2022-01-06 Item 1.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting January 6, 2022.
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of January 6, 2022, was called
to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Rhonda McCarvel.
Members Present: Chairman Rhonda McCarvel, Commissioner Bill Cassinelli,
Commissioner Andrew Seal, Commissioner Nick Grove and Commissioner Steven
Yearsley,
Commissioners Absent: Commissioner Maria Lorcher and Commissioner Nate Wheeler.
Others Present: Chris Johnson, Kurt Starman, Caleb Hood, Sonya Allen, Joe Dodson,
Alan Tiefenbach and Dean Willis.
ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE
Nate Wheeler Maria Lorcher
X Andrew Seal X Nick Grove
_X Steven Yearsley X Bill Cassinelli
X Rhonda McCarvel - Chairman
McCarvel: Good evening and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting
for January 6, 2022. If you are joining us by -- 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 we cannot take questions until the public
testimony portion. If you have a process question during the meeting, please, e-mail
cityclerk@meridiancity.org and they will reply to you as quickly as possible. With that let's
begin with roll call.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
McCarvel: Thank you. First item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. We do
-- it is an amended agenda and H-2021-0087, Apex West Subdivision, and H-2021-0090,
Ten Mile RV Storage -- actually, Apex West Subdivision will be opened only for the
purpose of being continued and Ten Mile RV Storage will -- is requesting withdrawal. If
you are here tonight to testify on either of those applications we will not be taking
testimony this evening. So, can I get a motion to adopt the agenda as amended?
Seal: So moved?
Cassinelli: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All those in favor say
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 6,2022 6
Page 2 of 50
aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item]
1. Approve Minutes of the December 16, 2021 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting
McCarvel: Next is the Consent Agenda and we only have one item on the Consent
Agenda, the approval of minutes for the December 16th, 2021, Planning and Zoning
meeting. Can I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda?
Cassinelli: So moved.
Seal: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to accept the Consent Agenda. All those in
favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
McCarvel: So, at this time I will briefly explain the public hearing process. We will open
each item individually and begin with the staff report. The staff will report their findings
on how the item adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code.
After staff has made their presentation the applicant will come forward to present their
case and respond to staff comments. They will have 15 minutes to do so. After the
applicant has finished we will open the floor to public testimony. Each person will be
called on only once during public testimony. The Clerk will call the names individually of
those who signed up on our website in advance to testify. If you are here in person,
please, come forward and if you are on Zoom you will, then, be unmuted. Please state
your name and address for the record. If you --and you will have three minutes to address
the Commission. If you have previously sent pictures for -- or a presentation for the
meeting it will be displayed on the screen and our clerk will run the presentation. After all
of those who have signed up in advance have spoken we will invite others who may wish
to testify. If you wish to speak on the topic you may press the raise hand button on the
Zoom app or if you are listening on the phone, please, press star nine and wait for your
name to be called. If you are listening on multiple devices, a computer and a phone, for
example, please, be sure to mute those extra devices, so we do not experience feedback
and we can hear you clearly. When you are finished if the Commission does not have
questions for you, you -- you will no longer have the ability to speak. Please remember
we will not call on you a second time. After testimony has been heard, the applicant will
be given another -- another ten minutes to come back and respond. When the applicant
has finished -- 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 and recommend -- or recommendations to City Council as
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 6,2022 7
Page 3 of 50
needed.
ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item]
ACTION ITEMS
2. Public Hearing for Apex West Subdivision (H-2021-0087) by Brighton
Development, Inc., Located on the North Side of E. Lake Hazel Rd.,
Approximately 1/4 Mile West of S. Locust Grove Rd.
A. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 208 building lots (207 single-
family and 1 multi-family) and 34 common lots on 96.08 acres in the
R-2, R-8 and R-15 zoning districts.
McCarvel: So, at this time we would like to open the public hearing for H-2021.0087,
Apex West Subdivision, and they are requesting a continuance to February 3rd due to
the proof of public hearing notice signposting not being submitted to the city within the
required time frame prior to the hearing. I think they had actually put January 20th, but
it's a pretty full agenda already and so we are looking at February 3rd on that. Do we
have any other -- do we have any further comments from staff?
Allen: No, Madam Chair.
Seal: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Seal.
Seal: I move to continue file H-2021-0087 to the hearing date of February 3rd, 2022.
Yearsley: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to continue H-2021-0087 to February 3rd.
All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
3. Public Hearing for Ten Mile RV Storage (H-2021-0090) by Hatch Design
Architecture, Located on Parcels R5629430106, R5629430090, and
R5629430080, Located Near the Northwest Corner of W. Ustick Rd. and
N. Burley Ave./W. Nelis Dr.
A. Request: Rezone of 5.65 acres from C-G to I-L.
B. Request: Development Agreement Modification to enter into a new
development agreement to revise the approved concept plan to allow
for a self-storage facility including outdoor RV storage.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 6,2022 $
Page 4 of 50
McCarvel: Next item on the agenda is H-2021-0090, Ten Mile RV Storage, and that
application is requesting a withdrawal. So, I don't believe we need a motion of any kind.
It's just being withdrawn.
4. Public Hearing Continued from December 2, 2021 for Rackham
East/Eagle View Apartments (H-2021-0075) by Brighton Development,
Inc., Located on the south side of 1-84, 1/4 mile east of S. Eagle Rd.
A. Request: Annexation of 25.76 acres of land with a C-G zoning
district.
B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of two (2) multi-family
residential building lots (i.e. Lots 1-2, Block 1) and six (6) commercial
building lots (i.e. Lots 3-8, Block 1) on 29.7 acres of land.
C. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development
consisting of 396 units on 15.94 acres of land in the proposed C-G
zoning district.
McCarvel: Okay. Moving on. Next item is H-2021-0075. It is continued from December
2nd, Rackham East/Eagle View Apartments, and we will begin with the staff report.
Allen: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. This item was continued,
as noted, in order to get ACHD's report to understand what's going to happen with Rolling
Hill Drive, to allow more time to address the issue with the out-parcel at the north
boundary of the site, which will be an enclave if this property is annexed and to work on
enforcement of no construction traffic on Rolling Hill Drive. The most recent draft staff
report issued by ACHD earlier today states ACHD is supportive of the applicant's request
for sole access to the site to be provided from the west from Silverstone Way and
Overland Road, with emergency access only via Rolling Hill Drive if an updated
operational analysis as submitted for the intersection of Silverstone and Overland Roads.
ACHD will determine if restricting the site's access to Rolling Hill Drive to emergency only
will be acceptable based on the updated analysis and district policy. If determined
acceptable no additional offsite improvements will be required to Rolling Hill Drive,
including traffic calming measures. A cul-de-sac will be required to be constructed at the
terminus of Rolling Hill Drive -- excuse me. If determined not to be acceptable or if the
applicant chooses not to restrict access to Rolling Hill, the applicant shall be required to
restrict Rolling Hill Drive on Overland Road to right-in, right-out only, construct passive
traffic calming measures on Rolling Hill, improve Rolling Hill with 24 feet of pavement,
three foot wide gravel shoulders and six foot wide concrete sidewalk on one side of the
road within existing right of way. Construct a mini roundabout at the terminus of Rolling
Hill Drive and enter into a CDA to replace the crossing over the Five Mile Creek. The
applicant would be restricted to phases one and two, the residential portion of the
development, and may not proceed with phase three, the office portion, until the existing
residential properties on Rolling Hill Drive are purchased and annexed into the city with
commercial zoning. When there are no remaining residential homes on Rolling Hill Drive
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 6,2022 191
Page 5 of 50
ACHD may reclassify this roadway as a collector or commercial road and require
additional improvements at that time. Since the last hearing an updated concept plan
was submitted as shown for the multi-family residential development that depicts 20 extra
parking spaces along the driveway at the northern boundary of the site. This is planned
to be a private street in the future. These spaces could serve as guest parking, but don't
meet the requirements for off-street parking as they are on street. The ACHD report also
expresses concern pertaining to adequacy of available parking proposed in the multi-
family portion of the development and the potential for overcrowded on-street parking on
Rolling Hill Drive as ACHD traffic services has received several complaints about
overcrowded on-street parking in the city with new apartment complexes. The report
states it appears there are more tenants per apartment unit causing parking issues on
adjacent public streets near apartment complexes in general due to lack of affordable
housing. For these reasons staff is recommending the minimum amount of parking
required for the use is provided internal to the development. A minimum of 11 additional
spaces are needed. Staff is recommending the following changes to the staff report. The
first bullet in your hearing outline please disregard. It was pertaining to minimum seven
foot wide sidewalks to be provided where parking stalls abut sidewalks. The applicant
did submit an updated site plan that shows that they are complying with that. The
previous site plan did not include the curb dimension in that, so they are good on that. I
am asking for a new condition to be included requiring construction traffic to access the
site from the west from Silverstone and Overland Road intersection, rather than from
South Rolling Hill Drive, as committed to by the applicant at the last hearing. And also
modification to Condition A-1-G, a development agreement provision pertaining to ACHD
required off-site improvements to Rolling Hill to simply require compliance with ACHD's
requirements. And, then, one additional condition that is not on your hearing outline per
the applicant. I believe they committed to this at the last hearing to provide an access
easement to that out-parcel along the north boundary, so that the property owner can
maintain weeds or anything else on the property. Thank you.
McCarvel: Thank you, Sonya. Would the applicant like to come forward?
Wardle: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Jon Wardle with Brighton. My
address is 2929 West Navigator Drive, Suite 400, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. If I can I would
like to share my screen on this. Appreciate the opportunity to come back. At our last
hearing back in the beginning of December there were a few items specifically related to
traffic that were -- that were raised. One of the issues was that we had not received an
ACHD staff report at that time, which had left some open-ended questions and the other
one was also regarding Rolling Hill Drive and how that would be treated with the concerns
of the existing homes on Rolling Hill Drive. After that meeting we immediately had two
conversations, one was with the Meridian Fire Department to talk about whether Rolling
Hill Drive could be emergency access only, and the second conversation we had was
with the Ada County Highway District on -- first off where -- where were they with their
traffic study, but could we also consider that as an option. An interim report was
submitted, but from there we went back and forth several times and I would like to kind of
discuss where we landed. I would like to note from Meridian Fire Department they
indicated that, yes, it could be used as emergency access only. So, provide the
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 6,2022 Flo]
Page 6 of 50
appropriate turnaround at the end of the road, but also it could be bollarded or some other
mechanism that would ensure that they could get through, but access from the
commercial property and from the apartment project wouldn't access Rolling Hill Drive,
that it would remain just as it was. So, tonight we wanted to talk specifically about that,
Rolling Hill Drive. ACHD -- they did provide an updated staff report. There were two
options. Option One, which I have placed in front of you, talks about using Rolling Hill
Drive as emergency access only. The criteria there that they want to have us provide
them -- and our traffic engineers are working on that -- is updating the traffic study that
showed the trips that would be on Rolling Hill Drive and moving those to Silverstone.
Silverstone is a collector. It is a signalized intersection and what that would be. We don't
have that where we have been able to provide that to ACHD yet, but they are asking for
that and we will. Option Two is that we do use Rolling Hill Drive and that Rolling Hill Drive
would need improvements to it, including the access out onto Overland. We have
concluded, however, and have talked with a few of the neighbors that the approach that
we want to take is to do emergency access only -- is to provide that needed turnaround
at the end of that public road, provide the appropriate approved restriction onto -- at the
end of Rolling Hill from the neighbors to the south and us to the north, so that Fire could
get through, but the access couldn't be made from residents or businesses out of the
project, that they would go to Silverstone. We still need to provide that report, but we feel
like the trips that would go to Silverstone -- it can be accommodated. There is a signal
there and, as I mentioned, I have spoken with a couple of the neighbors, either by phone
or via e-mail, face-to-face, just discussing that we are pursuing this as an option. So,
what does that mean? Just a quick exhibit here is just showing our internal circulation
and how that traffic would come out-- out to Overland Road on Silverstone and they could
also access Rackham Way, but Rackham Way would be a right-in, right-out only, so any
trips that wanted to go out there they could use that, but Silverstone would be the point
of access to it. We are -- we do understand what the -- what the neighbors have asked,
the concerns about those trips on there while they still are residences. The
Comprehensive Plan does show that at some point that we will transition -- transition to
something that it is -- something different than it is today, but those plans aren't there
today and so we are trying to do our best to listen to what they have asked. In fact, this
was very specific at the hearings and the last hearing was can we use Rolling Hill as
emergency access only. We believe that, yes, we can. Like I said, we still need to check
that box with ACHD on providing the updated study, but I think we will all be able to note
and agree that putting those trips to a signal on a collector road is the better option at this
time. Like I said, ACHD has requested that we provide them with an updated analysis of
that intersection. It's in process. We will provide that to them shortly. But we -- like I
said, we are hopeful that they will be able to extend that determination that Silverstone is,
in fact, the appropriate place at this time for that access to occur. As Sonya mentioned,
there was an update to the site plan. We have -- we are providing some additional on-
street parking as noted here kind of along the north area. I will -- I do want to note that
we do meet the parking requirements for all of the residential units. We do meet that.
The difference here or the rub here is -- is the amenity element of the project. We had
not calculated the parking for that. There has been -- I guess that has varied from project
to project, but in this case staff indicated that we did need to calculate that and so, really,
we are meeting the parking requirements for all the residential units and we are able to
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 6,2022 Fill
Page 7 of 50
provide additional on-street parking, which will be guest parking on those parallel stalls
on the north. We went through pretty extensively before and I can -- I can go back and
answer any questions that you have regarding the project if there are any, but it felt like
the open items before you to -- that we wanted to discuss tonight were the ACHD traffic
study. Do we have that? Yes, we do. And are there solutions for Rolling Hill at this time?
