduce the overall density of the development. One
of the other comments was the primary amenity should be centrally located and available
to all residents and not located kind of in the south sector of the multi-family area and that
we should limit all residential structures to more than -- no more than two stories. We
also talked about transitioning from the commercial component to the townhomes and
providing a more blended and integrated site plan, which better fits the definition of a true
mixed use development and to improve the diversity of the residential uses with less
impact on the adjoining neighborhood, the schools, and the transportation network and
so what -- what we brought before you today we believe meets those -- those
requirements that you -- or that guidance that you gave us to go back to the drawing
board. So, I will skip that and go to the preliminary plat. So, we revised our preliminary
plat. As -- as Joseph indicated we incorporated a community business district and added
that C-C zone -- is this going to work for me? Joe, is it not working? Oh, there it is. I
think. Maybe the battery's dead. It should work? Is it me? Okay. Moving on. Here we
go. So, this is -- this is the new colored site plan as you can see. So, one of the things
that we did is we have a C-C area over there in that -- at the intersection of the collector
Hillsdale and Amity Road. As Joseph indicated, we are proposing a C-C zone within that
quadrant and, then, we transition from some four-plexes that back up to Amity Road,
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. October21,2021 Fill
Page 7 of 70
which is an arterial and, then, we transition into a townhome product and, then, into our
single family residential. The single family residential portion that was proposed on the
eastern side of the project has not changed. Those lot sizes have not been modified and
we -- we have those two mixed designations in your comp plan that mixed use
neighborhood allows us six to 12 dwelling units per acre. The medium density residential
allows us three to eight. As Joseph indicated, we are asking for R-8, C-C and R-15. Our
overall residential density is 6.01 dwelling units per acre and that calculation does exclude
the commercial. So, it's not skewed by the commercial, it is a net density. We have in
the R-8 zone -- thank you. Is it working now? A dead mouse. A dead mouse. There we
go. Oh, that's you. Okay. Go ahead. I thought it was me. Within the R-8 zone, which
is on primarily the eastern side of the project, our density is still 3.45 dwelling units per
acre. Within the western portion of the residential where we have the four four-plexes on
the north side and the townhomes, our density is at 7.44 within the R-15 zoning
designation. So, the lot sizes on the single family, we have a variety of lot sizes just as
we initially proposed, ranging from 36 feet in width, all the way up to 90 feet in width, 95
feet in depth, to 123 feet in depth. We incorporated the townhomes. The average
townhome is about 3,104 square feet, whereas the average single family lot is about
5,550 square feet and I want to mention from the last hearing our largest lots are all on
the periphery next to Rockhampton and, then, next to the Howry Lane Subdivision No. 2.
The development -- we propose both rear and front load townhomes to provide variety.
So, 71 percent of the townhomes that we have will be rear loaded and only 29 percent
will be front loaded. Obviously, this gives a better curb appeal where we are actually
loading them and, then, it provides us the ability to have a MEW on the north portion of
the -- of the project. You guys working over there or -- there you go. So, on the north --
on the north portion we still have our collector roadway with our -- with our landscaped
entrance, detached walks, and -- go to the west. Sorry. And, then, what we have is -- we
have what we call a MEW there that the --the lots --the front of the lots we have sidewalks
coming out of the townhomes and, then, connecting to a sidewalk that goes both north
and south. Along the south portion we ended up with a linear open space. We have a
playground in there. We have pathways. We have interconnectivity to those townhomes
and all the townhomes south of our entrance collector are on open space. They back up
to open space, either in the linear open space or to the south where we will be piping the
Cunningham Lateral and grassing and creating a little nature path that goes on out and,
then, our collector buffer. As far as the -- the commercial component, we are at a little
over four percent in our commercial component. We kind of racked our brains. We don't
want to compete with Hill Century Farms commercial. So, one of the things --the daycare
was integral, because that's an essential service that will, obviously, benefit this
neighborhood and -- and this project. But the flex space was one thing that we came up
with as a great alternative to trying to compete with the -- the commercial that's to the
west of us. So the flex space would be small business development and it would be --
there would be no exterior materials, everything being closed. Obviously, would have to
comply with your design guidelines for the commercial. There will be no outdoor storage.
And, then, on the -- the townhomes we have almost an acre that -- that is in that linear
open space. We have approximately a half acre that is the transition from the commercial
to the townhomes. That ranges in width from -- I think 35 to about 55 feet. We will have
pathways. We will have picnic areas. But when you come into the development the first
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. October21,2021 F12
Page 8 of 70
thing you are going to see is our primary amenity and that primary amenity is significant
in size. I think it's -- hold on. Got to get to my amenities. It is 1.93 acres. So, just a little
bit shy of two acres. We will have a pool facility. We will also have a pickleball court. We
have play -- a central playground for the kids and, then, we have pathways that link out
through our pedestrian pathways for the project portion that is to the east. We have
retained our pocket park to the north. I'm not doing that. We are having a great time
tonight, aren't we? So, this -- this shows you what our qualified open space is. So, we
have six acres of qualified open space. That's 15.4 percent. Previously we were at about
4.48 percent. Our central amenity with 1.93 acres. We are going to have a plaza,
swimming pool, community playground, pickleball court, pathways, off-street parallel
parking. We are proposing a ten foot sidewalk along Amity with micro path connections
to our commercial component and our pocket park. Our entrance at Amity will have public
art, a little plaza area, and, then, our MEW, like I said, is just a little less than half acre
with two covered sitting areas and pathways and, then, our linear open space, another
tot lot, gazebo, and, then, our micro path and a natural pathway. This was kind of a blow
up of the landscape plan. We did submit a revised landscape plan that shows you what
-- what we are proposing here. So, we are going to have a significant amount of open
space in this project. Far more than was required. When we submitted the application
the requirement was ten percent and, as I indicated, we are at 15.4 in our qualified open
space. We have done a great job of -- of really spending a lot of time reworking this and
working on elevations. These are our farmhouse elevations. This shows you the alley
load townhomes. You see every elevation. You can see that there is articulation in the
roof lines. Different materials. Different -- different angles to, obviously, provide a visual
interest. Oops. This shows you our front load townhomes. They are more of a modern
style. But we are still going to have them mesh in with -- with the architectural styles that
we will have with our traditional craftsman, modern, and farmhouse styles. Here is the
four-plexes. We only have four of those. So, there is 16 units. They back up to Amity.
You know, that's going to be a -- that's a major intersection. It's going to be signalized.
As you recall, we have to signalize that at there -- our 61 st lot. So, basically, you know,
we can get one phase in and, then, we have got to put the light in. So, it's almost like we
need to go into design on that with the first phase, so that -- that's in there. As you can
see with the four-plexes, there is, you know, roof articulation. They don't look like your
standard four-plexes. There is a lot of variety. We only have four of those. Our sample
elevations for the homes -- and you can see we will have a combination a two story, three
car garage. Single story, three car garage. And, then, on the smaller 64 foot lots will
have two story with a two car garage. Single story, two car garage. And, then, on the 36
foot wide lots --this is a new product. So, they have kind of farmhouse styles. They have
craftsman. They have modern. So, there is a variety of styles that fit on those lots to,
obviously, meet the diversity that we need, especially in today's marketplace where
everybody is struggling to meet that affordability that our community desires desperately
in these times. I saw the other day the average price of a home in Meridian now is, what,
555,000, which is just like -- it blows my mind. I remember, you know, when -- when you
struggled to get a 227,000 dollar house and the hoops you had to jump through. So, this
-- this particular project I think hits the mark. It meets the -- the mixed use as far as an
anchor on that corner, providing some type of employment opportunity. Maybe someone
that lives in here will be able to put up their business there. Walk to work. Bike to work.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. October21,2021 F13
Page 9 of 70
The townhomes will all be on separate lots, so they can be sold and, like I said, we have
a combination of front load and alley load to meet different -- different tastes, different
lifestyles. Smaller lots. Larger lots. This is a great project and with an overall gross
density of just 6.01 we have reduced the -- the impact on the schools, the impact on the
transportation system significantly and I ask the Commission to support it. Thank you.
Any questions?
Seal: Do we have any questions for the applicant or staff? Commissioner Wheeler, go
ahead.
Wheeler: Can you -- staff, can you tell us just one more time what the net gain or net loss
on the total number of units is again?
Dodson: Yes. Commissioner Wheeler, that would be a total loss of 108 units. Three
hundred and twenty-seven is what was approved before and now there are 219.
Wheeler: Thank you.
Dodson: If that math is right.
Wheeler: Okay. Thank you.
Seal: Quick question of staff or the applicant can answer. The -- I'm interested in the
parking for the multi-family. I think we have to have at least a minimum of 24 parking
spots here. How many are available?
McKay: Yes. For the four-plexes we are required to have 30 spaces. Of those 16 will
be covered. For the commercial flex space we have 42 spaces. For the daycare we have
seven. And, then, staff asked us to include parallel parking along our MEW area that's
on the west side of the townhomes north of our collector and we have 12 parallel parking
spaces there. Each townhome will have a two car garage, plus a 20 by 20 parking pad
in front and, then, we also have guest parking on the south end. There are nine spaces
for guest parking and, then, we also have four parallel spaces along our central amenity
feature that's outside the right of way. And, then, the townhomes that front on the public
street we will have detached sidewalks and the ones -- or excuse me. The ones that
have the alley load they will be parking on the public street north of the collector roadway.
Seal: Okay. Thank you.
Dodson: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Go ahead, Joe.
Dodson: I would like to just add to that as well, just to visually show the -- all of this -- this
right here, because -- oh, should say, actually, this north portion here, that's a public road.
This entire length on both sides can have parallel parking. Can have on-street parking
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. October21,2021 F14
Page 10 of 70
because there are no driveways. So, that's in excess of code requirement. In addition,
they are -- all the private streets they are proposing, especially here, as long as they are
wide enough, which I believe it needs to be 29 feet wide, they can accommodate the
parallel parking on that as well. So, again, this would all be in excess of code for the off-
street parking. So, I did not mention that, because they are exceeding all of the parking
requirements.
Seal: Thank you. Commissioner Grove.
Grove: Mr. Chair. Joe, could you remind us -- just kind of give us an overview of what
was continued and kind of if there is any parameters on the discussion tonight?
Dodson: Commissioner Grove, Becky actually outlined that way better than I did,
admittedly, about why we were continued. The majority of it was as discussed, the overall
density, including more commercial and, frankly, removing all the apartments -- or some
and per some of my recommendations and analysis in my staff report. Those are the --
really the main issues. I guess a secondary one is just overall compatibility with the
adjacent neighborhoods, but that was based largely in the inclusion of apartments versus
townhomes or single family. From my perspective they have responded to each of the
comments that were in that previous hearing and have answered -- well, I do not have
anymore concerns based upon my previous analysis.
Grove: I guess my question is -- I know when we do some continuances we will have,
you know, pretty limited discussion points that we are actually bringing forward to discuss.
I didn't know if there was anything that we are, you know, asking the public testimony to
focus on as -- as we have a fairly full house. So --
Dodson: Right.
Grove: Just trying to make sure that we are all on the same page before we get started.
Dodson: That's a great question, Commissioner Grove. It was my understanding
because of some of the major revisions that are going to occur, it was not limited. That
the overall project was going to be basically still open for public testimony. That was my
understanding. I hope -- the residency -- the work the applicant and staff have done.
Seal: All right. If there is no more questions, we will go ahead and open this up to public
testimony. Do we have anybody signed up? A rhetorical question, more or less, but --
Weatherly: Mr. Chair, we do. Online the first to sign up was Rebecca Prestwich,
representing Hillsdale Creek.
Seal: Good evening. Just to set -- right. Just --just to set this up, we have had several
public hearings where people come forward to represent a larger group and nobody yields
any time to it. So, that is one of the requirements that you are speaking for a larger group
and the people that you are representing are yielding their time to you. So, who in the
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. October21,2021 F15]
Page 11 of 70
audience will be yielding their time? Okay. If you would state your name and address for
the record.
Prestwich: Can you hear me?
Seal: Yes, ma'am.
Prestwich: All right. Thank you. I don't know who to address, because Madam Chair is
not present, so to --
Seal: Chairman.
Prestwich: Mr. Chairman, I'm Rebecca Prestwich. I live in the Hillsdale Creek Subdivision
on South Bleachfield Way and I am representing the HOA for this meeting. There is a
couple of things that I wanted to point out is that I'm an ordinary citizen, I don't have 25
years of planning experience, as Ms. Becky does, and I haven't been before the
Commission -- only once before and that was in the last meeting. However, my
observation in this meeting and in the last is that the developer's representative tends to
embellish her opinions of her own -- of their own presented plan and the community's
response to them and so that is something that I would like you to keep in mind as you
hear all the members of the community give their testimonies today. The request from
Madam Chair as I remember was to the developer to reduce the overall density of the
overall proposal, quote, end quote, and that didn't really say we were particularly happy
with one plan or one piece of the plan or the other, we were unhappy with the entire
proposal and we did want the density reduced and that's why we are here today to see
that -- that can be further addressed. Now, with the FLUM, which has been referred to,
we understand that the City of Meridian has invested thousands upon thousands of
dollars engaged in the research of feasibility studies and engineering towards the
Comprehensive Plan and the citizens have invested their hours and time in participating
in this planning development process and the citizens feel vested in doing that and, quite
frankly, we had ownership in that plan and we endorsed that plan as it exists in the written
FLUM and it was an eye opener to me to come to the meeting last time and to have the
feeling -- and I was really grateful to Madam Chair for voicing it -- that our voice wasn't
being heard and she did say, yes, your voice is being heard and she handed it back to
the committee to -- I mean to the developer to further reduce the density and that doesn't
mean by a small percentage, it meant to us by a significant percentage that actually
represented what we understand the -- the acreage to be developed -- you know, to be
designated as in the FLUM. So, I want to discuss what that is. The subject property area
presently -- presently consists of two future land use designations. The mixed use
neighborhood consists of 9.97 acres, according to the county assessor parcel -- and
won't list that out. It's written out and approved in the land use. Medium density
residential, R-8, consisting of two parcels totaling a total of 28.98 acres. That's 12 acres
for one parcel and 16.98 acres for the other. That's 75 percent of the comprehensive
FLUM land use proposal. Now, the Planning and Zoning -- in Idaho Code 67-6115,
Subsection A, states: Planning and Zoning Commission shall evaluate the request to
determine the extent and nature of the amendment. Particularly they shall consider the
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. October 21,2021 F16]
Page 12 of 70
given effects of any proposed zone changes upon the delivery of services by any political
subdivision providing public services, including school districts within that jurisdiction.
The existing conditions report of the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan designated
that parcel as mixed use neighborhood. That is not what the developer put forward. The
developer put forward a much more dense plan than mixed use neighborhood. The intent
of a mixed use neighborhood is predominantly single use developments and that means
they are supportive of proportional public and quasi-public spaces, places such as parks,
plazas, gathering areas, open space -- and I know Ms. Becky would argue -- argue with
you that they have provided that in their plan, but if you take a look at that plan and the
small spaces and the number of people that are going to live in that community, you will
find that it is a relatively small number compared to all of the neighborhoods in the
surrounding area. The land uses are supposed to be supporting nonresidential services.
Nonresidential service -- excuse me -- services should blend in with the buildings and
their uses to provide goods and services that people typically do not travel far for and
some employment opportunities. The proposal had a daycare in it and now they have
put other commercial proposals into it. Now, there are services, as she mentioned, on
the other side. There is actually a pediatric doctor's office, a separate children's dental
office, adult dental office and a separate orthodontic office and there are a few vacant
commercial building spaces. Those are what the mixed use neighborhood should be
consisting of. R-8 houses in the majority, the 28.98, and in that 9.68 a few commercially
-- commercial opportunities for business -- businesses to establish. Now, the community
does want further additional serving uses to be developed on that parcel, the 9.97 acres.
What they would like to see is -- a daycare is a good idea. Possibly a preschool. It was
also suggested that perhaps additional elementary school facilities that could be used by
Hillsdale Creek to further support the community could be donated by the developer. A
coffee shop. A sandwich shop, dog grooming, and service providers that they would visit
typically once a month or less and frequent -- and frequent -- or even a less frequent
basis. That's not the proposal the developer is putting forth at this moment. The
community respectfully requests the Council to follow the Comprehensive Plan and to
maintain the current mixed use neighborhood designation for the 9.97 acres of land. We
request the City Council to deny the developer's application for 2.5 acres of C-C zoning.
I don't believe that most people understood until we really read through this document
that that meant that they could include one warehousing unit with -- building within this
community and in a -- in a community that exists only of low density urban family housing
and they are now trying to place this dense and -- and all the commercial on that place
-- on that small 40 acre lot. Furthermore, the community requested -- uh, my mouth is
drying out. The developer not -- not be allowed to calculate the common area -- and this
is another problem I have is the common area, the buffers, the green space are all
calculated into their gross density, which, then, lowers it below the six. But if you go back
down to their report, the last page, you will see that they report the 6.1 gross density, but
the actual net density is 9.1 and that's far beyond what the FLUM designates. Let me get
to the other part and I will be done. So, now that--that is addressing the 9.69 acres. The
other 28 acres -- I think it's 20 point what? Six eight? If memory serves me right. Is --
according to the original staff report at maximum allowable density and all they did was
add a little bit more --just little few more strips of green space and, then, they calculated
it gross and they came out with a 6.1 density and that is not a true number for what will
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. October21,2021 F17
Page 13 of 70
happen in that community. Can you imagine 214 households -- individual households on
40 acres? Two hundred and fourteen. That's -- that's -- in my opinion gross. It is just too
dense and it doesn't pattern this community. And the other thing I want to address is that
originally the developer representative suggested that we were just upset about how
many households were going to be there and how much traffic there was going to be and
all these things, when, in fact, that wasn't our original concern. Our original concern was
the overall impact of a development that dense in a community that is already
overburdened in all of the aspects that we were told we could not discuss today.
Seal: Ma'am, you will need to wrap up real quick.
Prestwich: I will. I'm just about there. So, with regards to the 28.9 acres, the community
requests that the --the developer not be allowed to calculate common area, buffers, green
space, et cetera, to be calculated in their gross density calculation. I don't think that
developers should be allowed to do that. They should base their calculations on net
density and that's the actual house on the actual lot and how that affects the overall plan.
The community would rather the developer be able to -- to calculate the net density. We
believe that if you did that, the calculations would provide a greater possibility for
proposed development to conform with the surrounding subdivisions. The community
respectfully requests the City Council to return this proposal back to the developer to
further reduce the density of the 29.8 acres parcel to R-8 calculated at the net density
calculation and I appreciate the time that you have given me and I thank you.
Seal: Okay. Thank you.
Weatherly: Mr. Chair, next we have James Phillips signed in as a representative of the
Southern Rim Coalition.
Seal: Okay. Thank you. Good evening. We need your name and address for the record,
please.
