PZ - Planner/Applicant Email
Charlene Way
From:Alan Tiefenbach
Sent:Tuesday, January 25, 2022 9:05 AM
To:Adrienne Weatherly; Charlene Way; Chris Johnson
Subject:FW: Quartet South
Discussion with Applicant regarding Quartet South (H-2021-0088)
Alan Tiefenbach | Current Associate Planner
City of Meridian | Community Development Dept.
33 E. Broadway Ave., Ste. 102, Meridian, Idaho 83642
Phone: 208-489-0573 | Fax: 208-489-0571
Built for Business, Designed for Living
From: Jon Wardle <jwardle@brightoncorp.com>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2022 12:51 PM
To: Alan Tiefenbach <atiefenbach@meridiancity.org>
Cc: Joshua Beach <JBeach@brightoncorp.com>; Mike Wardle <mwardle@brightoncorp.com>; Bill Parsons
<bparsons@meridiancity.org>; Bruce Freckleton <bfreckleton@meridiancity.org>; Caleb Hood
<chood@meridiancity.org>; Adrienne Weatherly <aweatherly@meridiancity.org>; Charlene Way
<cway@meridiancity.org>; Chris Johnson <cjohnson@meridiancity.org>
Subject: RE: Quartet South
External Sender - Please use caution with links or attachments.
Alan,
Not sure why the City Clerks were copied on your email. But since they were, I am including them here to keep the
record. I am responding to your points below in BLUE
Jon Wardle
BRIGHTON – Creating GREAT Places
O: 208.378.4000
D: 208.287.0518
C: 208.871.9361
E: jwardle@brightoncorp.com
From: Alan Tiefenbach <atiefenbach@meridiancity.org>
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2022 4:02 PM
To: Jon Wardle <jwardle@brightoncorp.com>
Cc: Joshua Beach <JBeach@brightoncorp.com>; Mike Wardle <mwardle@brightoncorp.com>; Bill Parsons
<bparsons@meridiancity.org>; Bruce Freckleton <bfreckleton@meridiancity.org>; Caleb Hood
<chood@meridiancity.org>; Adrienne Weatherly <aweatherly@meridiancity.org>; Charlene Way
<cway@meridiancity.org>; Chris Johnson <cjohnson@meridiancity.org>
Subject: RE: Quartet South
Jon,
1
Staff discussed your below email.
In regard to the Mixed Use Non-Residential to the east, the Comp Plan does show development adjacent to residential
and a transition being provided on the MU-NR property, but development is not proposed on the Naomi Farms parcel at
present. The concept plan is showing how MU-NR should be developed IF it is built adjacent to residential. As I
mentioned below, we cannot control what happens with the Naomi Farms parcel unless you buy it or they are party to
the application. We cannot assess this project on a potentially-industrial parcel under other ownership providing the
transition.
Response: It is true there is not an application for Naomi Farms at this point in time, and we do not have any
ownership or involvement with Naomi Farms. The MU-NR boundary was set many years ago and followed ownership
lines. The boundary is clear between our property (MDR) and Naomi Farms (MU-NR). Should Naomi Farms develop in
the future, that property will be subject to the MU-NR requirements of the comprehensive plan, which includes that the
MU-NR designated property provide the transition to existing or planned residential. This point is both noted in text and
by exhibit within the City’s Comp Plan. Any application that is presented for Naomi Farm can proceed through the
entitlement process for annexation, zoning, preliminary plat and compliance with the City’s Comprehensive plan and
UDC. It would be our expectation that the City would uphold the Comp plan which requires the MU-NR to provide the
required buffer on their side, and that residential as we show it is allowed given that adjacent transition.
2
In regard to a future request regarding a FLUM amendment to allow additional residential to the east on the MU-NR
property, we may not support this. There is already discussion regarding the dwindling supply of industrial properties.
Also, the results of the odor study do not help the argument unless improvements are done to the facility. Based on the
existing and potential uses to the east, the potential impacts, the wastewater treatment facility, potential noise, and the
ACHD maintenance facility, we do not think it appropriate for houses (or multifamily) to back directly to that parcel.
Response: The Naomi Farms property is shown as MU-NR and any development of that property would need to
comply or amend the Comprehensive Plan. However, the MU-NR designated properties are still required to provide the
use transition against existing or proposed residential, just as has been noted within the City’s Comp Plan that shows
housing directly adjacent to MU-NR. And residential can be built adjacent to the MU-NR future land use.