Yes, there are. The solution that we are pursuing is the emergency access only and that's
what we are proposing and we are hopeful that at the conclusion of our updated traffic
analysis of that intersection that ACHD will agree with that as well. We respectfully
request that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the conditional use permit
and also that the Commission transmit to the Council with a recommendation for
annexation and rezoning and preliminary plat and I stand for any questions that you might
have tonight.
McCarvel: I will start off, because I don't want it to be a surprise to anybody -- and this
did come fairly late, so even though the option you would like to move forward with on
Rolling Hills Drive is the emergency access only, that is still predicated on that traffic
study. So, I just want -- could you talk a little bit more about what -- what Option B really
is and what that entails?
Wardle: Well, Option B is the option that has been option number two. I will tell you that
there are conversations, even within ACHD, about the importance of using Silverstone.
John Wasson, who is the traffic -- kind of -- who is a liaison that I think you see quite
frequently on these correspondences, his own concern about, you know, using Rolling
Hill. So, they are just asking us to reallocate what would be those future trips, which is at
build out about 2,500 daily trips. The peak hours are significantly less than that and what
that would mean to that intersection. Preliminarily, we are being told that there is not a
significant impact. Will there be a traffic signal at Silverstone? Yes. But that signal that's
there and the -- the nature of the road as it's currently built, will -- will be able to
accommodate it. We haven't -- we don't have a full report to give at ACHD, but that's
what we are being told that appears that it will be -- it will function. ACHD at the same
time needs to review that and I think it would be important for this Commission and even
the City Council to indicate their concurrence with that and ask that that be the result.
Even if there is a little bit of overloading at Silverstone, that overloading today is better
than the -- the use of Rolling Hill.
McCarvel: And if you could maybe elaborate a little bit -- I know there was the little
enclave property. Was there --
Wardle: Yes.
McCarvel: -- on that?
Wardle: Madam Chair, you are referencing kind -- I hope you can see my little hand right
here on the screen, but there is a little piece right there. As of today we have a written
purchase agreement for that and so we will -- we will close that transaction and we will
include it. I will note we are talking about 14 feet, so its sole purpose -- well, it's improved
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 6,2022 F12
Page 8 of 50
purpose is a landscape buffer. Its use right now is -- are weeds, but we will make that
part of the landscape buffer, so that's what we were doing. We will acquire that.
McCarvel: I think everybody just didn't want to see it become weeds permanently.
Wardle: Nor do we, because it will -- it will not show well for the entryway into the city.
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: I'm leaving the parking question to somebody else.
Cassinelli: I was -- I'm going with -- I'm going with the Rolling Hills portion of it right now.
Jon, there is going to be a turnaround there at the end of the road, if that's -- if that
ultimately is the way it's going to be built out. Will that be -- are you going to set that back
and put that on your property? How -- how will you accommodate that?
Wardle: Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli, a couple options. We have been in
conversations with the owner here on the east about acquiring property there so that
turnaround could happen south of the boundary and so that there is a very clear
delineation. There -- there is another option, which I think is a little less desirable, but we
own this parcel right here, which is just under 180 feet from the terminus. That would
give us an opportunity to do it there. But our -- our preference is to work with this owner
here and provide the turnaround right at the boundary.
Cassinelli: Thank you.
Wardle: Thank you.
Cassinelli: Somebody else can ask -- talk about parking.
Seal: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Seal.
Seal: I just got a couple of questions. So, continuing on with that, the terminus there, is
that going to be marked no parking?
Wardle: Madam Chair, Commissioner Seal, yes, it would be marked as no parking.
That's -- that's actually a requirement. Many cul-de-sacs are not signed as no parking,
but it's actually a requirement that they not be parked on and, yes, we would sign it at the
time that we can -- that we construct it and the -- I guess the other kind of segue to that
one is the importance of getting that turnaround in at the commencement of our
construction, because there was question about construction traffic as well. So, those
things would merge together. But, yes, we would get that in at the very beginning and it
would be no parking.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 6,2022 F13
Page 9 of 50
Seal: Okay. So, you are trying to basically put that in as part of phase one?
Wardle: Yes.
Seal: Okay. I will ask the question about parking and there seems to be some
discrepancy on that and -- I mean the staff has been pretty critical of the parking and,
then, not only that, but the ACHD report is critical of basically the City of Meridian for their
parking standards, so -- I mean what -- what do you propose, you know, be done about
that? I mean I have got a couple of ideas floating through my mind. One of them is to
just make the -- the private drive that you have there, make that go more straight, instead
of coming down into the private drive and accommodate more parking that way. I mean
it would take away from your parking lot, but is that something that's doable?
Foreseeable?
Wardle: Madam Chair, Commissioner Seal, as we had noted before, we have been
working on the overall site plan here for the office buildings to the north and to -- to merge
that with the multi-family. We feel like we do have that balance for the parking. I do not
have a -- an approval from our partners about, you know, moving parking to the north and
moving that road to the north. Again, I -- we, too, are aware of the parking issue. I don't
think I have come to any meetings thus far on multi-family where it has not been raised.
We -- like I said, the deficit that we feel like we have here is related to the amenities and
that -- again, that kind of caught us off guard, because it has not been a requirement or
it's not been calculated before on our projects and so if it's a hard and fast rule and we
can't move that road to the north and the city doesn't accept the guest parking along the
road, then, there would -- you know, unfortunately, we would remove some units, which
we don't want to do. But that's -- I think that's the only way that we would be able to
accommodate that and I don't -- I don't feel like that's our best option. I will tell you that
we did talk with staff and it's -- it's kind of -- maybe I can zoom in here a little bit. There
-- there are some opportunities on site. If you can see that there is areas against the
clubhouse amenity areas. There is some green space. We also have some other green
space we could adjust. We did talk with staff about putting parallel parking in here and
that would qualify as on site, but the concern -- and so I'm a little, you know, caught off
guard by this, because this was a late request. The concern was, well, this is a drive aisle
here internally and you have cars backing up and there might be some conflicts internally.
So, we landed with staff a few weeks ago about bringing that parking -- the additional
parking needed up here. So, we -- we have -- we felt like this was the best option by
cleaning up the drive aisles. We could do it. We could shorten up or narrow up some
landscaping and make some adjustments and parallel along here and meet the
requirement on site, but felt like the flow of traffic through here and around that community
center was better if we didn't do that. So, that's an option for us as well. We would have
to work through that through the CZC process.
Seal: Okay. Thank you. And I appreciate the recognition of the parking issues that we
do have and it's going -- probably will continue, so -- I mean more is always better for
parking.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 6,2022 F14]
Page 10 of 50
Wardle: I do still want to acknowledge that when we looked at this, the parking
requirements for the units, I mean we -- we do meet those. The deficit is, in our opinion,
related to the amenities and it was even brought up was, well, what happens if somebody
is having an event there at the community center and they are bringing guests in? So, I
mean that was kind of the feeling of how do we accommodate that. Staff has taken time
on this issue. They have -- they have made some modifications as unit types change to
how do we accommodate the correct amount of parking. I think that's also a topic that's
on the planning staff's upcoming UDC amendments. That was one of the bullet items to
look at that again. I think, you know, it's a topic to -- to continue to discuss and -- and
address, so that we can all be good neighbors and come up with a provision that does
work.
Seal: Thank you.
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: So, has there been a thought of doing some -- an easement on --to the parking
lot to the north? Because I'm assuming that most of the time when you need more parking
it's going to be off hours and, you know, potentially -- residents could potentially park in
the evening or -- or on the weekends when they have events and -- and share some
parking that way as an option and more than likely that's what's probably going to end up
happening anywise if -- if they can't find parking for the subdivision -- or for the
apartments.
Wardle: Madam Chair, Commissioner Yearsley, we haven't discussed specifically that
easement. I do think that you are correct that naturally overflow parking in those off hours
-- because when people leave the offices those lots empty and apartments and residents,
they come home at night and weekends and there is --there is usually not a conflict there.
We can discuss that. I -- I don't know. I don't know that answer. But it's something we
can discuss.
Yearsley: Okay.
McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant?
Grove: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Grove.
Grove: Jon, real quick. The 671 that you have here is that including -- was that 20 that's
on the private drive?
Wardle: Madam Chair, Commissioner Grove, it is. I had a previous version that showed
the calculation, but my formatting got messed up there, but it is -- we have 651, plus the
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 6,2022 F15]
Page 11 of 50
20.
Grove: I'm just curious, because in the staff report we have a whole bunch of numbers
and so I'm just trying to wrap my head around where they are at, so --
Wardle: Madam Chair, Commissioner Grove, staff did -- there were some discrepancies
in our report about, you know, how many stalls we actually did have. There was a little
bit of confusion on our part as well, but we did go back through and calculate it again.
So, 651 on site, plus the additional 20.
Grove: All right. Thank you.
McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you.
Wardle: Thank you very much.
McCarvel: And, Chris, do we have anybody signed up or -- oh.
Johnson: Yeah, Madam Chair, nobody signed up online. You might be receiving a paper
right now.
McCarvel: Yeah. Okay. First on the list that wishes to testify is Alicia Eastman. Pull the
mic real close to you.
Eastman: Because I'm still short. I live at 1485 Rolling Hill.
McCarvel: And, please, state your name as well.
Eastman: My name is Alicia Eastman and it -- my house is on Lot 3, Block 2. So, my
biggest concern right now is that -- and while I appreciate everything that the developer
is trying to do, that if you go with that second option to do the improvement to widen the
road there at the end where we are at, we are just --where View Circle is -- between View
Circle and Overland. So, if you do that -- take that easement and that 24 feet, it's going
to affect not just my well, across the street, three, four, five houses, plus mine, and so
what do we do for water and -- if we don't want to annex or, you know, and hook up to
city sewer, city water, what happens to our wells? I mean I'm just kind of -- I'm not clear
on -- on that and I need water. So, that's really what my big concern is. And, then, I have
the neighbor on -- Lori Beth Wilson that lives on View Circle, she doesn't have internet,
she doesn't use e-mail, she doesn't do electronic things and so I -- you know, gotten a
copy of the ACHD report and took it over to her, but -- and she said, well, are all of the
houses going to be gone? What if somebody doesn't want to move in? And I said, well,
I don't -- I don't know and so she said, well, do they -- are they just going to do eminent
domain or something and I said I don't know, but, here, call -- you know, I -- call Meridian,
call the city clerk and, you know, take it up with the City Council. So, thank you very
much.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 6,2022 F16
Page 12 of 50
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. We will have the applicant respond. That's all that has
indicated on the sign-up list that they wished to testify. That being said, is there anybody
else in the room or online that wishes to testify that did not sign up? Okay.
Johnson: Madam Chair, you do have one person.
McCarvel: Okay. We have somebody in the room first.
Johnson: Oh, good. Okay.
McCarvel: Yep. We will get to Zoom in a minute. Thanks.
Blowers: My name is Mike Blowers and I live at 1325 Rolling Hill. My question is in
regards just to the cul-de-sac option. I didn't really plan on adding questions until that
came up, but I guess first question is I'm -- I'm aware of a property that Brighton owns or
BVA owns, but I believe what you pointed to on the map would be my next door neighbor,
which would leave two homes past the cul-de-sac. So, I'm curious how that would work.
The other option, which was purchasing part of the property at the very end of the street,
I do know that would be an option for that person, but if that doesn't go through this cul-
de-sac would go into the private drive of the plans that were shown above, so I don't -- I
guess I'm just looking for clarification. What if neither one of those properties are able to
be used for the cul-de-sac, where does that leave us? But since I'm already up here the
other question that I was curious about and I haven't been able to get an answer to, was
kind of like the last meeting, we were waiting on a report from ACHD. We were told, you
know, no concerns around it. Well, the report comes back and it says we need to, you
know, remove the homes on Rolling Hill and now we are being told that again. There is
a report that's going to come out and it -- it will likely work and I hope it does work, but I'm
just curious what if this report comes back and it says, well, you can't run all the traffic
down Silverstone or -- or maybe I misunderstood and -- and it will work. So, that was -- I
was seeking clarification there. Thank you.
McCarvel: Thank you. Okay. Chris, I think we are clear in the room. Do we have
somebody online?
Johnson: We do. And I'm going to unmute you now. It's Chris Maiocca. Apologies if I
mispronounced your -- you're able to speak now.
Maiocca: Thank you, Madam Chair and City Council. Can you hear me?
McCarvel: Yes. Please state your full name and address for the record.
Maiocca: Yes. My name is Chris Maiocca and I live at 4160 East View Circle. I just
wanted to say just a couple of things. We have several members in our neighborhood
unable to make it because of COVID, so we haven't lost interest in this project, we are
just sick and quarantining. The other thing I did want to mention -- we have had a couple
of Zoom meetings with the highway department and they have shown us how they have
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 6,2022 F17
Page 13 of 50
gotten some of their numbers for Rolling Hill and I believe it was 6.3 car trips per unit and
we did the math and -- and I -- it just seemed like all the parties on the call agreed that
their numbers just weren't realistic and they were very low. So, it seems like -- and my
notes -- my notes tell me that they -- they were estimating 200 trips a day up Rolling Hill
currently, which seems very high and they were -- and we are estimating with the numbers
they gave us, trips per cars per day about 2,500. So, our concern is is that if -- just with
phase one and two, the numbers of cars would far exceed the -- whatever you want to
use -- the legal limit for Rolling Hills and we are just afraid that retroactively there is
nothing that we can -- can do about that. Having said that, we are certainly appreciative
of Brighton and BVA for whatever their motives are -- it does seem like all parties really
want to avoid using Rolling Hill as -- as a thoroughway for this project and I really do
appreciate something a Council Member said, I forget who it was at last meeting,
something to the effect: We haven't always done right by some of these rural properties
and here is our chance to get it right and the one last thing that I remember a Council
Member said and I really think they nailed it, this project was really done backwards. The
property should have been attempted to have been purchased at Overland and, then,
move up the road and, unfortunately, that -- that wasn't what happened, but I do give
Brighton and BVA the credit for recognizing that and for whatever the motives are trying
to do the right thing now. So, thank you, Council. Appreciate you.