Phillips: My name is James Phillips. I live at 4140 East Rockhampton Street, Meridian,
Idaho. 83642. And like was mentioned, I'm representing the Meridian Southern Rim
Coalition. Just as a quick preamble, I can appreciate the passion and motion shown
already today. There has been a lot of public anxiety, frustration, and concern, not to
mention loss of sleep that could have been avoided had the currently revised preliminary
plat as we see today had been the version first proposed. I feel that the public is still
smarting a bit from the original plan and it actually hurts the public's ability to see and
appreciate the revised version. Today I will be focusing in on a number of public concerns
where the revised plan continues to fall short of Meridian's vision. This was mentioned
before, the importance of having a FLUM and it's super important to underline that. The
FLUM is -- is what's used to set general public expectations and we trust P&Z and the
City Council to enforce this vision. The FLUM also is used by public entities, like ACHD,
West Ada, COMPASS, for planning roadwork, updating school boundaries, projecting
community growth that inform city strategic planning. The FLUM also is used by
developers for making decisions of whether they should buy a land for development. It
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. October21,2021 F18
Page 14 of 70
informs them of the zoning, dwelling units, property types constraints -- constraints that
developers are to respect. As you can see there is a large latitude at which development
can operate. You can see that swing in number of units in the MUN. The swing in the
number of units that are okay for the MDR. This is where P&Z and the City Council come
into play. They have the responsibility to be good stewards of public trust by reconciling
developer plans with suburban-urban planning development best practices, the
expectation and needs of the public and the expectation and needs of the city.
Developers are free to accept or reject P&Z recommendations, but City Council has the
final say, particularly in cases of annexation and rezoning. Developers take a calculated
risk when they purchase the land knowing full well that getting annexation and rezoning
of their ideal liking is not a foregone conclusion. So, what are these public expectations
being set by this FLUM, this nine acres of MUN, this 30 acre of MDR? These are some
of the areas where -- where we still see the revised -- even the revised version falling
short. This slide was taken out of the original slide deck. A few things to note. A number
of concerns that break public trust had been reduced enough to actually now enumerate
them here and you can see I have got a few bullet points around that. I will go into detail
about that. But also a number of major red flags found in the agency comments that had
been addressed by removing the three story apartment buildings, adding more
commercial, adding an entryway into the commercial area. Not to say that there are any
additional red flags still, but these red flags will be raised -- we can raised at the city and
not necessary here at P&Z. So, let's look at this. This is, again,just outstanding concerns
that we have around the MUN component, that nine acres there. In the revised we can
see there is three things, actually. The fact that commercial lots are not fronting that East
Amity Road is a concern for a few different reasons. One, it's vital for businesses to have
patrons come in and when it -- when they are not located off of main transportation
corridors they get less patrons. The other thing to note here is when you have it -- that
commercial tucked in a little bit things like the public really wants, like a restaurant and
cafes, they are likely not to risk their business in putting it in there. Also there is a missed
opportunity of increasing some more commercial, reduce what's really needed in South
Meridian, which is our employment-to-resident ratio. It's super super low. If you look at
the COMPASS reports it's terrible. Absolutely terrible. We are in a restaurant desert in
south Meridian. The other thing to note is around adequate parking. For the workers and
the patrons of the businesses, guests and visitors of the four-plex, guests and visitors of
the 40 townhomes. Possible solution there would be to actually look at Lot No. 52 and
make that into a mailbox with -- with additional parking there. A possible solution. The
other concern that the public has is a little bit of nuance here, but the awkward traffic flow
for those townhome residents that live just south of that -- that would come out of that
private alley, that Redding Lane, they can only turn one way. So, if they want to go -- lug
some equipment to the park in their car, they can't turn left, they have to do a U'ee or go
around. Have to keep an eye on both screens I guess. See if I can coordinate this. So,
this guy right here. So, again, removing one of the four--four-plexes for more commercial
off Amity. Removing one of the lots for parking. And, then, address the awkward traffic
flow. This is pretty bad to navigate. Okay. I won't get into -- I will just kind of skip this
slide. Just note that -- that the ideas that we will propose in the next slide are based off
of coming off the Comprehensive Plan and that's where the slide come from. You can
revisit it if you have any questions, but -- so, one of the -- let's start with the most glaring
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. October21,2021 Fig]
Page 15 of 70
issue that I see and that has to do with the 39 attached townhomes that continue to extend
into the MDR designated area. We ask that we swap those -- those attached townhomes
for single family residents, again, to meet that expectation of medium density residential
area. Next glaring concern is actually more going further south, is that those -- again,
those 11 townhomes just south of West Lachlan Lane. Taking a step back you can see
a plan -- you can see how there is a natural east-to-west density being transitioning until
it hits up against Rockhampton neighborhood, which is great to see that. We don't get
the same thing going north to south going into the Rockhampton and while Becky paints
a picture that there is no need for that transitional density there, that simply is not the
case. There is two considerations that have to be -- have to be made. One, the extreme
difference in density between the townhome lots and the neighboring single family lots,
one of which my home is. The other one is -- actually has to do with elevation. You can't
really make it out, but the elevation on those is -- it's higher there and so having those
two story attached to townhomes tower over the homes that are just adjacent across the
street and over the entry is not appropriate. It's not cohesive with the surrounding
neighborhood. So, the proposed solution would be make those single family -- single
story family lots. Now, kind of putting it all together, there is a few things I would want to
highlight. One is on the red. I will just walk through the different colors. On the red ones
here in the comp plan talks about density transitions and where they should take place.
Over alleyways or roads. Here they are taking place across back fences. This is
problematic. This is -- does not meet expectations. And so the red actually puts it into
alignment with the Comprehensive Plan by adjusting the lots to be aligned and density
with their back neighbors. The purple, like I mentioned in the slide before, addresses the
neighborhood compatibility issue and the surrounding areas to the south. The orange,
again, to meet MDR expectations set by the FLUM we ask that these townhomes be
replaced with single family residents. Lots for the green. This is to address walkability
within the neighborhood. There are some good things of walkability east to west, but not
going north to south, particularly as it goes to those neighbors walking to the main park
there. And, finally, the last thing I want to highlight is actually the entire areas of blue.
Propose that this should be R-8 zoning. Right now the smaller single -- the smaller lots
you see in that area they are on average 3,500 square feet. By having an R-8 zoning it
would require that to be a minimum of 4,000 square feet. And why is that? Why does
that matter, just 500 square feet? Well, a couple different things. First, when it comes to
real estate, just remember what they say, location, location, location. It's not lot size.
Price is impacted more by surrounding neighborhoods, amenities, build cost, quality than
would be by 500 square feet of lot size. The economic factors out -- there is economic
factors outside the control of one builder in one preliminary plat that's going on in Meridian
right now. The existing surrounding neighborhood -- exuberant home values have bigger
impact on the prices of these homes than the square lot. So, why -- what is that
difference? What does that 500 square for --
Seal: Sir, you will need to wrap up quickly.
Phillips: That 500 square feet lot will allow individuals to have -- to make their house a
home. Front porches for neighborhoods. Patios for family to gather in. Additional living
space to watch Boise State games, areas for a family getting started. Additional storage
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. October21,2021 F20
Page 16 of 70
so they can actually park in their garage. And so that's why I request that that be made
R-8 zoning. Thank you.
Seal: Thank you. Madam Clerk, do we have any -- who else do we have signed up?
Weatherly: Mr. Chair, we had several people sign up in house. Only one indicating a
wish to testify and that's Thomas Dayley.
Seal: Good evening. Please state your name and address for the record and --
Dayley: Thank you. Thomas Dayley. 4892 South Willandra Way, Boise. 83709. 1 guess
I would -- first of all, I would like to thank the Commission for extending their time for
consideration. We appreciate the fact that you have done that. You asked them
significant questions in the August meeting. Some of those were addressed and I would
like to talk about some of those as well and appreciate the developer as well trying to
accommodate some of the issues that were brought forward by the Commission, as well
as the community. However, I don't think all of those were addressed and that's where I
would like to get to. I am a very supporter of private property rights. I think the developer
has his property and he has a right to develop it. That's not what we are talking about
here. It's how it's developed. By the same token, the people who own the homes adjacent
to that property also have property rights and they are going to be impacted negatively
by the proposed -- proposal as it's being developed and I think that's part of what the
Commission needs to be considering as well. Not only the developer's property rights,
but the land -- other landowners' property rights as well and try to -- try to accommodate
both of those. We have had significant questions asked here by the -- by the people that
have been brought forward and I think -- one of the questions I would like to ask to the
Commission is do you feel that all of the questions have been appropriately answered as
you consider approving this or not? And another question is are there other alternatives
that a developer could use to reduce the density and one of the options that I would like
you to consider is -- in my previous work I worked with the National Resource
Conservation Service, which has what they call an urban farming program and that
dedicates places within an urban environment where a developer or a landowner can
actually get an easement -- paid money for an easement. That easement, then, dedicates
property for urban farming for plots for -- for gardens -- urban gardens. Education. You
have a school right next to part of the -- the plan there, as well as it's an educational
purpose for kids in a school where they can see farming, how it's done, et cetera. So,
there are lots of options like that a developer could have, which will reduce the density
and also provide a very good use. And the developer gets paid for this. There is an
easement and they get paid current land values for that property and I know this developer
has owned this property for a long period of time and is now finally getting to develop it.
So, I understand that. But for the last 20 years that they have owned it and haven't been
able to develop, it -- it's increased in value. They haven't lost value and that's what this
urban farming program would do as well, it would allow a time period and at the end of
the 20, 30 years for the easement, they can still come back and develop it and it would
actually do more in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan of transitional. Twenty years
from now that portion of the City of Meridian will be much more attuned to the
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. October 21,2021 F21
Page 17 of 70
development of commercial and the other things and this developer would still have the
ability to retain it -- retain their value and also be able to have a transitional development
process and it would also reduce the impact at this point in time with the adjacent
landowners. So, I think -- I guess my request to the Commission is to -- there has been
significant questions asked here that I still don't think have been addressed. Like the
parking. The traffic flow. The commercial development where there is a warehouse. A
warehouse does not fit in this community. But that's part of their commercial --
commercial proposal.
Seal: Sir, you will need to wrap up here real quick.
Dayley: So, just to wrap up, the townhouses to single family homes. That's a significant
impact that I think that the Commission should deal with. Request for zoning. Parking.
When they said -- at least my understanding is 219 homes and nine guest parking. That's
why I just -- and maybe I misunderstood what she said, but that is not sufficient. There
is some quite -- there is still unanswered questions I think that the Commission should be
asking of the developer that we should walk through. Thank you.
Seal: Thank you.
Weatherly: Mr. Chair, that's all we have signed in indicating a wish to testify and I don't
see any raised hands online at this time.
Seal: Anybody in Chamber, if you would like to testify, please, raise your hand. Okay. If
there is nobody else online, would the applicant like to --
Dodson: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Oh. Go ahead, Joe.
Dodson: I would like to go first, if I don't-- if you don't mind. If the applicant doesn't mind.
Just a couple things to clarify for the Commission. On the proposed flex space is not --
how do I put this? It cannot be all warehouse that's for sure. There are minimum
requirements that are specific use standards that require a minimum of 30 percent office,
no more than a certain amount of retail, but that does not mean that the remaining 70
percent is always warehouse. Largely these flex space units are a pretty even mix of kind
of an office, warehouse type of deal that some small business uses to have a little bit of
product, I guess, and, then, they have their offices there. I have seen this work really well
throughout the city and throughout the valley. It's becoming more and more popular and
they are generally low impact on both vehicle trips, as well as overall traffic. So, I do think
that that's why the applicant chose that. If the Commission so desires additional -- like
we discussed previously -- multi-tenant building for some kind of retail, commercial,
restaurant, coffee shop kind of use, that will increase traffic compared to a flex space
building for sure in the area. So, that kind of goes against some of the other issues that
we have been discussing -- discussing. So, I do want to make that clear. And, then, the
-- the density conversation has -- and the future land use map has come up repeatedly,
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. October21,2021 F22
Page 18 of 70
not just with this project. That's every project. I do want to be clear that the -- the area
shown on the future land use map for the future land use designations is not parcel
specific. So, it's very difficult to say that certain parcels should have certain future land
use map on it or certain acreages and things like that. That's not how we do that.
Secondly, to make this applicant utilize the net density versus gross density is completely
against what we have in our Comprehensive Plan. Our Comprehensive Plan specifically
designates that the density is based off of gross. That's every single project, including
the existing that's already there. It's all based on gross density. This does happen to
have a fair amount of area that's buffers and they have a large amount of open space.
Regardless, they are absolutely meeting their density requirements. Commission and
future hearings at the Council can disagree overall and that's fine, but minimally code and
future land use they are complying with those density requirements. I just wanted to make
that clear.
Seal: Okay. Thank you. Would the applicant like to come back up. Or did Joe steal all
your thunder? I stole some of his tonight, so I'm feeling bad about that.
McKay: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. Becky McKay. Engineering
Solutions. As far as the density of this plan -- I mean we -- when -- after we heard the
Commission's comments and the neighbors comments -- none of the comments were
ignored. I mean we sat down and we spent a couple hours basically going through my
detailed notes of not only your comments, but the neighboring comments. We reduced
our density by 108 units. We have dropped our density 33 percent. At the same time we
have increased our open space significantly and I'm not even counting the eight foot
landscape buffer that's on my detached walks along my local streets, which you are
allowed to count. I have excluded that. There was a comment about -- that we are
embellishing our plan. I mean we have been working really really hard over the past
couple months on this plan. We even sent some drafts to the staff to get feedback. We
have provided 104 parking spaces. Staff said, hey, we want some parallel parking
spaces. So, we --we have them inset. They are not on the private drive or the alley, they
are inset to the landscaping to give that more traditional neighborhood look, that more
integrated look. The FLUM was brought up. The FLUM, the UDC, every other
municipality in this state looks at density from a gross density standpoint. We provide the
gross density calculation. We also provide the net density calculation. That R-8 zone
allows three to eight dwelling units per acre or 3.45. The R-15 allows 15 dwelling units
per acre and we are 7.44 and our overall density, excluding the commercial area -- so, all
we are talking about is the residential zoned area, we are at 6.01 gross density, which is
within that medium density designation. There was comments made about mixed use.
Mixed use doesn't mean commercial. Mixed use doesn't mean townhomes. If you look
at your Comprehensive Plan, your definitions within your ordinance, mixed use talks
about townhomes. It talks about -- it talks about four-plexes. Detached single family
dwellings. Attached single family dwellings. Neighborhood commercial. Flex space.
Flex space is not warehouse. A flex -- I -- there is property on the northwest corner of Hill
Road and Highway 55 that has sat vacant for -- it's pushing probably 15 years. Finally a
use went on it and it's a mixture of some flex space, where it's a business, but they have
-- they have material storage in their -- in their building and, then, next door to them is a
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. October21,2021 F23
Page 19 of 70
coffee shop. So, it's kind of integrated and I thought, you know, that's -- that's unique and
the -- the elevations of the building meet all of the design guidelines for commercial. I
mean we are trying to figure out -- one of the comments was the transportation. The
lowest traffic generator is something like a combination flex space, maybe a little retail
component and a daycare, so that we are not generating so much traffic. Absolute retail
generates a significant amount of traffic. A comment was made why don't you have an
approach out to Amity Road? Amity Road is a major artery -- or minor arterial. ACHD
will not allow us to have any access to Amity. We did add another access to Hillsdale
Avenue, which is a collector, to make our commercial component more viable and if you
look at that site plan -- if Joe could bring it up -- you can see that it has -- the commercial
node has its own access and that will be a full access. We only asked for a right-in, right-
out. ACHD came back and said, no, that will be a full access, because it's a full access
that you are aligning with on the west side at the Hillsdale commercial. So, you can see
that we have added another access to make that commercial component viable and allow
it to have transfer -- or access outside of the neighborhood and within the neighborhood.
It was mentioned this plan falls short of the vision. This is a priority growth area that the
city has spent a significant amount of money for the regional park. They wanted the South
Meridian YMCA, elementary school. West Ada School District owns additional property
north of Amity. There is a charter school that's going to come online next fall that will also
serve the same area as Hillsdale Elementary and at the same time that we are being
bashed, we are also going to have to install the signal at Hillsdale Avenue and Amity,
which is going to benefit not only us, but everyone in this community and allow them to
make left-hand turns more easily. We are also going to be widening all of our frontage
along Amity. We are going to have a turn lane. We are not solely depending on Hillsdale
Avenue, an intrusion into this neighborhood, and it's not intrusion, because that is a mid
mile collector that was intended to handle a significant amount of traffic. But we also have
our Amity Road approach. So, that gives us an opportunity for our residents to go
eastbound and make a right-hand turn on Amity. We have connected to the stub streets.
I have nine and ten thousand square foot lots all around my perimeter, matching them lot
line for lot line. And, then, transitioning the lots across from those lots, so that we have
different variety of lots. That is the whole objective of mixed use, that we provide a variety
of home products, a variety of mixed uses. The traffic that we were initially going to
generate was 2,600 vehicles per day. I have got that traffic down to about 2,025. That's
at build out. That's over four phases, which will probably be built over a four year period.
So, this -- this project will come online incrementally. My overall landscaping is seven
acres and that seven acres -- I mean you got to remember the size of the property is 38
and I have 7.19 acres of common area. That's 18 and a half percent of this property is in
Iandscapable area, with pathways and significant amenities for these residents and we
-- we have done -- we have -- we have put plazas in. We have art. We have pickleball
courts. We have a swimming pool. We have --we have pathways. Picnic shelters. Multi-
use pathways. Nature pathways. I mean for a piece of property that's this size, we have
really worked to make sure that it incorporates the vision that's in your comp plan and we
missed the mark with the first version. The density was too great. The three story was
not appropriate. And I believe the Commission made the right decision to say, hey,
Becky, take another look at this. Go back to your client, see what you can do. Come
back with a good -- a better plan. A better plan that fits this area. This plan fits this area.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. October 21,2021 F24
Page 20 of 70
This plan complies with your Comprehensive Plan and to just say, hey, we got to all be
single family, that -- that defeats the whole purpose of the land use map and what we are
trying to create in Meridian in this particular area and if you can't get density, how do you
build the signals? How do you afford to build all the amenities? How do you afford to put
in the pedestrian signal to improve the safer route to schools? I mean we are doing
everything -- everything we can to not only make our development the best it can be, but
to improve this overall neighborhood and make it safer for everyone and I ask the
Commission to support it and recognize the effort and the time that's been put into it and
the recommendation of your staff. Thank you.
Seal: Thank you. Any final questions? If not I will ask that I get a motion to close the
public hearing for Item No. H-2021-0046.
Grove: So moved.
Wheeler: Second.
Seal: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on Item No. H-
2021-0046. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? So, motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT.
Seal: All right, Commissioners, who wants to go first?
Grove: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Commissioner Grove, go ahead.
Grove: Where to start? The -- the applicant did make some significant improvements
and the reduction -- I mean that's one of the biggest reductions that I have seen on a
project this size for a continuance. Just kind of throwing that out there. So, the two years
I have been here I haven't seen that big a reduction on a continuance before. So, kudos
to your team for-- for doing that. I definitely see and have read and can feel the palpable
emotions of the audience and the residents on this. So, I definitely understand, you know,
what is being said and why it's being said. I -- I have some things that I like about it. I
have some things that I don't like. I would say the likes that I have on this, with this
revision, the second edition connection to Hillsdale to get that commercial, that definitely
increases that -- the value for everybody just in terms of reducing traffic and making the
commercial more accessible. I like that you have included the commercial. I think that
having a better narrative on what that is in terms of -- I don't think most people will
understand what flex space is, so as you go forward and making sure that that is better
communicated as to the intentions, so that the current residents understand a little bit
more of your intentions with that space, so that there isn't hesitancy and confusion and
misunderstanding. I think anytime that misunderstandings can be cleared up it works in
everybody's favor. This is not a process where we are going to get everything that
everybody wants. It's a compromise and just because there is pieces that the developer
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. October 21,2021 F25]
Page 21 of 70
likes and the residents don't and vice-versa doesn't mean that the process is wrong. It
means that it's a compromise. I like that you have improved the entrance. The amenities
look great. I think that there is room for improvement on some of the -- as -- I think -- let
me see if I had it right here. James mentioned some of the north-south connections. I
don't know if there is any ability to squeeze those in to get additional north-south
passages, but well -- well made point and think that's where I'm at for right now. But I'm
sure I will come back on in a minute.