There are other issues:
As I mentioned below, UDC 11-6C-3-B-5 states “alleys shall be designed so that the entire length is visible from a public
street.” This is not met in the u-shaped alleys around Lots 28-35 of Block 5 and Lots 32-39 of Block 2. We do not have the
ability to grant Alt Comp from this, but you could look at doing common drives there and ask for Alt Comp from the
number of lots served. You’ll have to justify how it meets the findings for Alt Comp and I can’t promise at this point it
would be supported.
Response: We will modify the plan, eliminate the U-shaped alley and provide more front load homes.
Also, will you be able to completely see down both long alleys that are shown to be running north – south on either side
of the central open space?
Response: Yes, you will be able to see down the alleys.
Standards in R-8 include minimum lot size of 4,000 sq. ft. Based on the plat, there are lots that do not meet the
minimum lot sizes (such as Lot 24 Block 6, Lots 2 & 3 Block 7, Lot 40 Block 8 and Lot 17 and 18 Block 9).
3
Response: Those lots will all be revised so that the minimum 4000 sf requirement is met.
I think it could be an issue with the PC / Council regarding the uncertainty regarding whether Lot 1 Block 4 and Lot 2
Block 3 will be single family attached or multifamily. There are very different open space and amenity requirements.
Response: As mentioned, we do not know which direction the development of the R-15 parcel will go (single family
attached or multifamily), but we have committed that they will be no more than 2 story in height. We will work through
the open space / amenity requirements with the required CUP and compliance with the UDC. As for Block 2, Lot 3, that
is not a property that would be developed as a stand alone. It is split off from the rest of the site given so that N.
Sunnyside Way can align with the existing road on the south side of Ustick. The most likely scenario is that it be open
space, or added to a compatible use to the east should that be proposed by the adjoining property owner. We continue
to ask for flexibility on the type of construction pattern (single family attached or multi-family) that will occur when we
submit the required CUP.
We have still not seen a staff report from ACHD in regard to traffic, and this was a huge issue and cause for the
Jamestown Ranch Subdivision to be continued. Jamestown Ranch is in the docket ahead of yours, is going back to PC
next Thursday, and I still haven’t seen a staff report from ACHD so it may get continued again. If I haven’t gotten
something from ACHD by the end of next week for Quartet South, I’ll probably be recommending it be continued further
out again. In addition, the truck and equipment traffic associated with the ACHD facility has been a big concern (as well
as potential noise to residential uses).
Response: ACHD staff report was just received (but not reviewed).
Finally, there is the question about the density, particularly at the south. Are there other multifamily units or single
family attached units in near proximity? Is this compatible with all the adjacent residences in the Staten Park Subdivision
the south? That particular area is recommended for LDR. Also, there are policies in the Comp Plan regarding
discouraging residential land uses in close proximity to the Wastewater Resource Recovery Facility, and other
incompatible land uses. This property is as close as 1,200 feet, is this density appropriate?
4
Response: Quartet South is designated on the City’s comprehensive plan as Medium Density residential. With the
exception of Staten and Klamath which are south of Ustick, all of the land uses for at the intersection of Ustick and Black
Cat are designated as Medium Density Residential. The actual development of those two communities are consistent
with the adjacent MDR Land Use designations, even though there is an overlay of LDR. Ustick and Black Cat Roads are
both designated as a principal arterials and will be expanded to 5 lanes between 2026 and 2030. Additional density and
diversity of housing type is appropriate at this major intersection. The more relevant question is: Does the City support
a diversity of housing adjacent to planned transportation improvements and existing infrastructure within the MDR
designated area?
The city has the following provisions that support a variety of housing types and densities within MDR:
The (MDR) designation allows for dwelling units at gross densities of three to eight dwelling units per
acre.
The Comprehensive Plan encourages a variety of product types and lot sizes within every neighborhood.
With our narrative and application for Quartet South we were clear that we propose to construct upto 140 townhomes
on the property designated as R-15 so that the City understood what we intended and could provide that within the
DA. We stated that there were two zoning designations for Quartet South:
Type Units Acreage Gross Density
R-8 Area – Single Family 229 48.826 4.69 / ac
R-15 Area – Townhomes 140 18.781 7.45 / ac
QUARTET SOUTH 369 67.607 5.46 / ac
Quartet South includes a variety of product types and lot sizes with the standard single family / alley single family (229
homes), and the proposed townhomes (140 units). The overall density for Quartet South is 5.46 gross units per acre,
and fits within the City’s desired density range for MDR of 3 to 8 units per acre. Quartet South will provide the desired
product variety within the City’s density goals for MDR.