McCarvel: Thank you. Anybody else in the room or online? Come forward.
Wattles: My name is Amy Wattles. My address is 1360 Rolling Hill Drive. I just wanted
to add -- I was listening via phone at the beginning of the meeting. One part that stood
out to me is we have -- you guys are faced with two decisions. You know, Option One,
you are using Silverstone. Option Two that's still on the table is Rolling Hill Drive. I don't
want to gloss over what ACHD had to say about Option Two with Rolling Hill Drive. What
will happen at the intersection of Rolling Hill and Overland is it becomes a right turn in
only and right turn out only. So, now the residents -- we are having to backtrack all the
way through Silverstone just to be able to get back out to the left. That's a -- it's a concern.
You know, it's not something I think any of our neighbors want to lose sight of, is that the
Rolling Hills piece is still on the table. Last time we met there were a lot of concerns and
we brought them forward and thankfully, you know, you guys were willing to wait for the
report. There was discussion about waiting later in January for the ACHD report, but it
got pushed to the 6th. Here we are again without the report trying to push it earlier. I'm
just asking can we table this again until the report comes out? I know I have reached out
to Planning and Zoning and haven't been able to get phone calls returned prior to
meetings. We have met with ACHD and they have been wonderful. The last piece I
heard from ACHD was there were still parking concerns. So, I just don't -- it just feels --
can we, please, reserve this for when the report is done? Anything at this point is just
trusting that whatever figures or whatever stats they are proposing are accurate and I feel
like the consequences are too big for the residents there to take that leap of faith. Thank
you.
McCarvel: Thank you.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 6,2022 F18
Page 14 of 50
Seal: Madam Chair, I have a question for the --
McCarvel: Oh.
Seal: Ma'am.
McCarvel: Amy, he has a question for you. Commissioner Seal.
Seal: Do you know if they are going to have a hearing on this? ACHD?
Wattles: They said no. I think -- Mike, do you know better? There was a process.
McCarvel: We can't have the discussion in the room, because it doesn't show up on
record.
Wattles: Sorry.
McCarvel: Sorry.
Seal: I was going to say if the answer is no without a request, I would definitely request
one for sure, because -- I mean as the city we are a little bit tied at this point, because we
don't own the roads and we are kind of a little bit in the middle here. So, I mean if-- if the
concern really lies with the road and what they are going to do with that and the decision
that's going to be made, then, definitely request a hearing with ACHD, so your voice can
be heard.
Waddle: That decision would be predicated on you approving Option B first, though, so
we could avoid that whole scenario and just wait for the report.
Seal: We don't approve Option B or A.
McCarvel: Yeah.
Seal: ACHD does. It's completely out of our purview.
Wattles: Okay.
McCarvel: Yeah.
Wattles: Because as far as what they are proposing that's the part I'm confused about.
McCarvel: Yeah. They are -- the Option A and Option B is -- Option A is what everybody
wants to move forward with, but Option B is there in case the traffic study comes back
and Silverstone is not adequate.
Wattles: Right. But in order for Option B to move forward you all would have to approve
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 6,2022 F19
Page 15 of 50
that -- or whatever you are deciding tonight would decide Option A or B. Either are fair
game.
McCarvel: Either would be fair game.
Wattles: And that's troublesome. That's all.
McCarvel: Yeah. It would -- that's why the options were both presented, because the
traffic study isn't done right now, so it's -- this is what happens if the traffic study is okay
and this is what happens if the traffic study does not support Silverstone only, so --
Wattles: Thank you.
Seal: Thank you.
Johnson: Madam Chair, you have one more person online.
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you.
Johnson: Pam Haynes and, Pam, you are unmuted now. Or you can unmute yourself.
Haynes: Sorry. Can you hear me now?
McCarvel: Yes. Please state your name and address for the record.
Haynes: Hi. My name is Pam Haynes. I live at 1235 Rolling Hill Drive. I just have a
comment. It's more for the developer. I realize it's purely speculation at this point. But
to me a third option for the cul-de-sac could be that it is placed on the northern line where
it would be on their property instead of purchasing land from the landowner to the east.
So, I'm just wondering if that is something that could be put on the table as an option and
thank you.
McCarvel: Thank you. Okay. Anyone else online or in the room that wishes to testify?
Okay. Would the applicant like to come back.
Wardle: Madam Chair, for the record again Jon Wardle with Brighton. As it relates to the
project and to transportation, one thing that was really -- everybody was very clear from
our last meeting was how do we not use Rolling Hill. Rolling Hill is a public road. There
is no -- there is no disputing that. But Rolling Hills does have -- Rolling Hill does have a
unique characteristic at this point in time, given the residences that are there. Can we
predict when those changes will happen to that? No, but we feel like we came up -- we
heard, we felt like we wanted to go back and check with both the Fire Department and
with ACHD on -- on whether we could pursue emergency access only. I understand that,
you know, there is still this element that's hanging out there regarding, you know, ACHD
being able to review that traffic that would come off of Rolling Hill and move to Silverstone.
My expectation is that that is the solution. Do --do we want to be in an adversarial position
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 6,2022 F20
Page 16 of 50
with our neighbors to the south through this project while residents are still there? No.
We are really trying to come up with a solution. Regarding the location of those
turnarounds, yes, there would be a third option, which would be go to the north. One of
the problems about going to the north -- which we could pursue or look at as an option
and we won't take it off the table, but there is -- there is circulation that would take all
those trips over. So, if we bring that cul-de-sac up that lower road to the south of the
property would be cut off. There wouldn't be a way to work around that. So, while not
preferable, it's something that we could look at. The project is amenity rich. We have a
lot of things here on site. We have an oversized amenity center. I know we are talking
about 11 parking stalls. It's 7,000 square feet. That's where the deficit is. We really could
reduce the size of that community center to something that would be more -- you see in
the market of 3,000 square feet, but we feel like the amenities that are being offered here
substantiate, you know, the need for those. Would we cut them out? I don't think we
want to, but that's what we are talking about here is the -- the added parking stalls are
based on a fitness facility and amenities that we are providing. I -- I hear the comment
loud and clear regarding parking. I think one of the benefits here -- one of the things that,
you know, I hope that we do discuss in upcoming UDC group is there are different parking
loading needs when you get into three bedroom apartments. It -- they -- they often have
a number of adults that are living there and so I don't know that it's just -- specifically can
be addressed based on the unit's themselves, but I think you also need to look at the mix
within an entire project, because that I know comes up quite a bit. With our partners we
-- we have worked on this quite a bit. We feel like we have come up with a solution. We
feel like there -- there are options and alternatives that Rolling Hill, like we mentioned,
which is in the ACHD staff report, Option Two, about using Rolling Hill to the south. While
not preferable and as -- as noted there would be some restrictions as well. We originally
came in looking at this as a public road and trying to use that public road. I think we need
to have additional conversations as those areas will transition on what that means and
when they do transition how the connection should be made up to our property. That is
a conversation that still needs -- that should be had at some point in the future, because
these properties will convert -- you know, they will sell one by one over time and I think
that's just something that, you know, ACHD and the City of Meridian need to look at long
term. With that said we feel like Option One, which is that turnaround, that would stop
the traffic, so that traffic on Rolling Hill is resident traffic of those themselves and their
guests and we would limit it to emergency access only. Again, we -- we feel like this --
this does provide a place for -- for housing in a location where there will be offices that
residents that potentially work there could also live there and we feel like this is the right
place for this given the regional mixed use designation and the uses that are already
proposed and will be proposed at Eagle View landing and surrounding. We do ask for
your approval of the project. We know that there is still this thing hanging out there, but
with that approval we also, like I mentioned earlier, request that the Commission strongly
encourage ACHD to accept Option One and Silverstone be the place where the traffic
could go. I think that would be a helpful piece of information that they could receive as
well and I stand for any questions you might have.
Seal: Madam Chair?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 6,2022 F21
Page 17 of 50
McCarvel: Commissioner Seal.
Seal: Just -- one of the folks that came up had a question about the wells and if we are
going to go with Option B and how those would be handled.
Wardle: Madam Chair. Appreciate you, Commissioner Seal, bringing that back up. If
Option Two is pursued the requirement is that it would be -- we would need to add
sidewalk and streetlights to one side of the road. Clearly we would have to look at that.
But if there is an impact to a water source that would need to be provided and fixed prior
to any of that work happening. Honestly, we haven't -- we haven't pursued any design
for Option Two. We don't -- we don't want to pursue that. But if -- if that was where we
had to go we would have to make sure that people have their services, including their
wells.
McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant?
Grove: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Grove.
Grove: What is the timeline for the study as forthcoming?
Wardle: Pardon me. Madam Chair, Commissioner Grove, it's in process. Our consultant,
who did the overall traffic study -- and I just want to be clear that ACHD has reviewed the
overall traffic counts. They have accepted what the volume of traffic will be coming out
of the project. So, at this point they are just asking our consultant to make that connection
and go over and show what it would be. I would expect that that should be able to be
transmitted to ACHD very soon. We are not talking months here, we are talking just a
matter of, you know, at most weeks, if not sooner. But, you know, ACHD will still need to
review that and work it through their -- their team to look at the numbers.
McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you.
Wardle: Thank you very much.
McCarvel: At this time could we get a motion to close the public hearing for H-2021-
0075?
Seal: So moved.
Yearsley: Second.
McCarvel: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2021-0075.
All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 6,2022 F22
Page 18 of 50
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: I actually applaud Brighton for what they have done in looking at to try to help
minimize the impact to the homeowners on Rolling Hills. I understand that it's not a done
deal, but I think -- realistically I think even ACHD is going to try to push as hard as they
can to make Rolling Hills emergency access only, just because I think everyone
understands that that makes sense. So, I -- you know, I'm comfortable with -- with that
moving forward. With regard to parking, I'm one to always want more parking, but given
the location of this and the amount of parking to the -- to the north, I'm okay with the way
they have got the parking proposed, because, ultimately, the overflow parking is going to
go to the north, even if there isn't an easement, and so there is -- there is -- there is --
there is parking available that's not in the homeowners and especially if -- if Rolling Hills
becomes emergency access only. So, to me it makes -- it's one -- one area that I'm not
as concerned about, so -- as according to the applicant as well, they -- the -- their traffic
engineer has actually done the analysis. My guess is they are just finishing up the report
and -- and they are saying that the -- the -- making the access to Rolling Hills emergency
only is more of a formality and, again, this has to go to City Council as well, so there is
one more gatekeeper before us. So, with that I am comfortable moving this one forward.
McCarvel: Okay.
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: Yeah. There seems to be just two major issues here and the -- the parking,
if -- if it's truly about the square footage of the amenities, the clubhouse, that's all going
to be used strictly by the tenants of the apartments. So, I don't -- and I agree with
Commissioner Yearsley, I think any -- you know, if it's guest parking or whatever will
probably flow to the north. So, I'm -- I'm okay with that. It's not -- this isn't a development
that's on a --surrounded by residential areas that --where the parking is going to overflow
into -- into neighborhoods so much as many others do. So, that's my issue there. I'm not
concerned about that, unless somebody sees differently. Personally, I'm looking back at
the minutes from December 2nd and we continued this to wait for ACHD's report. We
don't have that yet. That was -- I mean that was the whole -- that was one of the big
reasons. I -- although Commissioner Yearsley did make the point that it's still got to go
to Council, I wish we would have that, you know, for this -- for this meeting and we don't.
I would like to know for certain before I would vote to approve, that, really, the only option
is Option One. I don't want to send it to Council with -- with -- with both, depending on --
and leaving that in ACHD's hands. So, that's -- that's kind of where -- that's where I'm at
right now, so --
Grove: Madam Chair?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 6,2022 F23]
Page 19 of 50
McCarvel: Commissioner Grove.
Grove: I agree. We did wait for -- we wanted to wait for the ACHD report, but we did get
the ACHD report, now we are waiting for a confirmation of the applicant's study and not
an applicant -- not a -- not the ACHD report. So, in that regard I feel comfortable moving
forward. I would say in any condition of approval, though, that that study needs to be
finalized and reviewed by ACHD prior to being heard by City Council as a condition,
because that -- that would inform how Council can make a decision or not. I mean if -- if
the study does come back and Option Two is the only option, Council is going to have to
weigh in on that anyway, because it has an enormous impact. But I would -- I would feel
comfortable moving it forward with that condition that the study has to be complete and
reviewed by ACHD prior to City Council. Everything else I'm pretty comfortable with. You
know, I would always like to see more parking, but I don't have huge concerns with it as
presented. Yeah. I think that's pretty much all I have.
McCarvel: Yeah. I would tend to agree with the parking. I mean -- and whether we --
the --the numbers and the requirements include the amenity. I mean it's always included.
There has always been a calculation in there for the amenity. I'm not on staff, but even I
know that. I remember lots of presentations where that--that number-- or that calculation
is included, because people naturally bring guests over and it is -- I mean some people
live far enough away that they don't want to haul their stuff down there and they drive
down there, so -- but, yeah, in this particular location I agree with having that huge parking
lot that's going to be just on the north side of that road. It's much different than it butting
up against another residential area or something that is already parking stressed and I
would hate to see him take away from green open space to fit more in when there is going
to be a huge parking lot there. As long as they don't end up putting signs up for towing
that says you can't park here. So, I would encourage some cross-access there I guess.
And I would agree with Commissioner Grove that before this goes to Council -- I think --
I mean I'm not a traffic engineer, so I'm not sure how long this takes and how accurate
and how big of a percentage they feel that what they have -- what they are thinking is
going to actually pan out, but from what I'm hearing here tonight I think it's well over 50-
50 that it's going to be a go for Option A. But, on the other hand, I wouldn't want to lock
that down not knowing. So, I would -- I would tend to agree and support Commissioner
Grove's idea that that all be wrapped up before it's heard by Council, so they know for
sure what they are dealing with and, then, if-- you know, if it needs more, then, they can
remand it back or have further discussions there, instead of us twiddling our thumbs and
wondering.
Seal: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Seal.
Seal: Yeah. I agree. The -- I'm comfortable moving it forward as -- as far as the use or
not using Rolling Hill Drive, but I do think that that final report from ACHD does need to
be in and finalized, so that the answer to that is -- is known. I mean as far as the applicant,
I think they have done everything in their power to go through and make sure that it is
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 6,2022 F24]
Page 20 of 50
known that Option A is the option that they want to go towards. I think that works well for
everybody involved. I do agree that if there is a way for the city to converse with ACHD
about this that we should definitely let them know that that is -- that's the option that
everybody would like to go towards. As much as I don't like Option B, I'm still okay with
moving it forward. I mean, unfortunately, we don't own the roads, so -- ACHD does.
Again, I would recommend very highly that you ask for hearing from ACHD so your voice
is known there, because, really, the decision is in their hands, not ours. As far as the
parking, I do agree that people are going to go into that parking lot. That's where the
people are going to end up. So, for this one specifically it's not that big of an issue.
However, it does set a precedence and we have been here when the applicant has used
precedence in order to tell us what they have been able to do or not do in the past. So,
when we are splitting hairs on it, this is a way to me that a precedent has been set that
could be taken advantage of. So, I'm not a big fan of that. I think there is other ways to
solve the parking issue. They are not inexpensive, but they are solutions, so -- and they
will fit into code and, then, it satisfies everything without really taking away anything. So,
I'm a little on the fence about that one. Like -- like I said, I would rather it all fit into the
code and be by the book and be done the right way, so that there is no precedent set that
anybody can take advantage of in the future, because people will do that for sure. That's
about all I got on it.
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
Allen: Madam Chair, may I clarify a couple things? In regard to the parking, the applicant
did clarify that their parking calcs were a little bit off, so to my calculations I think we are
only five short, somewhere in that number right now. If -- if the Commission is leaning
towards allowing -- or they are okay with not -- the applicant not providing the minimum
standards of on-site parking, there are alternatives in our city code to off-site parking
through a shared use agreement. There are standards for that, that the applicant does
have -- do have to comply with. So, it's -- it's not just a given and if that isn't an option,
then, if the minimum standards aren't being complied with on the site, alternative
compliance is another option, but we do have to go through those processes to approve
the change, so --
Yearsley: Madam -- Madam Chair. Just --just for -- for the reference on that if we make
a motion, we have to -- they have to meet the requirement or provide alternative
compliance for parking. Is that not my understanding?
Allen: Yes. There is a condition in the staff report right now that they provide the minimum
parking spaces. If they go through the alternative -- parking standard alternatives in 11-
3-C7, they can still comply with that condition. There is no need to amend it necessarily.
Yearsley: Okay.
Allen: Or they can apply for alternative compliance.
Yearsley: Okay.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 6,2022 F25]
Page 21 of 50
Allen: But you can't -- I guess my point is is you can't just waive the minimum parking
standards.
Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Sonya, on that would in -- in conditioning for a shared use
agreement, is that what has kind of been talked about up here, is using the office parking
to the north to -- to incorporate that as a shared use agreement? Is that what you are
referring to?
Allen: Yeah. It is a possibility. I would want to know what the parking calcs are and
what's required and what's provided on that site when there is more detail on that. I'm
not sure if they are to that point yet. Also as a -- as a provision of approving the parking
alternatives, typically you want uses that aren't sharing the parking at the same time. With
residential that's -- that's a little more difficult, because the resident -- residents could be
there at any time, same time as the office employees. So, I guess before approving an
alternative I would want to know exactly how much they are over and what their need is
for the future office uses. Having said that, they are only five spaces short, so I don't think
it's a big deal, but those are things that we would consider in that.
Yearsley: So, I understand that we don't need to make a comment on that, because it's
in the staff report that they meet the minimum requirements. We can't waive the minimum
requirements and so they just either need to show that they meet those requirements or
provide the alternative compliance. So, at that point we don't need to address that in the
motion. Okay.
McCarvel: Would somebody like -- do we need more discussion or would somebody like
to take a stab at a well-crafted motion?
Yearsley: Madam Chair, I will take a stab at this. Let me -- after considering all staff,
applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file
number H-2021-0075 as presented in the staff report -- staff report for the hearing date
of January 6th, 2022, with the following modifications: To include a new condition
requiring traffic -- construction traffic to access the site from West Silverstone -- or from
Silverstone rather than from Rolling Hills Drive as committed by the applicant in the last
hearing. Modification to condition number A-1.G pertaining to ACHD's required off-site
improvements to Rolling Hills Drive to simply require compliance with ACHD's
requirements. Then also that prior to City Council that the applicant has worked with
ACHD to get the revised staff report back to how Rolling Hills Drive will be improved or
will be emergency access and, then, also that staff's -- or planning's recommendation to
go with Option One for the emergency access only as -- as a recommendation to ACHD.
Grove: Do we also need the easement to the north property?
Yearsley: As the applicant stated, he is -- they are in a purchase agreement, so I don't
know if they can still provide that easement.
McCarvel: It think it needs to be added to the DA.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 6,2022 F26]
Page 22 of 50
Yearsley: Okay.
McCarvel: Yeah.
Yearsley: That the applicant access -- needs to provide access easement to the out-
parcel in the DA agreement?
McCarvel: No.
Yearsley: Or --
McCarvel: Provide the purchase agreement.
Yearsley: Provide the purchase agreement --
McCarvel: In the DA.
Yearsley: In the DA.
Seal: Second.
Allen: Madam Chair, may I clarify the motion, please?
McCarvel: Certainly.
Allen: Was the motion to -- as Commissioner Groves suggested earlier-- for the study to
be completed and reviewed by ACHD before this goes to Council?
Yearsley: Yes.
Allen: Thank you. So, this could be a while, so the Clerk may not want to set it for -- we
aren't setting a date for it tonight anyway.
McCarvel: Yeah. I think the applicant has suggested it might be for -- not months, but
weeks, so I think that's --yeah. It has been moved and seconded to recommend approval
on H-2021-0075 with modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed nay?
Cassinelli: Nay.
McCarvel: Chris, do you need a roll call or did you get that?
Johnson: I just need the nay.
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Johnson: Thank you.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 6,2022 F27
Page 23 of 50
McCarvel: Okay. Then motion approved.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY. TWO ABSENT.
5. Public Hearing for 1160 W. Ustick Annexation (H-2021-0092) by The
Housing Company, Located at 1160 W. Ustick Rd., on the north side
of Ustick Rd. Between N. Linder Rd. and N. Venable Ave.
A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 4.54 acres of land with a request
for the R-15 zoning district for the future purpose of constructing an
affordable housing, multi-family residential project.
McCarvel: Okay. Next on the agenda is H-2021-0092, 1160 West Ustick Annexation,
and we will begin with the staff report.
Dodson: Thank you, Madam Chair. I will let anybody who is leaving just clear out for a
couple of seconds. Okay. Thank you. As noted, the application -- the next application
before you tonight is for 1160 West Ustick. The site consists of 3.81 acres of land,
currently zoned RUT in the county and per the application name is located at 1160 West
Ustick. It's near the quarter mile, but -- you know, the quarter mile and a half mile mark
of -- on Ustick -- on the north side of Ustick, west of Venable, east of Linder. The
applications before you tonight our annexation and zoning only. You are a recommending
body on that of 4.54 acres of land, with a request for the R-15 zoning district for the future
purpose of constructing an affordable housing multi-family residential project by The
Housing Company. So, the discrepancy in the property size of 3.8 and 4.5 is to do -- is
because of the right of way. Right of way has to go to the centerline of the road, so you
have that extra area. So, again, the property is 3.8 acres. West Ustick Road abuts the
site along the entire southern boundary and it is a relatively odd shaped parcel. It is
widest at its west boundary and smallest at its east -- east boundary, approximately 390
feet for the west and 90 feet on the east. There are no public streets currently abutting
the site, except for approximately 11 feet of right of way at the very northwest corner of
the site. At the northeast corner of the site there is a relatively large residential lot -- I will
go back to the maps. You can -- that's a lot and, then, you have just a corner of right of
way there. The residential lot in the northeast is 3335 North Cooper Lane, that was
annexed and zoned as part of the Woodburn Subdivision. That is directly north. That
contains -- or sorry. That does not take access through that subdivision, but does have
a stub road to their north property boundary. Instead, this property takes access via a
private road easement through the subject site out to Ustick. Between this parcel and the
Woodburn Subdivision and runs along the -- almost the entire northern property boundary
is a common lot owned by the Woodburn HOA and contains an irrigation facility, the Lemp
Canal, and is piped. It does not appear that this area is currently fenced off from this
parcel. The majority of the adjacent parcels are single family residential, with the
exception of the C-C property directly to the east, which, again, only share about 90 feet
of frontage with shared boundary. That property, Settlers Square, recently received
development agreement modification approval to include multi-family townhomes on the
north half of their site, while keeping commercial pad sites along Ustick. Cross-access
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 6,2022 F28
Page 24 of 50
was required of Settlers Square and staff is requiring this cross-access be reciprocated
and the applicant does agree with this. In general, the property is a relatively odd shaped
parcel with its own set of challenges derived from previous planning decisions, its
dimensions and its general location. As noted -- well, I guess I didn't know note it, but the
subject site does contain two future land use designations, mixed use community and
medium density residential. Mixed use community is the brown. The yellow is the
medium density. Staff finds the proposed use to be in alignment with the anticipated uses
in both designations. Furthermore, future land use designations are not always parcel
specific when more than one exist on the same project area. In short, the city has allowed
applicants to utilize one or both of the designations for their project. However, in order
for the proposed 52 affordable multi-family units to meet the gross density requirements,
the project must be analyzed against the mixed use community designation, because it
allows dwellings at a gross density of six to 15 units per acre. To note, the proposed use
for this is multi-family, so it will require a future conditional use permit in the requested R-
15 zoning district and will be subject to specific use standards in the UDC. The subject
mixed use community area is located around a mid mile corridor and has minimal
commercial uses currently developed. Previous applications in the area have allowed a
reduction in commercial area due to the viability of commercial being -- or sorry. Lost my
place. Due to the viability of commercial being lower in these mid mile locations than on
the arterial intersections, like Linder and Ustick or Meridian and Ustick. Staff does
anticipate that most of the remaining unannexed land to the east that is part of this mixed
use community bubble will be commercial, because they directly abut Ustick Road, which
the unannexed parcels are these ones here and I believe one right here. In addition, as
seen on the future land use map, the area to the north of the subject parcel was
specifically carved out of the MUC bubble to allow for more traditional residential uses.
This choice, coupled with the existing stub street locations and the larger annexed, but
not redeveloped parcels, one to the west and one to the northeast, they have created a
site that cannot viably meet the fundamental goals and policies outlined in the comp plan
for the previously envisioned mixed use designation. Minimal opportunities exist for
shared spaces with other MUC parcels to the east and even cross-access to the C-C
parcel is only attainable through 90 feet of shared property line. Because of these
constraints to the site and nearby area, staff does not find it feasible for the applicant to
meet all of the mixed use policies, provide additional commercial area, and should,
instead, be an affordable multi-family housing project. Again, the proposed use is multi-
family residential, but affordable housing. The applicant is proposing this project with a
couple of notable differences from traditional multi-family seen elsewhere in the City of
Meridian. First, the submitted concept plan and elevations show six-plexes and eight-
plexes that are no more than two stories in height. They are accessed from one side of
the building and look similar to a townhome, instead of a garden style apartment.
Secondly, the applicant proposes this multi-family product to be affordable housing in the
form of deed restriction rents -- deed restricted rents for the entire site. Staff finds that
the specific use of affordable housing, no matter the type, is a greatly needed use within
the city and is in itself its own residential use. Staff has worked with the city attorney's
office to propose adequate development agreement provisions to ensure that the
proposed use of affordable housing is maintained on site. Outside of the proposed use
the concept plan itself should be analyzed against the Comprehensive Plan. The
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 6,2022 F29
Page 25 of 50
submitted concept plan depicts six six-plex units and two eight-plex units. The eight-plex
units are along Ustick, the rest of the buildings are six-plex buildings. They, again, are all
two story in height. The site is shown with a looping drive aisle due to its relative odd
shape of being wider at the west end and the drive aisle has parking on both sides, with
the clubhouse and playground area in the center of the project for pretty equal access by
all future residents. At least three of the homes closest to the subject site in the Woodburn
Subdivision on the north are two story in height. I believe there is five properties that abut
it. Three of those five are two stories, the other two are single story, but they do have the
common lot of the Lemp Canal between them, so there is a pretty far physical separation
between their back fence and the proposed project. In addition, the applicant is showing
open space directly adjacent to the single family home in the northeast that takes access
via the private drive. Along the west boundary the applicant is showing a 15 foot buffer
that would be adjacent to a future road extension Northwest 11th for a majority of this
shared property line. The existing single family home on this adjacent property, the one
to the west, is located on the west side of their lot and is approximately one hundred feet
from the shared property line. So, that's overall 115 from the proposed buildings.
Therefore, staff finds that the applicant has provided appropriate building massing, open
space locations, and buffer widths and appropriate transition of the residential use and
density to the adjacent residential uses. I would like to go --jump forward a little bit just
to see the future right of way. As noted there is a small area of existing right-of-way in
the northwest corner of the site -- or -- yes. Northwest corner of the site and it is for
Northwest 11 th Avenue. As you can tell there is a very small area that abuts the property.
Obviously, extending it into this site would make the most sense, because of the existing
right of way and a potential issues with the adjacent property owner. It is anticipated that
this road would be extended wholly on the property to the west, except for this sliver of
right-of-way, which is this exhibit that ACHD provided and the applicant has been -- is --
has agreed to with ACHD as well. The property to the west has an additional public street
stub to their west boundary from Tetherow Crossing that is currently under development.
Code does call for cross-access between parcels, but because of the proposed
development and the site constraints staff does not find it necessary to require a stub to
the west boundary for future connectivity. Further, staff finds if a connection were to be
required it would promote cross-access through the drive aisle that is meant to serve
future residents of this site and would, essentially, create a thoroughfare for residential
traffic through the drive aisle, rather than through a public road. Commission and Council
should determine if cross-access to the west is, in fact, needed in spite of these factors.
There is one existing structure on the property that appears to be some kind of concrete
structure -- I don't have any pictures of it, but it will be removed upon the project
development. In addition, there is existing five foot wide detached sidewalk along Ustick
Road that will be protected and maintained during construction and any driveway curb
cuts will also be closed in lieu of the proposed access. Initial review of the conceptual
elevations depicts a six-plex building with varying group profiles and varying -- and
varying materials, including stone, fiber cement lap siding, and board and batten in
different layouts. The elevations also depict the tallest portion of the buildings to face
inwards towards the site and helps with building massing facing both Ustick, as well as
the adjacent residential properties. Access is proposed to West Ustick, which is an
arterial road, via construction of a new local street segment and this is a very short
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 6,2022 F30
Page 26 of 50
segment. It aligns with North Blairmore on the south side of West Ustick Road, which is
why ACHD wants it here. It extends from Ustick and, then, terminates at the north
boundary for a total length of only about a hundred linear feet. Access to the multi-family
is clearly off of this local road in the form of a driveway connection for the drive aisle. All
parking and access to the proposed units are off of this drive aisle that loops through the
site. As with other projects when there is a private easement that is shared on a property,
that is a point of discussion and in my staff report I went into more detail, but in general
the actual location does not depict it here, which is where it is. It actually is along these
boundaries. So, all they are going to do is just maintain the existing easement, shift a
portion of it, you know, on a private matter and, actually, pave a portion -- a portion of the
dirt driveway for the existing residents. It's my understanding that this applicant and that
resident have had multiple discussions and they are perfectly fine with the proposed
layout for their private drive. In addition, there is a five foot wide detached sidewalk along
Ustick as noted. The applicant is proposing attached sidewalks, another micro path
throughout the site as seen on here with the light gray, both to the northwest, southwest
and, then, along the east boundary to the future cross-access to the Settlers Square
parcel for access to the future commercial uses. The -- sorry. Skipping around. In
addition to the proposed sidewalks and micropaths shown on the concert plan, staff did
recommend an additional pathway behind the buildings and along the north boundary to
help activate the already existing open space from the Woodburn Subdivision that is the
area of the piped Lemp Canal that is behind six -- or five or six existing homes over there.
That area is not improved, but it is open and so staff does believe that a gravel pathway
suitable for at least walking should be entered through this area on this site, so that this
open space area is not walled off anymore than it already has been from the Woodburn
Subdivision. The applicant has not agreed with this provision. Staff does feel like it would
be an added amenity for this area, not both -- not just for this area -- this project, but also
the Woodburn Subdivision that would allow them to have easier access from their
subdivision down to Ustick and/or to the east. The applicant is in agreement with all other
DA provisions, except -- so, again, the pathway is A-1 .1 and A-1 .13 is regarding the
affordable housing component and there are some legalese type of information in that --
that DA provision and there is no need to go into too much detail at the hearing in that,
but staff anticipates continuing to work with the applicant to make sure we have a shared
language that we are all in agreement with as we move forward, but still allows the city to
maintain that the future use will be affordable and not market rate apartments. With that
staff does recommend approval of the subject annexation for an affordable housing
project and after that I will stand for any questions.
McCarvel: Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward?
Dodson: I believe she's online.
McCarvel: Oh.
Anderson: Yes. Hi. Let me get put up here. Hello. Greetings. I'm Erin Anderson. I live
at 2238 North Astaire Way in Meridian and I am with The Housing Company and the
applicant. We have a presentation that -- I'm not sure if it's automatically going to be
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 6,2022 F31
Page 27 of 50
loaded or if I should load it.
Dodson: You can share your screen, Erin, if you would like.
Anderson: Okay. Again, I would thank you for your time, Madam Chair and
Commissioners. This is a really exciting opportunity for us. As I mentioned, I do live in
Meridian, but I -- I don't think that the City of Meridian is familiar with The Housing
Company and since Mr. Dodson did such a thorough job of describing the nuts and bolts,
really, from a planning and design standpoint of our project, I'm going to do a little bit of
background on our company and also a little bit more information about affordable
housing, because there seems to be a lot of interest in learning more about what we mean
by that. So, The Housing Company is a nonprofit organization that started in 1990 with
the mission to address the concern of inadequate supply of affordable decent rental
housing within the state of Idaho and recently we are also developing in adjacent states.
We play an active role in bringing affordable housing resources to the areas of the states
that are not being adequately served. Through local public and private partnerships we
have been able to bring creative housing solutions to areas struggling with insufficient
housing. Our role is to partner with local government and other interested parties to solve
local housing needs. We have developed more than 800 units in 2,000 affordable rental
communities. The Housing Company provides professional on-site property
management services for our affordable apartment communities serving low income
families, seniors, and the disabled. We own our properties in the long term and take pride
in building an asset for the community that will stand the test of time. We are able to put
together complex financing in order to make these housing communities a reality. Our
newest developments to the subject property are Moon Valley Apartments in Star, Nampa
Duplexes and Hazel Park in Caldwell. We also have Canyon Terrace in Nampa and
Sunset Landing in Caldwell currently under construction. A common question that I
receive is what is affordable housing? What do you mean by that? There are a number
of affordable housing programs. The most common one is utilized to pay for new
construction, which is a surprise to many people is actually an IRS program, not a HUD
program, and it's called Section 42 of the Housing Tax Credit. It's not the same as what
people think of as subsidized housing or Section 8. With this program a private investor,
such as a bank or insurance company, will actually become a partner in the project and
provide equity to the project in return for ten years worth of federal tax credits and with --
with that equity we are able to keep the rents lower in perpetuity. Residents must be
income and program eligible. The rent that a Section 42 resident pays is based on a fixed
rental fee for the unit size that is lower than the average market rent in the area. So, it
doesn't adjust with their income as their income goes up or down, they initially qualify and,
then, once -- once they initially qualify they are set with that fixed rate. It is difficult to
identify which rental properties participate in the Section 42 programs, because they look
like just any other apartment building. We require income verifications, criminal
background checks, credit checks, student verification and household composition
verification. A common myth is that people who live in affordable housing won't fit in my
neighborhood. But the fact is that people who need affordable housing already live and
work in your community. In Meridian the average two bedroom rent costs 1 ,842 dollars,
according to rent -- rent.com. This is a staggering 43 percent increase from last year.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 6,2022 F32
Page 28 of 50
The rent affordable at the median renter income, however, is around a thousand dollars.
So, there is a very significant gap. Access to safe affordable homes builds a strong
foundation for families and even hardworking Idahoans often lack good housing options.
This is a chart that kind of just shows a potential resident profile, a few different scenarios,
ranging from a single person in a customer service job who needs a one bedroom
apartment at 741 dollars, to a single mother with two children that's a cashier that needs
a two bedroom of 946 dollars, to a four person household that needs a three bedroom at
1,089 that might work in the food -- food service industry. These are a couple images of
the quality level that I'm talking about when I say that people are surprised that it's
affordable housing. This is The Springs Apartments in McCall, Idaho, and, then, this is a
collage of photos of Moon Valley Apartments in Star and this is the elevations that were
provided and the overall design concept is -- is based on this design and we are working
with the same architect on this project that we did with Moon Valley. Mr. Dodson did a
great job of going over a lot of the details as to the flow of the site and connectivity, but I
think I just want to make it clear that with our neighborhood meeting and the comments
that were received I think it was -- I would just want to stress the importance that we
wanted this to really be a moderate -- moderate -- not a high density development. We
wanted to keep it to two story buildings for two reasons. One, to fit in with the
neighborhood and as well as really for fire access reasons two stories is much preferred.
We provided the pedestrian connections along all corners of the site and we worked with
-- in initially looking at this site, meaning that one of the most unique challenges of this
site is that there is a single family residence with access through the site. The good news
is that their existing easement does run where our proposed Cooper Lane is. In reviewing
our title work we were pleasantly surprised to find that out, so -- so, essentially, we are
just moving it to where it wasn't -- it was recorded ten years ago and so the site really --
you know, it does have -- it's an in-fill development. There are so many positive things
about in-fill development, because the connectivity to the neighborhood, the access to
Settlers Park, the fact that it's a walkable community, but, of course, you know, it's not
ideal in terms of-- there is -- people who can't get -- it's in-fill, so we don't have the option
to do everything on all sides of the property that -- that would be in an ideal planning
situation and so what we have done is the very best we can with all the comments
between ACHD and the fire department and city staff that we can do to make this a
functional and comfortable housing community of 52 units that fits in with the
neighborhood context and I think Mr. Dodson also went over kind of the importance of the
exterior design appeal or the building height with various heights and fenestrations for
interest and quality finishes. Our overall timeline involves this first step of zoning and
annexation, which is required before we can even apply for any funding for the project.
We also are going to be required to submit a CUP and a certificate of zoning
appropriateness and I would anticipate that would run us through February and March
and, then, we will have a variety of funding applications between January and August,
depending on the final determination of sources available for this project. We plan on
submitting a building permit application sometime this summer and, then, closing on
financing and construction start between July and October of this year hopefully. If not
then it might move into spring of next year, depending on funding availability. This really
is the first step in the entitlement process. I think we have this -- these details about the
affordable housing and the rent structuring typically don't come up this early, but we are
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 6,2022 F33
Page 29 of 50
really excited to be able to share what we do. Very passionate about it personally and
I'm happy to answer any questions. Thanks.
McCarvel: Do we have any questions for the applicant or staff?
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: Erin, thank you for all that and kind of interesting to -- to learn. You mentioned
that there is on-site management. Is that -- can you --
Anderson: Yeah.
Cassinelli: Is that 24 hours?
Anderson: It would not be 24 hours necessarily. Sometimes we are able to have a
resident manager, but I'm not sure if we will have that in this case. If it's not 24 hours as
a resident manager there would be set office hours. The clubhouse has an office space
for that manager and, then, there will also be on-call emergency maintenance phone
number for people to call for situations that are after hours.
Cassinelli: So, they are there to kind of make sure that the property is maintained and --
Anderson: Exactly.
Cassinelli: Okay.
Anderson: Exactly. We would typically have about two part-time jobs with this size of
project -- a part-time property manager and a part-time maintenance person.
Seal: Madam Chair? Excuse me. Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Seal.
Seal: Quick question on the -- it looks -- looking at your website it looks like two of the
three local developments that you have are age restricted. Would this fit into that as well
or is there going to be no age restrictions on this as far as a senior living community?
Anderson: Currently I'm envisioning this not having age restrictions, mostly because I
feel like there is a huge need -- a huge need in all ages and I think that we would really
benefit by having an opportunity for both seniors and younger people alike to live in this
housing community. I think there is -- there is a demand for both, frankly. It's just that I
feel like there is a higher demand for non-age restricted affordable housing.
Seal: Okay. Thank you.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 6,2022 F34]
Page 30 of 50
McCarvel: Thank you.
Anderson: Yep.
McCarvel: Commissioner Grove.
Grove: Madam Chair. Thanks. Erin, could you speak to the condition that Joe mentioned
with the gravel pathway and your feelings towards that?
Anderson: Sure. I can pull up this site plan, but the main concern we have is how close
that path is going to be to the building, to the -- you know, the residential building. It's I
think seven feet away or -- or something is what we estimated. It's very close. So, it's
going to feel -- especially since it's public pathway it's going to feel really really close to
those residential buildings. That was the first issue. The other was a cost-related item.
I -- I got an estimate of about 8,000 dollars for that gravel pathway, which isn't terrible,
but everything that we are doing, you know, is trying to whittle down gaps, instead of the
other direction, and so that's --that's why we are asking for your consideration. But I think
the main issue that I have with it primarily above cost is the proximity to the building.
McCarvel: Thank you. Any other questions?
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: I have got one -- a couple here for -- for staff. Joe, can you -- it sounds like
that you are making some -- or wanting to make some adjustments for the fact that this
would -- for the proposed land use and that -- that being the affordable housing
component there. So, what -- can you maybe give us an idea of what differences that
that you are approving this under that -- under that observation versus if this were just a
standard 52 unit in-fill project? And, then, also a couple other questions I have. What's
-- can you go in a little bit more detail about Cooper Lane and is that going to go all the
way-- all the way into the existing subdivision? And, then, also -- I don't know if we talked
about parking in this.
Dodson: Great questions, Commissioner Cassinelli. I will hit the parking one first just
because it's easier and you said it last. I believe it is -- let me share my screen, actually.
What am I doing? Here we go. They actually do have it on their site plan, which I do
appreciate. It would require one hundred spaces based on the unit count and the number
of one bed, two bed, three bedrooms. They are proposing 115. So, that also -- they did
this without doing the amended code that says one space for every ten units for guests.
So, again, that would be 105.2. But 105. So, they are exceeding that. They are meeting
their minimum covered parking. I imagined some of the parking issues would come up.
I do see a couple spaces where they have some landscaping specifically here that they
would probably fit two more spaces in there and maybe one more here that would still be
able to meet there -- our code doesn't allow more than 12 in a row without a planter island.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 6,2022 F35]
Page 31 of 50
So, they have some space to include a couple more if they need to. Again, maybe even
another one or two here. Not overly concerned with the parking there, but they are --that
would be handled more specifically with the future CUP, which you guys would hear. But
tentatively I think they are going to be fine. Cooper Lane is -- there is -- again, there is a
stub street on the north side of that property. You can kind of see it here and this road
would line up with -- their property boundary -- this house eventually -- or this road is
going to have to meander around the house or the house is going to have to get
demolished eventually, but, yeah, the reason why ACHD -- instead of just having a curb
cut for a drive aisle for the multi-family is wanting this as a local road is so that the future
extension would just go straight up to the north and there would be another avenue for
those in Woodburn to exit out to Ustick, other than just Venable. So, that is, you know,
future planning for the roads there. Back to your original question. To be clear, I'm -- the
proposed project I did not analyze down to the tee about the amount of open space and
the parking counts and all that, again, because we are just at annexation, but my
preliminary stuff is that they meet all of their dimensional standards -- they are going to
meet all their dimensional standards, so any discussion that I have had about affordable
housing versus market rate, the two things that I kind of -- I don't want to say relaxed on
or anything, but the two things that I am saying that affordable housing is better than
requiring them would be probably cross-access along the west, you know, and extending
a public road to the site. Even if it was market rate I don't necessarily know if I see a
public benefit to that. It would just eat up so much of the site and is it necessary when
that road is also going to connect up to the west when they have an access to Ustick
there and the other people -- and, again, the only people that would be using it would be
Woodburn Subdivision. They are going to have another one in the future to the east.
Secondly would be the overall discussion of the Comprehensive Plan and that mixed use
community area. Again not a major difference between looking at it affordable versus
market, but I would probably be more inclined to -- to say there needs to be some kind of
commercial component if it was market rate apartments. Again, I can definitely make the
case either way. I think that there is a massive need for affordable housing and so that
-- that outweighs the need for commercial space along Ustick. So, it's a give and take
with that. It's not that I am in no way waving anything or saying they don't have to comply
with anything, they are complying with everything in my opinion, it's just apples and
oranges when it comes to meeting the comp plan in those terms.
Cassinelli: Madam Chair, I have got a follow-up question for him on that. Can you also
address -- 11 th Avenue to the west there, so in lieu of cross-access is that --that will feed
-- do you have a -- is there a larger map of -- similar where you could see -- is that -- is
11 th going to be internal or is there -- is that going to open up to Ustick at all?
Dodson: There is a connection to Ustick Tetherow Crossing -- or will be once it's fully
constructed. They have a stub street to their east boundary, which is this property
boundary -- the west boundary of this site. So, the -- this is showing that they are going
to dedicate right of way. This would continue down the shared property line here.
Probably head west and have a nice L of sorts in the -- in that property. You can build
homes on both sides and, then, that would connect out to Ustick, yes.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 6,2022 F36
Page 32 of 50
Cassinelli: Okay. So, from that standpoint there is -- there is access through the
subdivision of the north and what's going in on the west to --
Dodson: Yes, sir.
Cassinelli: -- to Ustick. Ustick -- this isn't going to -- and this won't be landlocked or
anything?
Dodson: Correct. No.
Cassinelli: Okay. Thank you.
Dodson: You are welcome.
McCarvel: Any other questions for staff or the applicant?
Seal: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Seal.
Seal: Question for staff. So, the applicant said that if they put in a ten foot gravel path
that would make it to where it's about seven feet away from the backside of the complex
there. Is that a true statement?
Dodson: It would be a five foot pathway, not a multi-use. So, just be a regular five foot
pathway. Theoretically if they put it right up against --yes, because they only are showing
a 12 foot buffer. They technically have some physical room to shift everything south and
create more space along the north boundary. I do under that that would be in lieu of
losing some of that open space and I don't -- I haven't seen a rear elevation of these, but
I'm assuming there is probably some back patio space that might be technically reduced
from the green space perspective if we shifted those units to the south, but, again, I -- I
don't want to fight to the death over that pathway, but I do think it would be an overall
good amenity, not just for this project, but also the Woodburn Subdivision on the -- in the
north to be able to have another avenue of accessing Ustick that they currently don't have
because of the existing development and future connectivity to the commercial to the
east. Again, they do have some physical space to make some of that work and increase
that separation of seven feet if they did it right along the north property boundary, but if
Commission and -- and future Council it doesn't seem that that's a good idea in lieu of
losing some of that green space along Ustick, then, I -- I understand that finding as well.
Seal: Okay. Thank you.
Dodson: You're welcome. I hope that wasn't too much of a political answer.
McCarvel: Any other questions for staff or the applicant? We will open up to public
testimony and I understand the sign-up sheet is not in the back, so if there is anybody in
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 6,2022 F37
Page 33 of 50
the room or online that wishes to testify on this application, please, raise your hand. Okay.
All right.
Dodson: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Yes.
Dodson: Sorry. Real quick. I did want to note. I didn't put it in my -- my staff report --
my presentation. It's been a long year already. The -- there was no written testimony as
of about 6:00 p.m. So, I just wanted to note that. There is no for or against the project.
McCarvel: Does the applicant have any further comment?
Anderson: No, other than just to point out that we did contact the parks and rec
department regarding that path and they felt that the pathways that we have internally
through this site provided adequate pedestrian access across the site, But -- and, again,
in the grand scheme of things that's probably a pretty minor -- minor issue. Just wanted
to point that out and just wanted to thank Mr. Dodson for his help in this and the
presentation and I wish I could be there in person. Just wrapping up the end of a COVID
quarantine.
McCarvel: We appreciate you staying on Zoom then.
Anderson: Yeah.
McCarvel: Any other questions before we close the public hearing for H-2021-0092?
Could I get a motion to closed the public hearing for H-2021-0092?
Seal: So moved.
Cassinelli: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for H-2021-0092.
All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Seal: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Seal.
Seal: I like everything about this, so I agree that there is a -- there is a need for this, so I
like where it's at. I mean it's kind of a little off the beaten path. I would like to see the
path go in. There is a piece of land that's on Linder that abuts the school and when they
went in we did have them do a ten foot paved path that goes along the northern boundary
of these properties, so in anticipation of connecting two properties all the way to follow
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 6,2022 F38
Page 34 of 50
that canal down into Ustick Road, so in the grand scheme of things it would cost money
to put it in, but it also costs less money to maintain it, since it's, essentially, gravel. It
doesn't have to be mowed. And it would provide for, you know, better access I think for
anybody that's on a bike or walking up to those schools. So, I would like to see that go
in. I do agree with the staff report on that one. Everything else about it I really like. I like
that they limited it to two stories, not three stories. I mean there is a -- there is a need. I
mean if we are going to go through the three story or four story and almost be in a place
like this, I would like to see it. That said I'm appreciative that they did go with the two
story just to blend in a little bit better. It looks like parking is adequate. Amenities are
adequate. And, you know, they -- they met everything that we were asking them to do
here.
McCarvel: Yeah. I -- I like this project. I think going three and four stories, then, you start
into parking issues and I think anytime you can have this where it feels and blends in
more with the community and its surroundings, the better it is. I applaud the architecture
and the surroundings on that. I'm -- I'm on the fence about the paths. I will give -- just
because it does come so close to the back of those buildings and I hate to see them
scrunch that in, because I think a little -- that little bit of openness in this community will
be nice. But I can -- I can see the need. I will be with Joe and give the most political
answer I can give and see both sides, but, yeah, I think being seven to ten feet away from
the back of the buildings is a little tight, but other than that I like it.
Grove: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Grove.
Grove: I will -- I will go ahead and make a motion, unless other people wanted to weigh
in, but I would just say I like that we are -- we have this product coming in. I think that it
balances out some of the other things that have been going in. We definitely have a
need. I personally don't -- don't think the pathway is needed, but if it stays I -- I wouldn't
fight for it either way, I guess. But I -- I personally don't see a need for it as much. There
is plenty of other options, either going through or around this, so I'm going to make a
motion to remove that. But I did have a question before this. With the one that you said
we didn't really need to talk about, but they brought up was the A-1.1 Is there anything
that we need to condition in regards to that condition?
Dodson: Commissioner Grove, A-1.1 is the pathway one, but A-1.13 is the affordable
housing component. But, no, there is no need to make anything. Mr. Starman and I will
continue working with the applicant to massage that language to make sure, you know,
by the time we get to Council and after Council we have it all buttoned up and in
agreement for everybody.
McCarvel: Yeah. I would agree that -- I mean I think it's the position of this Commission
that we do like to see this stay classified as affordable housing, because this seems to be
done right. Yeah.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 6,2022 F39
Page 35 of 50
Dodson: Agree. Yeah. There is just I think a few hiccups on some of the language in it
and the way that they will do the -- the rents versus what we put in the original provision
and, again, it's just a wording thing.
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: Before a motion is made I got another question for staff. Is -- is the path -- is
that something that could be -- that they can work with the -- the HOA that -- was it Wood
-- Wood something there to the north and -- and put that on the -- can it be even put on
that -- the easement -- over the piped lateral there?
Dodson: Commissioner Cassinelli, I called that out in my staff report is I would love for
them to work with that HOA and try to get that open space area more activated. So, yes,
I mean you could modify the condition and say, you know, work with the adjacent HOA
and, if not, keep it along the north boundary. Sure. Absolutely.
Cassinelli: Okay.
Grove: Making notes. You all good?
McCarvel: We are good, unless Mr. Yearsley raises his hand.
Yearsley: I have no comment.
Grove: All right. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
recommend to the City Council file number H-2021-0092 as presented in the staff report
for the hearing date of January 6th, 2022, with the following modification: That condition
A-1.1 is modified to have the applicant work with the HOA to the north on relocating the
pathway as listed to the lateral.
Johnson: Madam Chair, my apologies. Commissioner Grove, I think you left out the word
approve or deny. We didn't get a verb there.
Grove: Oh. Approve. Do we have that in where ever I said it? Do you want me to do it
again?
McCarvel: No. We can put it in there.
Grove: Thank you.
Johnson: That's perfect. Thank you.
Seal: I will second that.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 6,2022 F40
Page 36 of 50
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to recommend approval for H-2021-0092
with modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
McCarvel: Would the Commissioners like a five minute break?
(Recess: 7:58 p.m. to 8:06 p.m.)
6. Public Hearing for Friendship Subdivision (H-2021-0083) by Mike
Homan, Located Near the Southeast Corner of N. Meridian Rd. and E.
Chinden Blvd.
A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 10.058 acres of land from RUT
in Ada County to the R-8 zoning district.
B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 41 building lots and 7
common lots.
McCarvel: All right. We will resume with H-2021-0083 and we will begin -- Friendship
Subdivision and we will begin with the staff report.
Tiefenbach: Good evening, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. This is Alan
Tiefenbach, associate planner, City of Meridian. Okay. This is an application for an
annexation and zoning to R-8 and preliminary plat for 41 lots. The property is located
south of Chinden and west of Locust Grove. The Brookdale Estates Subdivision is to the
west, which is here. The High -- and that's zoned R-2. The Hightower Subdivision is to
the east. That's here. That's zoned R-8. The Saguaro Canyon Subdivision, which is
down here, is zoned R-4. There is an existing church that is located here. This property
was proposed for annexation and zoning to R-8 in a plat for 48 lots. That was the Bull
Ranch Subdivision. That was proposed in 2015. That was subsequently denied by the
Council with density being cited as the primary concern. This property is recommended
for medium dense -- or excuse me -- designated for medium density residential, which is
eight to 12 dwelling units per acre. This application is for annexation of just a little over
ten acres of land with the R-8 zone district and a preliminary plat, like I said, to allow 41
building lots and seven common lots. North Elk Ranch Road, if you can see my pointer,
if I'm not doing it too quickly, this is a private road and it presently provides access from
the subject property, which right now is a house, which is here, to Chinden Boulevard.
This subdivision proposes to connect to three existing local streets, which already stub at
the property. So, one of them will be East Lockhart Street to the west. That would be
here and you can see it down here, but I will show you on the plat here. East Lockhart to
the west, East Tallinn to the east. This is from here. And North Senita to the south, which
is down here. They are also providing a stub to the church to the north, just in case that
property develops in the future. The Uniform -- Uniform Development Code states that
when a property has an existing access from a state highway and an applicant proposes
a change or increase in intensity of use, the owner shall develop or otherwise require
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 6,2022 F41
Page 37 of 50
access to a street other than the state highway. In this case they already are showing
three existing accesses and one stub. As a condition of approval staff recommends the
applicant vacate all the interest in North Elk Ranch Lane, which, again, would mean they
could no longer use it for access, again, because the property already has three existing
points of access and will have a fourth. The plat shows the North Slough is bisecting the
property at approximately a 45 degree angle. That's what you see here. There were some
discussions about how it was going to be rearranged, but we have worked it out and the
owner will reconfigured this toward the northwest corner of the property. This will be
coordinated with the irrigation district. The applicant has submitted elevations of the
single family home for this project. These homes appear to meet design requirements
for single family and they are consistent in general with the architecture of the existing
surrounding residences. Staff has expressed several concerns in the staff report. Two
of these included -- well, first one was including removing a lot at the south to be more
consistent with the lots in the Saguaro Canyon Subdivision No. 2 to the south. The other
concern was for the applicant to reconfigurable Lots 1 through 10, Block 1 , along the
eastern perimeter, so that the property lines will align with the lots in the subdivision to
the east. The applicant submitted plans today which show a lot has been removed from
the south and that's when I showed you the arrows, if this makes sense. So, this is what
was -- this is what you saw on the staff report. There were four lots down here. This is
what you see today. So, they have taken away one of those lots and they have moved
that lot up to here, which was previously open space. When I go to here you will be able
to see the difference with the open space exhibit. So, the one on the left where you see
Block 3, that was the open space before. What you are seeing there on the right is now
the second open space, because this new lot has been moved here. So, they did increase
the lot sizes on the south to be more consistent with the adjacent subdivision, but it also
decreases the open space from almost 15 percent to a little more than 12 percent. Now,
the -- under the current code that's in effect now they would be required to provide 15
percent open space, but this came in at the time when only ten percent was required. So,
they are still slightly over what they would have been required had they -- when they
submitted under the previous code, but they are under what would be required under
today's code. As of this morning staff has received one letter in opposition and this was
from the property owner-- or from one of the developers of the property to the west. This
was concern in regard to the amount of properties that are being zoned R-8. They were
proposing that it would be more appropriate to be zoned to R-2. About the lots to the
east. And I will back up so you can see these. One of our concerns were all of these lots
onto the east, the way that they line up with the property here, they are slightly offset. It's
not a deal killer, but staff's concern with that is that, first of all, the fence lines would be
really kind of weird and it would also make the ownership kind of funky, because it
wouldn't -- you wouldn't be able to just logically figure out where your property ownership
is, so they are slightly offset. Staff has mentioned that was a concern to the applicant.
The applicant is moving forward with the configuration as is. I will leave it to the Planning
Commission to decide if that is an issue to them or not. But with that this plat does meet
all the requirements of the UDC. It is consistent with the designation of the
Comprehensive Plan. They have met the minimum requirements for the open space and
the amenities. With that, then, staff recommends approval with the conditions that are in
the staff report. We would support the site plan that they submitted today. But, again,
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 6,2022 F42
Page 38 of 50
we think that the lots to the east should be configured with the lots next to them. With
that I'm done and would stand for any questions or comments.
McCarvel: Thank you. Would the applicant like come forward.
Tiefenbach: Oh, sorry. I was just -- I was just corrected and sorry about that. I did make
a typo. The density there is three to eight dwelling units per acre, not eight to 12. That
was my bad. I just missed that in my presentation. So, they are still within their
designation. It's a little on the high side, but three to eight is what they are allowed, not
eight to 12. So, I stand corrected.
McCarvel: Thank you.
Canning: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, my name is Joe Canning and I'm
with Centurion Engineers in Boise, Idaho. 5505 West Franklin Road. And I am here
tonight with the applicant Mike Homan and we may share part of this presentation if he
thinks I missed something. So, we will see how that goes. So, Mike is here. I just wanted
to briefly note the staff report. Thank Alan for his efforts on this. I must admit that in an
effort to react to the staff's suggestions in the original staff report we have been pushing
stuff around here the last couple of weeks and with the holidays it's been a little bit tough,
but he did get the correct or current layout in the presentation tonight, so we appreciate
that. And we have to apologize, it's been a little hectic here lately, so my apologies on
that. And Alan did mention -- I think the two things that were in the staff report that were
particular issues for us. Number one was delete the lot along that sound boundary in that
southeast corner. However, we agree with that. The other issue was the lot lines along
that east boundary, getting them to align with the lot lines to the project to the east and I
will discuss that a little more later. I did want to comment on the comp plan designation.
The comp plan designation is for medium density residential, which is three to eight --
eight units per acre. We are proposing 41 units at about 4.1 units per acre. So, we are
actually at the low end of the comp plan designation for that medium density residential
and I think it's worth a moment just to talk about the property to the north. The Friendship
Celebration Lutheran Church is there. The comp plan has that designated as an MUC.
It's currently in the county. If annexed and further developed the project will probably
come forward as a mixed use of maybe R-15, R-40, and commercial. I think that's kind
of key to the use in this project that we are proposing tonight and how we try to transition
from the existing neighborhoods up to what could happen to the north and even if it
doesn't develop there are some significant open areas to the north of this project that are
the church's, of course, but certainly be a benefit to the Friendship Subdivision occupants.
And the other important thing I think I need to note here is that there is a Settlers Irrigation
District lateral through here. That slough. That has a notable impact to the site design.
Actually, it's a quite large impact to the site design. There is approximately 1,200 feet of
pipe necessary to relocate that lateral. That's 36 inch pipe. It's reinforced concrete. It's
a considerable expense to the project. And it did lay out some of the goals of what we
tried to do when we did the layout for the subdivision, such as -- some of those -- we
wanted to place those in a minimum of 30 foot common areas, because Settlers has told
us they want a minimum 30 foot easement for that pipeline. So, all of our goals -- we tried
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 6,2022 F43
Page 39 of 50
to put that pipe in at least a 30 foot common area. We wanted to place it near the street.
We have had issues in the past where laterals had to be torn up in backyards and
neighborhoods. Rather large pipe. It's a heck of a mess. A war zone. If this pipe would
ever have to be replaced its access from the public streets is, in my opinion, huge. It
really helps the future use of that lateral maintenance by the crews of the Settlers Irrigation
folks. It's a real asset to the operation of that lateral. And the goal was to minimize utility
crossings. That's part of why we picked the common areas as we did. There is only one
sewer crossing -- a private sewer service that has to go to that existing house that will
cross that lateral. The main lines will cross under it and all the services are going to avoid
it. That was a huge -- a huge part of the impact we had on the design to the project. The
staff report issues, transitions of lots size, this is where I get back to the two comments in
the staff report that we did -- we were concerned about. One was to remove one lot at
the southeast corner of the project. We agree with that. We did that and that's the layout
that Alan showed you tonight. However, we did move that lot to the interior of the project
by that cul-de-sac at the southwest corner. The other issue was aligning the lot lines
along the east side of the project with existing lot lines to the east. We were a little puzzled
by that comment. The structures that are east of us are rather large. They take up almost
all the width of the lots. Our first thought was, actually, an offset property line may be
better, because at least the occupants of Friendship would have a little corridor that they
can see down on the buildings from the east. However, the main driving factor was the
Settlers Irrigation lateral. If we didn't line up those lot lines to the east, the common area
that's to the east of us along that south road -- it's only -- it's less than 20 feet wide. One
of our goals was to maintain a 30 foot easement minimum for the Settlers. That's why
we have that large -- rather large common area on the south side of that road along the
side of the project was to make for sure that that irrigation lateral relocation and would not
interfere with any of the homes that could be built within Friendship. So, I think the real
issue with the comp plan is compatibility of -- of neighborhoods and they have 9.5 lots
adjoining our property. We have nine building lots. So, I think it -- I think it's quite
compatible and I just wanted to mention that this is a little bit of a difficult site to develop.
The cost of that irrigation lateral is signified and not that cost is a matter or an issue for
approval of the subdivision, but it certainly is to make it possible to develop. That's one
of the main reasons we opted just to move that one lot from that southeast corner back
into that open space. There is more than adequate open space for the project to meet
the code when it was submitted, so we are really trying to maintain those 41 building lots.
It's quite important to the success of this -- of this project. Construction costs are through
the roof. I can't even imagine right now what it's going to cost to put that 1,200 lineal feet
of 36 inch pipe in, but it's going to be quite significant. A few other things. There is an
existing pathway on the west boundary near the southwest corner. It comes over from
the subdivision from the west. Of course, we are going to connect to that, bring it into
where our cul-de-sac is. We are posing a new pathway to the church property at our
northwest corner. To be honest, part of that is to cover the irrigation lateral --the irrigation
lateral runs in that area, but, once again, the goal is to make sure it was in a common
area. Friendship Subdivision is surrounded by development. It's, essentially, an island
in the city that could provide much needed housing to the area. We believe we have
proposed a quality style of project that will help fill the need for housing. We respectfully
hope that the Commission supports the annexation and zoning and preliminary plat and
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 6,2022 F44
Page 40 of 50
with that I will end. I don't know if Mike wants to add anything. Apparently he is okay.
So, I would stand for any questions of the Commission.
McCarvel: Any questions for staff or the applicant? Commissioner Seal?
Seal: Madam Chair, yeah. Just -- what are the amenities that are being provided with
this?
Canning: Yes. Madam Chair, Commissioner Seal, I hadn't looked at the landscape plan
for a while, but there are some -- I believe there is some picnic areas proposed. There
are, of course, some pathways proposed that will be going in. Those are the primary
amenities.
Tiefenbach: Mr. Seal, I believe that there is a -- there is a playground or like a tot lot, a
picnic table, and a bench. That was my understanding.
Canning: Yeah. I think you are right, Alan. There is a tot lot with the -- with the -- with
the picnic area. Correct.
Seal: Thank you.
McCarvel: Any other questions for staff or the applicant? Okay. Thank you.
Canning: Thank you.
McCarvel: Do we have anybody signed up to testify on this application? Chris, we have
Caleb running to the back of the room, but do you have anybody online?
Johnson: Madam Chair, we had nobody sign up in advance. There are some people in
Zoom that if they want to raise their hand if they wish to speak.
McCarvel: Okay. We have one person on the list here that's indicated a need to testify.
It's Mike Homan. Okay. That being said -- so, we -- do you have some on Zoom that
have raised their hand?
Johnson: Madam Chair, nobody's raised their hand, but there are people watching, so
just wanted to tell them if they do wish to speak they can raise their hand.
McCarvel: And is there anybody in the room that wishes to testify on this application?
Okay. Come forward.
DeGrazia: Hi. I'm Karen DeGrazia. I live at 6297 North Rosa Springs Avenue in the
Hightower development. I have a question. Why are they rezoning it from an R-4 to an
R-8? That's my question. Thank you.
McCarvel: Any other questions -- any other -- anyone else wishing to testify online or in
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 6,2022 F45]
Page 41 of 50
the room? Okay. With that would the applicant like to come forward? Oh, Alan.
Tiefenbach: I was assuming that the Commission was quite versed to be able to answer
that, but just to clarify, this is being annexed. The property is not in the city at present,
so it's not being rezoned from R-4 to R-8, it's being annexed into the city from county
zoned property and being zoned to R-8.
McCarvel: Okay. Does the applicant have anything to add or do we have questions for
the applicant?
Canning: Madam Chair, I don't really have anything to add. I would be more than happy
to answer any other questions.
McCarvel: Any other questions or do we have a motion to close the public hearing?
Seal: Madam Chair, just one question. I know you made the -- you're meeting the
minimums for what used to be, but you are not there for what is now, so -- you know. And
I'm not looking at anything extraordinary that I would give you a pass on for today's
standards, so would you be willing to get rid of that -- that house that you moved in order
to increase the common area and --
Canning: I think I would have to direct that to the applicant, rather than myself. Mike.
McCarvel: Yeah. I would pile on, since we are chatting about that. I mean at least some
significant -- something other than a tot lot. I mean something significant in that open
space, since it is minimal, if not removing that lot.
Homan: Mike Homan. 6820 West Randolf Drive, Boise, Idaho. 83709. What was your
question, sir? I'm sorry.
Seal: My question was on the -- the common space and, basically, it meets the
requirements of what was, not what is. So, if I was looking at something today that was,
you know, essentially, on the requirements of today I wouldn't give this a pass, not
meeting the 15 percent, much less we are down to 12 percent. So, instead of adding that
lot back in that was moved over to Block 3, Lot 8, there, would you be willing to forego
that, so that the common space meets the 15 percent requirement of today?
Homan: When we did that, you know, it was at ten percent. That's what we negotiated
the property for. Then we got this huge ditch that we got a pipe -- concrete pipe and that.
It's been a really challenging site to do for an in-fill and we were thinking we would be
about right in the center half of -- you know, to what -- we are at about 12 -- between ten
and 15 percent and, then, we were going to do a tot lot and, then, picnic tables and have
some features in there and, then, again, to the north is that church. We even named the
subdivision -- we had a really good meeting with them and we named our subdivision
Friendship and stuff. So, it's a tight project to do and if I didn't have to do that big pipe
would just say, yeah, one lot is nothing, you know, to lose, but we are really tight on this.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 6,2022 F46
Page 42 of 50
1 would like to keep it if I could, to answer your question.
Seal: Okay. Thank you.
McCarvel: Yeah. Would you have any thoughts on some other significant amenity,
instead of just a picnic table or --
Homan: We would look at adding, you know, more to that, if it was something --
McCarvel: To make it substantial.
Homan: Yeah.
McCarvel: Any other --
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: And this is -- this is more for staff. Why -- since this project is -- is still at this
stage, why -- first of all, when did it switch from 15 to ten? And why are we looking at the
old requirements versus the current requirements when -- when we are not even
approved yet?
Tiefenbach: Caleb would know the date that it actually was approved, because he's
smarter than me and he was here and, secondly, generally when you make an application
before the new code goes into effect we have to review it under the old standards, not
the new standards. This was submitted before that happened. When the pre-app had
started it was before the new -- the new code was in effect. Caleb, do you remember
when it was passed? Was it July'ish? Time moves fast here.
Hood: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, no, it wasn't that long ago. It was
just this fall, so -- but, yeah, as Alan stated, you are vested with the laws that are in effect
when you submit the application, not when you get to hearing. So, they have been in the
queue and are reviewed against the plans -- laws in effect at the time of submittal. So,
that's why the discrepancy there between the ten and 15 percent. I can find the -- the
exact date that it went to effect, but, yeah, it was just this fall.
Cassinelli: Okay. Thank you.
McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant or staff? Okay. Thank you. Can I get
a motion to close the public hearing on H-2021-0083?
Cassinelli: So moved.
Seal: Second.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 6,2022 F47
Page 43 of 50
McCarvel: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2021-0083.
All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: I will step up. I understand the applicant's plight of having to install the drain,
but I still like the idea of having that 15 percent open space and losing that lot. I don't
know, I just -- I -- it's for me it's still fairly dense and having that one lot and having that
open space to me makes it more palatable.
McCarvel: Yeah. I guess I'm concerned a little bit more about the open space than I am
about aligning those lots on the east. I think -- I mean those look fairly tight anyway from
what's on the other side of it and I would -- I would hate to see them try to finagle those
even tight -- the ones on -- on their side that tight.
Yearsley: Madam Chair, I agree. I think you would end up having to lose a lot there to
make those line up and --
McCarvel: Uh-huh.
Yearsley: -- I would prefer to keep -- maximize my open space than to try to have the lots
line up.
McCarvel: Yeah. I'm more appreciative of them losing the lot on the south side and
making that fit in better with what's on the south.
Grove: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Grove.
Grove: I would like to see a little bit more in terms of how this lays out with where the
amenities are going, what's going on, and I'm going to say something that I don't think I
have ever said in the two plus years or whatever I have been on here. I -- I -- I think I
would almost rather see this be R-4 than R-8 in -- in how it's laid out, just because it's
landlocked, but --
McCarvel: All right. That's it. It's not a rally.
Grove: -- I don't know. I have some issues with the general layout and I don't know how
to describe it quite yet.
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 6,2022 F48
Page 44 of 50
Cassinelli: I will go with the easy one. I don't have a problem with the east property lines
lining up. I -- in my subdivision -- internally in my subdivision I don't line up and I actually
like -- I can see between the houses when I look out my backyard. So, I think that's a --
that's a plus and I don't think it's a -- there is any negative to not lining up, other than if
everybody chooses a different fence style it's a little weird, but that's the easy one. I
understand that the -- the density wanting to transition into the mixed use community on
the -- on the north and to the -- to the east. That entire -- with the exception of the R-2
there that's right next to it, everything else surrounding it is R-4. It almost makes sense
to -- to maybe look at it as an R-4 for that reason, just because -- and -- and the other
thing is I look at -- if Council -- and, granted, it was a different Council at the time, but if
Council didn't like the -- the R-8 before -- I mean we are only -- we are talking seven lots
in there, you know, would they -- would they like it at this. So, it's odd to me why maybe
they didn't come back as an R-4, as opposed to that. And, then, with regards to the open
space, I guess we can -- I guess, you know, it was ten percent, so that's -- that's I guess
how we have to look at it. I would, however, want to see more when it comes to the
amenities. I don't think a tot lot and a picnic table is -- and in a couple paths are enough,
frankly. So, I would want to see more there. I would like to see that -- that one lot -- I --
personally I would like to see some of the lots on -- I'm not looking at the layout of it right
now, but I would like to see the -- the -- maybe the lots on the -- on the north -- maybe
some open space up there, because those are pretty tight up there. That's how I would
look at it.
McCarvel: I know that they are trying to get the open space to -- you know, where that
pipe is running, but it seems like the open space is real close to all the bigger lots and it
would probably be more useful --
Cassinelli: Well, if they kept that one that they have moved over there and, then, opened
up something along the -- it looks like it's Block 5 up there. I'm not sure. But one of those
-- you know, those lots up there, if they open up one of those for some more common
space up there or I would be willing to trade -- trade that -- again, I would like to see a
little bit lower density in there, but I would trade off better amenities for the same open
space. I just -- I don't -- I don't think the amenities are -- are strong enough. I don't know
what that looks like, but I would want to see an improvement there. Oh. And I did have
a question for staff. The house -- the existing house that's there -- is Elk Road -- Elk
Ranch Road is gone all together? Is that house not going to take access off the -- off
Lockhart?
Tiefenbach: Correct. Conditional approval of this is that they vacate the entrance, so the
house -- the existing house would no longer be able to take access from Chinden.
Cassinelli: Okay.
Tiefenbach: They would have to -- they would have to vacate their interest in that
easement.
Cassinelli: Okay. Thank you.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 6,2022 F49
Page 45 of 50
Seal: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Seal.
Seal: This is one of those -- I like to call this a have your cake and eat it, too, because it
seems like the house -- the remaining house that there is kind of selling the land around
it. I don't know if that's the case here, but it seems that way. So, you know, trying to have
your cake and eat it, too, here, so -- the layout is -- to me it looks like they are taking all
available land and trying to put everything that they can on it and the open space is just
an afterthought. So, I think it's unfair to the people that are going to have to live there.
know they put some thought into where the sewers are going to run and I understand
there is a huge expanse in -- in piping that ditch, but at the same time it just -- you know,
it's unflattering, basically. It just looks like it is done to maximize the return on investment
and there is just not a lot going for it after that. I mean it's basically just going to be a
place for people to park their cars and, you know, more garage farms. So, I don't know if
it's appropriate at this time for where we are at. I know -- you know, I mean compared to
2015 1 know we have a lot higher tolerance for a lot more density, just because the way
the city is growing and so I mean it's not multi-family, you know, or we would probably
have a fleet of people in here arguing this. So, I just don't think that it's -- you know, it's
-- I don't think it's maintaining that kind of premier atmosphere that we are trying to do --
you know, get for Meridian, so -- you know, Meridian in and of itself is landlocked. There
is no more land out there that we are going to accommodate. So, what we have we have
to do it and we have to do it right and I just don't think this is -- this is it.
McCarvel: Comments? Motion?
Yearsley: I'm just amazed that my fellow Commissioners -- I'm always up for R-4. Yeah.
Over R-8. So, I'm just kind of amazed that my fellow Commissioners have made that
comment, so I'm very supportive of an R-4.
Cassinelli: So, do we continue this and --
McCarvel: If you are going to -- we have to reopen --
Cassinelli: We would have to reopen --
McCarvel: Yeah. Let's reopen. Need a motion to open H-2021-0083.
Cassinelli: So moved.
Seal: Second.
McCarvel: It's been moved and seconded to open H-2021-00083. All in favor say aye.
Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 6,2022 F50
Page 46 of 50
McCarvel: Would the applicant like to come forward.
Homan: Mike Homan. 6820 West Randolph Drive. Mike Homan. I would -- would agree
to lose one lot. You guys could decide where it was best to lose the lot. Your idea to the
north was -- you know, kind of had more -- some space over there.
Grove: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Grove.
Grove: I would prefer not to redesign this here --
McCarvel: On the fly. Yeah.
Grove: I would say we either continue or deny, but trying to sit up here and design and
figure out which lot to remove doesn't make sense to me.
McCarvel: I -- yeah. I would say probably have it come back with a little more -- some
thought on making it usable open space and not just open space as a buffer to the existing
home. I think that's what we are seeing. And I think that's where the hang up is. If you
are going to have the subdivision, you know, built out it needs -- the amenities need to
benefit this subdivision, not just be a buffer to the existing house. Yeah.
Homan: What about if it was approval subject to -- you know, where I agreed to lose one
building lot and leave it up to City Council?
McCarvel: Yeah. I just -- I'm guessing -- I don't -- not thinking you're understanding. It's
not just about losing one lot, it's about making this open space functional and usable to
the subdivision. Am I -- am I saying that -- I don't want to put words in my fellow
commissioners' mouths, but --
Seal: I think you have said it eloquently.
McCarvel: Okay.
Homan: With that extra lot that I would take out, remove, I would be in compliance,
believe, with your 15 percent. Yeah. So, what I'm saying is with agreeing to drop another
lot for common space, I should be in compliance with your new ordinance, with the 15
percent, and with an in-fill piece --this is a challenging site. It had that ditch going through
there. We had an existing house. It's a pretty nice home, it's not a scraper house, or --
and we are just trying to work with what we can work with and I think if we left it up to City
Council to -- you know, we will agree to drop a lot and, then, submit to Alan some plans
with a -- you would have a chance to review them and so this wouldn't be the final say.
City Council would have a chance to review it and Alan would again and -- we are just
really tight on time as -- on our purchase agreement. So, we would like to keep it, you
know, moving forward, but agree to make a concession and lose another lot if -- it's
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 6,2022 F51
Page 47 of 50
financially tight, but as -- anyway, I will agree to that if that helps at all.
Seal: Madam Chair, it sounds to me like -- I mean I think we are kind of all on the same
page, so if the applicant wants to gamble with City Council I think we can move it forward
with a denial and he can take his chances with City Council.
Homan: It would be nice to have an approval. There -- you know, a recommendation.
would -- maybe can we leave it up to City Council has another say so on it and staff --
Alan's going to be there for the City Council thing saying that we have, you know, worked
out it.
McCarvel: Yeah. You know, we are -- just we are the recommending body and we are
kind of here to have staff and the applicant and the public and everybody's opinions kind
of come together and we try to clean it up real nice, so it goes to City Council with
everything worked out, but I'm thinking we are kind of not on the same page here about
what we are asking for as far as the open space and not just being one less lot. It's about
being functional open space and so if -- you know, if you are not wanting a continuance
to bring it back to us, we can recommend denial and the reason for our denial and, then,
you can take that information and move forward to City Council and, you know, if you
have changed a few things that you think meet what our denial reason was, then, City
Council may take a look at that and -- and say, okay, yeah, they -- he met the spirit of
what Planning and Zoning was thinking or they may have their own -- I mean, yeah, we
are just -- it's a recommending and so if we deny it we will give a reason why and so if
you fix that reason by the time you get to Council, if you are on a tight time frame, then,
that's -- that's kind of where we are at. Otherwise, we can recommend a continuance if
you want to bring back a different design, but I think if your thought is you are just going
to lose a lot somewhere, I think that's really not what we are asking for.
Homan: What would meet your new ordinance, you know, with the 15 percent and we
can put some thought to work with Alan where is the best place, because we don't really
-- we want to do the best thing for the subdivision and get some input and so we are
agreeing to do what you guys want, we would just like the opportunity to work it out with
Alan before our City Council thing and not have a denial on our thing and that's -- and try
to do the best we can with the circumstances on the property that we are working with
and sometimes it's challenging with ditches and other stuff. But I would be willing to really
work with you guys if you give me a chance to.
McCarvel: Yeah. And a denial doesn't mean that we are not -- you know, that you don't
have the chance to work with it. It certainly gives you -- it gives City Council our thoughts
and definitely you would have a chance to fix it and move on.
Homan: Okay. Thank you.
McCarvel: Uh-huh. Do we have any other questions for Alan?
Tiefenbach: Hi. Ms. Chair, but not for long, and Members of the Commission, even
though she is tenured and she will be here forever. Just a quick note for the applicant,
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 6,2022 F52
Page 48 of 50
probably, is if this does get continued we are talking -- and I will have to defer to Chris,
but the second -- the next one in January is totally full --
McCarvel: Yeah.
Tiefenbach: -- and February I think is filling up. So, we are talking about, you know, at
best the first week in February and I will defer to Chris Johnson if we can even make that
hearing.
McCarvel: Right. I mean --
Tiefenbach: Because it has 15 days in advance to get the plans to you. So, you know,
it's not going to be quick. More than a month.
McCarvel: Yeah. I think at this point, then, based on the applicant's preference to keep
moving forward in his timeline, I would think it would be best to move forward with a denial
and recommendations on why we are denying -- why we are recommending denial and
that would give him the opportunity to fix it and let City Council go on from there.
Seal: Agreed.
McCarvel: Okay. So, at this point, if we have no more questions for staff or the applicant,
we need to close the public hearing on H-2021-0083.
Seal: So moved.
Cassinelli: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close public hearing on H-2021-0083. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Seal: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Seal.
Seal: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend
denial of the City Council file H-2021-0083 as presented during -- during the hearing on
January 6th, 2022, for the following reasons: So, that they can provide more open space
and more functional open space that is integral to the subdivision and, then, is better
suited for R-4 and not R-8.
Yearsley: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to recommended denial of H-2021-0083.
All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 6,2022 F53
Page 49 of 50
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
7. Election of 2022 Planning and Zoning Commission Chairperson and
Vice-Chairperson
McCarvel: Okay. We have one more item on the agenda. No, we are not done. We will
address this one. I would love to nominate Commissioner Seal as president for the
2022 --
Cassinelli: I will second that nomination.
McCarvel: -- Chairman.
Cassinelli: I will second that.
Yearsley: I know-- I think you have done a great job in filling in, Commissioner Seal, and
I think you would be a great Commissioner --
Seal: Thank you. Appreciate that.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to recommend Commissioner Seal as our
new chair. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Seal: I don't get a vote?
McCarvel: Nope.
Yearsley: Well, you can, but --
McCarvel: You can, but you have been outvoted.
Johnson: Madam Chair, can you repeat who made the motion? I put down Commissioner
Seal made the motion and I'm sure that's not correct. I want to get that correct on the
record.
McCarvel: Former Chair McCarvel made the motion.
Johnson: Thanks.
McCarvel: Former Chair McCarvel would also like to move that Commissioner Grove be
the new vice-chair.
Seal: Second.
Cassinelli: Third.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. January 6,2022 F54
Page 50 of 50
McCarvel: And Commissioner Grove does not get a vote.
Yearsley: Man, this is awesome. This went very fast. I'm -- I'm -- I'm excited about it.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to vote Commissioner Grove as Vice-Chair
for 2022. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Yes, Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: I move we adjourn.
Cassinelli: Second.
McCarvel: And third. It has been moved and seconded to adjourn. Everybody say aye.
Opposed. Motion carries.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:51 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
1-20-2022
RHONDA MCCARVEL - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED
ATTEST:
CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK