PZ - Request to Continue with correspondence
Charlene Way
From:Alan Tiefenbach
Sent:Thursday, December 30, 2021 10:50 AM
To:Adrienne Weatherly; Charlene Way; Chris Johnson
Subject:FW: Quartet South
Correspondence for Quartet South. PLEASE NOTE THIS SHOULD BE CONTINUED TO FEBRUARY 3.
Alan Tiefenbach | Current Associate Planner
City of Meridian | Community Development Dept.
33 E. Broadway Ave., Ste. 102, Meridian, Idaho 83642
Phone: 208-489-0573 | Fax: 208-489-0571
Built for Business, Designed for Living
From: Alan Tiefenbach
Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2021 10:49 AM
To: 'Jon Wardle' <jwardle@brightoncorp.com>
Cc: Joshua Beach <JBeach@brightoncorp.com>; Mike Wardle <mwardle@brightoncorp.com>; Bill Parsons
<bparsons@meridiancity.org>; 'Bruce Freckleton' <bfreckleton@meridiancity.org>
Subject: RE: Quartet South
Good morning Jon,
I’ll try to address your points.
ACHD – Based on past experiences, I am not comfortable with bringing a project with this number of units to a hearing
without complete ACHD review and comment on the traffic impact study. Whether or not there could be better
coordination with ACHD – way out of my paygrade. I agree this should be continued. We can try for February 3, but if we
haven’t gotten a response by mid-January, we’ll be looking at another continuance.
Comp Plan – based on the odor study, it appears the Detection Threshold (DT) in that area is at least 50 whereas the
baseline level is shown to be preferred at <20. This could certainly change based on improvements, but there is also the
issue of industrial uses that could already occur, noise associated with the treatment plant, the ACHD facility, etc. Unless
you own the Naomi Farms properties to the east or this property is submitted as part of this application, I cannot review
your project as if another property owner will provide an appropriate transition. We do have concerns with houses
backing directly to the property line, as well as moderately high density attached units at the south. There has been a lot
of discussions regarding loss of industrial land, and a FLUM amendment as you suggested is not applicable until at least
June 15. Leaving aside the FLUM, there are numerous other policies in the Comp Plan regarding impacts, compatibility,
traffic, etc. And given this location, we have concerns with how the higher density areas adjacent to industrial and very
near the treatment facility will evolve in the future when the housing market softens.
Another comment - the narrative refers to the R-15 area as townhouses, but you also say this will be on two lots. If all
these units are on two lots, this is considered multifamily with differing requirements. Otherwise it would need to be
platted into individual lots and / or have a DA restriction. This whole area shown as just a blank piece with no concept
plan could be an issue in the public hearing.
1
Alleys – I don’t want to go too far down the rabbit hole on this one, but in the case of Bainbridge, the staff report notes
this development consisted of private roads and that is why these types of alleys were allowed. Whether this was a good
decision or not is not really relevant to Quartet South. There are alternative compliance allowances in the private road
section, but there are not alternative compliance allowances for the alley requirements in developments of public roads.
And the code mentions it is not the intent to approve private streets for single-family, duplex and/or townhouse
developments other than those that create a common mew through the site design or that propose a limited gated
residential development. Staff does not have the ability to waive the requirement that the entire length must be visible
from a public street. I can’t get into the how or why or what has happened in the past as each case is different. Whether
good or bad design results from these requirements, I can’t speak to that either.
As I mentioned in the previous email, Jamestown Ranch proposes 294 lots on 80 acres of land. This is less dense than
your project of 229 houses and 140 townhouses on 67 acres. Jamestown Ranch was continued, and the PC mentioned
they thought there were too many lots.
All this said, we do have issues. I am still not sure where we are landing on this yet because we are still reviewing and
have not seen a traffic study, but at this point we do believe a hearing is premature.
I wish you a happy new year,
Alan Tiefenbach | Current Associate Planner
City of Meridian | Community Development Dept.
33 E. Broadway Ave., Ste. 102, Meridian, Idaho 83642
Phone: 208-489-0573 | Fax: 208-489-0571
Built for Business, Designed for Living
From: Jon Wardle <jwardle@brightoncorp.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2021 1:44 PM
To: Alan Tiefenbach <atiefenbach@meridiancity.org>
Cc: Joshua Beach <JBeach@brightoncorp.com>; Bill Parsons <bparsons@meridiancity.org>; Bruce Freckleton
<bfreckleton@meridiancity.org>; Mike Wardle <mwardle@brightoncorp.com>
Subject: FW: Quartet South
External Sender - Please use caution with links or attachments.
Alan,
I do want to clarify a couple of items in your email below. We appreciate ACHD’s time constraints. We’ve worked hard
to provide them the report in an a timely manner, and have also provided subsequent updates. Please note the
following:
Submitted TIS to ACHD on 9/23/21 (it was not submitted earlier because COMPASS was updating the model and
ACHD wanted that included).
ACHD provided comments on 11/8/21.
Traffic Study response and updated TIS was provided on 12/13/21. (both of which are included here)
ACHD indicated on 12/13/21 that “will try to get this reviewed in the next couple of weeks.”
Again, we are all hoping that ACHD’s review time improves, but this has been a long process. As I have mentioned
before, the City of Meridian needs to collaborate with ACHD and figure out how to get more timely responses from
2
them. As we have discussed with Meridian, ACHD has no timeline motivation to review applications until Meridian
transmits an application. In order to expedite ACHD’s review, we also provide ACHD the preliminary plat simultaneously
with the TIS on 9/23/21.
With that said, if you feel that Meridian Staff and P&Z Commission are uncomfortable having a public hearing until ACHD
rd
provides its Staff report, let’s go ahead now and schedule it for Thursday, February 3. I’m assuming this has not been
published, and can be easily updated by the Clerk if directed by Staff, and a request for continuation will not be
necessary.
As for the other questions:
1. Comp Plan. As you may know, Meridian just directed a comp plan map amendment for the area north, given
the updated WWTP study. At the time of the pre-application meeting, the odor study had not been presented
to the public. The area directly to east of Quartet South will also likely will follow suit and request a modification
of the Future Land Use Map, given the City’s willingness to modify the Mixed Use Non-Residential to the north
based on the updated study There will need to be a buffer / transition, just as suggested by staff, with a north
south road. But given the City’s updated study, that will buffer be farther to the east, and not arbitrarily set at a
property line. In anticipation of this, we’ve included stub streets from the mid-mile collector and
internally. Graphically, here is what that buffer road would look like, and would be consistent with the City’s
updated study. We’ll be prepared to discuss this at the Hearing.
3
2. U-Shaped Alleys. We have previously had these U-Shaped alleys approved in Paramount Director and
Bainbridge North.
4
The location in Quartet South modifies the housing type from front load to alley load. We found this to be a
good way to bring the homes closer to the street, break up the roadway and provide traffic calming. We also
feel like this is an innovative approach to design besides the standard front-loaded units on the perimeters that
enhances pedestrian connectivity. The alley ways also help break up the street, which is a noted goal in the
UDC. We are hoping that this can be approved, as done before. If not, we will just reintroduce front-load
product and install bulb-outs on both sides of Creason Street.
5
Hopefully this provides you context on both of these design questions.
Jon Wardle
BRIGHTON – Creating GREAT Places
O: 208.378.4000
D: 208.287.0518
C: 208.871.9361
E: jwardle@brightoncorp.com
From: Joshua Beach <JBeach@brightoncorp.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2021 11:56 AM
6
To: Jon Wardle <jwardle@brightoncorp.com>
Subject: FW: Quartet South
FYI
Josh Beach | Assistant Project Manager-Entitlement
BRIGHTON CORPORATION
Brighton – Creating Great Places
2929 W. Navigator Dr., Suite 400, Meridian, ID 83642
Mobile 208.871.3812
brightoncorp.com
From: Alan Tiefenbach <atiefenbach@meridiancity.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2021 4:23 PM
To: Joshua Beach <JBeach@brightoncorp.com>
Cc: Bill Parsons <bparsons@meridiancity.org>; Bruce Freckleton <bfreckleton@meridiancity.org>
Subject: Quartet South
Josh,
I am working on the staff report for Quartet South.
We had our development review meeting last Thursday to discuss this project. There are issues I need to raise with you.
First, there is the TIS. I contacted ACHD last week, and Paige told me the TIS has not even been accepted yet. When it IS
accepted, there is still going to be some time until we get their staff report. This is a submittal item which has not been
submitted.
Jamestown Ranch, near this property at N. Black Cat and W. McMillian Rd, was continued by the Planning Commission
because there had not been any staff report from ACHD. They were also struggling with the density, and they didn’t like
all the common drives. Jamestown Ranch proposes 294 lots on 80 acres of land. This is less dense than your project of
229 houses and 140 townhouses on 67 acres. In fact, Jamestown Ranch was continued to January 20, which is the same
night Quartet South is to be heard.
In addition, there is a proposal for an ACHD facility at 3764 W. Ustick Rd. They council was struggling with the size of the
trucks and the timing for the widening of Ustick (traffic). The hearing was not going well and ACHD requested a 6 month
continuance, which will be in March.
There are additional issues:
1. The subject property to the east is County land with existing industrial uses directly adjacent to it. The FLUM
designates the land directly adjacent as Mixed Use Non-Residential. This means industrial. We suggested a better
transition at the east during the pre-app, but as is the houses are backing directly to that area.
2. You have U-shaped alleys shown at the east and west, but UDC 11-6C-3 requires alleys to be designed so that the
entire length is visible from a public street. You have too many lots for common drives, so you’re looking at redesign
for a street template or removing the alley-loaded option in that area and breaking up the blocks.
With all this, I recommend you request a continuance until you get the ACHD staff report and consider our suggestions.
Otherwise, we’d probably be recommending continuance anyway, and I think it likely the PC would continue this
whether or not we recommend it.
Alan Tiefenbach | Current Associate Planner
7
City of Meridian | Community Development Dept.
33 E. Broadway Ave., Ste. 102, Meridian, Idaho 83642
Phone: 208-489-0573 | Fax: 208-489-0571
Built for Business, Designed for Living
All e-mail messages sent to or received by City of Meridian e-mail accounts are subject to the Idaho law, in regards to
both release and retention, and may be released upon request, unless exempt from disclosure by law.
8