I’m not sure what our recommendation is yet because I haven’t seen ACHD comments, but for all the reasons listed
above, at present I’m struggling.
Alan Tiefenbach | Current Associate Planner
5
City of Meridian | Community Development Dept.
33 E. Broadway Ave., Ste. 102, Meridian, Idaho 83642
Phone: 208-489-0573 | Fax: 208-489-0571
Built for Business, Designed for Living
From: Jon Wardle <jwardle@brightoncorp.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 5, 2022 10:30 AM
To: Alan Tiefenbach <atiefenbach@meridiancity.org>
Cc: Joshua Beach <JBeach@brightoncorp.com>; Mike Wardle <mwardle@brightoncorp.com>; Bill Parsons
<bparsons@meridiancity.org>; Bruce Freckleton <bfreckleton@meridiancity.org>
Subject: RE: Quartet South
External Sender - Please use caution with links or attachments.
Understood. Thank you.
Jon Wardle
BRIGHTON – Creating GREAT Places
O: 208.378.4000
D: 208.287.0518
C: 208.871.9361
E: jwardle@brightoncorp.com
From: Alan Tiefenbach <atiefenbach@meridiancity.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 5, 2022 10:29 AM
To: Jon Wardle <jwardle@brightoncorp.com>
Cc: Joshua Beach <JBeach@brightoncorp.com>; Mike Wardle <mwardle@brightoncorp.com>; Bill Parsons
<bparsons@meridiancity.org>; Bruce Freckleton <bfreckleton@meridiancity.org>
Subject: RE: Quartet South
Jon,
I’ll have to discuss this at our staff meeting. This could take some time as many are out until next week.
Alan Tiefenbach | Current Associate Planner
City of Meridian | Community Development Dept.
33 E. Broadway Ave., Ste. 102, Meridian, Idaho 83642
Phone: 208-489-0573 | Fax: 208-489-0571
Built for Business, Designed for Living
From: Jon Wardle <jwardle@brightoncorp.com>
Sent: Monday, January 3, 2022 11:32 AM
To: Alan Tiefenbach <atiefenbach@meridiancity.org>
Cc: Joshua Beach <JBeach@brightoncorp.com>; Mike Wardle <mwardle@brightoncorp.com>; Bill Parsons
<bparsons@meridiancity.org>; Bruce Freckleton <bfreckleton@meridiancity.org>
Subject: RE: Quartet South
6
External Sender - Please use caution with links or attachments.
Alan,
Obviously, we would like to talk through these in more detail as you work on the draft, and prior to publishing the
report. So we request an open dialog to continue to work through questions prior to publishing.
One thing to note regarding the Comprehensive Plan, is that the property to our east is within the MU-NR designated
area. Per the City’s adopted comprehensive plan, the MU-NR designated property is responsible for providing the buffer
to existing or planned residential … not the reverse as you suggested. You will note from page 3-20, the City’s own
Figure 3.E shows how that transition occurring through a change of use (two required in the MU-NR designation) and
buffering against single family. Regardless of whether the City allows the future Land Use Map to change from MU-NR
to a residential, the MU-NR exists today. And the City’s Comprehensive plan is clear that it will is the responsibility of
the MU-NR designated property to provide a transitional use on the perimeter between existing or planned residential
development. Quartet South is compliant with the City’s Comprehensive plan, and the City has the mechanism to
require the MU-NR property to provide the required buffering.
Jon Wardle
7
BRIGHTON – Creating GREAT Places
O: 208.378.4000
D: 208.287.0518
C: 208.871.9361
E: jwardle@brightoncorp.com
From: Alan Tiefenbach <atiefenbach@meridiancity.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2021 10:49 AM
To: Jon Wardle <jwardle@brightoncorp.com>
Cc: Joshua Beach <JBeach@brightoncorp.com>; Mike Wardle <mwardle@brightoncorp.com>; Bill Parsons
<bparsons@meridiancity.org>; Bruce Freckleton <bfreckleton@meridiancity.org>
Subject: RE: Quartet South
Good morning Jon,
I’ll try to address your points.
ACHD – Based on past experiences, I am not comfortable with bringing a project with this number of units to a hearing
without complete ACHD review and comment on the traffic impact study. Whether or not there could be better
coordination with ACHD – way out of my paygrade. I agree this should be continued. We can try for February 3, but if we
haven’t gotten a response by mid-January, we’ll be looking at another continuance.