Seal: All right. Commissioner Wheeler, go ahead.
Wheeler: Thank you, Chairman. I'm -- I am, too, with Commissioner Grove on this, that
-- that to go ahead and reduce your -- when a developer comes out to go ahead and
purchase a piece of property, obviously, he is doing his proforma and he is trying to figure
out, okay, how much can I make per acre and to go ahead and reduce that size -- or that
amount by a third, that's --that's significant and still want to move forward with the project.
That's -- that's significant. I'm also seeing that a lot of the stuff that we talked about and
suggested the developer did put into practice or into this -- into this plan here in order to
-- so, it seems like he was responsive and wanting to listen to what was being shared
from the Commission. The -- the flex spaces -- yeah, I -- as I look at this you are -- you
are next to a daycare, you are going to be next to a school, you are next to the Y. There
is no doubt in my mind there is going to be a coffee shop here. It just seems like this is
just a perfect little spot for it, somewhere in here on this flex space. One of the things I
was looking at, too, was just the traffic pattern, but -- and this is maybe where this might
have some jurisdiction over on ACHD side of things, but coming in most likely they will be
coming in off a Hillsdale, turning left into the full access that's at the most north -- yeah.
Northwestern part of the project and, then, turning right. You got a daycare there. Right
again. Right again. And a back. And that landscape buffer that comes in off of Park
prohibits people from coming into the daycare with a left-hand turn, going ahead and
jamming up traffic within the interior drive aisles and so there seems to have been some
good thought on that, on even just the traffic flow pattern on that, so -- and the reduction
in the height coming down from three stories down to two, it seems to have
accommodated some of the concerns of the neighbors on this. I'm -- I like the adjustments
that were done here. I like the way that there was a lot of thought put back into what was
said from both the Commission and also written testimony. A lot of open space,
comparatively speaking, to other projects of the same size and at the same time I'm with
Commissioner Grove on this. There is some things maybe I would do different, but all in
all all of this has been put together pretty well with a lot of willingness to listen to the input
that was given.
Seal: All right. Commissioner Yearsley, you want to jump in on this?
Yearsley: Thank you very much. I might be the only one in the room, per se, saying I
think Becky did a great job. This looks so much better than it did before. It just -- you
know, to come in with that much of a reduction in home -- units is -- is amazing and I think
she did a very good job laying it all out and making it look good. So, like I said, I think it
looks good. I am one in full favor of property rights and -- and having the developer
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. October21,2021 F26
Page 22 of 70
develop as they would like within reasonable limits, with -- as set by the city and I think
they have done that and I am in full support of this project.
Seal: Okay. Thank you. I'm kind of with Commissioner Yearsley, I think they have done
a good job of listening to the concerns, reducing things overall. Like -- like Commissioner
Grove said, this is one of the largest reductions I have seen. So, hopefully, a third is -- is
enough. I mean if any one of you were asked to give up a third of anything that you have
with potential, it's probably a hard pill to swallow. So, they have swallowed it and acted
on it. So, if anybody has questions on flex space and what that might mean, you might
want to stick around for the Red Aspen presentation we have next -- coming next as far
as what a commercial space can do. Flex space can do. It will be enlightening for you.
So, they are -- they are good for our communities. I guess one of the things I'm -- I still
get a little discouraged about is there is a lot of talk about how, you know, everybody's --
nobody's against development, but they just don't want it in their area, so -- I mean,
unfortunately, Meridian is -- it's a big area and it's growing. I mean we are the fastest
growing city in the United States. So, it's -- it's coming, it's here, and we do have to
manage it well. I applaud the applicant for listening and doing what was asked. I think to
ask for more at this point in time is not appropriate, to be perfectly honest. So, with that
will -- oh, go ahead, Commissioner Wheeler.
Wheeler: I would like to go ahead make a motion.
Seal: Absolutely. Motions are always -- always admired here.
Wheeler: After considering all staff, applicant -- staff, applicant, and public testimony,
move that we recommend approval to the City Council of file number H-2021-0046, as
presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 21, 2021, with the --
Grove: With the -- with the changes in the staff memo; right?
Wheeler: Do we need to put that in there, too? Okay. And also with the changes per the
staff memo.
Seal: Okay.
Yearsley: I will second that.
Seal: Do I have a second? Oh. Commissioner Yearsley, thank you. It's been moved
and seconded to approve Item No. H-2021-0046 with -- with the modifications in the staff
memo. All those in favor say aye. No opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT.
6. Public Hearing for Elsinore Daycare Facility (H-2021-0061) by 814
Development, LLC, Located at 4818 and 4858 N. Elsinore Ave.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. October21,2021 F27
Page 23 of 70
A. Request: Conditional Use Permit request to construct a new 13,535
square foot, single-story daycare facility on approximately 1.3 acres
of land on Lots 12 and 13 of the Paramount Square Subdivision in
the C-G zoning district.
Seal: All right. Thank you everyone. With that we will move to open public hearing for
Elsinore Daycare Facility, H-2021-0061.
Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Seal: We will go ahead and give everybody a minute to clear out here. Sorry about that.
Dodson: No problem.
Seal: All right, Joe. Go ahead.
Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Seal. Onto the next one. And I have the one after this, so,
sorry, you got to hear me more. The application before you tonight, Item No. 6, Elsinore
Daycare Facility, which is for a conditional use permit. The site consists of 1.38 -- sorry
-- 1.3 acres of land, currently zoned C-G, located at 4018 and 4858 North Elsinore. So,
they are currently two properties. They have tentative approval for a property boundary
adjustment to combine the properties into one for the proposed use. Brief overlay of what
is surrounding this development. To the north is C-G zoning, with some commercial,
which also does include an existing daycare, which is about two lots -- it's on this lot --
where is it? This lot right here. To the east is C-G zoning and some undeveloped
commercial, as well as existing commercial. To the south is McMillan Road. South of
that, obviously, is some medium density residential. To the west is R-40 and as you can
see on the aerial -- so, higher density. Multi-family residential. The proposed use of a
daycare, which has more than 12 children, daycare center, is a community serving
commercial use that fits within the future land use designation of commercial. The
proposed location is at the western edge of a commercial subdivision and directly across
the street for multi-family residential, which functionally creates a mixed use development.
The daycare use is needed -- is a needed use throughout the entire city and providing it
at nearby higher density meets many of the city's desired outcomes for commercial
development. A daycare center, again, which is more than 12 children, is listed in the
UDC as a conditional use within the C-G zoning district. It is also subject to specific use
standards. Discussions with the applicant have yielded that 165 children are proposed
to be served by this daycare center, with approximately 10 to 12 staff members. The
number of staff members will be determined by state required student-staff ratios. Staff
has recommended a conditional use permit to limit the child capacity to 165 children.
When a commercial district, as is the case here, directly abuts a residential zoning, which,
again, is to the west, the C-G zoning district limits the hours of operation from 6.00 a.m.
to 11:00 p.m. The applicant has stated that their intended hours of operation actually is
6.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m., which is within this range. Staff did not specifically limit the hours
of operation to the 6:00 to 6:00 as was proposed specifically, because we wanted to give
them flexibility if they happened to want to do additional later hours, you know, 7.00, 8:00
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. October21,2021 F28
Page 24 of 70
for some of those workforce housing people who may not get off at 5:00 p.m. Direct lot
access is proposed along the west boundary via a driveway connection to Elsinore, which
is the public road here, and loops around to the north and east. An additional driveway
connection is proposed to the north property boundary as shown. So, you have one
access here, another access here. Because this is to a public road that has to meet offset
requirements per ACHD, this is a shared drive aisle, so there are no such offset
requirements. The shared drive aisle along the north is existing and goes through the
entire commercial development. This creates cross-access and is already existing as
noted. So, the entire commercial subdivision provides multiple points of access to
Meridian Road and McMillan. As part of this application the applicant was required to
perform a turn lane analysis by ACHD for the Elsinore and McMillan intersection, which
would be right here. Sorry. I wanted to do this to obtain data on the existing traffic
movements at this intersection and what the proposed use would incur to this intersection.
ACHD reviewed this and staff agrees with its findings as well. The requirements are to
construct a dedicated westbound right-turn lane. I said that wrong. A dedicated
westbound left-turn lane from McMillan onto Elsinore and, then, eastbound -- I completely
messed that up -- and eastbound right-turn lane from McMillan onto Elsinore. Staff is not
sure if the right-turn lane will affect any dimensional aspect of the site, but anticipates that
it will not. My only concern there is where the existing right of way is and, then, the
existing landscape buffers. It's my understanding that the landscape buffer was already
measured from the ultimate right of way and anticipated a right-hand turn lane, but per
the submitted plans that has not been shown. That is the Joe's 90 percent probable on
that one. The specific use standards require that onsite vehicle pick up or parking and
turnaround area shall be provided to ensure safe discharge and pick up of clients -- or
children in this case. Access to the building, again, is shown with a two way 25 foot wide
driveway along the west side of the building, with parking on both sides that equals 36
total spaces. Code requires a minimum of 27 per the one per 500 ratio. There is not a
specific additional ratio for daycares. The proposed building size is 13,500, which is how
you get 27 spaces. The site plan does not show any dedicated pick up or drop-off location
like a turnout or something like that, which is fairly common in other daycares, but not
always a requirement. Staff has concerns that the proposed parking and drive aisle as
noted could be overrun in the morning and afternoon peak hours with the current site
design. Staff does recommend a reduction in the building size in order to scoot everything
south -- everything by play area south and create additional parking as noted here.
Basically, emulate this and put it here and you have at least approximately ten additional
parking spaces that can be added in total 46 for the site would help with the concerns
regarding any backing up of parents dropping and picking up their children. Staff -- with
these changes staff does not anticipate reduction in the play area, but just the building.
do want to make that clear. I don't want to lose the outdoor play area for the children at
this location. That was really the only issue that staff found, to be honest, and that's --
other than that I will say that the --there is no written testimony and staff does recommend
approval of the subject CUP, but with the conditions that are outline in the report, one of
which being add this additional parking. I will stand for any questions.
Seal: At this time would the applicant like to come forward? Is the applicant online?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. October21,2021 F29
Page 25 of 70
Kozlowski: I am here. Good evening. My name is Samantha Kozlowski. I'm here on
behalf of 814 Development. We are a development company located at 1695 12 Mile
Road, Suite 100, in Berkley, Michigan. 48072. Thank you, Joe, for taking the time to go
through that presentation. I think that you have painted a really good picture of the
development and what we are trying to accomplish here and all of the benefits that we
will bring to the City of Meridian. I know in the staff report there were a couple of items
that, unfortunately, we will not be able to abide by. The major one being the reduction in
the building size that you had requested. We are working with a specific childcare tenant.
This building, the 13,535 square feet, is their prototypical building that they use and they
need it to operate functionally with the number of students, being the 165 students
maximum, with the ten to 12 staff members. So, operationally, that is the building size
that they have used in the past and that would be the prototype that they would be most
comfortable moving forward with. A couple of other concerns. I know that you had
recommended adding some additional parking. We see currently that we are meeting the
parking requirements and, actually, exceeding the parking requirements with the 36
spaces, where the 27 are actually required by the zoning ordinance. We are -- we think
that with the two drive aisles that there shouldn't be an issue with parking or any increase
to traffic from this development. That just -- the reason why we think that goes along with
the actual operation of the daycare facility--so, parents or guardians actually are required
to park and, then, drop off -- or, I'm sorry, to park and walk in the student to the school
and actually sign them in at a front desk. So, we don't have your typical pick up, drop off
area where the students can be waiting outside. The garden -- the guardian is actually
going to have to escort them into the building and, then, when they want to pick them up
at the end of the day they will have to go inside the building to retrieve the student as well.
So, we kind of see that as mitigating some of the traffic concerns and just to go along that
note, we are working with ACHD right now on a proposed plan for the turn lanes onto
North Elsinore Road. So, we also think that if that development plan were to move
forward and we are working on developing the plans right now, that that would help
mitigate any traffic concerns as well and those really are the major things that I just kind
of wanted to explain and give you a little bit more color into why they may not work for the
tenant and just kind of wanted to give you their overall needs and wants for this project
and just kind of explain that operationally a smaller building will not work for them. So,
we would like to move forward with the 13,535 square foot building and maintain the
existing parking layout that's shown on our concept plan, since it already meets the
parking requirements in the zoning ordinance. We do feel that this is a need that is
desired by the City of Meridian. We think that it would add a lot of benefit to the
community, not only providing a place for parents and guardians to have their children in
daycare, but also to provide a number of jobs to the local community as well. So, we
know that Joe has expressed that this is an inherent need within the City of Meridian and
we ask that the City of Meridian support our project going with our existing concept plan.
Seal: Is that everything?
Kozlowski: That is all I have at this time. If you have any other questions I'm more than
happy to address them at this point.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. October21,2021 F30
Page 26 of 70
Seal: Okay. Thank you very much. From our Commissioners are there any questions
of staff or the applicant?
Grove: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Mr. Grove, go ahead.
Grove: Joe, real quick. You said there was another childcare facility fairly close. Is your
parking concern based on concerns that we have had with that facility and do we have
any numbers on what the parking is at that facility? I mean I know it might not match
square footage wise, but it might give us some -- something to go off of. I have my own
personal experience with it, so I have some thoughts on that later, but just wanted to know
if there was any information that I'm not seeing.
Dodson: Commissioner Grove, great question. I do not know the specific counts for
those. They have a different site design where they kind of put the building in the corner
and, then, they have a one way drive aisle and angled parking and, then, a specific drop
off location as well, so that -- that creates in and out very smoothly. This has a two way
traffic, which with the multiple avenues in and out with the -- with the shared drive aisle,
I did note that in my staff report. Some of those concerns are mitigated because of that.
If we didn't have a shared drive aisle through the subdivision, the commercial subdivision,
this would be a complete disaster. So, thankfully that's there. You and Mr. --
Commissioner Seal are on the same page there with having had other issues with this
with daycares. It is my understanding that specifically we have not. We have had a lot
more issues with drive-throughs, specifically coffee shops that shall remain unnamed, but
not so much with daycares. The issue largely comes up when Fire and Police get involved
and there are -- there are general life and safety concerns about just kids running across
parking lots, the parking area is now becoming the drop off area, other than just a park
and walk kind of thing. There is just kind of those concerns that we have. So, anytime
we can add some additional parking to help mitigate some of those concerns staff is going
to ask for that. I will say regarding the overall size of the building, it is unfortunate to hear
that reducing the size might kill the overall project just -- just because the Commission
has approved more children in a building less than half the size of this. So, that's not
really saying business wise that makes sense, but it is possible to have this is -- this is
literally twice as big as another CUP that we did for a daycare that had 20 additional
children. So, there -- there is precedent here that a 13,500 square foot building is rather
large for a daycare, especially for this number of children. That is also why we capped it
at 165, with the understanding that if we don't there could be a potential to have vastly
more children, which would be more cars and more traffic and further exacerbate the
issue. Long winded. I apologize.
Seal: Joe, quick question. Is there parking allowed on Elsinore or on the street to the
north?
Dodson: Commissioner Seal, I believe Elsinore is a local -- it is a local road. So,
technically, yes, you could park -- as long as it's wide enough, which it's a public road, so
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. October 21,2021 F31
Page 27 of 70
it's going to be wide enough to have parallel parking on both sides where there aren't any
driveways. The shared drive aisle, no. That's just a drive aisle. Except for, as I have
noted, where you put parking like this. But this is wide enough to have on-street parking.
Seal: Okay. Thank you.
Dodson: You are welcome.
Seal: Any other questions at this time? All right. At this time we will take public testimony.
Madam Clerk, is there anyone signed up?
Weatherly: Mr. Chair, there is not.
Seal: All right. Anyone raising their hand online? Anybody in Chamber would like to
testify? Just raise your hand. Okay. Seeing none --
Grove: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Oh. Commissioner Grove, go ahead.
Grove: Just say I move to close public testimony on File No. H --
Seal: We are close. You are ahead a little bit. Would the applicant like to come back?
Is there -- is there anything that the applicant would like to add at this time before we do
close the public hearing?
Kozlowski: This is Samantha with 814 Development. Again the applicant. Thank you
again for your concerns and all the comments. I do understand the concern with the
building size. However, as stated, this is the tenant's proposed and prototypical building
type that they are used to using. So, I think that they favor a smaller number of children
in classrooms, so that each child can get enough attention and time from the team
members that are working within the facility. So, I think that that is really important to the
tenant and, then, just, again, wanted to stress that there is no drop off and pick up area,
so all the parents and guardians are actually going to be parked. So, there shouldn't
really be an influx of a bunch of cars all at one time. There aren't any specified pick up
and drop off times either, so parents and guardians are kind of coming throughout the
morning. There are peak hours, but they aren't all flooding in at the exact same time. So,
just wanted to stress that and, obviously, we are working with ACHD to try to mitigate any
further traffic concerns and, again, we hope that you are in support of the project as the
current site plan stands and thank you again for your time this evening.
Seal: Okay. Thank you. At this time can I get a motion to close public hearing?
Wheeler: So moved.
Grove: So moved.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. October21,2021 F32
Page 28 of 70
Seal: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on Item No. H-2021-
0061 for Elsinore Daycare Facility. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? All right.
Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT.
Seal: Okay. Who wants to jump in first?
Grove: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Commissioner Grove.
Grove: All right. Back to the parking piece. Having to go to a childcare facility multiple
times a week and do pick up, drop off, I'm very familiar with the in and out setup versus a
drop off setup. I had an experience with that at another facility. But the in and out I think
you are looking at -- let's say 12 staff. You have 36 parking spots. That means you have
24 spots for parents. Without specified pick up and drop off times at a childcare facility
like this I don't see this being an issue. I have never seen 24 people come in to pick up
and drop off. The only time this is going to be an issue is when the facility decides to
have an event to have all of the parents come in at once for holiday singing or Father's
Day, Mother's Day, those types of things. That is when that is going to be an issue and I
think that having a good relationship with the surrounding businesses is going to be a key
element for those times and that the applicant needs to take that into consideration. But
for day-to-day operations I don't see the 36 parking spots being an issue. With that I
would be in favor of not requiring additional parking and I think, you know, anything we
can do to get more childcare facilities in I think we got to really push that. It's -- it's pretty
tough out there.
Seal: Joe, just real quick, what -- what is the specific requirement number that's in the
staff report for the parking?
Dodson: Commissioner Seal, do you mean the minimum code requirement?
Seal: No. Just the -- what number is it in the staff report?
Dodson: Oh. Condition you are talking about.
Seal: Condition. Sorry.
Dodson: I do not have that up. In a motion, if you guys want to remove my
recommendations, I think there is multiple, so that I think a general motion of saying
approve without staff's recommended conditions of site modification I can go through and
handle that. That's specific enough for me.
Seal: Just in case. I want you to be ready. Mr. Wheeler? Mr. Yearsley? Either one.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. October21,2021 F33
Page 29 of 70
Yearsley: You know, I will defer to Commissioner Grove on daycare. I have not had to
take my kids to daycare, fortunately enough. But I like it. I think it's a good -- you know,
it's a good facility. Looks -- in a good location and I would stand in support of it and also
not requiring the additional parking.