Comp Plan – based on the odor study, it appears the Detection Threshold (DT) in that area is at least 50 whereas the
baseline level is shown to be preferred at <20. This could certainly change based on improvements, but there is also the
issue of industrial uses that could already occur, noise associated with the treatment plant, the ACHD facility, etc. Unless
you own the Naomi Farms properties to the east or this property is submitted as part of this application, I cannot review
your project as if another property owner will provide an appropriate transition. We do have concerns with houses
backing directly to the property line, as well as moderately high density attached units at the south. There has been a lot
of discussions regarding loss of industrial land, and a FLUM amendment as you suggested is not applicable until at least
June 15. Leaving aside the FLUM, there are numerous other policies in the Comp Plan regarding impacts, compatibility,
traffic, etc. And given this location, we have concerns with how the higher density areas adjacent to industrial and very
near the treatment facility will evolve in the future when the housing market softens.
Another comment - the narrative refers to the R-15 area as townhouses, but you also say this will be on two lots. If all
these units are on two lots, this is considered multifamily with differing requirements. Otherwise it would need to be
platted into individual lots and / or have a DA restriction. This whole area shown as just a blank piece with no concept
plan could be an issue in the public hearing.
Alleys – I don’t want to go too far down the rabbit hole on this one, but in the case of Bainbridge, the staff report notes
this development consisted of private roads and that is why these types of alleys were allowed. Whether this was a good
decision or not is not really relevant to Quartet South. There are alternative compliance allowances in the private road
section, but there are not alternative compliance allowances for the alley requirements in developments of public roads.
And the code mentions it is not the intent to approve private streets for single-family, duplex and/or townhouse
developments other than those that create a common mew through the site design or that propose a limited gated
residential development. Staff does not have the ability to waive the requirement that the entire length must be visible
from a public street. I can’t get into the how or why or what has happened in the past as each case is different. Whether
good or bad design results from these requirements, I can’t speak to that either.
As I mentioned in the previous email, Jamestown Ranch proposes 294 lots on 80 acres of land. This is less dense than
your project of 229 houses and 140 townhouses on 67 acres. Jamestown Ranch was continued, and the PC mentioned
they thought there were too many lots.
8
All this said, we do have issues. I am still not sure where we are landing on this yet because we are still reviewing and
have not seen a traffic study, but at this point we do believe a hearing is premature.
I wish you a happy new year,
Alan Tiefenbach | Current Associate Planner
City of Meridian | Community Development Dept.
33 E. Broadway Ave., Ste. 102, Meridian, Idaho 83642
Phone: 208-489-0573 | Fax: 208-489-0571
Built for Business, Designed for Living
From: Jon Wardle <jwardle@brightoncorp.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2021 1:44 PM
To: Alan Tiefenbach <atiefenbach@meridiancity.org>
Cc: Joshua Beach <JBeach@brightoncorp.com>; Bill Parsons <bparsons@meridiancity.org>; Bruce Freckleton
<bfreckleton@meridiancity.org>; Mike Wardle <mwardle@brightoncorp.com>
Subject: FW: Quartet South
External Sender - Please use caution with links or attachments.
Alan,
I do want to clarify a couple of items in your email below. We appreciate ACHD’s time constraints. We’ve worked hard
to provide them the report in an a timely manner, and have also provided subsequent updates. Please note the
following:
Submitted TIS to ACHD on 9/23/21 (it was not submitted earlier because COMPASS was updating the model and
ACHD wanted that included).
ACHD provided comments on 11/8/21.
Traffic Study response and updated TIS was provided on 12/13/21. (both of which are included here)
ACHD indicated on 12/13/21 that “will try to get this reviewed in the next couple of weeks.”
Again, we are all hoping that ACHD’s review time improves, but this has been a long process. As I have mentioned
before, the City of Meridian needs to collaborate with ACHD and figure out how to get more timely responses from
them. As we have discussed with Meridian, ACHD has no timeline motivation to review applications until Meridian
transmits an application. In order to expedite ACHD’s review, we also provide ACHD the preliminary plat simultaneously
with the TIS on 9/23/21.
With that said, if you feel that Meridian Staff and P&Z Commission are uncomfortable having a public hearing until ACHD
rd
provides its Staff report, let’s go ahead now and schedule it for Thursday, February 3. I’m assuming this has not been
published, and can be easily updated by the Clerk if directed by Staff, and a request for continuation will not be
necessary.
As for the other questions:
1. Comp Plan. As you may know, Meridian just directed a comp plan map amendment for the area north, given
the updated WWTP study. At the time of the pre-application meeting, the odor study had not been presented
to the public. The area directly to east of Quartet South will also likely will follow suit and request a modification
9
of the Future Land Use Map, given the City’s willingness to modify the Mixed Use Non-Residential to the north
based on the updated study There will need to be a buffer / transition, just as suggested by staff, with a north
south road. But given the City’s updated study, that will buffer be farther to the east, and not arbitrarily set at a
property line. In anticipation of this, we’ve included stub streets from the mid-mile collector and
internally. Graphically, here is what that buffer road would look like, and would be consistent with the City’s
updated study. We’ll be prepared to discuss this at the Hearing.
2. U-Shaped Alleys. We have previously had these U-Shaped alleys approved in Paramount Director and
Bainbridge North.
10
The location in Quartet South modifies the housing type from front load to alley load. We found this to be a
good way to bring the homes closer to the street, break up the roadway and provide traffic calming. We also
feel like this is an innovative approach to design besides the standard front-loaded units on the perimeters that
enhances pedestrian connectivity. The alley ways also help break up the street, which is a noted goal in the
UDC. We are hoping that this can be approved, as done before. If not, we will just reintroduce front-load
product and install bulb-outs on both sides of Creason Street.
11
Hopefully this provides you context on both of these design questions.
Jon Wardle
BRIGHTON – Creating GREAT Places
O: 208.378.4000
D: 208.287.0518
C: 208.871.9361
E: jwardle@brightoncorp.com
From: Joshua Beach <JBeach@brightoncorp.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2021 11:56 AM
12
To: Jon Wardle <jwardle@brightoncorp.com>
Subject: FW: Quartet South
FYI
Josh Beach | Assistant Project Manager-Entitlement
BRIGHTON CORPORATION
Brighton – Creating Great Places
2929 W. Navigator Dr., Suite 400, Meridian, ID 83642
Mobile 208.871.3812
brightoncorp.com
From: Alan Tiefenbach <atiefenbach@meridiancity.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2021 4:23 PM
To: Joshua Beach <JBeach@brightoncorp.com>
Cc: Bill Parsons <bparsons@meridiancity.org>; Bruce Freckleton <bfreckleton@meridiancity.org>
Subject: Quartet South
Josh,
I am working on the staff report for Quartet South.
We had our development review meeting last Thursday to discuss this project. There are issues I need to raise with you.
First, there is the TIS. I contacted ACHD last week, and Paige told me the TIS has not even been accepted yet. When it IS
accepted, there is still going to be some time until we get their staff report. This is a submittal item which has not been
submitted.
Jamestown Ranch, near this property at N. Black Cat and W. McMillian Rd, was continued by the Planning Commission
because there had not been any staff report from ACHD. They were also struggling with the density, and they didn’t like
all the common drives. Jamestown Ranch proposes 294 lots on 80 acres of land. This is less dense than your project of
229 houses and 140 townhouses on 67 acres. In fact, Jamestown Ranch was continued to January 20, which is the same
night Quartet South is to be heard.
In addition, there is a proposal for an ACHD facility at 3764 W. Ustick Rd. They council was struggling with the size of the
trucks and the timing for the widening of Ustick (traffic). The hearing was not going well and ACHD requested a 6 month
continuance, which will be in March.
There are additional issues:
1. The subject property to the east is County land with existing industrial uses directly adjacent to it. The FLUM
designates the land directly adjacent as Mixed Use Non-Residential. This means industrial. We suggested a better
transition at the east during the pre-app, but as is the houses are backing directly to that area.
2. You have U-shaped alleys shown at the east and west, but UDC 11-6C-3 requires alleys to be designed so that the
entire length is visible from a public street. You have too many lots for common drives, so you’re looking at redesign
for a street template or removing the alley-loaded option in that area and breaking up the blocks.
With all this, I recommend you request a continuance until you get the ACHD staff report and consider our suggestions.
Otherwise, we’d probably be recommending continuance anyway, and I think it likely the PC would continue this
whether or not we recommend it.
Alan Tiefenbach | Current Associate Planner
13
City of Meridian | Community Development Dept.
33 E. Broadway Ave., Ste. 102, Meridian, Idaho 83642
Phone: 208-489-0573 | Fax: 208-489-0571
Built for Business, Designed for Living
All e-mail messages sent to or received by City of Meridian e-mail accounts are subject to the Idaho law, in regards to
both release and retention, and may be released upon request, unless exempt from disclosure by law.
14