Seal: Okay. I have got a little bit of mixed feelings on this. I do think the parking is
adequate and when I say adequate I think it's just adequate at this point in time, so it does
exceed the minimum parking requirements for a facility like -- or, sorry, I should say a
building like this. That said, it's -- with the drop off and pick up, I have had experience
where it can get crowded, it can be a problem, depending on how traffic does actually
flow through there. So, I think the way that it's laid out and the way that traffic can flow
through that it mitigates some of those issues. The fact that there can be on-street parking
to handle the events, like Commissioner Grove talked about, because that was one of the
things in my mind is you have the Christmas program and all the parents show up and,
you know, grandparents and aunts and uncles and everything, then, it gets really crowded
really fast and those -- those become an issue, so -- but I like the idea of this. I think it's
a -- it's a good area to put it. I think, you know, they -- it looks like they have kind of a
cookie cutter approach to it, so they know what they are doing as far as laying it out. That
seems to work for their business. I could essentially go either way, basically, on the
parking recommendation at this point. So, I think it's -- but I do think it's a good -- good
proposal. Would be good for the area.
Dodson: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Joe, go ahead.
Dodson: Specifically the conditions that would be noted -- I do remember now that the
applicant also wanted to strike an additional condition that she did not bring up, so I will
do it for her. Regarding adding a pedestrian connection to McMillan. Their justification
was they are proposing one here, which is fine. It was just me being picky. I'm okay with
saying no or -- and striking that. So, it would be condition 6-A for the parking and 6-C for
the sidewalk, if Commission is amenable to that.
Seal: Understood. And thank you for being picky. 1, for one, appreciate that. With that
if anybody has anymore to add or always looking for a motion.
Grove: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Commissioner Grove.
Grove: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file
number H-2021-0061 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 21 st,
2021, with the following modifications: That we strike conditions 6-A and 6-C.
Wheeler: Second.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. October21,2021 F34
Page 30 of 70
Seal: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item No. H-2021-0061 for Elsinore
Daycare Facility with the aforementioned modifications. All those in favor say aye. Any
opposed? Okay. Motion carries. Thank you very much.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT.
7. Public Hearing for Red Aspen (H-2021-0066) by KM Engineering, LLP,
Located at the southeast corner of S. Linder Rd. and W. Overland Rd.
A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 2.99 acres of land with a request
for the C-G zoning district for the purpose of constructing an
approximate 30,000-square-foot flex space building on 2.19 acres of
land.
Seal: All right. We are coming up on 8:00 o'clock. Would anybody like a quick bio break
before we press on? Okay. It looks like we are pressing. So, at this time we would like
to open the public hearing for Red Aspen, H-2021-0066 and we will begin with the staff
report.
Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is my last one for the night and, then, I won't bug
you for two weeks. So, we will hammer through this. The application before you tonight
is for annexation and zoning of 2.99 acres of land. It's currently zoned RUT and it's
located at the southeast corner of Linder and Overland. To the north Overland Road.
How about that? North of that you have I-L zoning with Camping World RV service,
storage, and I don't know what else is there. Sales I believe as well. To the east is R-8
zoning and the -- Meridian's newest fire station. To the south is R-15 zoning and existing
multi-family residential and to the west is Linder Road and, then, west of that would be
C-C zoning and some -- I believe there is one existing building and the other -- some of
the other properties are currently under development. There is no history of applications
with the city. The property does have two future land use designations. You can't really
see it on this map, because of the lines, but there is a sliver of medium density along the
south boundary and the rest is commercial. The annexation and zoning request of the
nearly three acres is a request for the C-G zoning district for the purpose of constructing
an approximate 30,000 square foot flex space building on 2.19 acres. So, as you can tell
there is about -- I can't do math -- eight-tenths of an acre of land that's purely in -- the
zoning this goes to the centerline of the roads. Despite two future land use designations,
the city does anticipate commercial uses on this corner property, especially because it is
adjacent to two heavily trafficked arterial roadways and near the future planned, hopefully
coming soon, Linder Road overpass directly to the north. The proposed use of flex space
is subject to specific use standards 11-43-18 and is proposed to serve as the core office
and warehouse of a local business Red Aspen. It is a social selling, which is online,
beauty company that aims to utilize this site as their brand new main hub for their growing
business. Flex space is a principally permitted use in the requested C-G zoning district.
Access to the site is proposed to be one connection to Linder and one connection to
Overland, with both accesses being restricted to right-in, right-out per ACHD. The access
to Overland is existing, whereas the access to Linder Road is an existing 25 foot wide
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. October 21,2021 F35]
Page 31 of 70
access that is projected to be widened to 40 feet and be shared with the residential
property. In my staff report I noted that no agreement had been provided. Since my staff
report I have been given that agreement and it has -- it is in place. Both proposed access
points are as far away from the Linder and Overland Road intersection as physically
possible. So, again, they -- they really can't move them over anymore to the east or to
the south. The applicants propose to place the building near the hard corner and pull it
away from the existing multi-family residential to the south. It's approximately 119 feet
from the loading docks -- or I should say really the building wall to the south property line.
This area that's 119 feet does include the required 25 foot land use buffer here. No buffer
is required adjacent to the fire station, because it is not a residential use. As proposed
the required five feet of landscaping per the parking lot standards -- parking lot
landscaping standards. The applicant is also showing the required landscape buffers to
the adjacent arterial streets Linder and Overland. The buffer adjacent to Overland is
shown wider than the required 25 feet. Due to required right of way dedication and the
larger landscape buffer, the proposed building is shown approximately 42 feet behind the
existing sidewalk -- attached sidewalk along Overland. The -- it has the building being
further south than staff did originally anticipate. In order to help the site gain back some
of this usable area and create more space between the building, the proposed use and
the existing residential to the south, staff is recommending the applicant reduce the
landscape buffer to Overland by going through the alternative compliance process with
future applications, which for the record, tonight just annexation and zoning, because the
use is principally permitted. In this -- in the requested zone of C-G their next step would
be administrative approvals, which would be certificate of zoning compliance and design
review. Staff finds that the revision to the site of moving it further north had two positive
outcomes. The building can be moved further north towards Overland to create a better
presence and streetscape along this corridor and, secondly, moving the building further
north creates further separation from the existing residential to the south, while at the
same time allowing more area for truck turnaround in the south area of the site. The
applicant has stated that the hour -- the planned hours of operation are Monday through
Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., with occasional Saturday hours during peak holiday
season, which would be about this time of year, October through December. Most
importantly, the applicant has stated that any freight deliveries will only occur during
normal business hours. Due to the proposed hours of operation staff does believe the
proposed development agreement provisions, the screening method -- and the screening
methods will be sufficient in mitigating any negative consequences of the proposed use.
Staff did not include any specific provisions to limit the hours operation, because, again,
it is adjacent to the residential district, so they are limited by code from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00
p.m. If Commission finds it needed to limit it further you have that purview. Designed
floor plans do show compliance with all specific use standards for the proposed flex space
as discussed with Centerville. That includes the percentage allowed to be warehouse
and the percentage allowed to be office, retail -- well, office and, then, retail -- there is
comments in there. The loading docks and -- oh, sorry. The applicant is proposing two
loading docks and one roll-up door for the building. All three of those do face to the east
and are located at the south end of the site. Code requires that they cannot face a
residential use, so they are complying with that code section. In addition, I would like to
note -- I did not put this in my outline, but the -- any kind of heavy truck traffic is not
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. October21,2021 F36
Page 32 of 70
anticipated. It is my understanding that they currently don't do business like that, but they
are showing this for potential future growth. Most of their deliveries -- from what I heard
90 percent of them occur with the UPS, USPS kind of trucks. Smaller trucks that are not
going to be nearly as loud as a 53 foot truck and trailer. Regardless, they are proposing
loading docks for some future expansion or larger shipments that they may or may not
have. Staff does recommend approval of the requested annexation and zoning due to
the proposed use and site design. In addition, staff does find it very important to keep
local businesses like Red Aspen within the city where they started. With that I will stand
for any questions.
Seal: Turn on my mic now. Thank you. At this point would the applicant like come
forward. State your name and address for the record and if anybody else wants to speak
on behalf of this, please, have them do the same. Thank you.
Moore: Amanda Moore. 389 East Pisa Drive, Meridian. 83642.
Reese: Genie Reese. 1308 East Holly Street, Boise, Idaho. 83712.
McKinney: And Jesse McKinney and our business address here in Meridian is 989 South
Industry Way, Unit 102, but we are very excited and hoping to be annexed in tonight.
Seal: Thank you. Go ahead.
McKinney: So, we are Red Aspen and we are a social selling beauty company based
here in Meridian, Idaho. We just celebrated our fourth anniversary last week. Genie,
Amanda and I founded Red Aspen. We -- we had just a little bit of money and we had a
really big dream. We started out and we had pretty much nothing. We had barely two
pennies to rub together and we are incredibly excited, because we are going to end the
year at over 30 million dollars in revenue, which is really exciting for us. We support
women. Our mission is to inspire women to stand up, stand out and stand together by
uniting passion with purpose and we do that through our independent sales model where
we utilize brand ambassadors, reps all over the country, of which we have about 10,000
nationwide to sell our beauty products, which Genie is going to talk just a little bit about
right now.
Reese: Yes. So, we focus on what we like to call beauty solutions and I'm going to
explain what that means to the lovely Planning and Zoning Committee here tonight. So,
what is a beauty solution? It is a beauty product that saves time, it saves money, it's a
salon replacement, so you don't have to go into the salon, you don't have to leave the
house or get a babysitter. It's consumable and it's incredibly easy to demo on social
media and online, where the majority of our sales reps, our brand ambassadors, do sell
these products. So, we launched with six false lashes and since then we have expanded
our product line to include pop-on nail dashes -- thank you, Amanda. At home tanning
and clean color cosmetics. Today we have over 150 active views on our website and we
custom formulation and development on every single one of these products, with some
of our manufacturers even located here locally in Meridian, Idaho. So, our products are
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. October21,2021 F37
Page 33 of 70
small, but we have maxed out our current Meridian office space and we are excited about
the potential to have space to grow.
Moore: So, Amanda, as our COO I am responsible for everything operations. I need to
make sure we have a house for everything and that products get shipped out. We ship
out roughly 3,000 orders a day from our Meridian warehouse here, but we are excited to
have the opportunity to have everybody come together. We currently have two different
addresses here in Meridian and we would love to combine into one. We were so happy
and grateful for the growth that we have had and the fact that we could even have the
possibility of staying in Meridian and not having to go outside is so exciting for us. We
have over 60 people on staff right now all from throughout the valley and for us to keep a
centralized location here in Meridian to support our team members that are in Boise, our
team members that are in Nampa, we have so many jobs that we have been able to
create to support even our local community here in Meridian, we are just so excited to be
able to stay here with you guys. So, we hope you love our plan and our beautiful building
and a little splash of pink out there.
Seal: All right. Thank you very much. Well, I was going to say at this point do you have
any questions for the applicant or for staff? None? Commissioner Yearsley, anything?
All right. So, at this time we will take public testimony and if anybody has signed up.
Weatherly: Mr. Chair, we have a few people signed up. I didn't catch everybody's name,
so I want to make sure that I -- Amanda Moore. That was you; right? Genie Reese.
Okay. And, then, Jesse McKinney. Okay. Perfect. Then Joshua Jantz.
Jantz: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Josh Jantz with KM Engineering.
Address 5725 North Discovery Way, Boise, Idaho. After the two pieces you have before
you there is pretty much nothing else I can say. But I'm here to help answer any questions
you have related to zoning or site plan specific. We also have Cornel, the architect, that
helped out with the project here to answer any questions related to the building itself.
Do you have any questions on it? Staff covered it pretty well, but --
Yearsley: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Commissioner Yearsley, go ahead.
Yearsley: I guess the one question that I have is are you in agreement with the staff
report?
Jantz: Yes. Yes, we are in agreement with the staff report.
Yearsley: Thank you.
Seal: Okay. Thank you very much, sir. Appreciate it.
Dodson: Mr. Chair?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. October21,2021 F38
Page 34 of 70
Seal: Joe, go ahead.
Dodson: Sorry? The -- before we close up their public hearing, the one thing I did notice
doing my outline, I missed a condition I should have added and I request that the
Commission add that and that is that the applicants obtain a property boundary
adjustment prior to building permit. That the applicants provide a -- or obtain approval for
a property boundary adjustment prior to building permit. That's because there is three
existing parcels and to do what they are asking they can't do that. So, I'm just wanting to
clear that out. Whether that means they combine them into -- three into one, I don't really
care. Or if they move the lines in order to accommodate that, that's fine, because it can
be underneath parking areas, but we can't have a building -- the property line underneath
or going through a building. And I apologize to the applicants for missing that. Hopefully
that's okay.
Seal: Okay. If there is no questions, does the applicant have anything left to say? Oh.
Sir, go ahead. Come on up. Need your name and address and the floor is all yours.
Larson: Good evening, Mr. Chairman. My name is Cornel Larson. I'm the architect on
this project. Larson Architects. Address 210 Murray Street, Garden City. Is that better?
I thought I would explain to you a little bit on the building. We have -- we have a little bit
of concern about shifting it up too far to the north, because our client really likes to have
and would like to see a decent amount of land. So, that it could be beneficial. They
planned on some logos that promote their company and things to be integrated into the
landscape. We do want to move a certain amount up there, because we would like to
have a little more turnaround room for the trucks on the south side. So, we will probably
make a shift and we will work through that with staff if that's okay. The other thing -- there
was a condition on page 16 under item eight that noted a 40 foot height limitation and,
then, prior to that there was a condition that noted a 50 foot height limitation. We would
-- in the C-C zone. We would like to stay with a 50 foot limitation. We are right at 38 right
now. If we needed a mechanical unit or something up there and we want to make sure
we can screen those, especially if they do extend the Linder overpass. So, if we could
stay with the height limit in the C-C zone and if staff would agree with that we would like
to do that. The other item we had that was a little bit of a concern was the uses are fairly
limited on page 16 and if the building were to need to -- or if the Red Aspen folks would
need to downsize in the future, if the economy changes -- or upsize, it would be really --
be really nice if we could add a clause or something that allowed us to add an additional
use to that site, maybe through a conditional use or some other application, as long as
that use was within the C-G zone or was permitted in that zone. And, again, I haven't
talked to staff about that at all at this point in time. So, I apologize to them for that. And,
then, we would also like to thank staff for helping us get to this point. We have been
about three and a half, four months. The first time I met Amanda Moore she had jingle
nails on, which if -- so, that was their Christmas promotion. It was nails and had little
Christmas balls on the end of them and so they were planning ahead for Christmas at
that point in time. So, they are looking ahead at staying in Meridian and enjoying
Meridian. I also need to thank our neighbor to the south, Steve Smith, who is very willing
to help us with a shared access to the site through his property and that helped solidify
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. October21,2021 F39
Page 35 of 70
the site, so that it worked for the Red Aspen folks and it would become usable for
maneuvering back out onto Linder and being able to hit a stoplight and go two directions
on Overland Road. Would be happy to answer any questions about the building or the
site that you might have.
Seal: Joe, I will -- I will just ask you the question, so -- for the C-C zoning is the height
restriction 40 feet or 50 feet?
Dodson: Mr. Chair, so the -- the requested C-G, which has a height limit of 65 feet.
Seal: Oh. Okay. Even better.
Dodson: I wanted to -- I wanted to limit that only because of the existing development in
the area, including the residential to the south. Having a 60 foot or even a 50 foot building
right there might be quite a lot considering even the other warehouses that are on the
north side are not that large either. They are probably 30 feet, give or take. I understand
the concern with any mechanical equipment. That wouldn't be part of the height limit. It
would be any kind of buildable area, building area, and not necessarily the screening
materials. The discrepancy of 50 and 40 feet is probably me not being smart enough to
go through my analysis again and change that and, then, I did change a condition to say
40 feet. I'm amenable to 50 feet, which does correlate to the C-C zoning. So, that's why
-- I know that's a lot here. That's why I messed it up. That -- that's -- I'm amenable to
that. I think that's acceptable, in case they need something and they maybe want to add
a second story of actual area and -- for additional office or something. I understand that.
The other points were the --
Seal: Additional -- additional use, if they needed an additional use they would just have
to file for a CUP and come back; correct?
Dodson: It depends on the use, I guess. I guess, Cornel, what would you guys need?
Larson: The thought was, you know, there is a list of approved uses in the C-G zone.
Dodson: Right.
Larson: But in the staff report you listed some very specific uses.
Dodson: Correct.
Larson: If we had a use that was in the C-G zone, not necessarily specific to your list, if
we could process a conditional use application or something to allow the city to look at it,
that might help us if in the future we need to change something on that site. Especially,
if we are going to limit the site with a DA. We were just looking for a little more flexibility.
Dodson: Okay.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. October 21,2021 F40
Page 36 of 70
Parsons: Joe, if I may chime in. So, Mr. Chair, if I can elaborate where our thinking was
on this particular restriction on the uses. This site's very challenged with access. I mean,
you know, a future overpass is going to happen. It's imminent. At some point it's going
to get built. We have planned for it. It's in our Comprehensive Plan. How that gets
funded we don't know yet, but we are working on it. So, what we wanted to make sure
we did -- what we set up this property to do is develop with the uses that, one, not only
integrate it with the surrounding residential to the south, but also made sure that they
could be successful there and, again, I applaud the applicant for wanting to be -- come
up with creative ideas, but I don't think we have to. This is simply an annexation. If you
guys feel that we don't need to restrict the types of uses that go on this property, you
could simply just strike -- strike that from the record. A CUP just -- is not going to get you
what you want, because they could either modify the DA, too, in the future. So, either
way it's a public hearing, either before you or before City Council. So, again, I don't know
what that gains us. If we want some assurances for us the assurances are the
requirements in the development agreement and that can be changed as well. So, again,
if you guys feel comfortable that Red Aspen will continue to grow and reach that 50 foot
height limit, we are happy with that and you can certainly strike any of those use
restrictions on the property and just allow the C-G zone to control.
Seal: Okay.
Starman: Mr. Chairman?
Seal: Yes, sir.
Starman: I echo what Mr. Parsons said in the last minutes or so on that is that -- that that
condition that we are talking about will become a portion or section of the development
agreement and so to give the applicant some comfort and the Commissioners, the
applicant can always ask later for a modification to the development agreement and
expand the uses at that point. So, there is a mechanism to accomplish that. So, that -- I
think that may provide some comfort to the applicants here is that there is an opportunity
to ask for additional uses respectively if the need occurs.
Seal: Understood. I mean -- I can't speak on behalf of the entire city, but I think supporting
a growing business is going to be something that we would want to do as a city in order
to keep that business here. So --
Larson: Thank you.
Seal: Thank you.
Larson: Questions?
Seal: No, sir.
Larson: Thank you.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. October21,2021 F41
Page 37 of 70
Seal: Thank you. Appreciate it. All right. If the applicant has nothing further to add, then,
I will take a motion to close the public hearing.
Wheeler: So moved.
Grove: Second.
Seal: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for H-2021-0066, Red
Aspen. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? All right. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT.
Seal: All right. Commissioners, jump right in and let me know what you think.
Grove: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Mr. Grove, go right ahead.
Grove: I will just be first tonight.
Seal: Yeah.
Grove: Love that it's a Meridian company. Want to do whatever we can to get this
forward. I like the project. It will be interesting to see how the overpass impacts this
general area, but with this I think that that will be a good piece on that section. So, I'm in
favor of this project.
Seal: Mr. Wheeler, go ahead.
Wheeler: Yes. Same here. I'm very much in favor of the project, especially since it's
here in Meridian, wanting to stay in Meridian, want to help out with that. I felt like at your
initial pitch I felt like I was on Shark Tank more than I was at, you know, the P&Z
Commission here at Meridian. But I enjoyed the bravado and I enjoyed the enthusiasm.
Just hopefully you can carry on and as you guys continue to grow and -- and expand. So
thank you.
Seal: Commissioner Yearsley, you want to jump in?
Yearsley: I have nothing to add. I think it's a great project and I am glad that they are
excited to stay in Meridian and we are glad to have them.
Seal: All right. I'm on the same line as that. It's nice to see a company grow and I have
seen Ms. Moore in a previous life when we were both doing different things, so it's nice
to see the success that's coming out of the company, both personally for people and for
the company itself and the growth of Meridian. So, it's very nice to see that the need is
there. With that, if anybody would like to take a crack at a motion, I am all ears.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. October 21,2021 F42
Page 38 of 70
Grove: Okay. Before I make a motion, Mr. Chair --
Seal: Go ahead.
Grove: Could I get some clarification on what we want to do with the -- that DA
modification piece that you were talking about, Kurt?
Starman: It's the Commissioners' prerogative. If you want to eliminate that condition all
together and rely upon the underlying --or the zoning district itself, that's --that's an option
to you. I think my recommendation would be that -- there is some thought that went
behind that condition, that my recommendation would be to include the condition, but with
the understanding that things change, the applicant can come later to the City Council for
a modification to the development agreement. I think the Council -- can't guarantee that,
but I think it would be receptive to if the business is doing well and might need a
modification, so -- but if you have any hesitancy about that I think you could eliminate the
condition altogether and rely upon the zoning district to set the uses.
Grove: I got it.
Seal: You got it? Okay.
Wheeler: I did have a question of clarification if you are okay with that, Commissioner
Grove. Joe, can you -- what were the limitations that were on that, if you can speak to
those uses?
Dodson: Commissioner Wheeler, great question. Off the top of my head -- again I don't
have my staff report in front of me. It was flex space, obviously. It was -- Bill is going to
save my butt again. Thank you, sir.
Seal: Flex space we learned at the last one was just --just a warehouse; right?
Dodson: Right.
Seal: Sorry. I couldn't resist. I just --
Dodson: I listed the -- allowed uses show flex space, a financial institution, healthcare,
social services, information industry, personal and professional services, retail, including
beer and wine sales. Restaurant. Research and development and vertically integrated
residential. And I just noted that the applicant shall adhere to any applicable specific use
standards for a future use for a proposed use. So, I thought that that was pretty
exhaustive in the sense of what could potentially go here. The main point is a gas station
would be a disaster. Restaurant probably wouldn't work financially anyways, because of
the restricted access. Granted vertically integrated does allow that, but that's a whole
separate discussion. And general warehouse, where it will be a hundred percent
warehouse kind of thing, I believe that's already a conditional use within C-G anyways.
So, we just wanted to eliminate that possibility, because we wouldn't just want a --just a
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. October21,2021 F43
Page 39 of 70
warehouse here, you know, we would love the idea of -- of what they propose already
with the flex space, with the office component for the business to continue growing there.
Wheeler: So, it would allow them to expand into more office space if need be, if they
grow and hire and things of that nature.
Dodson: Absolutely. Absolutely.
Wheeler: That's my biggest concern on this one when they talked about some limitations,
as Commissioner Grove.
Seal: And what was the condition for the 50 -- or the 40 foot height limitation? Do you
know which one that was right off the top of your head?
Dodson: 8-A-B. Or 1-B. Sorry. 8-A-1 B.
Seal: Okay. Just in case Mr. Grove wants to add that.
Grove: I wasn't planning on getting that specific, but -- after considering all staff,
applicant, and public testimony I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file
number H-2021-0066 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 21 ,
2021, with the following modifications: That the applicant obtain property boundary
adjustments prior to City Council and that the applicant works with staff to adjust the
building location north to an agreed amount and that they address the height limit as
presented in 8-A-1 B.
Wheeler: Second.
Seal: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve Item No. H-2021-0066, Red
Aspen, with aforementioned modifications. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? All
right. Motion carries. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT.
8. Public Hearing for Meridian South Fire Station & Police Substation (H-
2021-0062) by City of Meridian, Located at 2385 E. Lake Hazel Rd.
A. Request: Conditional Use Permit to develop the property with two (2)
public/quasi-public uses to include an 11,650 square-foot fire station
and an 11,550 square-foot police station on 4 acres of land in the R-
8 zoning district.
Seal: All right. With that we will go ahead and move on to the public hearing for Item No.
H-2021-0062, for the Meridian South Fire Station and Police Substation. That was a
mouthful.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. October21,2021 F44
Page 40 of 70
Tiefenbach: Alan Tiefenbach, associate planner with the City of Meridian. I was kind of
hoping my project would be a warm fuzzy, too, but I'm not sure. Certainly one everybody
will like. This is a conditional use permit to develop a roughly 11 ,000 square foot fire
station, 11 ,000 square foot police substation, with some change on approximately four
acres of land. Let's see. The site consists of four acres. It is now zoned R-8 in the city,
located at 2385 East Lake Hazel. You probably will remember in April this property was
annexed and zoned for the purpose of having a police station and the substation. There
is an interagency cooperative agreement. So, we are going to look at -- on the left is what
the site plan was that you saw when it was annexed. On the right is the site plan that is
being presented now. So, it's very similar to what was approved. One of the requirements
-- one of the conditions of approval is regarding having to build a collector road along the
east. There is a cooperative development agreement with Brighton Corporation for that
area. Brighton owns a piece of property to the east that went into effect when all this was
annexed. Brighton would have to build that collector road. Fire -- or city knows that.
They would have to build that collector road along the eastern property line down to a cul-
de-sac at the southern property line. There would also -- they know they also have to
build the pathways, which would be a ten foot wide pathway along the north and the ten
foot pathway along the east. They are over their parking they are required. They have
provided 32 parking spaces over what's required and three parking spaces for the fire
engines. One I guess correction is -- I noted previously that there was a condition to
make sure all existing residential structures be removed. Stacy with the city was kind
enough to let me know they were already removed, so that condition -- you could keep it,
but it is not necessary. Really, the only issue -- and I'm not even sure if I would call this
an issue -- is that there has been some changes in the elevations from what they were to
what they are now. If you look at this, this is what was presented with the annexation and
you can see they had some -- the -- the building materials showed CMU and it had some
texturing to it and there was that -- the sloped roof with the exposed timber frame and
some different accents. Not sure if it's a cost issue or not, but we have gotten to a much
-- more of a basic design. I'm just raising this to let you know that they are going to still
have to work with us -- we are going to have to work with us, basically, to make sure that
we meet all of the requirements of the architectural standards manual or there will have
to be a design exception. Again, I don't really want to get into the weeds to this, I'm just
for the record noting that this may not meet all the architectural standards requirements.
With that if you have any questions I would be certainly happy to entertain them.
Seal: All right. Thank you, sir. At this point would the applicant like to come forward? Is
our applicant online? I didn't see anybody walking up.
Schubert: Sorry. I was muted. I'm online. Can you hear me now?
Seal: I think I hear barely --
Schubert: Can you hear-- boy. Can you hear me now? Sorry. I'm trying to talk as loudly
as I can. Am I being heard? Is that better?
Seal: That's -- that's a little better. If you can turn things up on your end that might help.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. October 21,2021 F45]
Page 41 of 70
Schubert: That's about as high as I can go right there. Hopefully that will work. So, I'm
Mike Schubert. I'm with Rice-Fergus-Miller Architects. Our address is 275 5th Street,
Suite 100, Bremerton, Washington. 98337. So, we just saw this as a -- the police and
fire station that is proposed for -- next to Discovery Park to help expand the emergency
services to this part of the city, as it is growing rapidly in this area. At the current time we
have been -- the city has decided to no longer pursue the police station at this time. It
will be -- the site -- they do plan on building a police station in this area, but at this time
they don't have the funds to go forward. But the fire station, as originally put in our
proposal, will continue. So, one thing I want to bring up is that we are slightly shifting our
generator location to a central location within the site that is closer to the fire station, but
will still allow for the same development to occur for the police station parking area. But,
essentially, the fence line that divided the two apart is, essentially, where the property will
not be developed at this time and the interim -- during this time the area will be filled with
sod and it will actually be grassed and maintained by parks at this time. So, we have
seen the staff report and are in total agreement with it. The -- the comments about the
elevations -- we do apologize for the noncolored elevations. The --the texturing that was
going on is still occurring in the building. The -- the knee braces of the roof have been
removed, but looking at the flat elevations do not look like the -- the three dimensional
views that we see before, so -- but the coloration is very similar to this. It's actually --they
have gone to -- the fire department decided what they want is more of a beige and brown
combination of block, as opposed to the gray colors. So, the colors are a little bit different.
But the -- we will still have wood soffits that are underneath the eaves of the roof and the
mechanical screening areas and at the -- the lower -- it's kind of shown at the lower right
side is there is an additional screen that will be in a metal panel that -- those are in a --
what's called a brownish gray color. But we will be working with -- with the CDC to make
sure that we -- we get all of that approved appropriately.
Seal: Okay. Thank you very much. Is there more you wanted to add?
Schubert: I guess that's kind of it, unless you guys got questions about it.
Seal: All right. Any -- any questions here for the applicant or staff? Commissioner
Yearsley?
Yearsley: I have none.
Seal: All right. Okay. With that -- is there anybody signed up to give public testimony?
Weatherly: Mr. Chair, there is not.
Seal: Excellent. Thank you. Anybody here would like to come and testify on behalf?
Please raise your hand or approach to microphone. None? Okay. If the applicant has
anything -- do you have anything more to add?
Schubert: No, I don't.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. October21,2021 F46
Page 42 of 70
Seal: Okay. If there is no questions, I will take a motion to close the public hearing.
Wheeler: So moved.
Grove: Second.
Seal: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for H-2021-0062,
Meridian South Fire Station and Police Substation. All in favor say aye. Any opposed?
Okay. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT.
Seal: Okay. If you guys have anything more to add or I will take a motion at this point.
Wheeler: Take a motion. Yeah. You got the last one; right? Commissioner Grove. All
right. I will take this one. Unless Commissioner Yearsley has anything to add.
Yearsley: Who doesn't love a fire station. So, I'm on board.
Wheeler: Alrighty, then. Here we go. After considering all staff, applicant, and public
testimony, I move to approve File No. H-2021-0062, as presented in the staff report for
the hearing date of October 21 st, 2021, without any modifications.
Seal: It's been moved and seconded -- oh, do I have a second.
Grove: Second.
Seal: Sorry. I got ahead of myself. It's been moved and seconded to approve Item H-
2021-0062 with no modifications. All in favor say aye. No opposed. The motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT.
Seal: All right. Thank you, everyone, on that. Okay. Does anybody want a bio break
before we go on to the next one? Yes. All right. We will take a five minute break and we
will be right back.
(Recess: 8:36 p.m. to 8:43 p.m.)
9. Public Hearing for Village Apartments (MCU-2021-0008) by KM
Engineering, LLP, Located at 2600 N. Eagle Rd.
A. Request: Modification to the Previously Approved Conditional Use
Permit (CUP-15-019) to update the conceptual development plan
and elevations and eliminate the requirement for pedestrian and
vehicular connectivity/crossaccess to be provided to the residential
development to the north
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. October21,2021 F47
Page 43 of 70
Seal: All right. It sounds like we are ready. So, at this time we would like to open the
public hearing for Village Apartments, MCU-2021-0008, and we will begin with the staff
report.
Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. I'm starting to get a
complex. The room seems to clear out every time I have to present a project. I don't
know if I should take that personally or not. But next application before you this evening
is the Village Apartments. This is a conditional use modification. History on this property.
It was before you in 2015 for a CUP for a multi-family development, consisting of 336
multi-family units contained within 11 structures and that was really probably -- this
particular property that you see in front of you here. You can see the Comprehensive
Plan has it as a mixed use regional. I would mention to the Commission that there is a
commercial component that goes along with the multi-family, but it's not part of tonight's
application. But it is tied to the overall project in a recorded development agreement that
was approved in that same year. So, the site plan before you here is what was previously
approved. As I mentioned, you can see how the -- the buildings were oriented on the
site. Again, the applicant is here to discuss reorienting the site, changing the landscaping
and open space and, then, also modifying conditions of approval that required cross-
access -- pedestrian access and connect--access to the property to the north here, which
was the Veraso North project and because the way that site's designed out and there is
an existing irrigation easement there, staff is amenable to removing that condition and not
requiring any access with that northern piece. They do have access via Records Avenue
through their own private street and, then, of course, with the commercial farther to the
west, there is going to be cross-connection with that and, then, also with the multi-family
development to the south they are tying into their parking lot as well. So, there is some
additional accesses is being provided with the new site plan that I will show -- share with
you shortly. So, here are the --again, the--the approved site plan and elevations. Typical
garden style of what we see in Meridian. Again, mixed use regional designates 60 to --
six to 40 dwellings to the acre. So, the C-G zone requires a conditional use. So, they are
just here, again, tonight to modify those items. So, here is the new plan that they are
proposing. Now, you can see here they -- they maintain their existing access to Records
Avenue and, then, you can see where they have oriented the buildings -- reduced the
buildings, but increased the footprint. So, the unit count remains the same, but what's
unique about the plan is they have more centralized open space. So, they have
consolidated that. Provided more parking than what code requires. I would also mention
to the Commission that this site is in close proximity to Kleiner. So, typically when we first
analyzed this project back in 2015 we made the finding that it didn't necessarily need as
much open space, because it had a regional park about 500 feet to its south. But the
applicant, again, in this application, by reorienting the site and having larger buildings and
a bigger footprint, has -- was able to get actually more open space than was previously
approved. Again, staff is recommending approval of this site, because, one, it's oriented
better and, two, it makes -- it's a higher quality development than the previous plan. I did
receive written testimony from Derek, the applicant. He had some concerns about a
condition of approval. If you can see my cursor here, around the -- the pool house are
some covered structures and he was -- the way it's structured and the staff report Sonya
had conditioned him to provide details for a gazebo. This isn't necessarily a gazebo, it's
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. October21,2021 F48
Page 44 of 70
just more of a covered shade structure. So, he's asked that we strike the word gazebo
from condition 2-C. Staff is amenable to that as well. They will have to, obviously, go
through certificate of zoning compliance and design review to work out those amenities
as he goes through that staff level approval. In your hearing outline -- I'm not going to go
through all of the amenities that the applicant is proposing, because it's in excess of UDC,
but the code does allow you to determine whether or not they have adequate amenities
for a development of this size. Again, as I mentioned to you, we have Kleiner Park directly
to the south and, again, they are -- they are proposing a pretty great amenity package
here, as you can see on the exhibit. So, with that one change that I just mentioned, staff
is recommending approval and I will stand for any questions you may have.
Seal: All right. Thanks, Bill. Would the applicant might come forward. All right. Please
state your name and address for the record and it's all yours.
Gasser: Good evening -- sorry. I will lean forward. Is that better?
Seal: That's -- that's perfect. Yes.
Gasser: Derek Gasser. 74 East 500 South, Suite 200, Bountiful, Utah. 84010. Good
evening, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. Thank you, Bill, for your presentation. We
are here to request modification of the previously approved conditional use permit for the
Village Apartments. As Bill mentioned in a little more detail on it, rather than doing 11
Garden style walk-up four story buildings, we would like to propose building six buildings,
four story, with elevators. Those units would also have controlled access, which we feel
is-- is a benefit. We feel this is a much nicer product. Like Bill mentioned with the location
next to Kleiner, with what CenterCal has done with The Village, we feel like this type of
product is -- it fits the land, the area or the location, better than your traditional garden
style walk-up product. We -- Sonya put in -- or staff put in a condition for a play structure,
a children's play structure, and we are -- we are agreeable to that. I think with that if -- if
there is any questions we can answer.
Seal: Anybody have any questions for the applicant or staff?
Wheeler: I do.
Seal: Commissioner Wheeler, go ahead.
Wheeler: How many -- staff, how many -- or I guess the applicant can also answer this
one, too. But has there been any increase or decrease with the number of units overall,
even though that the buildings have changed? It's all the same?
Parsons: Yeah. Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, unit count is exactly the same.
336-336. So, no change to that.
Wheeler: Okay.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. October 21,2021 F49
Page 45 of 70
Seal: Any other questions? Mr. Yearsley, do you have anything?
Yearsley: Not at this time.
Seal: Okay. Thank you. With that, if you want to take a seat or just see if we have
anybody signed up for public testimony.
Yearsley: Sorry, Mr. Chair. We do not.
Seal: Okay. Anybody in the audience want to testify? You can raise your hand. All right.
Seeing none, do you have anything else to add now would be the time.
Gasser: Mr. Chair, Commissioner, thank you for your time. We -- we do feel this is a
superior product and we are excited to build it. Thank you.
Seal: Excellent. Thank you. We will take a motion to close the public hearing.
Wheeler: So moved.
Grove: Second.
Seal: It's been moved -- moved and seconded to close the public hearing for Village
Apartments, MCU-2021-0008. And one point here is when you make your motion it is to
approve or disapprove tonight, so -- or approve or deny. We are the deciding body, not
the recommending body.
Wheeler: Mr. Chairman?
Seal: Go ahead.
Wheeler: For the commercial aspect; is that correct, staff? That -- aside from the
commercial aspect? There is -- there is a commercial component that's not going to that we are not approving tonight; is that correct? As far as my understanding.
Parsons: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, that is -- that is correct. That -- my --
my point with the discussion tonight is this is a phased project and this is one part of that
phase. So, the commercial -- the applicant's working with ITD and adjacent landowners
for some cross-access and -- and doing their due diligence on that part. So, really, they
want to get ahead and move forward on the residential portion of their property at this
moment.
Seal: Mr. Grove? You were reaching for the mic.
Grove: I was just going to motion, unless anybody had anything that they wanted to
interject.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. October21,2021 F50
Page 46 of 70
Yearsley: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Commissioner Yearsley, go ahead.
Yearsley: Bill, what is to the east? Is there -- is that residential? On the east side of that
property.
Seal: Records, I believe.
Yearsley: I know, but on the other side of Records is that residential?
Parsons: Yes. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, yes. That's -- I believe that's
a county subdivision across the other side of Records.
Yearsley: Okay. And, then, nobody has --you know, they have been noticed and nobody
had issues with the --the bigger block of apartments facing Records is my understanding.
Parsons: Yeah. Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I did look at the public record
this evening and no other testimony has been provided on this application.
Yearsley: Okay. Then I'm good.
Seal: Yeah. The only thing I will add is that this is an interesting piece of land and the
commercial development has other implications that are coming in the future, but I like
the overall layout of this and the way that it was changed. I don't like that Records is --
it's my secret way to get into The Village and the secret is out, so -- but at this point I will
entertain a motion if somebody wants to throw it out there.
Grove: All right. Mr. Chair, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony,
move to approve file number MCU-2021-0008 as presented in a staff report for the
hearing date of October 21st, 2021, with the following modification: To strike the word
gazebo from Condition 2-C.
Wheeler: I second.
Seal: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item No. MCU-2021-0008, for Village
Apartments with the aforementioned modifications. All those in favor say aye. Any
opposed? Okay. Motion carries. Thank you very much.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT.
10. Public Hearing for Aviator Springs (H-2021-0065) by The Land Group,
Inc., Located at 3235 N. McDermott Rd.
A. Request: Annexation of 40 acres of land with R-8 (31.59 acres), L-O
(1.64 acres) and M-E (6.77 acres) zoning districts.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. October 21,2021 F51
Page 47 of 70
B. Request: A Preliminary Plat containing a total of 112 lots consisting
of (93) buildable lots and (13) common open space lots on 31.59
acres of land in the R-8 zoning district, (2) buildable lots on 1.64
acres of land in the L-O zoning district, (1) buildable lot on 6.77 acres
of land in the M-E zoning district, and (3) future right-of-way lots on
40 acres of land.
Seal: With that we will open the public hearing for Item No. H-2021-0065, Aviator Springs,
and we will begin with the staff report.
Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. Next item is Aviator
Springs. The application before you is an annexation and preliminary plat. The site
consists of 40 acres of land, zoned RUT in Ada county and physical address is located at
3235 North McDermott Road. There has been no history on this particular property as
far as city goes and the current Comprehensive -- Comprehensive Plan designation is
mixed use neighborhood. If you looked at the planned development map here, you can
see how many other additional residential developments have occurred in this particular
area. So, the applicant is here tonight to discuss with you annexation of 40 acres, again,
with R-8, and which is approximately 31 acres of land, an L-O zone of 1.6 acres of land
and an ME zone, which is 6.7 acres of land. They are also requesting to develop the site
with 93 residential detached homes at a gross density of three dwelling units to the acre.
To help kind of clarify density, if-- if the Commission -- may understand this, but typically
in a mixed use neighborhood designation we anticipate densities between six and 12.
So, this particular project tonight is under -- quite a bit under what we anticipate in this
area and rightfully so. If you have had a chance to --this particular project we spent quite
a bit of time trying to analyze this for you as far as being consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. It's unique. It's -- it's different, because of the fact you have a
school bounded by -- on its west -- western boundary -- boundary. You have an R-8
development already to the north of it that's developing with an existing street segment.
You have a state highway that's going to be extended in bifurcating the property, which
doesn't allow the project to really integrate as much as we anticipate in a mixed use
neighborhood and, then, we also have property to the south that is a different, more
intense land use designation. Although mixed use that hasn't come in yet. And so I can
tell you in working on this particular property and also with the developer of the property
on the southern boundary of this site, we were hoping they would all come in together, so
that we could work out a lot of those things and make sure that we had a little bit better
integrated project. But we are here this evening talking about this one. So, you can see
here -- here is the pre-plat that the applicant is proposing. It's -- it's the same -- it's two
phases. The first phase is the western half and, then, the second phase is the opposite
side on the McDermott Road side of things and that's -- that's why we tried to present it
to you in the staff report that it is -- it won't be integrated, because it's -- it's impossible.
What the applicant's tried to do -- and they have done a great job and -- what we told
them to do in order for them to garner our support, they really needed to justify it in their
narrative when they submitted their application and I think they are doing the best that
they can with --with the limitations that they have on this site. But they are proposing two
office lots, which are located along the western boundary here. One will be a future home
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. October21,2021 F52
Page 48 of 70
of an LDS seminary to go along with a high school. That's pretty typical here in Meridian.
And, then, the southern lot they are hoping to deed this -- or dedicate it to Boys and Girls
Club to have that other civic use here and, then, again, most of the residential type in
here -- all of the residential lots in here are single family detached homes. So, typically
in our mixed use zones -- or even in our comprehensive plans, we try to encourage a mix
of residential types at a minimum. We try to have walkability. We try to have detached
sidewalks and parkways. Providing some of those pedestrian scale elements and that's
what the applicant's done with this application. So, you can see the walking path that
runs along future Highway 16 and, then, also some additional walking paths through this
MEW that ties into the commercial and ultimately gets to the high school to the west. So,
as far as interconnectivity and trying to link all the uses together on the west side, staff
felt that they have done a pretty decent job of doing that. Now, we did pose to you -- we
have not recommended that they provide any additional residential types. That's
something that certainly is within your purview if you think additional density is desired in
this area. But I can tell you looking at the ACHD staff report, there are some access
challenges for the Ada County Highway District as well. Not so much for the city. So, as
this body knows when -- with the fire department you can have no more than 30 homes
on a single access. But if you have secondary access, then, it's not really an issue and
so down here in the southwest quadrant of the development the applicant was able to
work with the school district and secure a secondary emergency access to allow them to
move forward with their 93 homes. But if you have had a chance to look at the ACHD
staff report, they have reached out to the city and -- me in particular, because I'm taking
-- I'm covering this for Sonya this evening. But they are concerned with the number of
homes taking access off of one entrance -- one public street access. So, their current
policies say no more than a thousand vehicle trips on a local street access and because
we don't have the property to the south coming in with the application, we only have a
stub street, this -- this entire development really is stuck with one public street access that
comes in north, runs east-west along the school site and, then, ties into this development
and so they -- they have placed a condition on this development that they either can't
develop anymore than 96 residential homes, which, again, this plat is 93, so I don't know
where that 96 came from. Or they would not allow development on the Boys and Girls
lot and develop -- or they restricted development to the Boys and Girls lot and, then, only
allow up to 84 homes to be developed. So, I think this body -- at least the Commission
should ask the applicant if they are amenable to ACHD's condition as one and, two, what
are they willing to do to restrict further development from happening on this site, because,
in my opinion, staff's opinion, they should probably adjust their phasing lines to make sure
that they don't go beyond a certain threshold until such time as the property to the south
develops. I think that's really really critical in this particular development, just because of
all of the other constraints that we have going on here and it's something that we talked
about, again, at all of the pre-app -- pre-application meetings. Is this the right time for this
particular development given what's -- since we don't really have a lot of connectivity out
here. So, again, the preliminary plat consists of 112 lots. Ninety-three of those are
residential, two our office, and, then, there is that one ME lot over here that will develop.
The residential portion is, again, 31 acres. L-O is 1 .6 and the ME is 6.77. The applicant
gave us a general concept for phase two, but nothing specific per se. So, we do have a
recommended DA provision that they come back and modify that DA in the future when
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. October21,2021 F53
Page 49 of 70
they have actual development plan proposed for that future lot. They were amenable to
that as well. As I mentioned to you, access -- this is the access here. You can see my
cursor. This is the only public street access in here. Like -- I don't want to keep beating
that drum, but it is something to be really cognizant of tonight is -- there is a lot of people
that could potentially live out here with very limited access and I know that is a concern
for our Fire Department, even though they do meet their requirements. So, I'm hoping
this applicant can work with the property owner to the south and figure out an appropriate
street segment in the future, some connectivity. We did receive written testimony from
the developer of the southern property and he would like this stub street on this -- in the
southeast corner to shift over a little bit farther to the east, so it aligns more with the
development plan that they have -- or they want to bring forth to the city at some point.
Applicant is required to provide ten percent qualified open space. The plan here, because
of the abundance of open space that they are providing, they have 7.64 acres of open
space, which is approximately 23.8 percent open space. So, a tremendous amount of
open space for this particular development. If you also notice in the staff report to try to
get some of those densities numbers up is we tried to make the justification that this really
was a buffer to minimize the impact on the adjacent residential. So, we actually removed
this buffer out of the requirement for the density and it did up the density slightly to 4.38.
So, not a significant increase, but an increase nonetheless. And, then, there is also a
minimum two qualified open spaces -- or qualifying amenities are required. So, the
applicant is proposing a swimming pool, pedestrian pathways, an additional qualifying
open space of 20,000 square feet and, then, also children's natural play area and they
did give us some exhibits on how some of that would look and be developed along the
state highway in that large green central open space area. Again, here is their -- their
parking exhibit. I know that's pretty important to all of you, too, so they showed us how
they could park all of these units. Again, you can see the circulation on the side and how
it relates to Owhyee High School and, then, they also provided some proposed elevations.
Again, because this is going to be visible from the state highway we are requiring that
they get some level of review from planning prior to issuance of building permits. The
other unique item associated with this is that staff is recommending a six foot berm with
a six foot tall sound attenuation wall along the highway there and the reason why is
because the project to the north, which is Chukar Ridge and, then, Gander Creek, which
is farther north -- which is north of that development, the Commission was pretty
consistent and they -- they wanted to see more sound -- sound attenuation along that
state facility. So, staff felt that we should be consistent in those approvals, so we required
the same thing of this proposed development. And, again, staff did receive concurrence
from the applicant that they are in agreement with all conditions in the staff report. So,
with that -- as I mentioned to you, Todd Tucker is here this evening to speak to you
probably on the relocation of that stub street. But with that staff is -- is recommending
approval of this application this evening and I will stand for any questions you may have.
Seal: All right. Thanks, Bill. Would the applicant like to come forward?
Adams: Good evening. This is Matthew Adams, 462 East Shore Drive, Eagle, Idaho.
And I'm representing the applicant tonight. And I would like to share my screen. All right.
Can everybody see my presentation up in blue?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. October 21,2021 F54]
Page 50 of 70
Seal: Yes, sir. Thank you.
Adams: Excellent. All right. Thanks. I'm really happy to be here and very thankful that
you allow for remote presentation. Appreciate that. It's been a long night, so let's think
of this as a nice evening together discussing great community planning, rather than just
a presentation. The Aviator Springs Subdivision -- I'm going to go over Comprehensive
Plan alignment with you, the proposed project, why it's amazing. Community partners
that it takes to put this project together. Then I would like to spend some time on the
context and how it relates to the Fields Sub-Area Plan that you are actually going to hear
next after my item. And, then, at the very end we do have some municipal code alignment
items to share. Ultimately at the end of the day what we are requesting is approval of the
annexation, rezone, the preliminary plat. So, I do want to say Aviator Springs is the right
community at the right time in the right place and this is why. Really Aviator Springs
embodies the 2019 Meridian comp plan. It is a premier community that is safe and
secure, where people can live and possibly work, but at least easily get to work on the
roadway network with Highway 16 and Ustick and thrive. We meet the evolving
community goal of the comp plan, because we are adapting to change. This area was
conceived as a neighborhood. The high school, the highway, various conditions have
required that we adapt and present the best possible community we can in this area.
Livability. We are promoting family friendly recreation for healthy living. We are focused
on stewardship through natural systems. For stormwater, cooling of the air, and we are
making a major focus in coordination with Fire and Police from Meridian city on promoting
public safety through crime prevention environmental design standards. It's a vibrant
community. We are maintaining the historic character of ag and the drain systems --drain
ditches in this area and we are also nearby creating good safe connections to vibrant
activity centers that the school itself and the future park spaces in the sub area plan to
the west and, finally, it's a connected community. It's safe. It's got efficient transportation.
And we are working closely with ITD to ensure that Highway 16 to successfully move
forward. So, as you can see we meet all of the intended goals of the Comprehensive
Plan. So, let's talk land use for a minute. This is the 40 acre project and you are looking
at it from the south. We are looking to the north and slightly to the east, with Highway 16
on the right side of the screen and, then, the high school would be on the left side and
the residential project shown in yellow. This project is a mixed use neighborhood. We
have got R-8 zoning. Residential. We have L-O zone for our civic uses of LDS seminary
and the Boys and Girls Club, which we are very proud of. And we have ME zone proposed
for the Acclima Research and Development facility on the east and we do provide the
three unique zones that are required in the MUN land use designation. We are primarily
a single family detached residential development, which is also MUN. The LDS seminary
is more than just a place where some of the kids go during the school day, it really acts
as a youth community center for many many children for a long long time and it is an
anchor to the community. The Boys and Girls Club is very exciting as it's an opportunity
for boys and girls to have some presence in the west end of the city, which they do not
have right now, and it also creates a lot of great positive energy and positive interaction
within this community and for--you saw all the rooftops, the lots Bill showed on the image
before. There are going to be hundreds of kids in this part of Meridian and a Boys and
Girls Club is a great -- great opportunity for them. And, then, we have got Acclima as a
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. October21,2021 F55]
Page 51 of 70
research and development center and an employment center, which is also exciting. It is
impossible for us to provide a direct connection between the housing and that research
and development and employment center. However, it does provide a really great buffer
to the existing rural development and county sub that's on that side of the property and to
the east of McDermott and when we had our neighborhood meeting the neighbors were
quite excited about the arrangement of the uses on the site. And, then, I will point out
you can see the little graduation cap. Of course we have the high school to the west.
Now, we have got great pedestrian connectivity to that facility. Circulation is critical in
communities. We have got the ten foot multi-use pathway that is on the east edge of the
residential development within the buffer to the highway. We have got detached
sidewalks, which allow you to have a great tree canopy and great walkability throughout
the community and, then, again, we have the strong connection to the high school. We
also have connectivity so you can get to the future elementary school, which is north of
the high school. Again, as I said, we are partnering with ITD to ensure success of
Highway 16. We have got roadway connectivity to the north and to the south. So, we
are not land locking anybody. We are providing great connectivity. And, then, the last
thing I want to say is there is a little purple kind of line in the bottom left. We have
coordinated with Joe Bongiorno with Fire and we have recorded easements in place to
provide fire access through the high school site to this property that will provide the
secondary access until the public roadway system extends south to Ustick. We all wish
we had access to south to Ustick, but this applicant does not control the property to the
south and, therefore, we cannot dictate what happens there. And last let's talk amenities
on this project. We have got pathways, which are safe and abundant in this property.
We have got a pool and play field. The play field's clipped a little bit. You will see it more
in future slides, but we have the pool itself with a lot of lawn space around it and a play
field in that southwest corner. We have the high school itself and the elementary school.
Those are amenities. Tennis courts at the high school. Large open grassy areas and the
playground and open grass field with the elementary school as an amenity. And, then,
we have this really great open space buffer on the east side of our project. Now, we are
required to do a 35 foot landscape buffer between ITD's property and our homes. Well,
mean in reality that is not great, 35 feet from an expressway. What we have done is we
have actually done a minimum of a hundred foot landscape buffer and, then, if you take
from the nearest home to the actual pavement of the highway, we are at 200 feet. So,
we have got a 200 foot buffer from the roadway itself. One hundred foot width of that is
landscape and includes pathways, stormwater management and play features.
Pathways. Really really great system throughout the park. These are some images of
what these can look like, really, to demonstrate that we are servicing all segments of the
community on the pathway system from young to old, families, kids, retired folks, et
cetera. The pool. We are very excited about the pool. When you have kids between --
guess four and 12, the pool is the prime spot and when you turn over houses and you
keep little bubbles of kids moving in and growing up through communities, the pool stays
active and it can be a great great amenity. We also have our playfield. There is extreme
pressure on playfields throughout the Meridian community, for soccer, T-ball, flag football
practices and we have got a nice large one acre spot for that kind of activity to occur. The
open space on the east it will have some lawn or turf grass. Landscape. However, there
is a large portion of it that is designed to handle stormwater and to be climate appropriate
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. October21,2021 F56
Page 52 of 70
and resilient, that we anticipate low water use or water wise, climate appropriate
landscape. It will provide habitat, unique aesthetics, and it will minimize the maintenance.
Important to us is the HOA inherits a landscape that is maintainable and that they can
afford to maintain and intense areas of turf grass are not always affordable for a long
time. This is also meant to really lock in or maintain the rural character that is slowly
dissipating in this area. Play. We are really proud of the play features that we have come
up with. Within that buffer we have created an unstructured play environment that is safe.
So, the parents can send the kids out the front door, down to the end of the cul-de-sac
and they can play in a space where there is no outlets, no street, and the parents don't
have to worry about them. They can play in an unstructured way. They can climb on
rocks. They can look for bugs. They can dig holes. This is free range kids in Meridian,
Idaho. Very exciting. This is a view of what this play area could look like and you can
see that the planting is not traditional mown grass, it's actually much better. It's an area
where kids can find, again, bugs and butterflies and beetles and maybe even water
snakes and everything else that it's fun to find when you are a kid. And we have got these
great nontraditional features where the kids make up the game. The kids decide what
they are doing. The kids decide what this means. They use their imagination and they
can thrive here and stay healthy. All right. We do have some architectural character
included. As Bill said, we need to follow the code, because we are visible from the
highway. We do take that serious and we have got some different styles that we want to
implement on this project. The one thing that I think can get lost in these projects is how
many people it really takes to pull it off. It seriously takes time, effort, energy, investment
and commitment from the City of Meridian, from West Ada School District, from ITD on
this one in particular, from Ada County Highway District, from Nampa-Meridian Irrigation
District, who we work with closely. From the LDS Church on this particular project. The
Boys and Girls Club of Ada County. All of these groups have worked hard to bring this
project to you tonight and I think that needs to be recognized. Also Lennar Homes. Jeff
and Nick from Lennar. IAG capital. That would be Larry, Ryan, Wade and Brady. Those
guys work hard and they let us kind of have free range with design, which we appreciate.
And, then the Landreth team, Tyler, Chad, Jim, Kristin, Mike, Dan, Ben, Dustin, and Dylan,
all have worked really hard to get this in front of you tonight. So, big big effort, big
investment of energy and time. Context. The Fields Sub-Area Plan. We are going to --
in the following slide look down at this lower corner, which is Star Road on the left or west.
McDermott on the right. McMillan on the north. Ustick on the south. We feel that we fit
excellent -- or we integrate in an excellent way into The Fields Sub-Area Plan. That blue
square is where our project sits. So, this is the land use plan. The star of The Fields
Sub-Area Plan and that's where our projects sits and if you look at The Fields Sub-Area
Plan, the higher density projects are appropriately placed near the center of the
community, near the corner of the major transportation route. Higher density is not
appropriate any longer in this location, because of the way the highway cuts through the
project. This is the transportation graphic from the sub area plan and I should say thank
you to the City of Meridian and Logan Simpson who helped us get these graphics together
and let us use their graphics. We are connecting to all of the anticipated connectivity
identified in that sub area. Economics. This is where they show kind of mixed use
centers. Appropriately place that at signalized intersections, not backed up into the corner
against the new state highway. Our project does provide economic activity and the high
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. October21,2021 F57
Page 53 of 70
school does and the Boys and Girls Club, but it would not be appropriate to have a major
commercial development in this neighborhood. And, then, here is the park and
pathways --
Seal: And in the interest of time we need to have your wrap up pretty quick. The timer is
dinging over here.
Adams: You got it. This is the parks and pathways. We are connecting with multi-
purpose pathways to all of the anticipated pathway system that goes to the west. All right.
Really quick. Zoning. This is the zone. Bill showed you this. We are really proud that
we are providing all three uses as required. We have got safe, efficient and connected
circulation systems and we have paid a lot of attention to a great pedestrian connection
to the high school. We can get a lot of kids walking. We are required to provide four
stalls per housing units. That's in the garage and on the driveway. Not -- that's off street.
That would be 372. This subdivision can park 400 -- 546. So, we are anticipating reality
over the code regard parking. We are really excited that we have got 23.8 percent open
space. Bill said ten percent required. I think the new code bumped that to 15. And, then,
the amenity points in the new code we are required to have eight. We are providing 11.
We have no objection to the ACHD staff report conditions. We have no objection to the
Meridian Planning and Zoning conditions. And I will just finish by saying that this is really
a partnership to bring 93 new homes to Meridian. It's fully integrated with the
Comprehensive Plan and The Fields Sub-Area Plan. This is a premier community for a
growing city. It's a family friendly community with great connectivity to activity centers.
This is the right community, the right project, at the right time, in the right place. Thank
you.
Seal: Thank you. Do we have any questions for the applicant or staff?
Grove: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Commissioner Grove, go ahead.
Grove: I guess the first question is for Bill. What's their general guess for the highway
extension? I know they have said, but do you have a crystal ball guess?
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I haven't been part of those
discussions at all, so I don't want to speculate what it is, but I know there is momentum
there, obviously, and there is funding being set aside for it. And as part of this project we
actually have applicants, when they come in and annex, we have them set aside that lot
as a nonbuildable, so when the time is ready ITD can negotiate and purchase that lot, so
they can extend the highway and that's what we have done pretty consistently along that
corridor. This applicant is required to do that,just like every other one, and it's conditioned
appropriately. But I don't have a timing -- a time frame for you as to when that's going to
be constructed.
Grove: Thank you. And, then, Matthew, I had a question for you. Is there a connection
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. October21,2021 F58
Page 54 of 70
between the -- between the LDS and the Boys and Girls Club? It looks like there is a
sidewalk. Does that-- are you planning to have that connect into the high school property
or does that terminate before it gets there?
Adams: That's a great question. Thank you, Chairman and Commissioner. We have --
so, we have a nice oversized sidewalk that takes you from kind of the south end of the
community to the north end and provides access to the pool area, Boys and Girls, and
the LDS seminary and, then, we have a five foot sidewalk that takes you into the high
school site and we have coordinated with West Ada to have an opening in the fence, so
the kids can cut -- go straight through and, then, there is a safe sidewalk connection all
the way to the building entry as well.
Seal: I have got a quick question for you here. It looked like on one of the slides he had
that the -- the bike paths actually joined into other existing bike paths.
Adams: Yes. So, there is a requirement -- code requirement that along all state highways
or expressways -- I don't know exactly how it reads -- that you have to do a multi-purpose
pathway. So, Chukar Ridge has a multi-purpose pathway and we are connecting and
extending that southward. And, then, it's our understanding that Gander Creek will also
have some connectivity. So, you should be able to take pathway systems to the north
and, then, we do connect to the west on our sidewalks system and get you out to Owyhee
Storm, so you can get into the -- the heart The Fields Sub-Area Plan. So, as far as we
know we are connecting everywhere we need to and we are compliant with the pathways
master plan.
Seal: Okay. Quick question on -- there seems to be a glut of swimming pools. Would
you be willing to consider something more of a water feature type park, instead of a pool?
Those just seem to have a lot more longevity.
Adams: Yeah. I think -- I'm not the decision maker on that, but I can definitely take that
back to the developer, the client, and see what they think on that.
Seal: Thank you. Mr. Yearsley, any questions?
Yearsley: I know Bill had brought up the activity -- the connectivity right now. ACHD has
their condition that they would like. What is your plan for that -- meeting that condition?
Are you going to build your 96 -- or 93 homes first or be less and do the Boys and Girls
Club? What's -- what was your plan with that?
Adams: Thank you. Good question, Chairman and Commissioner Yearsley. What we
-- right now we need to meet and talk with the Boys and Girls Club. So, we got the staff
report on Tuesday and so we haven't had a chance to meet with everybody. But they
need time -- they have accepted the donation, but they need time to fundraise and come
up with a plan; right? So, it is likely -- most likely scenario that they won't be ready to
construct until there is connectivity to the south. So, right now our plan would be to
construct the 93 homes. To plat the lot for the Boys and Girls Club, but have that lot be
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. October21,2021 F59
Page 55 of 70
conditioned that you can't construct there until there is public roadway access to the
south. We need to meet with them. If they are fast tracking and they got a huge donation
tonight, because of this amazing presentation, then, we would -- we would consider and
look at that and -- and what it sounds like is we need to be able to present at the Council
level what that plan is. So, it can be in the DA and not be kind of vacillating around. It
feels like it needs to be pinned down at the DA level.
Yearsley: I agree. And I have reservations of 96 lots dumping out into one street right
now. So, I -- I think something needs to be looked at very closely on how best to work.
Seal: All right.
Grove: Sorry. I had one more question. Bill, I'm not real familiar with the ME. Is that
something that we have a lot of or have some of in -- in Meridian and, if not, like can you
give me like a 30 second rundown of what that means.
Parsons: Certainly. Happy to try to explain it to you, Mr. Chair, Members of the
Commission. So, ME's -- there is some of it in the Ten Mile area and when you look at
the broad definition of that -- it's a commercial zone and in that it's -- it's meant to be on
collectors, arterials, great access for research, development, office type uses and that's
why the applicant's requested that zone. And given the -- what he's -- what they have
explained to us at the pre-apps -- pre-application meetings and everything, it seems like
this -- this Acclima is -- it's just that, they actually test sprinkler systems and grow things
and try to manage water conservation, if I'm not mistaken. Matt could probably give you
more details on that. But to me it seems to kind of -- that's the one thing that I think
intrigued staff, was that we are keeping with our heritage of having agriculture and
keeping some of that out in this area I think makes a lot of sense, just given the fact that
that's what everyone's asked in the Comprehensive Plan. How do we preserve open
space and keep it going and this seems to be like a unique situation to do that and that's
why we felt comfortable at least allowing ME to go, but we want to make sure -- like I said
in my presentation, we wanted to make sure that we at least have the development team
come back with a development agreement modification when they are ready to actually
construct on the property, so it doesn't get sold or something else occurs and we end up
not knowing what -- and we end up giving too much away. We want to make sure we
have a detailed plan for that property before anything happens on it.
Grove: Thank you.
Seal: Mr. Wheeler, do you have questions?
Wheeler: I do. Thank you, Chairman. I'm with Commissioner Yearsley on this. Just
wanted to see just some more thoughts out on the connection part of it, too. And, then,
the other thing that kind of strikes me a little bit is the playground areas up against the
buffer that acts -- as a buffer next to a major thoroughfare. I'm just kind of thinking of, you
know, semi trailers, things like that, that are going to be going by, equipment, things of
that nature or just a lot of traffic at that juncture. So, I'm just -- I'm trying to get my head
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. October 21,2021 F60]
Page 56 of 70
around that, but -- yeah, that's kind of where I'm at on it.
Seal: Question, Bill, for the -- well, I guess is for the applicant or Bill. Do we have a good
graphic of where the -- essentially, the fire road comes in on the adjacent property and
what that looks like? I haven't -- I mean we have got kind of this thing that shows a pencil
drawing of it, but do we have something that's a little bit more representative of exactly
what a fire truck would have to go through in order to get there?
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, we don't.
Seal: I mean this drawing right here shows that we are going to go out into a -- you know,
a football field area or baseball field. So, I'm just-- I'm kind of scratching my head on how
a fire truck gets in there.
Parsons: Certainly the--the Fire Department has provided comments on it. They support
the secondary access and Matt's very aware -- aware of the Fire Department's
requirements. So, that road is 20 feet wide. It has -- has to be able to -- capable of
supporting 80,000 pounds and so I know Chief Bongiorno has looked at it and signed off
on it. I did the sign-off on the high school when they opened up, did the inspection out
there, and it's -- it's more open back there than you think it is. The irrigation district, if I'm
not mistaken, don't they have their pump house back there, Matt, are somewhere in there
as well.
Adams: Correct. It -- can everybody see my cursor?
Seal: Yes.
Parsons: It comes through, yes.
Adams: Okay. So, from Owyhee Storm Ave there is a dedicated fire lane and driveway
access that comes south of the high school building and, then, there is a dedicated -- it's
actually an easement and a sewer maintenance road, as well as maintenance access
that comes through and, then, there is -- there is two turns for the fire truck. So, they
come straight in, two turns, and they are right into the neighborhood -- right into the
community. And we -- Joe is great, because Joe makes himself available. We can run
ideas back and forth. We can show him all this and he -- he is quick to say no if he's not
okay with it and, then, he is -- he is also quick to say yes once we get him something he
is satisfied with. So, from Owyhee Storm we have good, clear access through established
fire lanes on the high school site and, then, we have this in here. We also have an
easement agreement between the high school and the school district and this developer
that runs with the land that protects and maintains that as an open route and it requires
that it be maintained properly for the fire department to access through. So, we are really
-- really confident that this does provide access. I want to say we are not going to be built
out until 2026 on these homes and it would be great if some things could happen where
we get public roadway access, but if that doesn't happen this does meet Fire Department
requirements.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. October21,2021 F61
Page 57 of 70
Seal: Okay. Thank you. All right. If there is no more questions, public testimony? I think
we have one person signed up.
Weatherly: Mr. Chair, indeed we do. It's Todd Tucker.
Seal: Just need your name and address and --
Tucker: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is Todd
Tucker. I represent Boise Hunter Homes. Business address 729 South Bridgeway Place,
Eagle, Idaho. 83616. So, we -- we are actually the landowner of the property directly to
the south of this subdivision and we are in support of this application, actually, but we do
have one -- one minor request that we wanted to get on the record. I did submit a letter
last week, but just wanted to provide public testimony as well in the verbal form. So, we
did submit a development application about a year ago for the property directly to the
south of this and we are currently working on some revisions to that -- that -- that
development plan. But in either scenario we provide, with our development--or anticipate
providing with our development a frontage road, we would call it, that actually runs parallel
to State Highway 16. So, we -- we actually have some of the same concerns that,
Commissioner Wheeler, you hinted at a little bit with -- with common area, play area next
to a highway. We understand that that is -- that that's part of the -- the code and what's
been required of the other developments. We have a little bit different feeling about how
that should function. I have lived here for 15 years now. I have never seen one person
ever walking on Eagle Road. Never once. And I have also never seen anyone walking
on Highway 84 either. 1-84. 1 have never seen anyone ever walking along that way. They
do have sound walls. They do have developments on the backside. I did a quick search
today, just to kind of look on 1-84 to see if there is any pathways anywhere near 1-84. 1
couldn't find one anywhere in the valley. So, we have a little bit different view. We think
that it's a better design and safer to run the street and have the street function as the
buffer along Highway 16 and that provides more developable space, more area for usable
open space within the development. So, our -- our meager ask is really just that they --
they are providing a stub street to the south that would connect to our development, which
is great. It's -- and it's almost in perfect alignment, but we just request that that be moved
approximately 40 to 45 feet to the east, so that when we come in with our development
proposal that those projects could align and we would have a better connection in that
area. So, I will leave that with you. That's -- that's our testimony. I will keep it quick,
because it's been a night -- long night for everyone. So, that concludes my testimony.
Grove: Mr. Chair, can I ask a question?
Seal: Absolutely.
Grove: Mr. Tucker, a question. I'm not great with geometry, but are the -- I mean it looks
like there is room on your project and where they are proposing that they can somewhat
align. It doesn't look like it's that far off. Is it -- is it possible to -- is there an agreement to
come to or is it kind of a black or white scenario?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. October21,2021 F62
Page 58 of 70
Tucker: No. Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Grove, I think we could work with the applicant
to the north and come up with a solution. He actually reached out to me when I submitted
the letter and -- and had some questions about the 35 foot buffer and he's like I don't want
to -- really want to redesign this, unless the city is on board with your design and so you
are right, I think with a little bit of a give on their part and a little bit of give on our part I
think we can make it work pretty easily and not negatively affect either one of our
developments.
Seal: I got a question real quick, so -- I had a question on the bike paths and everything
connecting to the north. It looks like with this configuration the bike path is just going to
end, so -- and I will let you know that's one of my pet peeves, because I live in an area
that has some beautiful biking paths that go nowhere. So, this seems to be one of them.
How -- how is that going to be -- it's not your project, but if they -- if the road does align
the way that you want it to align, how is that bike path going to continue on through?
Tucker: Sure. Mr. Chairman, I think, you know, with -- with a public road we are going to
be required to provide sidewalks. This is a situation where we could provide maybe a
wider sidewalk that would accommodate pedestrians and bikes -- bicyclists. It is going to
be a public road. But, like I said, I think we can make some flexibility and to move some
stuff around, so that we would have that connectivity of bike lanes, pedestrian pathways
and it would all work. It may transition from a pathway to a sidewalk, but still it would be
a dedicated area for pedestrians and bicyclists.
Seal: Thank you. Anybody else? No one else signed up.
Weatherly: Not that I see, Mr. Chair.
Seal: Anybody else want to raise their hand and come forward on this one? No? All
right. With that if the applicant would like to come back up -- come back on. Do you have
any closing remarks?
Adams: I do. Can I share my screen again? And I will -- let me just start as if that's
coming up, but -- so, the play -- the play area, it's not near the highway. It might seem
that way. It is on the west side of a six foot berm, with a six foot solid wall, which that wall
is over one hundred feet from the highway itself and there are neighborhoods all over
Boise that are dramatically closer than that to 1-84 and different highways. We have a
great separation here. It's very safe and that east buffer is incredible. The play area is
-- so, the top of the wall has to be 12 feet above the centerline of the road. That's your
code. And so that's why you have a berm and a wall. And, then, our play area is kind of
depressed down. So, the play area is down where you don't get the noise, you don't hear
the sound, you don't hear through the wind. You can't -- there is no flying debris. We are
safe and protected. The second thing is -- that I want to emphasize is 93 families can
walk to elementary school, walk to parent-teacher conferences, walk to the special
events. The field day at the end of the school year, which is awesome. You can walk to
the football game, which would be awesome, too. So, that's -- as the way we all drive
now, that's like 180 cars off the road, because every family needs at least two to get to a
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. October21,2021 F63
Page 59 of 70
football game. And, then, I do want to say on the south road alignment, Todd did send
that letter. We responded back immediately. Absolutely. We can coordinate. I hate
when the streets have little kinks in them or don't align. I am confused. I don't think you
can do a six foot berm, wall, and a multi-use pathway, which is in the Meridian City Code
and put the road up against ITD. However, if that all works out, we will shift and angle
and align our road, so that we have connectivity between the two projects. We think that's
just as important as the neighbor does. And I think that's -- that's about all I would like to
cover. I can answer any other questions if you have any.
Seal: Okay. Thank you. Is there any additional questions for the applicant or staff? All
right. With that, if anybody wants to motion close the public hearing.
Wheeler: So moved. Your turn, Nick.
Grove: Second.
Seal: All right. It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on Item No. H-
2021-0065, Aviator Springs. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Okay. Motion
carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT.
Seal: Who would like to go first with comments or a motion?
Grove: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Commissioner Grove, go ahead.
Grove: I really like a lot of the pieces of this project. Just kind of starting off, the -- the
ME is something different. I think that's -- not a huge piece of what we talked about
tonight, but just in general I like that. The play area was something that really stood out
to me on this project. It is something completely different that we don't normally see. It's
not just the standard, you know, green and blue metal tot lot and so I like the creative
pieces to it. Also getting some of the other pieces in this with the L-O, you know, Boys
and Girls Club and LDS seminary, but great additions to making this a mixed use area
and providing some different community pieces there. And I like the -- the thought
process behind integrating their design concepts to purposely tie into a larger area,
especially in relation to some of the family design features that they are wanting to
incorporate. It's really cool when somebody takes -- you know, they have 40 acres and
they have donated some of the land. So, I think that's pretty cool. And I don't see a lot
of issues with this, it's almost because of the site constraints this to me feels similar to
some in-fill projects almost and so that's kind of how my head has been thinking about
this as I go forward.
Seal: Commissioner Yearsley? Commissioner Wheeler?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. October 21,2021 F64
Page 60 of 70
Wheeler: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Seal: Go ahead.
Wheeler: Yes. And I like the -- I like these tie-in projects next to schools a lot. I live
somewhat near Mountain View and it is neat to see all of the attraction for residential
mixed use development that starts to fill in all around it and how that becomes a fantastic
place and actually kind of a hub for light office, commercial, like you say in walking
distance, things like this, and taking more vehicles off the roads. That matters a lot,
especially during those high commuter times when school starts and when they are
traveling -- when they are traveling and so I -- this project to me -- I like that it's just -- it's
different to see that playground area next to the Highway 16. 1 did think -- I saw that as
creative for sure, but I'm kind of -- to me it's -- it's kind of unique to see it right next to a
major arterial, with walkways and playground equipment close to it. It's just a little
different. I'm not saying that it's wrong, not saying that it can't be done, it's just --just my
head goes sideways just a little bit to kind of look at it, but I like the creativeness of it.
Thanks also for clarifying the fire access on that and to realize that that was just a couple
turns and they can be there quickly. So, thank you.
Seal: Commissioner Yearsley, do you have anything to add?
Yearsley: You know, this is a tough site, even with the access to the south -- or to the
south it still has very limited access and -- and -- but -- but, again, you are -- you are kind
of constrained on two different sides to provide access. So, I am really concerned about
access and about the -- you know, how it's all arranged. It -- to me it doesn't feel like it
flows very well to get out of there and I think ultimately it's going to have traffic problems
trying to get out, even with the south access. But I do like the open space. I do like the
connectivity with it. I'm okay with the density. I don't think we want to -- especially in that
area to try to make it a higher density back in there. I don't think it fits, but -- but with that
I am in favor of the project.
Seal: Thank you. And I'm along the same lines there, so I'm a little concerned with the
access, especially with the road being in a high school, because when I was in high school
I never parked anywhere I shouldn't have, of course, like all high schoolers, but that is a
little concerning for me that that's the secondary access in there, especially with a
seminary and a Boys and Girls Club going in. So, I do like the layout and the concept of
it. I like the fact that it has a lot of walking paths, open space, bike paths, that -- that's
kind of unique. I'm glad to see that that's going in. I'm glad to see more of it happening
in Meridian. The one concern I do have -- and I kind of wish this was coming in together
with the southern property, especially if the southern property is a lot of multi-family, is
there is going to be a lot of people in this subdivision that are not going to be happy about
sharing all those things with multi-family establishment. So, we continually battle that.
But that's probably for another day to come in here, so -- but that is a concern looking
forward on this. But outside of that -- I mean I agree it kind of feels like in-fill where if this
doesn't go in there what will. You know, I mean a business isn't going to survive back
here. It's going to be residential. So, I think with the low density like this, with the open
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. October21,2021 F65]
Page 61 of 70
space it has, is about the best fit we are going to have for it. With that I will entertain any
motions anybody would like to make. Not all at once.
Parsons: Mr. Chair, I had one clarifying comment for you.
Seal: Go ahead, Bill.
Parsons: I did notice on the applicant's presentation that they were requesting to get one
building permit for the seminary or -- so they can get that under construction and, again,
it is something we have done with previous projects, so if that -- I know they are in a hurry.
I have been working with the architect that's doing the seminary project and in a hurry to
get that built, because of the high school and so staff is amenable to that condition, if you
want to add that they are able to get under construction with the seminary prior to
recording a plat would -- would appreciate it.
Grove: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Commissioner Grove, go ahead.
Grove: Bill, with that do then -- do we need to condition anything else with that, like roads
or sidewalks or --
Parsons: Yeah. They -- they will have to bring all of that in as part of their development.
So, absolutely. All of that access that you see from -- from here in will have to be
completed to make that happen.
Grove: To make the seminary ready.
Parsons: Correct. Yeah. We want to get that connectivity and everything built out there.
Grove: Okay.
Seal: Commissioner Grove. Motion maker tonight.
Grove: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend
approval to the City Council a File No. H-2021-0065 as presented in the staff report for
the hearing date of October 21 st, 2021, with the following modification: That a building
permit -- what Bill said is included and they are able to move forward with the seminary.
Yearsley: I will second that.
Seal: All right. It's been moved and seconded to approve Item No. H-2021-0065, Aviator
Springs, with the aforementioned modifications. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? All
right. Motion carries. Thank you very much.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. October21,2021 F66
Page 62 of 70
Yearsley: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Yes.
Yearsley: I move -- I move we adjourn.
Seal: We are not quite done yet.
Yearsley: Oh, we -- we have one more? I thought this was the last one. My apologies.
Wheeler: We will let you do the last motion, since you haven't done any today.
Yearsley: All right. I was getting excited.
11. Public Hearing Continued from September 16, 2021 for Fields Sub-
Area Plan (H2O21-0047) by City of Meridian, the Location Consisting
of Approximately Four (4) Square Miles and Bounded by Chinden
Blvd. on the North, McDermott Rd. on the East, McMillan Rd. on the
South and Can-Ada Rd. on the West
A. Request: Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment to incorporate the
Fields Sub-Area Plan.
Seal: All right. And we like to pick on Caleb, but I mean that -- that's just going too far.
All right. We would like to -- at this time we will open up the public hearing for Item No.
H-2021-0047, Fields Sub-Area Plan, which was continued from 9/16/2021 and we will
start with staff report.
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. If you don't mind I'm going
to pull this down, so I can talk and a little bit easier to hear. So, I'm Caleb Hood. Brian
McClure is here as well. We have 48 slides, but just because Commissioner Yearsley is
in such a rush we will go ahead and, you know, make sure we run through each one of
those, so don't worry, you don't have to listen to me the whole time, Brian's going to take
about half of them, so -- no, we don't have 48 slides. So, as you -- as you mentioned, Mr.
Chair, this has been continued from your September 16th agenda. You asked us to meet
with the applicant, discuss some of the concerns they brought to your attention during
that meeting and we have done so and I know there is a letter and we have members in
the audience that will address you, so I won't go too much into the detail, but we have
met with them and good -- good productive meeting and thanks to Brian and -- and the
Mark Bottles team for -- for putting up with us as well. So, there is a -- there is a letter in
your packet and Brian will touch on some of the details, but I do want to spend just a
second setting the stage a little bit more. This project is something that the City Council
did ask us to -- to take forward as a continuation of the Comprehensive Plan that was
adopted in December of 2019. 1 need to stop calling it the new Comprehensive Plan,
because it's almost two years old now, but it's still relatively new, but they did want us to
put a finer point on some of the existing land uses that were adopted with that plan and
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. October 21,2021 F67]
Page 63 of 70
go through the specific area plan. So, we retained the services of Logan Simpson to help
us craft the specific area plan that's before you this evening and the text of that plan was
-- well, the plan itself will be adopted by reference in the text of the Comprehensive Plan.
So, that really is the request we have for you tonight is to amend the text of the
Comprehensive Plan. Brian's going to summarize a little bit more of what the plan is, but
I want to just remind you what this isn't or doesn't do and they are on the slide there, but
this is not a future land use map amendment. There was some conversation last month
about that. We aren't proposing to change any of the map designations on the future land
use map. Again, we are --this --the intent of this plan is to put a finer point on the existing
map designations. And, then, we aren't proposing to annex any property with this. So, if
you are eligible for annexation, this doesn't change that at all and, again, we are just trying
to provide some of those details. So, again, without belaboring the point, we believe we
have done what you have asked us to do. Brian's going to, again, summarize a little bit
more, just because it has been a month, but we are asking for your support tonight and I
will turn it over to Brian, unless you have any questions of me.
Seal: No, sir. Thank you very much.
McClure: Thank you, Caleb. Good evening. This slide here helps to provide some
geographic context. I'm putting this up front this time. The image --the image shows the
region, the location of the Fields on the left and, then, the adopted 2019 future land uses
on the right. As Caleb previously mentioned, the future land uses drive -- are driven by
the Comprehensive Plan and these drive densities and more broadly the uses in the area
and we are not touching those. As we discussed at the last hearing, the Intermountain
Gas liquefied natural gas tank is a big deal. That's called out for reference and the
Williams pipeline runs past it. Northwest and southeast through the city. The candy
striped line on the --on the east-- right side of the image there, is the future State Highway
16. You had a question for Bill earlier. The answer to that is next summer. So, they --
they are expecting to start construction on that soon. Now, there is three different--three
different phases of each -- of each project. They may start this -- the north part, the south
part, or in combination, but they are going to move on it. That -- State Highway 16 will
only have crossings Ustick, Chinden, McMillan, and Five Mile Creek within this area. As
previously mentioned, they are moving forward. Star Road down the middle of the area
has a river crossing and is planned for five lanes. ACHD is actually going to be making
some bridge improvements to support that here in the upcoming years. They are working
on the design right now. I probably neglected this area a little bit too much in the last
meeting, so I will just try again here. The purpose of this plan is to ensure that the Fields
area implements the vision of the Comprehensive Plan and is vibrant, self sufficient and
distinctly Meridian. All the unique location, specific circumstances and challenges in this
area are opportunities when consistently channeled and furthered within the context of
the plan. Said another way, the sub area plan is about the relationship and integration of
uses, with a key focus on central neighbor -- on a central neighborhood center, services
and accessibility. Finally, a large part of this plan is just how we accomplish this and most
of that comes down to money and partnerships. We have already had two discussions
with the Council on that point. It was kind of a quick recap. Next up is a specific text
amendment request and, then, some recommended changes to address the various
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. October21,2021 F68
Page 64 of 70
plans. A big request, as Caleb mentioned, for Commission tonight is to adopt the Fields
Sub-Area Plan by reference into the Comprehensive Plan. This is what that looks like. It
goes on page 3-3 of the -- of the beginning of that document. Along with a text
amendment we have some recommended changes to the draft sub area plan. These are
a result of discussions and comments with other agencies and stakeholders and specific
to the sub plan -- the very plan itself. The first group of recommended changes were
either included in the staff report or recommended at the September 16th hearing.
Specifically we had a few changes to address some comments by COMPASS. We
continue to recommend those. The second group of changes came as a result of
Commission's requests to meet with the Mark Bottles team and after the last public
hearing. Staff believes these changes address some of their biggest concerns by making
it clear that the defined vision isn't tied to a specific solution. There is flexibility in how we
reach the goal and, hopefully, these changes not only alleviate stakeholder concerns, but
serve as a reminder for future entitlement and development decisions. All these changes,
except those to address COMPASS comments, were included in the memo on 10/15 that
we sent last week. We will step through these quickly in reverse order. This, again, is a
new change. These were covered in the memo and, again, came as a result of working
with the -- Mark -- Mark Bottles team. The block of text here shows and describes the
wants and needs for the main street concept within the Star-McMillan center. The
purpose of this section is to provide the vision and describe need, but not intended to be
prescriptive. The only will statement included in the text was not brought up as a concern,
but has been revised to help in consideration during future review by others. There are
many ways to approach these concepts and ideas. There are many ways to respond to
the needs and goals. Nevertheless, staff believes that the strength in the underlying text
address stakeholder concern, clarify that they aren't explicit or prescriptive in all
conditions and does so without undermining the need for a clear vision with appropriate
context. We still want the main street. We still want to make use of the pathway
integration and we still need an intensity of uses that provide for the geographic
consolidation that many of the services that the existing and future stakeholders will need
and want. This slide here was not an original stakeholder request. The recommendation
by staff came about in discussions with the Mark Bottles team about the types and
balances of uses. This small area of the yellow product identified as housing, it's
highlighted in pink, now shown as purple, near the central commons. That could have
just as easily been purple, which is why we are revising it. The mixed use allows for
housing. Simply stated, the reason we changed it is because we want to continue to
convey that there is flexibility. Showing specific buildings of similar sizes and specific
color sort of lends itself to -- well, that we were being specific and we really weren't. The
graphic shown here has been revised since the original was presented to Planning and
Zoning Commission as part of the September 16 public testimony. After several iterations
by the Bottles team, staff is recommending the concept shown as an additional exhibit in
this draft Fields Sub-Area Plan. The balances of use -- the balance of uses, which is very
important, is generally supported in more detailed concept by the project consultant, but
also conveying to future decision makers that there is flexibility in the final design. A
future development application would still need to be considered as a plan text. Elements
such as integration with linear open space, authentic pedestrian experience, and so on.
Basically a main street. The October 15 memo goes into this first bullet point quite a bit,
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. October21,2021 F69
Page 65 of 70
but, stated simply, this wording does not disallow any materials. That was the original
primary concern in public testimony. The next step would be to better define this and
related policies for the Fields area. Many of the materials listed on page 420 in those
action items of the sub area plan can be really cool. Unfortunately, they are also
frequently abused when you consider our administrative design review process. It
provides a fast lane for review that meets minimum level of effort and, then, if you want
to be innovated you go through more traditional design and discretionary review process.
For the second revised action item, 411, the one on the bottom there, staff and the project
consultant are fine with removing that one. The future land use map already does this.
If you don't want to meet the density -- the plan density ranges you can apply for a map
amendment. These changes are not addressed in the staff report. So, these are the
older ones by COMPASS and I neglected include those in the memo last week. But we
continue to recommend those, so if you make a motion to recommend the approval of
this, please, consider the slide here. And these are all just clarifying comments to address
the COMPASS comments. This screen and the next are both in the staff report and the
memo sent last week as part of the staff recommendation. I won't linger here. This
language is all intended to provide more context on why some of the information is there
and why it's important. This page is more of the same. This, again, was all in a staff
report and in the memo. So, that's the abbreviated presentation. Staff recommendation
is to consider all the changes outlined as presented and included -- includes the original
request in the staff report, the changes to this COMPASS comments and additional
changes in the 10/15 memo. We are happy to revisit context and slides from the previous
meeting or to respond to any questions.
Seal: Thanks very much. Do we have any immediate questions? Mr. Wheeler, go ahead.
Wheeler: Thank you, Chairman. I'm sorry, I missed your first name. I apologize. Brad?
Is it Brad?
McClure: Brian.
Wheeler: Brian. I'm sorry. Brian. I'm still learning things here. So, thank you very much.
So, Brian, on the -- on the map amendments -- or not the map amendments, but all the
verbiage and things like that, you said that there was like a letter that was attached to it;
correct? That's going to be added in on it; is that correct?
McClure: I'm not sure I understand that. I apologize.
Wheeler: Is there -- that was -- that was added to it; right?
Seal: Right. Essentially that's -- everything that he's come through tonight is addressed,
essentially, in the letter that -- that was submitted, with the exception of what he has listed
here as the post 19/16 -- or 9/16 memo.
McClure: So, Commissioner Wheeler, yes. So, there was a memo sent last week on the
15th that identified all the changes that we just showed you, except for the ones from
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. October21,2021 F70
Page 66 of 70
COMPASS, which I added to the slides here tonight.
Wheeler: Okay. So, that was the one that was saying that's going to be part -- okay.
McClure: But those ones were from the previous public hearing as well. So, they have
been reviewed by -- before. Or considered anyways.
Wheeler: Okay. I guess I had a couple questions about some -- some of the changes on
there. Like one of them had to do with -- yeah, you can -- if we can keep on going back
a little bit to one of the further slides, because I kind of took a look at this, too. Yeah. Go
-- we can start right there. And just kind of thought through it. One of them was -- I
remember one of the comments that was made was right here, which you guys struck
here was the two to three story mixed use buildings. That was something that they -- that
-- that some of the stakeholders were like, hey, this is something that might hurt
development or something along those lines. I'm trying to envision myself going through
some of the other developments around, like even in Meridian, and thinking about going
through -- like even The Village and thinking of walking in and seeing single story, you
know, just brings kind of a different aura to it and so -- but seeing something that's larger
that has kind of that facade stone on it just kind of gives it a different kind of a feel and so
I'm kind of curious on what was the -- what was kind of the thought on why we -- why we
don't want to have two to three story mixed use buildings in that pathway or that driving
path there.
McClure: Commissioner, thank you for the question. So, the intention is to still have
some of that. The original language -- the stakeholders felt that it implied that in all
conditions that would be there and that was not our intent. It still needed to -- to -- some
of it still needed to generate the intensity of uses and the opportunities for all the services
we are looking to support, but it doesn't necessarily need to be there all the time either
and so the way that's captured now is down below where it basically says -- I lost it.
Authentic opportunities for retail or office on the ground floor and residential and/or office
uses above. So, we are still encouraging that, we are just not requiring it at all conditions,
which was never the point in the first place.
Wheeler: Okay. All right. That sounds good then. And, then, we can go ahead and
bump forward just a little bit here. I'm just trying to make sure that I'm understanding
some of it. Go ahead and go forward again, if you don't mind. I'm -- one of the graphics
there. Yeah. I think this was something that some of the other testimony kind of spoke
-- spoke about was some of the --just really high density dwellings or zoning in this mile
by mile block in this area specifically, that it didn't kind of phase down to single family
dwellings, that it didn't phase into something different than just exclusively apartment style
or very dense residential zonings and I understand that the stakeholders have interest on
that, too, but what about the -- you know, some of the other testimony that was given on
that about, hey, can we try to spread out some of the density that's in these areas and
things?
McClure: Commissioner Wheeler, again, thank you for the question. So, as we said
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. October 21,2021 F71
Page 67 of 70
before the land uses here are adopted as they are, they do have a range they are seeking.
Part of that is very purposeful, because through -- part of the analysis that the consultant
did was to understand what sort of rooftops we needed to support the center that we were
looking for. It is envisioned that we have some medium high density residential out here,
including multi-family. However, those plans did not depict those in all areas or -- and did
not indicate that they weren't transitioning. You can have a variety of product types in the
medium density residential, including things like patio homes or townhomes or row
homes. There is an opportunity for a lot of diversity in housing out here. It doesn't have
to be multi-family. I think you would expect to see more of that in the urban housing or
close to the road, but we are not setting that right now. We have concepts and things
could happen that way, but we still have the policies in the Comprehensive Plan that fall
back on to -- which say things like transition.
Hood: If I can just build on that for one second. I want to go just back-- put that in context
a little bit more, because this was also I think something -- the scale of that last graphic
kind of gets lost a little bit when we are zooming into that area so much and I want to just
put that, again, in context a little bit. It doesn't look like this mouse can do it. But, Brian,
if you can kind of just highlight what was just on the screen, when you are talking here, it
is just, basically, that brown area right there. So, we are talking four square miles. This
is that much of one of them. So, there is density here, but when you look at it overall, the
vast majority of it is still medium and low density residential. So, I just want to put that
scale back into context for you that we are not talking, you know, a huge community or a
square mile of higher density, we are talking about the neighborhood center and the scale
of that here in that area.
Wheeler: Okay. Okay. That helps me out on that, too, then. Thank you very much. But
is there going to -- so, they can, obviously, have some of the high density apartments
there and, then, they can transition that out, like we have seen a couple times tonight,
even with like the patio or row homes, is that -- as it goes down further into the mile block,
so to speak?
McClure: Commissioner Wheeler, there is lots of ways to transition with roads and
landscape buffers and creeks and pathways, than just having different size homes next
to each other. The comp plan certainly speaks to having a transition of uses, though, and
the land use plan requires a transition of uses just by having them stagger like that. So,
it doesn't concern me at all, but --
Wheeler: Okay. And, then, yeah, go forward if you don't mind, please, again. Okay. So,
I -- that makes sense, then, on that other one there with the limited single family
development on that. That sounds good. Is there a reason -- but it also let me speak to
the other thing that's crossed off there on the very top there -- or composition siding into
commercial structures. Was there a reason why composition siding was something that
didn't want to be used in this?
McClure: I'm not trying to blame the consultant, but I'm not really sure. It's -- it's -- it's a
pretty common material and it's probably overused and I think the desire was to have
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. October 21,2021 F72
Page 68 of 70
something elevated and more distinct and not just have a primary material be that. The
only way to require that as is, though, would be to specifically put that into a development
agreement, because you get to our administrative design review process, is not one of
the disallowed materials. So, it's sort of a -- it doesn't do a lot, unless -- unless the
Commission and Council want to get really specific.
Wheeler: Good. Good. Okay. And, then, just if you don't mind moving it forward again,
please. That's fine there. And, then, just one more time, please. Yeah. I think those
were my -- really just my biggest questions that I had in that use there. So, thank you.
Seal: Commissioner Grove, do you have something?
Grove: Yeah. I was just going to provide Commissioner Wheeler with a little more context
for the -- some of the planning that went in three, four years ago or whenever it was. But
looking at this four square mile area, the comprehensive planning committee spent a lot
of time on this -- these -- this section in looking at how to make sure that there was high
density areas close to the expressway and being able to also tie into the school system
with the high school and the elementary and keeping it close to that area and making sure
that it didn't end up, you know, just a sea of single family housing and so that was a big
piece that came up multiple weeks during that two year process.
Wheeler: Thank you. Then -- yeah. And that was, I guess, some of my leaning in to try
to understand this. We did get the paperwork to take it home, took a look at it, you know,
to try and understand it and a lot of it for me was just to make sure that that intent that
was originally done there isn't getting, you know, pushed out or getting moved to where
all of a sudden, as something has a first splash in this area, that that's going to set a tone
and, then, it's going to be the tone that we are all going to want to -- hey, kids, look over
there instead when you are driving by it or it's just not going to give the feel that we wanted
in this area and so that was some of my -- more my questions were at was just making
sure we weren't getting off too much -- or at least from my perspective getting off too
much of where the initial intent was and what the vision was that -- when everybody was
going through that, so --
Seal: Commissioner Yearsley, do you have anything?
Yearsley: Nope. I'm good.
Seal: Do we have anybody signed up for public testimony?
Weatherly: Mr. Chair, we do not.
Seal: Anybody in the audience would like to come up? No? With that, Caleb, do you
want to close or -- all good? All in all good? Excellent. At this time can I get a motion to
close the public hearing.
Wheeler: So moved.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. October21,2021 F73
Page 69 of 70
Grove: Is this a public hearing that we need to close? Okay. Second.
Seal: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for Item No. H-
2021-0047, Fields Sub-Area Plan. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Okay.
Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT.
Seal: Anybody have any additional comments or motions? Mr. Yearsley, you can throw
one out there.
Yearsley: Are we approving this or recommending --
Seal: Then you can get onto your next one. I know you are in a hurry for that, so --
Yearsley: Are we approving this or recommending approval to City Council?
Seal: I think we recommend approval to City Council on this and the graphic that's on the
screen will be helpful in making a motion.
Yearsley: Hold on. I'm trying to juggle screens.
Seal: That's okay.
Yearsley: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
recommend File No. H-2021-0047 as presented in the staff report to City Council --
recommend approval to City Council for the hearing date of today with the following
modifications: To include the original staff report changes. Add COMPASS changes and
the post 9/16 memo changes.
Wheeler: Aye.
Grove: Second.
Seal: Okay. It's been moved -- moved and seconded to approve Item No. H-2021-0047
Fields Sub-Area Plan with the aforementioned modifications. All in favor say aye. Any
opposed? Okay. motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT.
Seal: Commissioner Yearsley, I just want to say thank you very much for stepping back
in tonight and helping us make quorum. We really appreciate you doing that.
Yearsley: My pleasure.
Wheeler: I second that.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. October21,2021 F74
Page 70 of 70
Seal: And -- and with that if you would like to make a -- make a motion.
Yearsley: Mr. Chair, I move we adjourn.
Grove: Second.
Seal: It's been motion and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Opposed?
All right. Motion carries. Thank you all.
Yearsley: Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:20 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
11 4 1 2021
RHONDA MCCARVEL - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED
ATTEST:
CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK