2022-04-28 Item 1.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting April 28, 2022.
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of April 28, 2022, was called
to order at 6:00 p.m. by Vice-Chairman Nick Grove.
Members Present: Vice-Chairman Nick Grove, Commissioner Steven Yearsley,
Commissioner Nate Wheeler, Commissioner Maria Lorcher and Commissioner Mandi
Stoddard.
Members Absent: Commissioner Andrew Seal and Commissioner Patrick Grace.
Others Present: Chris Johnson, Kurt Starman, Bill Parsons, Sonya Allen, Joe Dodson
and Brian McClure.
ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE
X Nate Wheeler X Maria Lorcher
X Mandi Stoddard? X Nick Grove
_X Steven Yearsley Patrick Grace
Andrew Seal - Chairman
Johnson: -- transcribing based on the recording, so I will be the person reminding you to
speak in the microphone. I apologize in advance.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Grove: Thank you. All right. So, we will move on and do the adoption of the agenda and
on tonight's agenda we have the Consent Agenda and we have five items on the action
items. Could I get a motion to adopt the agenda?
Lorcher: So moved.
Wheeler: Second.
Grove: The motion has been moved and seconded. All those in favor say aye. All those
opposed say nay. All right. Motion passed.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item]
1. Approve Minutes of the April 21, 2022 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 28,2022 6
Page 2 of 66
Grove: The Consent Agenda. We have one item on the Consent Agenda and that is to
approve the minutes of the April 21st, 2022, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
Could I get a motion to approve the Consent Agenda?
Yearsley: So moved.
Wheeler: Second.
Grove: Motion has been moved and seconded. All those in favor say aye. All those
opposed say nay. All right. Motion passed.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
ACTION ITEMS
2. Public Hearing Continued from April 21, 2022 for Alamar Subdivision
(H-2022-0004) by Noble Rock Development, Inc., Located at 4380 W.
Franklin Rd. (Parcel #S1210346603), Near the Northeast Corner of N.
Black Cat Rd. and W. Franklin Rd.
A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of approximately 7.23 acres of land
with a request for the TN-R (Traditional Neighborhood Residential)
zoning district.
B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 42 building lots (22 single-
family attached lots and 20 detached single-family lots) and 4
common lots on 4.63 acres in the requested TN-R zoning district.
Grove: All right. That takes us to the first item on our Action Items and we start with the
public hearing for -- that was continued from April 21 st, 2022, for Alamar Subdivision No.
H-2022-0004 by Noble Rock Development and we will pass that over to Joe.
Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Grove. You got me for the first three projects, so let's hunker
down and get through it. As noted, this first project before you tonight is Alamar
Subdivision. The application before you is for annexation and zoning of approximately
8.23 acres of land of a request for the traditional neighborhood residential zoning district
and a preliminary plat consisting of 51 building lots, six common lots and two other lots
on 5.63 acres in the proposed zoning. The site currently consists of two parcels totaling
-- totaling 5.6 acres. Currently zoned RUT in the county and located at 4380 West
Franklin. So, the discrepancy between the annexation and the plat is that the applicant
is annexing the Purdam Drain property west of the subject site, so that we don't have any
county enclave. The site is designated as medium high density residential on the future
land use map and it is within the Ten Mile Specific Area Plan. The MHDR designation
allows for a mix of dwelling types, including townhouses, condos and apartments.
Residential gross density should range from eight to 15 units per acre and is noted with
a target density of 12 units per acre. The proposed plat again consists of 51 residential
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 28,2022 6
Page 3 of 66
units that have a mix of attached and detached homes, which has a gross density of 9.1
units per acre and is consistent with the comp plan. Of the 51 units, 30 of them are single
family attached lots and 21 are detached single family lots. Access to the development
is proposed via a new connection to West Franklin Road at the south property boundary,
which is on the right-hand side here. Access to Franklin is intended to be temporary until
such time a future connection is made to adjacent properties. Specifically future access
should occur to the east via local street connection to West Atomic Street within the
Ascent townhome project to the -- on the east side of Zimmerman Lane, which is not part
of this project, and I can expand on that later and a future extension to West Aviator Street
on the adjacent property to the north -- northeast. So, back to the bigger image here. It's
kind of hard to see, but there is a road here that would align with the proposed stub street
here and Aviator is proposed to continue on here and connect here. This application did
receive approval from City Council a few weeks ago. I don't remember. It all blends
together. Staff has conditions of approval associated with the future road connections.
In response to the staff report, the applicant has requested a new or modified DA provision
regarding the phasing of the project to include the homes along West Atomic Street within
phase one instead of phase two. So, currently phase one stops here and here. Applicant
is proposing that if they can get this connection across Zimmerman Lane with the property
owner, which is viable at this time, that they would include this area in phase one as well
and staff is amenable to that. The termination of the proposed north-south local street at
the north boundary, which is again on the left side, deserves some flexibility due to
ongoing conversations with the adjacent landowner -- landowner and developer. Staff
has included a DA provision to allow this applicant flexibility to revise the road alignment
and lot layout in this area only with the future phase two final plat, should they be able to
work out a mutually beneficial agreement with the adjacent property owner. This
recommended provision does not require that this applicant make any revisions to their
plat, but its intent to provide flexibility to the applicant to make any necessary revisions to
the plat without having to go through the hearing process for those minor changes that
do not increase the number of building lots or drastically change the overall design, but
should help with the overall road network within this area of the city. So, the issue is --
long story short, but the property owner to the north does not have an inclination to align
the road here, they would like it bent here. Staff just wants the developers to work
together, which is why I wanted to offer flexibility there, and because it's part of phase
two, we have time to do that and it shouldn't affect much. The proposed plat has a
minimum lot size of approximately 2,000 square feet, with an average lot size of
approximately 2,762. Includes detached sidewalks and six foot parkways throughout the
site. My staff report does note that there are eight foot parkways. That was my mistake.
I forgot that they are doing a reduced parkway with route barriers in order to bring the
porches of the homes closer to the street. So, I will correct that following the meeting.
As noted, the plat is currently proposed to develop in two phases due to the available
access. Phasing plan depicts currently 22 building lots that are in the southern half of the
site with phase one and the remaining 30 -- no. Twenty-nine, I believe, lots in phase two.
Yeah. Twenty-nine? With phase one the public roads terminate less than 150 feet from
the internal infrastructure, which means that there is no temporary turnaround required.
The Planning Department and the Fire do support the proposed phasing plan and include
-- that includes the requested revision, because it would connect to another public road
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 28,2022 7
Page 4 of 66
to the east. A minimum of 15 percent qualified open space is required for projects over
five acres within the traditional neighborhood residential districts per the UDC. Based on
the plat of 5.6 acres, the minimum amount of open space required is approximately
36,786 square feet. According to staff's analysis of the submitted plans, the applicant is
proposing approximately 32 and a half thousand of qualified open space. This area does
not meet the minimum. There is potential for the entire common lot of Lot 12, Block 1 , to
be -- or yeah. Sorry. There is potential for the entire lot counting towards the qualified
open space of pedestrian if additional pedestrian facilities are added, the area is improved
per the UDC and Nampa-Meridian does not restrict access to their access road. So,
again, that's this -- basically is brown area here. If that area is deemed to be compliant
with the UDC, then, they will have more than their 15 percent by quite a few thousands
of square feet. The issue is that this is a Nampa-Meridian access road, which is usually
a minimum of 16'ish feet and it's just gravel or some type of road base, which is fine, but
that does not account -- or allow any landscaping. Applicant could do alternative
compliance, et cetera, but staff does want some additional pedestrian connection here to
help access it here. The other issue, even though it is this property owner's properties,
Nampa-Meridian has been known to restrict access to these areas at times. So, that's
why staff is concerned with that and is not a hundred percent sure that that area can
count. But staff and the applicant will continue to work through that and I do have a
condition already in my staff report regarding this potential. So, there is -- staff has
handled it and we are working with the applicant on it. With these cumulative revisions
the easement area can count towards a qualified open space. So, if these revisions
cannot occur, the applicant will need to add approximately 4,300 square feet of qualified
open space, which will likely require the loss of a building lot or too. Specific to the Ten
Mile Plan, front loaded dwellings are not preferred and if they are proposed, the garages
should be set back from the living area facade to help create a more porch dominated
streetscape, rather than garage dominated. According to the submitted elevations and
floor plans, the applicant has proposed units with garages considerably behind the living
area facades. This design provides for a more porch dominated street facade compared
to traditional single family residential, which is desired within the Ten Mile Plan. Staff is
including a DA provision to ensure this type of design is maintained for the project. Overall
with the site design and the home design that supports street-oriented design, staff does
very much support the proposed design of the project and specifically with the garages
behind the living area. So, I do not have a specific provision regarding the minimum
depth, but the applicant has requested that that be added, which is perfectly fine. So,
that is, again, a provision that I am more than welcome to add to make sure it's clear
moving forward. There was no written testimony on the project as of about 3:30 p.m.
Staff does recommend approval of the project per the conditions in the staff report and I
will stand for any questions from the Commission.
Grove: Okay. Thank you, Joe. Could we get the applicant to come forward, please?
Wrede: Hello. Name is Jeffrey Wrede with Noble Rock Development. My address is
12805 West Engelmann in Boise and I'm here to present for Alamar Subdivision. I'm
going to go through these slides. It will probably repeat a little bit of -- or, actually, most
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 28,2022 8
Page 5 of 66
of everything that Joseph just said, but I will go ahead and go through it quickly. Find the
page of key --
Johnson: You can use -- the arrow keys work best.
Wrede: The Alamar Subdivision will provide the diversity that is key to Meridian's
comprehensive and future use plans, as well as the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area
Plan. These plans stress mixed income, mixed family size and mixed age communities.
To balance the surrounding developments in the area, which include three story
townhomes and large apartment complexes, Alamar Subdivision will provide a mix of
single family detached and attached duplex homes to provide a diversity of housing types
in the area. To provide for a successful urban environment a street oriented design has
been incorporated. Alamar Subdivision will consist of porch oriented homes, with tree
lined streets and detached sidewalks. In front of the homes will the placed -- the front of
the house will be placed close to the sidewalk, while the garages will be set back to the
rear of the homes. This will provide a home fronting edge to the public space, which will
make the streets more friendly and walkable. This slide shows the vicinity map and
somewhat indicates the project site and shows the development that's going on in the
area. The hatched area is either already developed properties or approved properties or
properties that are owned by developers that have either submitted or are planning to
submit in the near future. Our preliminary plat showed that we are requesting rezoning
to traditional neighborhood residential, with street oriented designing, tree lined streets
with the detached sidewalks. Our density is 9.1 units per acre and we have a total of 51
building lots. Twenty-one are single family detached homes and they mainly reside in the
southern half of the development and they will mainly be those that are done in phase
one. The other 30 lots are single family attached homes in the form of duplexes. The
open space in the area consists of a centralized open grassy area. The parkway buffers.
A linear open space along the Purdam Drain. Landscape buffer along Franklin Road in
shallow drain areas. We have one site amenity which is a bicycle repair station that will
be located at the central grassy area, which is, you know, right in the middle of the
subdivision there. The lower central image shows a little expanded view of the central
grassy area where we will -- we have added a walking path through that which connects
to the sidewalk connections across the street and winds through there and connects to
the linear open space. You might notice on the left -- it might be a little hard to see, but
there is kind of a pinkish purple -- it shows the loops that are going around along the linear
open space and back to the sidewalk and through the central grassy area, both to the
north and the south, and, then, there is the image in the bottom right corner, which that's
the image of -- from Heron River. They have been very successful there in using these
linear open spaces with chip rock and it's still viable to the irrigation district there and we
have actually seen -- we just finished a development in their last year and we connect to
the same open space and we actually see that there is much more activity on this linear
area than there are in the actual common spaces. A lot of people walking dogs and, you
know, taking daily walks through there, so -- this slide shows the road connections. We
have one main north-south road coming through the subdivision, which enters off Franklin
Road. As Joseph mentioned, this is a temporary entry that will be closed and/or used as
an emergency access only once the other connections to the north and the east are
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 28,2022 191
Page 6 of 66
completed. The road that runs to the east will eventually connect to the Ascent
Subdivision and we are -- we have been speaking with the developer of -- that owns that
property regarding the possibility of written agreement to allow right of way, so we can
complete that ahead of-- ahead of phase two, which was originally planned. Then to the
north we show this collector road that's going to be put in to connect from Black Cat to
Franklin Road. The little clip in the upper right corner shows this Aviator Street is coming
through Aviator Subdivision, which has been approved, and, then, connect down to the
existing road -- I believe it's San Marco Way and, then, back out to Franklin Road. The
northern exit of this road we originally had straight, but, then, we made it curve to the right
per a request somewhat of the Planning Department, assuming that the road connection
might be perpendicular to this road. As Joseph mentioned and has added in there, that
he is allowing some flexibility in case that road needs to veer to the left instead of the right
or meander slightly to help work with the neighboring developer. We are placing a stop
sign at the intersection just for traffic calming and because this length of road is more than
the 750 feet. As far as the sewer and water, that main are present already off Franklin
Road at the south. We are bringing the utilities through the development and providing
access to the neighboring lots that are there. Any of the lines that are in a landscaped
area will have a 14 foot access area where there will be no permanent structures or
plantings to allow access to the manholes and their entry points will only come from within
the subdivision and not enter onto Franklin. Streetlights are 250 feet apart per code and
one of them is placed right at the open space area in the central part of this subdivision.
Fire hydrants are every 400 feet per code. Gravity and pressurized irrigation. Pressurized
irrigation, we have had discussions with Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District and they are
tentatively preliminarily allowing us to connect to a pump station that exists in the
northwest corner off of our property, but they are allowing us to connect to that and,
therefore, the irrigation system will be designed per their requirements and also the UDC,
of course. There will be no irrigation placed in the right of way. That's an ACHD
requirement also. As far as gravity irrigation at the very north boundary of the property
there is a small stub drain that currently has a 12 inch culvert in it. We are going to tile
that entire north boundary line there, for the road and also to allow more access and
reduce the maintenance requirement on that. The easement that Nampa-Meridian
Irrigation has is along the eastern boundary. We are going to provide them with a 17 foot
wide access. The building pads are located outside of the hundred foot centerline
easement and they are going to allow us an encroachment of ten feet into their easement.
That was -- will allow us to have the fences and the backyards of the homes slightly into
that easement. We have a lot of discussions. We have agreed not to have sheds and
things like that placed in that area and, then, the fencing in that area will be -- it's going to
be wrought iron open fencing. It will be removable through just sleeving basically, so if
they ever have to access their easement they can easily pull that out of there without
destroying anything. And, then, again, the -- the actual easement along there is going to
be made with road base and, then, covered with 3/8ths chip rock similar to the perma
bark. This just makes it more appealing and easier to walk through there. Phasing plan
as Joseph mentioned. The lower section, again, which is mainly single family homes, will
be completed first, pending road connections to the east or the north and at that point we
will complete phase two and Franklin Road will be turned into emergency access only.
Fire sprinklers won't be required for phase one. These are basic elevations. Possibilities.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 28,2022 Flo]
Page 7 of 66
You notice we have front porches on the homes. Garages as setback from the front
facade. We are using a mixture of materials, colors, design elements, lap siding, stucco
and brick and rock on the front. The single family homes will be three bedrooms and two
and a half baths between 1 ,750 and 1 ,900 square feet and the attached duplex homes
will be two bedrooms with two and a half baths at 1 ,250 to 1,300 square feet. These are
the floor plans, just to show the single family will be -- the three bedroom and will provide
the two car garage and two external parking spots. Whereas the attached homes will be
two bedroom and so we, therefore, have the single garage space and single exterior
parking space. Just in conclusion Alamar Subdivision provides an atmosphere needed
for families to live and work in a steadily growing area the Ten Mile interchange, while
providing an affordable mix of home types. Thank you.
Grove: Are there any questions for the applicant or staff?
Yearsley: Mr. Chair?
Grove: Yes, Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: Can you -- the little side piece that you have got the -- the homes there? Can
you go through how that's going to work? Because it looks like you have got homes along
the front and, then, you have got setbacks in the back and I'm just not quite sure how well
that's going to work with driveways and access and traffic and it seems to be a little
congested back in there.
Wrede: Which portion of the --
Yearsley: Oh, the -- the little cross-street -- yeah. Those back lots in the very back. It
just seems you have got four homes in the one and, then, two on the other. They are
duplexes or --
Wrede: Yes. So, those are duplexes that come off of a common driveway --
Yearsley: Uh-huh.
Wrede: -- and so we had to meet the requirement of just a maximum of four units and
two on each side of the drive. The reason there is only one duplex to the right is there is
a possibility that the developer to the north that has the 20 acres is -- he wants to basically
deed over -- or give us or not deal with the 50 foot easement that's Zimmerman Road
right now. In that case in the future it's quite possible there will be another unit on that
common driveway.
Yearsley: So, how -- how wide are your streets? I was trying to see that in the staff
report, but it's kind of fuzzy. So, how wide is your --
Wrede: The streets are a standard 33 foot section --
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 28,2022 Fil
Page 8 of 66
Yearsley: Okay.
Wrede: -- with the detached sidewalks. So, it's a 47 foot overall -- no, I'm sorry.
Yearsley: So, there will be 40 -- there will be parking on both sides allowed?
Wrede: Yeah. Yes.
Yearsley: Okay. That's all I have for right now.
Grove: Okay. Any other questions?
Wheeler: Mr. Chair?
Grove: Commissioner Wheeler, go ahead.
Wheeler: Thank you, Chair -- Mr. Chair. Joe, I have a question. He is -- on this slide
here he says that there is 16.5 open space -- 16.5 percent open space here. I thought
we were at the 15 percent or less? Can you -- can you maybe add some light to that
or --
Dodson: Yeah. Commissioner Wheeler, that's -- he is counting the easement along the
drain, which is the area that if that can be counted, then, it will bump them up over. I don't
-- because I have a condition in there and the applicant and I are going to continue
working through it, I don't want to get too in the weeds -- no pun intended -- but I'm not
exactly sure how we are going to get there with it just being an access road that doesn't
comply with code as being qualified, but there is potential -- if we want an emergency
access -- if we want a temporary access to become an emergency only access on the
south boundary, that cul-de-sac can go away and that whole area that's not the road can
become open space and I'm sure that's over 5,000 square feet and that would -- there is
the required open space. So, that's where the discrepancy is.
Wheeler: Okay. Okay. I'm just double -- just double checking in my mind. And, then,
Jeffrey, has -- are there other thoughts that you have had about how to possibly get there
if that -- if that --
Wrede: Yes.
Wheeler: -- area and drainage -- how would you -- how would you do that to get to this?
Wrede: So, we originally interpreted the code that states that a linear open space along
a waterway or ditch can be counted as qualified open space and so that's where our
calculations had that in there and, actually, I think we are -- we are above 16.5, actually.
If we can't get this to work, then, we are more than likely going to lose a lot somewhere.
Wheeler: Thought that that's how that might go --
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 28,2022 F12
Page 9 of 66
Wrede: Possibly the farthest south eastern home, because we may, then, be able to
make that area larger than 5,000 feet through there, which will qualify as another open
grassy space in other words.
Wheeler: Okay.
Wrede: Else we may take, you know, one of the duplex lots at the top, which will increase
that area to the northwest.
Wheeler: Okay. Thank you.
Grove: Any other questions from the Commissioners? All right. Thank you. We will
open it up for public comment now. You are welcome to sit down. Mr. Clerk, do we have
anybody signed up?
Johnson: Mr. Chair, nobody signed up in advance for this.
Grove: All right. Is there anyone online or in the audience that would like to testify on this
application? All right. Seeing none, would the applicant like to have any closing remarks?
Wrede: No, I don't really have any closing remarks. I would just like to thank Joseph for
his direction and support through this process. He's very learned of these codes and --
and has helped us a lot getting this put together. So, thank you, Commissioners.
Yearsley: Could I have one last question? You mentioned about this pathway in the right
of way for the easement -- or the irrigation district. Have they agreed to allow that pathway
then?
Wrede: Yeah. It's -- you know, pathway is kind of a word that we are -- we are not really
using, because it's -- it's -- it kind of implies, you know, a small walking concrete with
landscaping and things like that. But they have agreed and we have a separate, you
know, communications and other drawings and documents that we have used within that
specify all their requirements and they are open to this being used similar to -- like I said
Heron River has this walking area. I mean it is owned by the subdivision, it will be
maintained by the HOA and, you know, the -- the reality is the irrigation company has
never accessed this ditch from that side. I doubt -- because it's pretty much inaccessible
and so this is going to really help them out and, you know, the district -- drainage district
number two up there in Star, which has this, they can now drive and they drive their trucks
through there and spray -- easily spray the banks. We have had, you know, issues like
with Hemlock growing, which some neighbors -- you know, some people are kind of
worried about, so it's easy to have the county come through and spray it, they can just
drive right along and take care of that. But it's really used quite a bit. It's amazing how
many people walk their dogs down these paths and around, so --
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 28,2022 F13
Page 10 of 66
Yearsley: And, then, one last question. So, you mentioned that the backyards -- I think
it's on that side, they are going to have a ten foot easement for their part of their backyard
in that easement.
Wrede: Yes.
Yearsley: I'm still not quite sure how that's going to work, because I mean are they
removable fence -- you know, how is that going to work? And can you explain that a little
bit more? I guess --
Wrede: Yeah.
Yearsley: And I guess if we don't have it how much -- do they actually have a backyard
at all or what's the -- what's -- how much do they have and how much will they gain?
Wrede: So, the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District is allowing us to, of course, landscape
it and put shrubs -- they don't want trees in there, but they are allowing shrubs and patio
slabs. We have already discussed this through a-mails and they have said that's not a
problem and so we are -- in our floor plans we are designing covered patios built into the
actual home, so they are slightly recessed into the home space, so there will be a rear
patio -- covered patio. Plus, then, there can be additional slab space uncovered that goes
into that easement and, then, grass and plantings along the fence.
Yearsley: Okay. It just seems kind of weird, because if you ever have to get in there and
you are going to get a lot of complaints from homeowners that they are tearing up the
backyard for something.
Wrede: Well, if they ever need to go in there it will be to fix the irrigation line, which they
would have to do anywhere in the subdivision. That's, you know, the nature of that. The
easements are all the way around the whole subdivision.
Yearsley: Oh, so it's actually more for the pipe underground no --
Wrede: I believe so. That -- it's mainly really just because it's their easement --
Yearsley: Right.
Wrede: -- I think and --
Dodson: Mr. Chair?
Grove: Yes, Joe.
Dodson: I just wanted to touch on that, too, because I agree with Jeff. For whatever
reason, the drain easement is a hundred feet wide, as discussed with Aviation, so it just
encroaches on everything in this area. Then only the nine feet of it is on the buildable
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 28,2022 F14]
Page 11 of 66
lots, which code allows ten, so it will be grassy area within the backyards and the building
envelope that he shows on here is wholly outside of that easement. So, they will have
some yard, they just can't plant trees in there, and the fence -- yeah. That would -- I don't
know what removable necessarily means, but open vision fencing is required along there
anyways, so it's going to have to be some type of removal fence like that, so staff has no
concerns with that. What -- I wanted to touch on the -- I guess just to make sure we are
all clear on the -- what would qualify for that easement area, if it's -- there is a couple of
code sections involved here. If it's linear open space it has to be minimum 20 feet wide
and it has to have -- be landscaped per the UDC 11-3-B-7, I believe. Or eight or
something. And that can't be. One, it's not 20 feet wide. Two, you can't have landscaping
in the easement, because it's the irrigation easement. Secondly, the code does allow
linear open space along natural -- is the keyword their -- natural waterways to count and
be left unimproved. The drain is not listed as one of those natural waterways. So, that's
where I can't give Jeff that affordance there, even though it is big and it is natural, but it's
not -- they -- the code has specific lists of which waterways, like the Ten Mile, the
Ridenbaugh, and the Five Mile Creek and those types of things. So, that's where we are
at with that, unfortunately. I just wanted to touch on those points.
Yearsley: I guess my -- my thing is is the pathway is going -- or the southside pathway is
going to go in no matter what -- if it's considered an open space or not.
Dodson: Correct.
Yearsley: I figured you guys will take care of the open space. That's -- that's your guys'
deal.
Dodson: Yes, sir. I was just curious about the path -- the pathway.
Wrede: If I could reply?
Yearsley: Yeah.
Wrede: To reply, there is a section of the code that -- when it speaks about the linear
open space along waterways, it also says ditches in there. That's what we have been
going on as far as that and it -- it only states that it needs to be ten feet wide of a buffer
area in that section of code that we have read. So, we have got some work to do to find
out. Either way we will be able to make this work.
Yearsley: Nope. I'm good about that.
Grove: Bill, did you have something?
Parsons: Yeah. Commission, I just wanted to chime in on the topic a little bit. You know,
like anything this is annexation; right? So, it's whether or not it's in the best interest of the
city. In this particular case I love the idea of a pathway there. I think that's great. I like
to see waterways being left open. But there are safety concerns that go along with that
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 28,2022 F15]
Page 12 of 66
that have to be mitigated. There is also the -- the reason why staff likes to see the
landscaping is because it differentiates it -- that from -- from the easement, the use area.
So, how is that going to look when you have a gravel compacted road base and, then,
there is another pathway next to it, just -- it doesn't delineate the difference between it
and, then, you have somebody riding their bike next to an open vision fence and all of a
sudden your handlebar hits the fence and you hit your neck on the fence and we have an
accident along the pathway. There is a lot of things that I'm -- running through my head
that says I think we need to just kind of work with the applicant and see if this thing works
or not, but -- and also we have alternative compliance. So, there is -- there is ways to
lessen the open space if this area doesn't count. So, I think we have enough tools in our
tool belt to help and work with the applicant. But right now I think -- at least from my look
at it I'm not comfortable having a pathway right up against fencing and that's -- to me
that's not a wise idea. Just my two cents on it.
Yearsley: I guess going back to that comment, I didn't know how -- how wide is that,
quote, walking way? Is it pretty narrow or is -- because I was --
Wrede: Seventeen -- 17 feet wide. So, it's -- it's quite wide --
Yearsley: Okay.
Wrede: --as far as walking goes or riding a bike. I'm still working with Greg over at NMID.
It's possible -- and I will bring it up to him -- if the road base and gravel section is actually
-- you know, like perma bark section could be reduced in width and possibly, you know,
some strip of some kind put along it. They -- for most times they would need to access if
they are going to drive in a truck. So, you know, ten feet wide is probably enough, so we
probably have room to do something on the sides and, then, if they need to repair
something and bring in an excavator, well, we have some damage, but that's going to
happen no matter what. So, that there is a possibility to maybe we can make something
work there.
Dodson: To Bill's point, we -- we got some tools in the toolbox, so we can take care of
this. Absolutely.
Yearsley: Okay.
Grove: All right. Any further questions? All right.
Wrede: Thank you.
Grove: All right. Thank you. All right. Could I get a motion to close the public hearing
for Alamar Subdivision, file number H-2022-0004?
Wheeler: So moved.
Yearsley: Second.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 28,2022 F16
Page 13 of 66
Wheeler: So moved.
Yearsley: Oh.
Grove: All right. Motion to close the public hearing has been moved and seconded. All
in favor say aye. All opposed say nay. All right. Motion passed.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Grove: All right. Anybody have thoughts and want to jump in?
Yearsley: Mr. Chair?
Grove: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: You know, I understand what they are trying to achieve and it's -- it's a difficult
lot to deal with, but it feels like we are trying to shoehorn a lot of lots into a little space.
I'm not quite a fan of the -- the duplexes by -- on a common drive back like they have it
shown. I think it tends to lead to congestion problems, parking problems, and, you know,
when you start getting garbage cans and stuff on the streets I think it's going to tend to
be a little tight. I -- I -- there is a common drive near our house and every garbage day
there is like 20, you know, right in the corner, so it's like -- it's kind of a pain, but -- I'm not
a big fan, but not a -- it's not bad enough to not to -- not send it forward to City Council to
address.
Grove: Thank you. Anybody else?
Lorcher: Mr. Chair?
Grove: Commissioner Lorcher.
Lorcher: Since this is in proximity to the Compass School campus around the corner and
it seems like it's being surrounded by other subdivisions with similar style of housing, the
common driveways are disappointing, but it still fits in within the overall scheme of the
housing that seems to be going into that corner, so I don't have a problem with it.
Yearsley: So, before I make a motion -- Joe, is there -- you mentioned that -- do we need
to include the phasing option in our -- in our motion? Because wasn't there -- if they can
get the stub street to -- to allow that -- that side street into phase one, is that something
that we need to make or is that --
Dodson: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Yearsley, yeah, I would say make that part of the
motion just to say if--whatever it is with the addition of modifying --or including a provision
about the -- you know, that one's a modification -- modifying the provision regarding the
phasing.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 28,2022 F17
Page 14 of 66
Yearsley: Okay.
Wheeler: Mr. Chair? Mr. Yearsley, I think we also have to say something about the DA,
like a modification, because he wanted to include phase one on that one section, too, is
that correct?
Yearsley: But we don't -- we don't comment on the DA. That's actually through City
Council --
Wheeler: Oh. Okay. All right.
Yearsley: -- for a motion.
Wheeler: All right.
Yearsley: The DA's.
Wheeler: All right. Thank you.
Yearsley: Mr. Chair?
Grove: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2022-0004 as presented in the staff
report, date for the hearing date of April 28th, 2022, with the following modifications: That
-- to modify the phasing plan if the applicant is able to connect the stub street to the east
to allow that section in this -- into phase one if he can get that connection.
Lorcher: Second.
Grove: Real quick, Joe. Was there a DA -- or a modification that we needed to put in in
terms of the garage setback that you had mentioned? It wasn't brought up by the
applicant, but you had mentioned it in your --
Dodson: Correct. Mr. Chair, there -- that can be handled between now and City Council.
That's fine.
Grove: Okay.
Dodson: Or City Council can --
Grove: Just wanted to double check if --
Dodson: We are okay.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 28,2022 F18
Page 15 of 66
Grove: All right. So, motion has been moved and seconded. All those in favor say aye.
All those opposed say nay. All right. Motion passes.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
3. Public Hearing Continued from April 21, 2022 for Burnside Ridge
Estates (H-2021-0070) by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., Located
Near the Southwest Corner of S. Linder Rd. and W. Victory Rd.,
Including 2365 W. Victory Rd., 3801 S. Linder Rd., and Parcels
S1226142251, R0831430030, R0831430022, and R0831430010
A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 121.29 acres of land from RUT
to the R2 (11 .76 acres) and R-4 (109.53) zoning districts.
B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 299 total lots (275 single-
family residential lots and 24 common lots) on 119.31 acres of land.
Grove: All right. On to our next item. We have public hearing for Burnside Ridge Estates,
file number H-2021-0070, which was continued from April 21 , 2022, and with that we will
pass it over to Joe for the staff report.
Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, this one is considerably larger, so bear with me,
and the applicant does have quite an impressive presentation as well. So, some of the
things I won't touch on, simply because I know that they will. Just want to let you know.
The applications before you tonight are for annexation and zoning and a preliminary plat.
Now, the site consists of six county parcels that total approximately 119 acres of land
currently zoned RUT and located -- I say near the southwest corner of Linder and Victory,
but it's more like completely surrounding the southwest corner of Victory and Linder. The
future land use designations on the site are both low density residential and medium
density residential. As noted it is a request for annexation and zoning that is for 121 .3
acres, requesting zoning to the R-2 district of 11.7 and the R-4 zoning district 109.53
acres, with a preliminary plat that consists of 299 total lots, which is 275 single family
detached residential lots and 24 common lots on the 119 acres. The proposed plat shows
compliance with the UDC dimensional standards for the proposed R-2 and R-4 lots, with
an average lot size of around 10,000 square feet, with five foot detached sidewalk and
eight foot parkways throughout the entire development. Three new accesses are
proposed to the adjacent arterial streets of Linder and Victory Road. Two of the new
collector streets per the master street map, which is shown as South Farmyard, which is
the north-south collector and the other one is East Holstein -- Holstein, one of the two,
along the south boundary connects up to Linder. The other connection to Linder is via a
local street here, which is East Pivot Drive. All other accesses to will be via the -- all the
other internal local streets shown. The applicant is proposing to stub the new collector
street of Holstein to the west boundary for future connectivity per the master street map.
East Holstein is also proposed along the entire southern boundary for future connectivity
to the property to the south. The proposed north-south collector street, South Farmyard,
provides a stub street to the east property adjacent to -- sorry -- 1995 West Victory. No
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 28,2022 Fig]
Page 16 of 66
other stub streets are proposed to the adjacent county parcels. Staff is recommending a
new stub street from Pivot Drive to the north boundary proximately in this location for
better connectivity, as well as to help with the block length on Pivot Drive. In addition,
staff is recommending a cross-street from Red Angus, which is here, to South
International Way in order to help with the block lengths here as well. It would go across
the Calkins Lateral in alignment with East Draw Bar Street. Otherwise, the applicant will
need to obtain a Council waiver for the proposed block lengths of Red Angus, which is
approximately 1,400 feet long. When a -- when a street -- wow. Drew a blank there.
When a street is longer than 1,200 feet in length, a pedestrian connection cannot count
as the block length interrupter. That's not accurate at all. But it can't break up the block
lengths, I'm sorry, if it's 1,200 feet or more. You have to get a Council waiver or you need
to provide another stub street or cross-street. The project is proposed to be constructed
in five phases as seen here. Two approved fire access points are proposed within phase
one. So, throughout the whole project they will have their two access points required for
fire, so there is no need to sprinkler or limit to 30 homes. Hence why phase one has 56
homes, phase two is 92, phase three has 84, phase four has 31, and phase five has 12.
Phase -- sorry. Staff has recommended including the clubhouse and pool and it's open
space lot within phase one, which would be this lot here. That's in the staff report. Staff
and the applicant have worked together. We met yesterday. I'm amenable to -- well,
should say the applicant is requesting that we revise to phase two, instead of phase one,
so that the burden of the clubhouse and pool and that open space is not wholly on the
first 56 owners to pay in their HOA fees and, in general, 56 lots with that much open
space, understandable, as well because they are providing an amenity here and
approximately 40,000 square feet of open space with phase one. So, staff is amenable
to amending that provision to say that the clubhouse and pool and open space lot are
with phase two, instead of phase one. The Calkins Lateral currently bisects the south
half of the project site and at the time of staff report writing I thought that the Calkins
Lateral is going to remain open and I was wrong. Therefore, some of my conditions
related to that are not accurate. Again, I will modify some of those because of that new
information. The applicant and staff are awaiting confirmation from the irrigation district
on the correct easement width with the lateral being piped, instead of being left open,
because it does not -- what I have heard and what is written from Boise Project Board of
Control is -- they do not match, so we are awaiting confirmation of that. The confirmation
will help us determine if any of the building lots along this lateral are going to have an
easement encroachment and if the required landscape along the multi-use pathway within
this common space is going to be able to be constructed. So, along the lateral the
applicant per the master pathways plan is required to propose a multi-use pathway all
along the lateral and to the west boundary, as well as along the west side of this collector
road. So, two very long segments of regional pathway are proposed and required with
this. The application was submitted prior to the latest open space standard revisions. So,
this application came in at about September, open space was revised in October, we
waited to schedule it, again, those six, seven months ago because the TIS needed to be
accepted and submitted to ACHD. But more than that we also had some other issues
with legal parcels, et cetera. So, that's why it's been so long. But I did want to make that
note to the Commission. This is -- was analyzed against the old open space standards.
Because of that the proposed plat needs to meet a minimum of ten percent qualified open
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 28,2022 F20]
Page 17 of 66
space and based on the plat size of 100 acres is move the decimal over a couple of times
and you got your 11.9 is the minimum amount that should be provided. According to the
open space exhibit, total 12.19 acres of qualified open space is proposed, which is
approximately 10.2 percent. However, this open space exhibit does not account for the
parkways throughout the development at all. One, the parkways don't show the required
number of trees, so they technically wouldn't count. Staff is recommending -- and I have
included a condition of approval to include the required number of trees, therefore, the
area can count and that's a lot of linear feet of parkways, so my assumption is that they
will gain quite a bit of area of qualified open space with the addition of the parkways. A
minimum of six qualified site amenities are required to be provided per the old open space
standards, which is one amenity per 20 acres. According to the submitted plans, the
applicant is proposing at least eight amenities to satisfy the requirements. A clubhouse,
swimming pool, children's play structures, pickleball court, multi-use pathways, shaded
picnic area, public art and outdoor fitness equipment. The proposed amenities exceed
code requirements and if they were to be analyzed against the current open space
standards they would exceed the minimum amount of amenity points required as well. I
haven't done the math with the open space, but I assume they will exceed or be really
close to the minimum required if they were analyzed against the current open space
standards as well with the addition of the parkways. The subject area does contain two
future land use designations as noted, low density and medium density residential. The
medium density residential takes up a larger area of the project, about the 80 acres on
the south --wow-- south -- on the west half and, then, 39 acres. So, this quadrant is low.
This is medium. Now, the future land use designations are not parcel specific, as I stated
in every meeting, but the -- an adjacent abutting designation when appropriate and
approved as part of a public hearing process may be used. So, that designation may not
be used, however, across planned or existing collector or arterial roadways. It must not
be used on a parcel not directly abutting the designation and may not apply to more than
50 percent of the land being developed. Based on this policy the low density designation
can be floated, quote, unquote, beyond the area depicted on the future land use map up
to the east side of the north-south collector street. So, that's how staff analyzed the
project was to take the low density here and extend it to this side of the collector road.
This side per that provision must meet the minimum density for medium density -- or must
meet the minimum density for the medium density residential. Because the -- sorry.
Subsequently that density on the west side of South Farmyard must be at least three units
to the acre. However, the comp plan does allow rounding, so, really, the realistic number
they need to hit is 2.5 units per acre west of the comp plan -- or sorry. Wow. West of the
collector street. According to the submitted plans this area is approximately 54 acres,
contains 126 units, which amounts to about 2.3 units per acre, so it does not meet that
minimum density. Therefore, the applicant will need to add at least nine additional
building lots in this area to meet the minimum requirements. However, to increase the
number of lots in this area it would require the applicant to amend their plat and propose
smaller lot sizes that would likely not meet the R-4 standard. Therefore, staff has
recommended the applicant include an area of R-8 zoning in the north area of the plat.
So, staff has recommended this block here and this block here, these two blocks, since
they are somewhat grid patterned and can be buffered by R-2 here and the R-4 here. If
the applicant does not wish to increase the number of lots period, no matter where, than
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 28,2022 F21
Page 18 of 66
a Comprehensive Plan map amendment will be required and the project should be
continued in order to allow the applicant to submit that concurrent application, which could
be processed no earlier than June 15th, per our recent code changes. Meeting with the
applicant they have proposed -- and in their formal response today that instead of R-8
being here -- sorry -- instead of R-8 being here, potentially surrounding the open space
areas, which staff is also amenable to, but as far as tonight no specific condition or
anything needs to be modified. The applicant and I will continue to work through that.
Staff did receive one piece of public testimony -- written testimony prior to the hearing. It
was on behalf of the Stetson Estates residents, which are the county subdivision to the
west. They noted that the project does not comply with the comp plan or the vision of
Meridian of keeping the rural characteristic of the city. They expressed a desire to keep
the existing areas -- these outer areas of Meridian as more rural and less developed
consisting -- consistent with the existing lifestyles in this area of the city. Staff has
recommended approval of the subject application and will stand for any questions.
Grove: Thank you, Joe. Could we get the applicant to come forward, please? You will
have 15 minutes and go ahead and state your name and address, please.
Young: All right. Dave Young. Linder Holdings. 849 East State Street, Suite 104, Eagle,
Idaho. 83616. First of all, the first slide that's up right -- right now I just want to clarify.
This is coming forward as Burnside Estates on the -- on the legal plat, but this project will
be marketed and known as Jackson Ridge Estates. So, when we go throughout this
presentation that's what we are going to be referring to is as Jackson Ridge, but on the
legal documents it will be known as Burnside. A little bit about -- about us. This is a
family taking this project on. This isn't -- I think it's important that you know that -- that,
you know, when -- when somebody like CBH comes before you or Hubble, Brighton, you
know who those guys are. You don't know who we are. So, this family -- you know, we
are local Meridian people. The family members involved in this project all went to
Meridian High School. You know, we are invested in Meridian. We have invested in
southwest Idaho with -- with several assisted living facilities scattered among the smaller
towns with -- with four of those facilities located within the City of Meridian and one of our
most recent projects was the -- of note was the Vertical View climbing wall that is on 1-84.
This project is a little bit different than what we have done before with more commercial
projects, but taking on a big residential project, and I want to give a little history of the
reason to that, how we got involved. Being longtime Meridian residents you know
everybody and -- and my wife, my brother-in-law, we are real good friends with the
Jackson family. This is the Jackson family farm -- was one of the last operating dairies
within the Meridian area and so our family spent a lot of time on that property. I have
known Brent Jackson for over 30 years and Brent has seen the handwriting on the wall
that at some point he is going to have to deal with all the encroachment that's coming
around him and that he would have to decide that when is the time to depart and in 2019
he approached several different developers and did have that under contract and decided
to change his operation from -- from dairy cattle to beef cattle and move his operation to
central Oregon. For various reasons that deal fell apart at the last minute. Mr. Jackson's
son knew our family and called and said, hey, here is an opportunity, would you like to
step in and take a look at it and we did and we thought it would be a great opportunity,
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 28,2022 F22
Page 19 of 66
especially knowing the history of the -- history of the property and with that, that being
said, you know, growing up in Meridian it was a very agricultural based community. I'm
going to be 50 here in a week and a half and there is a lot that has changed in my 50
years of living in this area and -- and I hate to see, you know, our-- our goal isn't to come
in and wipe the property clean of-- of this farm history. We want to preserve some of that
history and reflect that in this project and I think that starts with the name Jackson Ridge.
So, part of that preservation is using some of the existing -- existing elements that are on
the property, like the Harvestore blue and white silo, the grain bins, the tractors and
implements that are -- that around the property to reflect that and -- and preserve some
of that history and you will see that as we get more into our design presentation. I want
to talk just a little bit about the -- the road to getting to this point. This has been a -- that's
been a tough project, starting with the acquisition in early 2019, pre-application hearings
-- we have had three pre-application hearings, part of -- part of that reason why as we --
when Toll Brothers approached the city about the property to the south of us, they kind of
beat us to the -- beat us to the punch, so we had to align with them on a lot of the roads,
we had to deal with --work with them on the alignment of utilities and -- and some -- trying
to share some of the costs of the utilities and when I got denied by the city we had to kind
of restart and COVID hit and that -- that really affected the process. But it was a good
experience to be able to see that -- see that process and see what was going on with the
neighbors, because this is a big change for that -- for that area. It's primarily five and ten
acre parcels out there, people that have moved out there to enjoy the countryside and --
and at the same time they know that development is coming, they know that there is going
to be a project there, and so we have really been trying to be in tune to the neighbors and
we have spent a lot of time -- not just in -- in the neighborhood meetings, but in kitchens
and living rooms of the neighbors talking about -- talking to them about their concerns
and that's how our design really has come forward, especially with the -- from one acre
to half acre lots -- nothing's under half acre lot along that western perimeter up against
Stetson. With that I'm going to turn the time over to our design and engineering team
from Kimley-Horn.
Dodson: Nicolette, just to let you know you have about eight and a half minutes.
Womack: Thank you. Nicolette Womack, Kimley-Horn, 1100 West Idaho Street in Boise,
Idaho. 83702. So, before you tonight, as was mentioned by Joe, is annexation and
zoning to annex into Meridian and zone the property R-4 and R-2. Staff recommended
we add R-8 and based on the memo you saw that seemed to be the best path forward
for us, as the comp plan amendment can take quite some time and as you can see our
development has been under review for a while. So, the preliminary plat will plot the
parcels and the right of way and, then, staff is recommending a development agreement,
which we agree to finalize together as well. So, the project area, as staff mentioned,
Victory Road and Linder. Won't spend time there. This is the lot layout that was shown
to you earlier and, then, here is the zoning map. So, when we approached this project
we saw that in the area R-4 is consistent with the east side of Linder. We felt that R-2
would be consistent with the larger lots to the west, and you can see our minimum lot size
at the time that this was submitted is 8,750, average lot size 10,125 and, like Joe said,
we are at 2.35 dwelling units an acre and he's requesting for -- go closer 2.5. So, taking
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 28,2022 F23
Page 20 of 66
the feedback from Joe and talking with him about the kinds of things that they were looking
for in the staff report, need to find a location for R-8 zoning and we felt like the most
natural place to put that in in most developments is against the amenities and open space.
So, we are proposing it in this area. It's important to note that we already planned on
these typical -- larger than typical R-2 and R-4 sizes and so I'm sure there is quite a
surprise that we are going -- we have to add R-8 now. We didn't feel like the typical R-8
is consistent with what we are doing everywhere else in this development and so we are
going slightly larger than the typical R-8. Access and connectivity was already covered,
so we can circle back on that if there is any questions. Phasing was covered. So, like
you said, we propose to move the pool into phase two as a compromise. Green space
was already covered and I will turn it over to Chris.
Rose: Good evening. Chris Rose with Kimley-Horn and Associates. Address is 1100
West Idaho Street in Boise. 83702. Just wanted to take a minute to kind of highlight
some of the design sensitivities that we are taking based on what Mr. Young was
explaining, trying to stay true to the heritage of the site and bring that in and maintain
some of that heritage with what we are doing in the development, starting with the
pathways and access for residents to the open space and amenities, that the regional
pathways, including the Calkins Lateral, up the primary street, up to Victory, through some
of those and that easement with -- like Joe mentioned, will be resolved before we get to
Council. Carrying through some of those design considerations, even get into the signage
and the frontage landscaping, some of the patterns, the forms, the materials that are used
at the entry and along the streetscape on the perimeter to suggest some of the agricultural
heritage, some of the plantings and some of those forms and the way those are laid out.
Even within the community all the different open spaces are kind of themed to try to tie
into the heritage of the site. As -- as Dave mentioned, trying to really focus on the heritage
with the Jackson family, some of their equipment, and we are even calling these areas --
not like we would normal amenities, but we are calling them the corral, instead of a
playground, the field, the meadow, the garden and the barnyard where these amenities
will be focused. Some of those areas -- just real quick the garden is that primary open
space that will be included in phase one. This is like a heritage garden where we will
actually tell the story of the Jackson family. Use that Harvestore silo as kind of an entry
feature, paying homage to the history of the site. The field and the meadow is the large
open space for play areas. Also shaded picnic features and the outdoor fitness trail. The
corral is the play area. Instead of traditional play equipment, we want to use more nature
play, having climbing features for kids and logs and boulders and waterplay and some of
those features for the kids. The barnyard is the primary clubhouse and pool area, bringing
in some of the architectural features that suggest farm heritage and having outdoor
gathering areas and a community garden. So, generally, everything that works together
we are trying to create an open space that feels like a remnant of the farm or pays homage
to the Jackson family and the heritage of the site and so it feels like a part of old Meridian
even as it moves forward. With that I think Dave is going to carry on a little bit more.
Young: Dave Young again. I want to talk about the clubhouse concepts, just trying to
work in that barn feel, that -- that look at what was existing on the -- on the property and,
then, I want to talk a little bit about -- we have got picnic shelters as well, trying to
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 28,2022 F24]
Page 21 of 66
repurpose some of the -- the grain bins on that site for -- for picnic areas and shaded
areas. And, then, housing. This is something we are going to do a little bit different. We
are not home builders. We are not -- we may build, we have built in the past, but what
we are looking to do is provide an avenue for the custom home builder, come into a
premier subdivision and to put together a build team of top end builders within the valley
and provide them some place to -- to build custom homes. That's -- that's almost gone
right now in this market. We have got all kinds of national builders coming in and taking
up big swaths of land and -- and nothing against that, but -- but it's pick -- pick things from
your -- from the website and plug it in and this is the house you are going to end up with.
We are going to -- we are going to be working with several different builders and it's not
been hard to get volunteers to -- to say that they want to be a part of that -- that project.
So, just an example of these homes. They will be kind of more the traditional craftsman
or farm -- modern farmhouse sort of style. So, have Nicolette talk about the staff
comment.
Womack: Nicolette Womack. So, these are just here for discussion if there is any
questions. So, I think Joe covered a lot of them very well. So, I won't spend any additional
time there and I would recommend if there is any questions on which we agree with and
which we need -- or we are hoping for modifications on, that response letter covers our
position and if it's not in that letter, then, we agree to it, so -- ACHD comments came in,
super exciting, and we will work with them on some minor edits to some information they
just needed to catch up on. So, again, we are requesting your recommendation for
approval of annexation, zoning, development agreement, preliminary plat and that's with
the modifications proposed in our response letter. Thanks so much.
Grove: All right. Thank you. All right. At this time we will -- do we have questions from
Commissioners for the applicant or staff?
Lorcher: Commissioner Grove?
Grove: Commissioner Lorcher.
Lorcher: Mr. Young, you mentioned that the project trying to keep with history. Are you
keeping any of the original farm buildings that were -- or that were on that property or are
you just recycling some of the farm silos and such?
Young: Our -- with -- with Brent on -- on -- does she need to repeat that or does that --
okay.
Lorcher: Do I need to repeat that? Okay.
Young: Okay. Metal barns and metal structures, some of the things we told Mr. Jackson
he could take to his new ranch, they are kind of the '80s metal building style, so they are
not really something that architecturally we would want in our project. The homes are --
are really rundown. They are beyond really saving. The original farm house was actually
a home that was built underground with just like maybe two feet of the upper portion of
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 28,2022 F25]
Page 22 of 66
the home and, then, a roofline and, then, it was later added on to above that. It's just not
-- there is just no way to repurpose that home and the rest of the homes are just -- are in
fairly poor condition. Mr. Jackson didn't -- he retained his home on a separate parcel
adjacent to this one. So, those older homes were more for the farmworkers and that's
kind of why the condition is what they are.
Lorcher: Okay. Thank you.
Grove: Any additional questions for staff or applicant at this time? All right. All right. At
this time we will open the public testimony portion for the application Burnside Jackson
Ridge Estates, file number H-2021-0070. Mr. Clerk, do we have anybody signed up?
Johnson: Mr. Chair, no one signed up in advance, but we do have Clair Manning online.
If it's okay with you I will allow -- I will unmute her.
Grove: All right. And, Clair, you will have three minutes. Please give your name and
your address.
Manning: Hi. My name is Clair Manning and I live at 650 West Waltman Lane. I was
actually here for a different application, but, you know, as I looked at this and I felt
compelled to like chime in. You know, I just felt like Meridian is kind of being destroyed
by, you know, high density, cookie cutter kind of developments and I was just, you know,
amazed at like what this guy has done here. I kind of like the larger lots. You know, I
really really like that he's leaving a legacy to the past and, you know, what I saw on the
common areas. It was just amazing. It's -- you know, it's what I would like to see in our
community. So, I just wanted to really compliment him and, you know, put my support
into this. Thank you.
Grove: Thank you. All right. Mr. Clerk, any additional --
Johnson: Mr. Clerk, that was everyone.
Grove: All right. It looks like we have three hands in the audience.
Johnson: Mr. Chair, I apologize, I have the wrong list. I do have people. My apologies
to everyone here. The HVAC went off and my mind went off as well. So, I believe first
we have Tina Dean.
Grove: All right. And, please, state your -- your name and address and you will have
three minutes.
Dean: Tina Dean. 3262 South Rustler, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. 1 signed up thinking I
wasn't going to speak, but, then, I just wanted to clarify. Mr. Dodson, all due respect, --
have an issue. You misrepresented the letter from the neighborhood and I want Mr.
Young and the developers to know that Stetson Estates appreciates how well you have
been working with us and they have been very agreeable, very amendable. They make
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 28,2022 F26
Page 23 of 66
time for us, take our concerns into account. They are working very hard to keep the
neighborhood and its historic appeal part of the Meridian that we have all loved for many
decades. The City of Meridian representatives have said numerous times that they
wanted to develop within the city boundaries first before they developed outside, that they
wanted growth to move out naturally. What our letter said is that we were surprised that
the City of Meridian was not living up to what they had stated and you were allowing
development to occur outside of city boundaries and be annexed. But we also said if you
are going to allow this neighborhood to be developed we want Mr. Young and his
associates to develop it and not only do we want them to develop that land, but we would
love if they could have the land to the south as well, instead of Cory Barton or Hubble,
who just tried to put as many properties on an acre as possible for out-of-state investors.
So, that's all I want to say. Please take all their hard work into account. I am also upset
about the change to the R-8 zoning. They have worked very hard to make sure that we
would have a smooth transition, a longer acreage property on the back where many of us
have cattle and raise grain, and if you could make an amendment for them to change that
zoning somewhere else or put, you know, plaques outside for an outdoor museum to
reflect the history of Jackson ranch, we would really appreciate that and approve their --
their plot as they have originally submitted it and the last thing I will say is we just found
out about changes at 2:00 p.m. this afternoon. So, that also doesn't give the neighbors a
lot of time to review what you were proposing and it doesn't give Mr. Young and his
associates a lot of time to respond to as well and if-- if it's possible could we get the P&Z
preliminary plat number two on the screen, because we could not see that. Do you have
that? Is that the one we needed? We can ask for it later in hardcopy. Thank you guys
very much.
Grove: Thank you.
Dodson: Mr. Chair?
Grove: Yes.
Dodson: I did just want to respond real quick. I apologize for misrepresenting the letter
from Stetson. Admittedly I'm a little jaded from the 99 percent negative comments
associated with applications, so I think I kind of read it through that lens. So, I do
apologize. If you are on board that's even -- that's great. So, I did appreciate that. But
do apologize for misrepresenting anything.
Johnson: Mr. Chair, I'm not sure Darcie Dille, were you with the -- okay.
Dille: I'm nervous. Darcie Dille at 205 North Sun Shimmer Way, Meridian. 83642. My
name is Darcie Dille. I'm a real estate professional with Keller Williams Realty Boise and
I was born and raised in the Treasure Valley. I have lived here in Idaho for nearly 50
years. I was brought in as a real estate professional to be a consultant and a
representative of the project. I have also known Dave my whole life. We were raised
back to our neighbors and I don't remember a time in my life that I didn't know him. Know
what kind of man he is and that he is looking to bring something to the city that he can be
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 28,2022 F27
Page 24 of 66
proud of. I was asked -- along with being a consultant I was asked to meet with the
surrounding neighbors of the project and from April to October of 2021 1 met with any and
all neighbors that were willing and able to meet and I met them with a few representatives
of Kimley-Horne when they were available and when they weren't my team owner Barbara
Dopp. We met them in their homes. We sat at their kitchen tables. We walked the
perimeters of their properties. We met their donkeys and chickens and we asked them
what was most important to them regarding the development of the property. In meeting
with them we met people who were curious, cautious, thoughtful, but most importantly
open to having a discussion about the development. Not putting any words in anybody's
mouth, but many told us that they knew the property would be developed, that it was not
a matter of if but when. But what was most important to them was who and how. I feel
like we have done a good job of implementing their thoughts and feedback and creating
a community which takes into account their concerns as best we can. Really they just
would like to see their lifestyle preserved. This has been a great process and I have been
honored to have been a part of it. Being an Idaho native this is a community in which I
feel proud to be a part and I believe it will be a beautiful addition to the south Meridian
housing community. I know there are many who would love nothing more than to see the
Treasure Valley remain as it is and I remember when I was growing up and all you could
see were beautiful lush fields and I know that was when it was truly at its most beautiful,
because that's my childhood. Unfortunately, when you have something wonderful it
doesn't stay a secret for long and I can't blame others for wanting what we have here.
We can't shut the gate. People will still want to bring their families here and experience
our amazing valley. If development is in our future, then, let's build beautiful, upscale and
well thought out communities and I believe that this is one such community. Thank you.
Grove: Thank you.
Johnson: Mr. Chair, next is Tina -- Tina Dean. No. Tina, I'm sorry. I'm having a day.
Paula Connelly. Mr. Chair, Paula is representing Stetson Estates.
Grove: Sorry. You are representing a group of homeowners; is that correct?
Connelly: Yes. Stetson Estates.
Grove: Okay. So, please, state your name and your address and you will be given ten
minutes.
Connelly: Paula Connelly. 3878 South Rustler Lane, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. We in
Rustler -- in Stetson Estates community, we are on that western border that is up against
the development that's being proposed. There are six homes that will -- and only six
homes that will go in next to this community of 275. For us that seems like a lot, but we
do respect what they have done and what they are proposing. We feel like they have
done a fabulous job working with us and although we support the plan in an overall
manner, one of our biggest -- well, we have -- we have two items that really we would like
to see not have to be amended on the plan that they have proposed and that be the R-8
zoning. We have -- I'm going to back up a little bit here. To begin with, let's go back to
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 28,2022 F28
Page 25 of 66
the Comprehensive Plan. When that was put together in 2019 there was a huge debate.
The Planning Department knew that the Rustler community existed and they knew the
problem of putting large lots as transitional lots up against our five and ten acre parcels
and that we were not going to go away. We are still a fairly young community of -- of 20
years. So, even though we have estate houses and we have acreage, there are several
of us that we do have cows, we have chickens, we have farm animals, we do things like
kill our cows in our pastures to have them dressed down and it is a concern to have small
lots up against us. We feel like we have -- we have given in. We originally wanted one
acre lots and we realized that one acre will not fit into something as dense as a medium
density, so we -- we backed off and we said, okay, we would be okay with half acre lots.
But we -- we are concerned. We farm our land. There is going to be dust from us. There
is going to be other things. So, to have them crowd in even more R-8 just to meet a
density-- back when the comp plan was put together the whole debate surrounded having
one acre parcels codified and put up against large existing lots and City Council and the
Planning Department ultimately decided they could not do that, because every piece of
land that would be developed would be unique and they would not always have that
opportunity to need to put in one acre lots. So, they said they wanted to do it on a case-
by-case basis. Well, here is that case. We have six homes that directly butt up against
these homes here and to crowd that R-8 is going to, in my opinion, not look right. It's not
just a transition of size, but visually. When you visually look at something that has ten
acres and has all of the space or five acres and has all of this space, what happens when
all of a sudden you have got one row of a half acre and, then, pretty soon you have five
homes per acre? Visually that -- there is something that breaks down there. The other
issue that we have is the micro path from South Agronomy to the eastern border. This
section there are literally two ten acre parcels that parallel South Agronomy. Where are
you going to run that path to? You want to run it right up so that they can watch my cows
being killed? Okay. I don't want anyone complaining to me. But it's just -- it makes no
sense. It's illogical to force a micro path into one of two ten acre parcel lots when those
homes are only 20 years. It's not like we are disposable, like a washing machine that's
only going to last ten years. We are not going away. I promise you I'm probably going to
be leaving my land to my children, who both love the land and that's what it's about for us
and we truly appreciate Dave and the work that their team has put in to leave a legacy
and to leave the silos and to leave all of the stuff that is going to remind people that this
was at one point a farm. I will stand for any questions.
Grove: All right. Thank you. Appreciate it.
Johnson: Mr. Chair, next -- and I apologize if I mispronounce this -- Melinda Yamada
Stave? Okay. Thank you. And then Patrick Connor.
Conner: Good evening. Good evening. My name is Patrick Connor. Address is 701
South Elm Street, Meridian, Idaho . I will -- I will be brief. So, again, I want to applaud
Dave and their team for everything that they have presented tonight and what they are
presenting for the City of Meridian. I represent the developer south of this project and we
have talked with Dave and his team as they plan this to ensure that we are coordinating
appropriately on roadway network, utilities, making sure that we are working together as
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 28,2022 F29
Page 26 of 66
this area of Meridian comes before the public for -- for change and so they have done a
good job of coordinating with us and we are trying to work as best we can with them and
also it's helpful that we also share the same engineer -- engineering group. So, we are
constantly talking about how we are going to finish out the collector street on the southern
end of their property as we share that section line, as well as utility connections. So,
again, I thought that was a great presentation. It's obvious they have spent a lot of time
and effort trying to make a really special project for the city and we look forward to working
with them in the future. Thank you.
Grove: Thank you. Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone else signed up?
Johnson: Mr. Chair, the Langlois -- it looks like they weren't wanting to speak but -- no?
Okay. That was everyone.
Grove: All right. Do we have anyone else online or in house that would like to speak on
this application? All right. Seeing none, could I get the applicant to come back up? You
will have ten minutes to respond.
Young: We did send in a response to the city that Nicolette mentioned that you can refer
to some of these points, but I do want to -- as Mr. Connelly brought up the micro path
from Agronomy to -- to her property, we just don't -- we just don't see the point of that. I
understand that maybe for -- for future development, but -- but our estate lots, they are
going to be there for a long time and we have already --we do have Holstein on the south
that connects to that property and the pathway at Calkins that connects to that western
boundary as well already. So, we feel like that -- that need is met. We are going to work
with the city to try and figure out how this R-8 request is going to be -- be met and, again,
according to our proposed drawing is to try and put that up against the open space area,
because that will be open fencing. It's not our preference to add this -- this R-8, it's not
something we want to do, but we want to try and do it. It -- it changes -- it's going to be
tough to market on that side of the collector to go from one acre, half acre lots, to quarter
acre lots and, then, down to the 50 foot wide lot. So, it's -- it doesn't really fit the space
and I understand that it's -- I guess I didn't understand until tonight that there was more
about the collector than it was about the entire -- entire space, but we understand code.
We want to move forward with this project if -- with all the speed that we can and by our
calculations it would be nine lots that we would need to add that we would be willing to
continue those talks with -- with staff trying to figure those situations out. That's all I need
to add.
Grove: All right. And let's -- do you have some questions?
Yearsley: So, Mr. Chair?
Grove: Yes.
Yearsley: Trying to go through -- I was just reading your response letter. I haven't had a
chance to look at it until just now as they were talking. Have you had a chance -- I mean
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 28,2022 F30
Page 27 of 66
I'm trying to figure out how do I mesh those two together and how do we come to a direct
motion I guess what I'm looking for with -- with these comments and I wouldn't mind
having an opportunity -- I don't know what the other staff is asking is how to -- is what do
we accept, what do we not accept.
Dodson: Mr. Chair? Sorry. There -- on that -- whoa, what happened? I'm trying to get
to that as well. I have had a chance to look at it and read it. We did get it today, so I
didn't -- I wasn't -- I didn't have a chance to write a -- not necessarily a memo, but even a
slide that showed what I recommended, considered -- you know, in consideration of
theirs, et cetera. So, there is two avenues we can go down. One -- most of them are
going to have to be ended up being decided by Council anyways. You can put on the
record potentially which ones you agree with, don't agree with, et cetera, or we can do --
which we have done in the past, but it will add time, which, you know, we all got time I
guess -- to just go line by line through them if you would like. We have done in the past,
but, again, there are a number of these. So, that's your choice. Some of them I do agree
with and some of them I don't. However, the ones that have been requested be modified,
the specific language is not in this, so what does that look like? I would have to do that,
which would not -- I haven't done that, obviously. That's why I would prefer just to say --
to, you know, continue work with staff and the applicant work together and we will hammer
those out between now and commission. If you want to put on the record specific ones
that commission wants to change. I do recommend doing that on the record tonight.
Yearsley: Okay. So, I -- I wouldn't -- before we close the public hearing I would like to
be asking what the other applicant -- or staff is thinking regards to this comment. Is it
something -- I know you probably don't want another continuance to -- to have a chance
to digest your comments, but I'm wondering if that might be something that we would want
to consider to better understand, because, like I said, I'm just trying to read it and, okay,
where is this, where is that, so it's kind of hard for me to make that decision. I'm not quite
sure what your preference would be or --
Young: Our preference would be not to continue, but I think in our response -- and we
had a one hour phone call -- or a Zoom call with Joe yesterday and he's been very helpful,
you know, and we understand where he's coming from, he understands where we are
coming from. I think we can work most of this out in between this meeting and -- and
Council.
Yearsley: Okay.
Young: And I -- really I think we knocked off a lot of that in our response and our reasoning
why for certain things. I think we would be fine with Council making a decision on anything
that's left over.
Yearsley: I appreciate that.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 28,2022 F31
Page 28 of 66
Parsons: Mr. Chair, if you would like you can also pause the public hearing and take --
take the time to read the applicant's response and get familiar with what they are
requesting and, then, come back and deliberate on those as well.
Grove: Commissioners, would you like to do that or where are you at on that? I would
-- I would say we will take a five minute recess. Is that sufficient for everybody to read
through that? Is that -- is that okay? All right. So, we will take a five minute recess. We
will leave the public testimony open and we will resume in five minutes.
(Recess: 7:36 p.m. to 7:41 p.m.)
Grove: All right. So, if we get back to our seats and we will resume the -- the public
testimony portion before we close it for deliberation. So, Commissioners, are there any
additional questions for staff or applicant upon reading the applicant's response letter?
Commissioner Lorcher.
Lorcher: If they remove the micro path as drawn to the one property per Lot 7, Block 12,
and Lot 10, does that change -- do they still meet the minimum requirements for open
space and amenities?
Dodson: Mr. Chair? Sorry. Let me get back to what I'm doing here. You are talking the
one on the west boundary?
Lorcher: The one that Stetson Estates commented --
Dodson: It does not -- yeah. That would be a new one approximately in this location.
So, the nexus behind that is just in the future if Stetson Subdivision ever requests
annexation, because somebody's well fails or their septic fails or whatever, we are going
to want some pedestrian connection between the subdivisions as part of our comp plan.
That's just what we look for. I'm not going to fall on the sword for it, because I do agree
you got a multi-use pathway and posting -- however, you got to provide -- this as a scale.
This is 120 acres. This isn't normal size of a development. So, there is some separation
between those access points for pedestrians typically we don't want them that far apart.
But I do understand the neighbors' concerns. It's just that do it in a fence -- it would not
be an open vision fence, it's only one lot deep, so it would just be an open --just a pathway
to nothing for now, yes. However, it would not affect any of the open space at all, because
that would be new.
Grove: I will get into with deliberations, but there is some pieces there that I would like
us to cover. Any additional questions, Commissioners, for applicant or staff?
Dodson: Mr. Chair?
Grove: Yes, Joe.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 28,2022 F32
Page 29 of 66
Dodson: I did just want to comment quickly to the -- the density with the request to say
like look on it on a case-by-case basis and things like that I understand, but the densities
in the comp plan we can't do anything about it, except for the applicant to do a comp plan
map amendment. So, meet the density or change the map. That's the two options. There
is no -- Council doesn't have a leeway to just waive that requirement. However, the
proposal to do R-8 was just because it made sense within those blocks and you -- you
can go below 8,000 square feet. However, I don't really care where it is. The applicant
put that where ever they want west to the collector. Further -- they can probably do it
even with all R-4, but they are going to have to modify probably every single R-4 lot on
the west side and make them smaller in order to get those nine lots. So, it's kind of pick
your poison there, unfortunately, when it comes to the neighbors. It's just R-8 makes it
simpler, because they get more flexibility with the lot size, but they don't -- they are not
going to construct them to the minimum, which we don't recommend either, we want the
lots to be as wide as they can make them, they just got to get the nine lots. That's just
the crux of it. And staff is fine with it being around the open space. That's perfectly fine.
I think that's actually -- that's good planning as well, to increase the density around an
open space area.
Parsons: Mr. Chair --
Grove: Yes.
Parsons: -- Members of the Commission, let me -- I'm going to just expand upon that a
little bit. So, keep in mind the Comprehensive Plan is a guide and the zoning is the law:
right? So, it's -- essentially, the Comprehensive Plan we look at density. So, if-- as staff
we are charged to adhere to the Comprehensive Plan and the city code and that's what
you -- that's what this body is charged with doing, ensuring that. So, keep in mind if you
or the Council feels like public testimony sways you to say that this is consistent or it is
providing that transition or that case-by-case basis, you could potentially make that finding
that they are honoring what the surrounding properties are and what they want to do and
so if that's your purview tonight you could ask -- strike that condition or at least have
Council take that under consideration as they deliberate on the application. But as staff,
Joe and I, we can't -- we can't do that, we have to say we need -- we need to hold you to
the density of three to eight dwelling units to the acre.
Grove: Thank you. Any additional questions for staff or applicants? Mr. Young, I have
a question for you. In regards to the Modification D, which is the removal of the house,
that is in phase five as marked by your modification and the connection piece and
whatnot. I have concerns with that being in phase five and, namely, because I don't want
an accidental enclave in the future, just in terms of how everything out here is situated. I
would -- I would have some concerns with everything else getting done and, then, that
being left and so that would be my -- my major concern. Do you have any safeguards
against that, other than saying, yes, we will do it?
Young: I would like to explain that -- that portion a little bit more. So, we don't own that
portion. That -- that is owned by Colleen Kelly. He has given us the permission to put
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 28,2022 F33]
Page 30 of 66
that into this -- this project. Colleen owned the entire ten acres that went back to the
Calkins Lateral and we purchased another property to the south of that to try and bring
some more connectivity, but we have this gap between two pieces of property, the
property we own to the north and the property owner to the south. She was willing to sell
us the six acres now, so we could have some connectivity on that side of the --the Calkins
and connect those two sections of the neighborhood now, but, you know, Colleen is a --
she has been a longtime Meridian resident. She's from Montana. Her plans are to retire
and move back to Montana, rather than -- and I have seen -- I know what you are talking
about in and leaving these enclaves lots. It drives me crazy, too, seeing -- and seeing
these and we have got neighborhood -- no -- no driveways for a quarter mile and, then,
just a house all of a sudden that -- that appears and I think what we are trying to do is to
get this platted, so that when she is ready to retire -- she is a few years from retirement.
She's going to sell her home, she's going to sell her business here in Meridian and she's
going to move back to Montana. So, this isn't somebody that -- that -- who bought the
back half of the property from and is sticking their feet in the ground saying I'm not moving,
I'm not going. She has a plan to leave and we are making her property -- we are taking
on the expense and the time to divide her property and to make it ready and sellable for
when -- when she's ready to go. I don't want to talk about her personally and that kind of
stuff about that timeline, but that's why that is that phase, because it meets her
expectation. Sorry, the question to guarantee, I --
Grove: Yeah. I know that you can't guarantee it in terms of--so, that's why I'm concerned
about leaving it until phase five versus having it in phase three, because if it's on -- in the
last phase it's very easy to just stop and not finish that out and so that's my concern with
having it be completely at the end is -- is that it's easy to leave it off and so knowing a
little bit of what you explained, you know, helps, it's still a concern, but just wanted to kind
of get some clarification on that.
Young: I think that having it platted for those 12 lots it's going to make it attractive. It's
not going to be -- somebody's going to move into the existing home and live in that on
four acres as is. It's going to be -- it's valuable to another developer -- to us we have first
right of refusal to purchase that property. Just take it on sooner rather than later, so --
Lorcher: Mr. Chair? Do you have that guarantee in writing? The first right of refusal?
Young: Yes, we do. We do. There is -- there is a timeline on it, but we do have that.
Yearsley: So, as following on with that, you are talking about the roadway improvements
along Linder. Is that the right house? Am I --
Young: Correct.
Yearsley: I don't understand why we are interfering with the horse corrals. You are talking
about the front pasture; is that not correct?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 28,2022 F34
Page 31 of 66
Young: Yeah. So, we have taken -- you know, Colleen's lived there for almost 20 years
and she's had horses -- she has horses on the property.
Yearsley: Uh-huh.
Young: She had been growing hay on the front of the property and, then, had the horses
in the -- on the back. Well, we have acquired the back. She's now going to shift the
horses -- we left enough room behind the barn for the horses to go around the barn and
out to the front of the property that front is -- that front's on -- on Linder. You know, she's
got her daughter and her grandbaby living with her. She really wants to keep the horses
and give her -- her children or grandchildren the same experience that she had raising
children with -- with animals there while she's living there.
Yearsley: But that doesn't -- we are not talking -- we are not taking a significant amount
of right-of-way through there to do that, so she would still have enough pasture to -- to
have her horses there, wouldn't she?
Young: She -- she would have -- we are already -- for the amount of horses she has we
are -- we are cutting it pretty tight. I mean I -- I -- I understand what you are saying, but
we have -- it's a unique situation for us and that she wants to continue her lifestyle there
with her horses.
Yearsley: Right. I understand that. Okay.
Grove: All right. Any other follow-up questions? All right. Thank you. All right. At this
time I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing for Burnside Jackson Ridge
Estates, file number H-2021-0070.
Wheeler: So moved.
Lorcher: Second.
Grove: It's been and seconded to close the public hearing. All in favor say aye. All
opposed say nay? All right. Motion passed.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Grove: And does anybody want to jump in with thoughts? I would like to just give a quick
two cents on one piece just related to the pathway. I -- I know it's not ideal to have it do
-- you know, dead end there, but less ideal is the situation that we see in other
developments throughout the city, 20 years after something goes in, 30 years after
something goes in and trying to have a connection that we -- we did -- we would force,
you know, the next person to have that connection, but there is nothing to -- it to connect
to, because we failed to include that connection point previously. So, that would be my
-- my concern with not having that connection point is that we -- we can't go back when a
new application comes in and force this current application to install something that we
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 28,2022 F35
Page 32 of 66
didn't have them do at the time. So, that would be my -- my -- my biggest concern with
taking a connection point out. This is a very large property. You know, when we see
pictures like this it's usually at a much smaller scale, even if it -- if the picture looks the
same and so that -- that's a major concern for me. But I will let -- I will be quiet and let
other people jump in.
Yearsley: Mr. Chair? So, I have been on Planning and Zoning for quite a long time and
when I started out this was the norm, R-4s, and over time we have gone down to the R-
8s and the R-15s, so my heart skipped a beat when I saw the R-4, so great job on that.
So, it's unfortunate that the -- that they are talking about wanting to muddy this up with R-
8s. I -- I believe it fits the intent and the style and would recommend we not require the
-- the R-8 -- or adding additional lots to this. It just detracts, my opinion, from the overall
look and feel of the subdivision. So, I would recommend not having the additional nine
lots if -- if possible. I know that will be more of a Council discussion, but I would highly
recommend that that be considered. On most of the conditions I -- I understand the one
about not connecting the water and sewer to that -- that one house, knowing it's going to
get demolished in phase five, I don't know if I have an issue with that. I do struggle with
not wanting to do those landscape improvements in the right of way in the first phase. I
just -- I know that's going to, you know, impact her issues, but it's -- it's -- it's hard not to
get that done in front, especially if you have one piece of blank spot and enough -- I have
-- I have lived in enough blank spots to not want that connection. So, I will struggle with
that one. Trying to go through some of the other items. The pathway. I -- I'm -- I can
probably go either way. The -- the -- the only concern that I do have is we are talking five
and ten acres and I understand you are not going away, but I tell you I have seen a lot of
five acre parcels go and -- and -- and I -- I hate it every time when they come in, but
development pressures, you know, come in and -- and so that one I -- I don't know. That
one I struggle with. The connection with the other roads on those -- adding instead of
having the bike path versus connections, again, that one -- I don't know if-- I understand
what the staff's concern is and -- and we see it in a lot of our subdivision, we actually have
areas that we have got long straight streets that we -- we are having problems with
speeding and, hopefully, if you would put in intersections some of that might actually help
slow the traffic down. I don't know. But it is an issue with speeding on those long block
lengths. So, I could go either way on that if someone has issues. Trying to go back and
through. There is just -- there is enough -- I think those were the big ones that I had. I
think the rest of them -- honestly, the staff and the applicant can go work through the rest
of them and I would be interested to hear other comments.
Wheeler: Mr. Chair?
Grove: Yes.
Wheeler: I -- I only have really just two or three comments here. First of all, I'm excited
about seeing this -- this subdivision all come together and keeping that rustic farm feel
using some of the buildings. I was actually smiling and laughing at some of them and just
seeing how it was all coming together and you might get me to move. So, it's a pretty
nice spot there and so I like those kind of niche subdivisions like this. This would be --
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 28,2022 F36
Page 33 of 66
this would be a nice little boutique feel. I like that. The -- I'm with Commissioner Yearsley
on this, too. I would like to be able to strike that R-8 zoning requirement on here
somehow, some way, or have a strong recommendation for that. I'm -- I'm -- I'm -- I'm
okay with having less cars on those interior path -- on those interior drive aisles and it
keeps also just that feel that they are -- they are trying to get, but I also understand that
there is some guidance there with the -- the comp plan, but if there is a way that we can
require -- or request that to be stricken that would be -- I would be in very -- very big
support of that. The other thing is I -- with that pathway, the north-south pathway on the
western side, I understand the concerns on the neighbors on that. Normally a pathway
is going to be abutting up against our typical, you know, R-8 zoning where you are in the
backyard of somebody for, you know, 20 paces, 70 paces, 60 paces and, then, you are
done. Here you have got a five acre parcel where it's -- it's going to feel like you are on
a treadmill before you get to the next backyard and, you know, it's a farm feel and so you
get farm fresh smells sometimes and -- and also just the experience of all that and it's a
little different having a pathway run on the back lot of that. I'm also looking to the south
and even if the pathway was to continue all the way down along this property line, just --
just the -- the most -- the next southern property where the subdivision ends, the house
is actually butted up right next to where that pathway would -- would go if-- unless it, you
know, redirected, but if it was to go due south it would go right next to where the trees
were at and right next to a gentleman's house, so --or the person's house I mean. Excuse
me. So, I'm just -- I'm okay with -- with taking that pathway out as a requirement just
because of just those -- those items there, so -- but I -- I'm excited to see this come
together.
Grove: Commissioner Lorcher? Commissioner Stoddard?
Stoddard: Mr. Chair?
Grove: Yes.
Stoddard: Just make a couple comments. I agree with what everybody has said, but I
also really like the feel of this subdivision a lot. It seems really nice. I am excited about
it. I, too, was like -- oh, this would be a great place to go move; right? Although I love my
place. But I just wanted to state, too, that I also am in support of striking the R-8 zoning
if possible.
Grove: I will say on -- on the R-8 I understand the concern. I think with the size of this
entire development and the -- the desire of the applicant to -- to meet the spirit of their
overall design, I'm not as concerned with the R-8 being put in strategically. It's going to
be very close to that collector street, which feeds into an arterial street, so the traffic
concern internally is not -- is not there. You are -- you are not looking at a substantial
change in the overall aesthetic of the 119 acres that are going to be developed here, but
it would help meet the code. I think that finding ways to do that within what they already
have is the -- if I were to be doing it the better of the two choices and versus coming back
and going through the Comprehensive Plan change and waiting until, you know, the end
of the year to be able to redo some of the -- this application pieces. So, I think, you know,
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 28,2022 F37
Page 34 of 66
there is going to be a challenge there, but it's easily doable with what they have with some
adjustments that they have shown and -- they have shown and it looks like they are
capable of making those adjustments. Just because the minimums of -- on R-8 are set
at a certain piece doesn't mean that they can't get much closer to that R-4, as long as
they are meeting the overall density that is required and, you know, they are --for the first
time in a very long time we are talking about trying to get somebody to inch up to the
minimums versus trying to sneak in under the maximum, so this is the best problem that,
you know, we face up here in terms of-- like, hey, just one more -- like --we don't get that
a lot. So, I -- I applaud this overall project and I think there is some adjustments. You
know, the pathway, the road pieces, but those are things that I feel competent the -- the
applicant and staff can work out prior to the -- prior to this going to Council. There is a lot
to like about this and the work that the applicant has shown to work with neighbors and
the overall thought is quite -- quite good in this. Also, Commissioner Yearsley, no shared
driveways. Always appreciated; right? So, Commissioner Lorcher, do you have any
additional feedback?
Lorcher: No. Commissioner Yearsley, were you drafting a motion to be able to address
the R-8 or do we need to ask staff on how to do that?
Yearsley: I was going to draft the motion that we recommend that the R-8 not be required
and let Council make that decision.
Grove: That -- that will have to -- and we can make a recommendation to it, but --
Yearsley: That would be more of my motion is not to -- to strike that, but just that we
would like to not see the R-8 be included and let Council -- you know, make a
recommendation to Council that be included or required.
Grove: I will put at least on the record that that be part of the motion, that if the R-8 stays
in that we recommend hitting the -- the bare minimum to meet the density requirements.
Yearsley: Yeah. I --
Grove: I think that's obvious, but --
Yearsley: To be honest with you, I -- I personally I don't know if I want to go to that -- I
will let them decide how they would do or -- you know, that latitude is up to them. You
know, I'm sure they don't want the R-8 the way it sounds, so they are going to do the bare
minimum anyway. So, I was just going to let that happen to them. So, I'm just trying to
go through the response and write down which ones I -- I would like to comment on and
the other ones I'm just going to let staff and the applicant decide how they want to proceed
to City Council with, if that's okay with you, and -- so, I'm -- I'm still confused about this
one pathway. If you guys could help me. Where is this pathway that -- that nobody
wants? I -- I can't figure out where it's at on the --
Dodson: Mr. Chair?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 28,2022 F38]
Page 35 of 66
Yearsley: Okay. Hold on. Let me get to there. Okay.
Dodson: I believe if I -- again, I wrote three staff reports last week, so bear with me as
my brain has melted. I believe I recommended it here, just because it aligns closely with
that shared property line --
Yearsley: Okay.
Dodson: -- which, again, if they were to annex in the future that would be a nice place,
you wouldn't take up much land of the two parcels. If they stayed completely as they are
and they just had to annex because of the water-sewer issues, that's why I recommended
it there.
Yearsley: Okay.
Dodson: But, again, I'm not going to fall on the sword for a 15 foot wide micro path lot.
Yearsley: Okay. Because I -- I'm sitting there trying to -- I -- is it like going up and down
on the property?
Dodson: Yeah.
Yearsley: So -- okay. I'm -- yeah. Trying to -- to read the staff report and trying to look
at the map and see what that's at, so -- okay. I'm going to recommend that one be
removed. I'm going to let you figure out how -- I'm just going to say to remove that
pathway, because I'm not sure which one it is, so --
Dodson: You got it.
Yearsley: And, then, the other one I had was to not have the house on Linder be
connected to water and sewer. If they are going to tear it down and at the end of the
phase five it just -- for me it doesn't make sense. I'm going to let this -- the applicant and
staff work out the street frontages, so I'm not going to comment on that one, because,
again, that one -- it can go either way.
Grove: Staff, are we able to recommend removing that 60 day piece or is that -- because
isn't that something that --
Dodson: Mr. Chair?
Grove: -- is a waiver?
Dodson: Yes. So, the 60 day timeline thing has to be done by Council, but you can
recommend that you agree with the applicant. Again I have to put it in because it's code,
so I -- that's why I had to say it. Commission can recommend that it doesn't happen and,
then, Commission will have -- or Council will have to make the final call with their waiver.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 28,2022 F39
Page 36 of 66
Grove: Commissioner Yearsley, the other one would be the pool.
Yearsley: Oh, yes. The pool in between phase two. I -- I think that makes perfect sense
and I think -- I like that. I agree that having it in phase three was not a good -- good
option, but having it in phase two is a good option, so --
Grove: Also, Commissioner Yearsley, just having the wording in there I think we can
probably fall under the working with staff, but the modifications related to the open lateral,
if the agreement with the irrigation district is reached.
Yearsley: Okay. Because -- do we need to make that change to -- they are -- they are
going to recommend that be -- or they are going to tile that. Is that base -- do I need to
change the motion to have that be tiled or -- or how does --
Dodson: Hold on. I'm reading. Sorry.
Yearsley: Motion is requiring -- you talk about you were going to change the staff report
to make it that it was going to be tiled.
Dodson: Yeah. Mr. Chair, Condition 16 --what is it--A-16 1 guess is what this falls under.
That can be stricken, because they are going to pipe it. The other one regarding -- sorry.
2 --A-2-13, you guys can leave that in. There is no motion, because they -- we will correct
the plans or verify those between now and then. So, we will be okay. No motion required
for that.
Yearsley: Okay. Any -- any other things that you guys want to see changed I'm open to
suggestions, comments. Okay. All right. Let's try this. So, I can see -- Mr. Chair, after
considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony I move to recommend approval to
City Council file number H-2021-0070 as presented in the hearing date for April 28, 2022,
with the following modifications: That the pool and clubhouse amenity be moved to phase
two. That the home at -- at 30 -- or recommend that the home at 308 -- 3801 , holy cow,
South Linder not be connected to water-sewer. We recommend that that not be happen
to City Council for that waiver and remove that -- we recommend that Condition 16 be
stricken and that the pathway between the two lots on the southwest corner of the
property being removed. Hope that's clear enough.
Lorcher: Did you get --
Yearsley: Oh. And -- sorry. The most important one. Holy cow. That -- that we -- we
recommend that the R-8 -- to City Council that the R-8 not be required and to leave the
-- the -- the street number-- or the -- the density or the zoning as -- as -- as recommended
-- or as shown.
Wheeler: Second.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 28,2022 F40
Page 37 of 66
Grove: All right. Motion has been made and seconded. All those in favor say aye. All
those opposed say nay. All right. Motion passed.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Grove: Good job. We will go ahead and take a five minute bio break and we will see you
back here in just a minute.
(Recess: 8:12 p.m. to 8:18 p.m.)
4. Public Hearing Continued from April 21, 2022 for Grayson Subdivision
(H-2022-0014) by Schultz Development, LLC, Located at 1710 E. Amity
Rd., Near the Northeast Corner of E. Amity Rd. and S. Locust Grove
Rd.
A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 3.39 acres from RUT to the R-8
zoning district.
B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 15 single-family residential
building lots and 3 common lots on 3.1 acres of land in the requested
R-8 zoning district.
Grove: Okay. We will go ahead and jump back in with our next public hearing. So, we
will be moving on to public hearing for Grayson Subdivision, file number H-2022-0014,
continued from April 21 st, 2022, and with that we will pass it back over to Joe for his final
one for tonight. Take it away, Joe.
Dodson: Thank you, Commissioner Grove. The application before you for Grayson
Subdivision is for annexation and zoning and a preliminary plat. The site consists of 3.1
acres currently zoned RUT in the county, located near the northeast corner of Amity and
Locust Grove and actually near the corner, unlike the last one. The annexation and
zoning request before you tonight is for 3.39 acres from RUT to the R-8 zoning district
and a preliminary plat consisting of 15 single family residential building lots and three
common lots on 3.1 acres. The proposed plat for the 15 units on 3.1 acres constitutes a
gross density of 4.84 dwelling units per acre, which is consistent with the medium density
residential designation located on the property. The minimum building lot size is about
5,500 square feet, with an average lot size near 6,200 square feet. The minimum lot size
is nearly 1,500 square feet above the minimum lot size for the R-8 zoning district. The
adjacent Estancia Subdivision of lower density and -- is of lower density and has larger
building lots than what is proposed with this project. However, there are no more than
two building lots for proposed adjacent to any single existing lot along the north boundary
and the applicant has placed their drainage lot in the northeast corner of the project
adjacent to two Estancia lots, which the point of me calling that out is if he put a building
lot there and moved the drainage -- drainage lot somewhere else, then, that one owner
would have two lots adjacent to them. So, the applicant was thoughtful on their placement
of that. Furthermore, there are six building lots within the Estancia Subdivision along the
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 28,2022 F41
Page 38 of 66
north boundary and the applicant has proposed seven building lots and one common lot.
So, the difference between the two, despite different zoning and smaller lots, is not
substantial, at least in staff's opinion. Consistent with the existing subdivision around
Estancia, the applicant is proposing to continue parkways and detached sidewalks into
the development along Grayson Street to match that design characteristic. The applicant
is also proposing a micro path connection in the southwest corner of the property to add
a pedestrian connection to their required multi-use pathway along Amity. Per the
pathways coordinator and the master pathways plan, a ten foot multi-use pathway is
required along Amity. It is required to be located within the landscape buffer and
completely outside of the ACHD right-of-way. The applicant is showing a five foot
detached sidewalk instead, so staff has included a condition of approval to include that
pathway with -- prior to final plat submittal. The plat does comply with all UDC
dimensional standards, except for the block length of Grayson. The proposed block
length is approximately 550 feet per the way that we measure it, so we measure it from
here until where ever it ends. It's approximately 550 feet after it gets to here, because
we measure at the center of the cul-de-sac, which is -- this is just a preliminary that the
applicant did as a potential redevelopment of the corner property. It will be I think just
over 600. So, still under the maximum 750 period, but it does require a Council waiver to
exceed the 500 foot, which the applicant is seeking, because they can't connect to Amity
and they are not going to connect the Locust Grove to the west, so it is basically required.
Access is proposed via extension of the existing stub street East Grayson, stubbed to the
east property. It's proposed to be extended into the site and terminate in a hammerhead
type turnaround by encumbering building lot number seven, which is here. That's how it
was originally proposed. ACHD did not approve this. They are requiring a temporary cul-
de-sac and so we have the revised primary plat that now shows building Lots 7 and 8
encumbered by this. Staff already has an existing condition regarding this potential
outcome, so there is no need to have any motion addressing that. I just wanted to note
that for you. As of about 4:00 there was no written testimony for the application and staff
does recommend approval. I will stand for any questions.
Grove: All right. Thank you. Could we get the applicant to come up, please.
Schultz: Hello. Matt Schultz. 4914 South Colusa in Meridian. It's good to be here. It's
been a while. Good to see some faces I know and some good to meet. I have been out
here in south Meridian forever, about 20 years, doing developments for different people
over the years, like Tuscany and Bear Creek and Reflection Ridge, Kings Bridge, Wells
and -- and Calistoga and it's -- it's -- it's home for me and I'm excited about Albertson's. I
just live just off Amity just down the road a little bit and an associate came to me and
asked me to help him with this little in-fill that he found and I went, cool, it's in the
neighborhood and I like to fill in these little blanks and I think this little blank --there wasn't
a whole lot of options that we could do with it, other than we could do R-4 lots or R-8 lots.
So, that was pretty much it. So, what we are doing is kind of an R-8 light and that we are
not going for 40 foot lots, we are not going to -- to the low-end of R-4, but we feel like that
50 foot minimum, single story on the north, to be more compatible, even though it could
be argued that we are compatible anyways, we are adding that -- that single story in the
north as a development agreement condition with them and if you look at the home sizes
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 28,2022 F42
Page 39 of 66
north of us we are proposing the same size. They are in that 1,500 square foot range
north of us and that's what we are -- 15 to 17 hundred is what we are proposing. The
issues that were kind of unknowns originally is how much the proposed roundabout might
impact our site. We did a preliminary drop-in of a template to see how that would -- we
were confident that we were just going to squeeze on by, hopefully, and nothing was
going to hit us and that we got to dedicate two more feet of right of way, so instead of 48
we are giving 50 on our side, which is not a big change, and this revised preliminary plat
does indicate that. We just did that yesterday and ACHD did want a no build on two of
the lots, instead of one. Okay. Do that. And, then, the city would like us to expand the
five foot pathway from a five to a ten, like you see on the newly rebuilt Eagle Road, Victory
and Amity, those nice little yellow lines down the middle. You know, it's -- it's cool and so
we will be the only one on Amity now that has that, but whenever ACHD does go through
and widen out Amity they will continue the ten foot on the other side. So, we have -- we
have got the room to do that. So, we do agree with all staff and ACHD's conditions of
approval. We have added our own. We have offered some development agreement
conditions in our -- in our narrative about the homes in the single story and we think we
have a piece that fits and it's going to be good to kind of further -- not that what's there is
too trashy, but it's going to clean up the neighborhood a little bit. It's -- it's going to be
better. So, we appreciate the opportunity and I'm really excited about that roundabout. I
had to come in on the way here tonight at 5:30, it's really backed up all the way to the
entrance of Estancia, you know, going -- going west on -- on Amity, so that roundabout is
going to be nice. So, thank you.
Grove: All right. Thank you. Commissioners, any questions for applicant or staff?
Yearsley: Mr. Chair?
Grove: Yes.
Yearsley: Isn't there a cell tower? Is that what your one lot is at your drainage lot? Isn't
there a cell tower on there as well?
Schultz: Commissioner Yearsley, Commissioner Grove, it's that -- it's that very corner lot
that dash, dash, dash, on the corner of -- I think it's even in the right of way that's shown
here. What we show as the future expanded right of way, I think that thing's closer to
Locust Grove. It's off our property, but it is right there on that corner --
Yearsley: Okay.
Schultz: -- and that roundabout is going to, obviously, have to take that into account.
That's why I think that roundabout is going to shift a little bit to the west to clear that --that
cell tower is my guess. That's why I was even more confident we weren't going to get
clipped by whatever went east.
Yearsley: Right.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 28,2022 F43
Page 40 of 66
Schultz: So -- but, yeah, it's -- it's nearby, but not on our property.
Yearsley: Okay. I -- I knew it was there, but I -- I wasn't sure where it --
Schultz: It's Victory I think.
Yearsley: Couldn't get that last corner piece, huh.
Schultz: Well, now that this has utilities it's obviously -- I think it's going to become
available and I wouldn't be surprised if ACHD might buy the whole thing. You don't know.
They might need some drainage there. But they are I hear about the 50 percent stage
on their drawings right now and I'm sure they are negotiating for right of way right now of
with all those owners on the four corners. So, we will see what comes of it in terms of
how much ACHD needs out of it.
Yearsley: Okay. That makes sense, because -- yeah, if I was that owner I don't know if
I would want what's left.
Schultz: Yeah. There is -- there will be utilities right to it with us.
Yearsley: Okay.
Schultz: So -- and access.
Wheeler: Mr. Chair?
Grove: Commissioner Wheeler.
Wheeler: I have got a question here, Matt. So, that -- that's a little park area there, right,
that northeast spot; right? Okay. And is there -- is that going to be -- are you going to be
kind of like, hey, this is only for us 16 people here or is it going to be like -- I'm sure there
is going to be some people are going to trickle over from the other, but --
Schultz: Yeah. Commissioner Grove, Commissioner Wheeler, it was going to be an open
space lot, depressed, grassed. It would never hold water, except for when it rained a
really bunch and, then, staff recommended we put a bench in there, a little passive sitting
area, which that's a good idea. That would be cool. But, you know, the enforcement of
-- of -- of that I -- I doubt it. You guys couldn't be that overkill. You stay off this. This is
for these 15 people only. Do you have a pass? You know, I -- I just don't see that
happening.
Wheeler: Good. Okay. Just -- I was just double checking on that then.
Schultz: I -- I think it was a great idea to put something in there. You know, a little sitting
area and people walking the dog and just hang out.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 28,2022 F44
Page 41 of 66
Wheeler: Yeah. And, then, this is -- this doesn't have a gate or anything, it's just straight
open road; right? All the way --
Schultz: Open road. We are continuing the detached parkway, park strips. The geometry
works to where our lots are appropriate. They get a little bit shallow abutting Victory, but
they are deep enough to meet all setbacks and get what we need in there, so --
Yearsley: There is no modifications to the deal, so I'm looking for--at the --who is making
a motion that there is no modifications to this, you are okay with all the --
Schultz: I'm okay with everything.
Yearsley: Okay. Perfect.
Schultz: Thanks.
Grove: All right. Thank you. All right. At this time we will take public testimony. Mr.
Clerk, do we have anyone signed in for this application?
Johnson: Mr. Chair, we did not.
Grove: All right. Is there anyone online or in the audience that would like to testify on this
application? All right. Seeing none, would the applicant like to have any closing? All
right. Making it easier. So, can I get a motion to close the hearing for file number -- I'm
going to mess it up. H-2021-0099 -- nope. Wrong one. Let's try that again. Can I get a
motion to close the public hearing for Grayson Subdivision, file number H-2022-0014?
Wheeler: So moved.
Yearsley: Second.
Grove: All right. All those in favor aye. All those opposed? All right. Motion passed.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Grove: Any prevailing thoughts?
Lorcher: Commissioner Grove. It's pretty straightforward, so -- they came up with a
thoughtful plan to be able to use that space. They are following ACHD rules. Their
connectivity. No modifications. So, I'm good with it.
Yearsley: Mr. Chair?
Wheeler: Commissioners, is there any significant discussion or do you guys just want to
me to pitch this one through?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 28,2022 F45]
Page 42 of 66
Yearsley: I'm good.
Wheeler: Okay. All right. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony
move we recommend approval to the City Council of file number H-2022-0014 as
presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 28, 2022, without any
modifications.
Yearsley: Second.
Grove: Motion has been moved and seconded. All those in favor say aye. All those
opposed say nay. All right. Motion passes.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
5. Public Hearing Continued from April 21, 2022 for 1-84 and Meridian Rd.
(H-2021-0099) by Hawkins Companies, Generally Located at the
Northwest Corner of S. Meridian Rd. and Interstate 84.
A. Request: Annexation of 18.30 acres of land with a C-G zoning
district.
B. Request: A Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Amendment
to change the future land use designation on 33.13 acres of land from
Mixed Use — Community (MU-C) to Mixed Use — Regional (MU-R)
Grove: All right. All right. So, we will now open the public hearing for file number H-
2021-0099 for -- for 1-84 and Meridian Road, continued from April 21st, 2022, and with
that we will pass it over to Sonya for the staff report.
Allen: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The next application before
you is a request for annexation and zoning and a Comprehensive Plan map amendment.
The -- the Comprehensive Plan map amendment portion of this site consists of 33.13
acres of land and the annexation portion consists of 18.3 acres of land, zoned C-G and
RUT in Ada county, generally located at the northwest corner of South Meridian Road
and 1-84. The northern portion of this site was previously annexed in 1984 and 2002. No
development agreements were required with those annexations. The Comprehensive
Plan future land use map designation is mixed use community for the overall site. The
applicant is requesting an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan future land use map
to change the future land use designation on 33.13 acres of land from the mixed use
community to the mixed use regional designation. Get my map to capture my --
presentation to catch up here. Excuse me just a moment. Oops. Don't know what
happened there, but going again here. So, the -- the exhibit there on the left is the map
amendment request and the annexation is requested of 18.3 acres of land with the C-G,
general retail and service commercial zoning district, and the annexation area is shown
on the exhibit on the right. A conceptual development plan was submitted as shown that
depicts how this property is proposed to be -- excuse me -- that depicts how the property
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 28,2022 F46
Page 43 of 66
proposed to be annexed, as well as the area currently zoned C-G, is planned to develop
with two big box retail stores and a junior anchor retail space, which is called out as retail
one, consisting of 130 to 150 thousand square feet, retail two, which is approximately
80,000 square feet and retail three, lot two, which is 20 to 30 thousand square feet. Three
out pads with two drive-throughs and a four-story 80,000 square foot office building. The
northern portion of the site, already zoned C-G, is entitled to develop subject to UDC
Table 11-2-B-2, allowed uses in the commercial districts, regardless of whether or not the
annexation is approved, as there is no development agreement that is in place that
governs future development of that property. A vehicular connection and stub is depicted
on the concept plan to the property to the west for future extension across the Ten Mile
Creek and for interconnectivity. The applicant has submitted an emergency access
easement agreement with the property owner to the west for access to Ruddy Drive and
Waltman Lane. Per the Comprehensive Plan mixed use designated areas should include
at least three types of land uses. The proposed concept plan only includes two land use
types, commercial retail and office. Although residential land uses are still planned to
develop on the adjacent property to the west, the property is currently entitled to develop
solely with commercial uses. The previous residential development proposed for that
property, Tanner Creek, was denied. Reasons for denial included Council's
determination that the sole residential use of the property was not consistent with the
mixed-use community designation, because a mix of uses wasn't proposed and they
didn't want to burden this property with providing only the non-residential component of
the mix of uses desired for this area. For this reason staff recommended this property
and adjacent property to the west come in for review concurrently in order to ensure the
overall development is consistent with the development guidelines in the Comprehensive
Plan for the mixed use designation. Because the traffic impact study for that development
is in the queue for review at ACHD and isn't anticipated to be reviewed until at least June,
the applicant declined to wait and chose to move forward on their own. In accord with
staff's analysis in the report, the proposed development is not consistent with the general
mixed-use development guidelines, the existing mixed-use community, or the proposed
mixed-use regional guidelines. The project as proposed is a commercial development,
not mixed use. There are no significant attempts to integrate any of the on-site uses or
with any of the adjacent uses. There are no community serving uses for existing and
future residents. Pedestrian connections are proposed through vehicular use areas,
which could result in vehicle and pedestrian conflicts and safety issues. No public, quasi-
public uses are proposed, except an open space area located in the middle of the parking
area with unsafe access and at the periphery of the development. Staff is also concerned
with the ability of the existing transportation network being able to support the proposed
development as a traffic impact study hasn't been submitted for the proposed
development. For these reasons staff does not support -- is not in support of the
requested annexation with the conceptual development plan proposed due to its
inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan. As recommended in the pre-application
meetings for this property and the adjacent property to the west, staff recommends
development applications are submitted concurrently for those properties with a master
plan for the overall area that demonstrates consistency with the guidelines in the
Comprehensive Plan for mixed-use developments and specifically the mixed-use
community designation or an alternate designation if proposed. Alternatively, if submitted
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 28,2022 F47
Page 44 of 66
separately, the development plan for each property should demonstrate consistency with
the plan on its own merits. The traffic impact study should also be updated to take into
consideration the development impacts of both properties in the overall mixed use
designated area and the necessary road and intersection improvements needed in this
area in order for the street network to function sufficiently with the intensity of development
proposed. There has been no written testimony submitted on this application. Staff is
recommending denial per the analysis and findings in the staff report. Staff will stand for
any questions.
Grove: Thanks, Sonya. And could we get the applicant to come up, please?
Mansfield: Good evening, Commissioners. Thanks for hanging out so late tonight. I
really appreciate it.
Grove: Need to get your name and address, please.
Mansfield: Yeah. I'm Ethan Mansfield with Hawkins Companies. We are the developers
on the project and we are located at 855 West Broad Street in Boise, Idaho. I'm just
waiting for our presentation to be pulled up, if that's okay. Thanks, Sonya. Yeah. So,
first I would like to thank you all for your time this evening, your service to the community
is much appreciated and -- and thanks for -- thanks for hearing this. So, our request
tonight -- let's see if I can get this thing to change. Do I need to press a special button?
All right. Our request tonight is for a Comprehensive Plan amendment to regional mixed
use for about 33 acres and an annexation and rezone to general retail and service
commercial for about 18 acres on the northwestern corner of Meridian Road and 1-84.
The 18 acres includes about an acre of ITD drainage facility, so I will be talking about 17
acres for actually -- that actually applies to the project. So, before I dig in I think it's
extremely important to acknowledge that about 16 acres of this site is already entitled and
zoned C-G, as Sonya mentioned. As you all understand, the zoning of a certain piece of
land governs the specific uses allowed and the design criteria of those uses. The land
use map or Comprehensive Plan, on the other hand, helps define and guide the general
character of future development. So, it helps you make decisions about annexations,
rezones, and conditional use permits. In this case the 17 acres on the south side of the
site are what requires this sort of action, not the northern 16 acres. So, the northern land
is entitled and only a site plan approval is required to develop that piece of land. The
southern 17 acres are funky, there is no doubt about it. First they sit about 20 feet below
the on ramp to the interstate. There is a steep grade going down to our site from that
corner of the interstate and Meridian Road. Next. The only way to access the southern
portion of this site is directly through the northern portion of the site, so as such,
regardless of zoning or land use, the character of the development on the southern parts
of land will largely reflect what is developed on the 16 acres of entitled property to the
north, simply because that's where all the connectivity comes from, that -- it's kind of like
a neighborhood on that whole piece, so, please, consider that through this discussion
tonight. Now, let's chat about the overall plan for the site. Hawkins proposes to develop
a mix of retail, food service, and office uses. Anchoring the development is a 145,000
square foot national retailer and here are the renderings of this user. In addition, we are
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 28,2022 F48
Page 45 of 66
proposing another large format retailer, as well as a junior anchor. I guess I can let you
hang out and look at these renderings for a second. In addition, we are proposing another
large format retailer, as well as a junior anchor shown here in the red box. Several --
several food users and shop space and a four story 80,000 square foot office building in
the southeast corner of the site. Linking these uses is a network of pathways that extends
throughout the site and provides connectivity to the west and north. We propose a ten
foot multi-use pathway along Waltman Street to provide connectivity to the east and west
and a pedestrian and bicycle access to Tanner Creek, the residential development to the
west. A sidewalk currently exists along Meridian Road to provide connectivity to the south
and I should notice that Sonya -- or note that Sonya was referring to this as a vehicular
access point. This is proposed for emergency vehicle access, but it's not proposed for
open vehicle access between the two sites, only emergency vehicles, and we do plan to
put bollards there, just so you understand it -- it is designed as a pedestrian connectivity
primarily with -- with fire and emergency access points. The development includes a one
acre parklet positioned to provide a transition from the apartments proposed to the west
in Tanner Creek to our commercial development. It also includes a one-third acre urban
plaza located near the office development. While we understand that outdoor patio
seating does not officially qualify as an amenity, it's tough to argue that outdoor patios
suck and so we have included space for two next to our shops building and here is some
renderings of those features. You can see the bollards here that would kind of protect
that as a bike and ped connection to Tanner Creek. Here is the urban plaza and, then,
the patio dining. So, Tanner Creek, a residential project from Schultz development, with
264 multi-family units and 128 single-family homes, is proposed immediately west of our
project. Last June City Council denied this exact proposal. Why? Because it didn't have
commercial uses associated with it. As Matt Schultz will share with you later this evening,
here are our commercial uses. Council specifically directed him to wait until commercial
uses develop to the east. Well, here we are. Our application fulfills City Council's request.
It provides open space, retail, restaurants within walking distance and thoughtfully
connected to Tanner Creek. Tanner Creek has been required by the -- by the Ada County
Highway District to update their traffic impact study, as Sonya noted, which is why it has
not yet been submitted to the city for review. So, here is a little play-by-play of why Tanner
Creek is still on the bench. So, first, comp plan amendments, as you heard earlier, are
only processed by the city twice a year, December 15th and June 15th. Tanner Creek
had proposed to submit in early January, concurrent with our December 15th deadline.
However, ACHD required an updated TIS. These take a while, as I think we all know or
have seen, and Tanner Creek submitted their updated TIS in March. It will likely be July
before it is approved. Could be late June optimistically. To require Tanner Creek to come
in concurrently with us would, at a minimum, require an eight month hold until next
December. As we need housing and services to serve the intense growth Meridian is
experiencing, we believe this is a risky and potentially costly move. It's also one that
could be avoided by simply acknowledging the reality of the situation. The Tanner Creek
and our development will complement each other and create a desirable regional
commercial and residential hub. Staff is also concerned about the current development
rights on the Tanner Creek site. Let's talk a little bit about the existing development that
could occur on the site without going through an entitlement process. There is an existing
development agreement on the site that governs the development of the site. This
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 28,2022 F49
Page 46 of 66
development agreement limits the site to commercial uses, as Sonya noted. However, it
also limits it to one of two site plans without the City Council approval to modify. So, here
are the site plans. Here is site plan number one. We are not quite sure what all these
boxes are and there is some flexibility there, but, you know, you can kind of see a big box
on the bottom right-hand corner, some smaller commercial uses here. You know,
significant commercial use abutting the single family neighborhood here or this one, which
provides the big box immediately adjacent to the single family homes next door and a
giant parking lot. So, anything other than these two site plans would require a trip back
to City Council. I think it's important to understand that. So, the question is what's the
likelihood that if our site is approved for retail, food, and office uses, that the contiguous
landowner would scrap a residential project and sell the land and, then, that another
owner would pick it up and develop a 37 acre development with the same uses that we
will develop in our project. Right now I think that's a relatively non-existent likelihood and
I think Matt, when he shares later this evening, can confirm this, as he is the developer of
the adjacent site. So, next let's talk a little bit about the comp plan amendment and the
subsequent rezone. Here is a description of the mixed use and regional mixed-use land
uses from the comp plan. In general, the purpose of the mixed-use designation is to
provide for a combination of compatible land uses within a close geographic area that
allows for easily accessible and convenient services for residents and workers. The
purpose of the mixed use regional designation is to provide a mix of employment, retail,
and residential dwellings and public uses near major arterial intersections and
developments should be anchored by uses that have a regional draw with the appropriate
supporting uses. Here is a map showing the general location of our development over
the comp plan map. The surrounding development is already a regional destination.
Several big box stores and hotels are located on the east side of Meridian Road and two
regional entertainment uses and an event center exist across the freeway to the south.
The interchange is also the gateway to downtown Meridian. Meridian Road in front of the
site is the third busiest roadway segment in the state of Idaho. That's after Eagle Road
in case you were wondering. In other words, the already entitled portion of our site is
begging to be developed into a regional hub. In that spirit, we are proposing a retail center
with a regional draw. A regional employment hub, restaurants, and amenities that are
complementary to Tanner Creek, which will provide 400 households within walking or
biking distance to our site. Put simply, our development will serve the residents of the
entire region, while maintaining walkability and bike ability to residents of the adjacent
multi-family and single-family housing developments. The mixed-use regional
designation is also the only mixed use land use designation that supports general retail
and service commercial zone. This zone appears to be expressly designed for the subject
parcel. Commercial uses, in quote, close proximity and/or access to interstate or arterial
intersections, end quote. It is logical to continue that zone to the south closer to the
interstate and the mixed use regional designation supports this, while the mixed use
community designation does not. Based on the comments we heard from staff at the pre-
application meeting last fall, the entire reason that this site was designated community,
rather than regional mixed use, was that the transportation infrastructure serving the site
was insufficient to support a regional draw. This is an extremely reasonable point.
However, it seems that rather than limiting the use of the land on this very visible regional
corner, it might work better for the city if we simply increase the capacity of the
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 28,2022 F50
Page 47 of 66
transportation network, which is what we propose to do with this development. Here is
how we are going to do this. First we propose to work with ACHD to extend Corporate
Drive across Ten Mile Creek to Waltman and I should say not just ACHD, but Tanner
Creek as well. We have been discussing this intimately, let's just say. Next we will
improve Waltman to a collector roadway with a center turn lane throughout the entire
project. We will also install infrastructure for a future transit stop on the corner of Waltman
and Meridian Road and, finally, we will install an additional northbound left-turn lane on
Meridian Road to accommodate traffic turning into the site from the interstate. Here is a
cross-section of the proposed roadway improvements. There will be two lanes heading
west from the Waltman-Meridian Road intersection, then a center turn lane and a lane
heading eastbound, which will split into various turning movements near the intersection.
You can also see where we are proposing to install the infrastructure to accommodate
the transit stop. That's that little star there that says future transit stop. In sum, we are
beefing up the transportation infrastructure to keep pace with the mix of uses that want to
be on this corner. Our proposed mix of uses is of a similar scale and fits appropriately
within the surrounding development, with roadway improvements and enhanced
connectivity delivered by this project and Tanner Creek to the west. In tandem we
propose to capitalize on the location of the site to deliver homes,jobs, goods and services
to the population epicenter of the Treasure Valley. We look forward to your
recommendation of approval to City Council and thanks so much. I'm happy to stand for
any questions.
Grove: All right. Commissioners, any questions for the applicant or staff?
Yearsley: Mr. Chair?
Grove: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: So, I'm going to just be blunt. Sonya, is -- was the main reason for -- for
recommending denial at this point is because you don't have the ACHD traffic impact
study and having the two applications come together as one? I'm not quite sure why it
did not -- I apologize, it may have been clear, but I -- I didn't catch it.
Allen: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Yearsley, transportation issue is huge and, yes, we feel
that the TIS needs to contemplate the overall development for the master plan for this
area, but the proposed concept plan is -- is not consistent with the mixed use designation
and specifically the mixed use community, which is the existing designation, or the
proposed mixed use regional designation.
Yearsley: Okay. Well, if they -- if they had both applications come into one that would
meet that requirement; is that correct?
Allen: Not necessarily saying that --
Yearsley: Or --
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 28,2022 F51
Page 48 of 66
Allen: That the -- the concept plan for this site, even -- even if it's -- the development to
the west comes in with the --with the multi-family, they--they aren't integrated well. They
-- they aren't interconnected as they should be in a mixed-use designation.
Yearsley: Okay.
Allen: The uses -- there is no community serving uses. It's -- it just doesn't meet our
mixed-use guidelines --
Yearsley: Okay.
Allen: -- overall.
Yearsley: Okay. Like I said, there is -- there is a lot of nuances within that, so I wasn't
quite sure exactly, so -- and -- and I agree that this is a big enough development that the
traffic impact study is a big concern, so --
Grove: I have a question directly piggy backing off that. So, you mentioned it, but I -- I'm
very unclear as to why you did not wait until you had the traffic impact study and an ACHD
--you know, this is--you know, sometimes we can be like, okay, like we can move forward
without something like this, but this is probably the most messed up intersection next to
a giant parcel of land that is going to be extremely intensified. It's already hard to get
around that area. You are -- you are -- you have mentioned making improvements, but
those are fairly minor in comparison to the level of intensification that you are proposing
specifically with this, let alone anything to the west of you. I mean I'm just really wondering
why now and not -- I know that there is -- with the comp plan piece there is an additional
piece, but this is -- I mean just to be very blunt, it's going to be very hard to properly
evaluate this without having a much clearer understanding of what that impact study is,
what those recommendations are, how do we mitigate the extreme mess that this could
have. I have a few other questions, but I will let you tackle that first.
Mansfield: Thanks, Chairman Grove. That was a great question and it is a mess. Thanks
for recognizing that and I think I just need to be a little more clear on where we both are
in the process. So, we have completed a traffic impact study. TIS'es are not required to
be approved prior to rezones and annexations. They are with preliminary plats, which is
why we typically see a preliminary plat come in with an annexation and a rezone. In this
case we are not pursuing a preliminary plat at this time, so we are just doing the
annexation rezone. However, these transportation improvements that we are
recommending are taken straight from the recommendations from our TIS and I have
spoken with our traffic engineer a multitude of times to make sure I have got all those
incorporated into this, because I understand that it is a big deal and so my job is to make
sure that we are not missing something the TIS would recommend that's going to come
in later, blindside us, blindside you guys, blindside Council, blindside ACHD and what I
have done is thoroughly read through it, talked to our engineer about it and said am I
missing anything and, actually, he is the one who came up with this improvements
drawing for us. So, we have not been approved by ACHD yet. However, we have
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 28,2022 F52
Page 49 of 66
submitted and it's under review and, as you guys understand, you know, ACHD is four,
five, six months out for their review times right now and I think Matt can speak to that, too.
He is just behind us in the queue. We are right ahead of him. And so given the nature of
these staggered comp plan amendment time frames, we thought that we could submit
right now and, then, when future development happens on the site, you know, we -- you
know, anything from a zoning certificate, a CZC site plan review, that that will absolutely
-- or preliminary plat or whatever we end up with, that will absolutely require an approved
ACHD site plan -- or traffic impact study and we are confident that what we produced and
what we are recommending to be improved will end up being the final approval of the
ACHD site plan.
Grove: I -- I appreciate that. I -- I guess some feedback is this has been empty for a very
long time, understanding that there is a traffic problem and that we are going to want to
understand those parameters, along with this and have a lot better information, even if
it's not required. It -- it's a -- it's something that is extremely important to this project and
how we --we look at it as a holistic approach and so knowing that it's just really concerning
that it's not coming in at the same time. I understand that there is timeline pieces, but this
is not something that came out of the blue for this project as -- as a concern. So, I -- I
have some misgivings on that. I -- I guess my other question is in terms of how you view
this overall project and being, essentially, at the gateway into Meridian, for all intents and
purposes, how does that stack up with being a -- the proper visual in terms of-- you know,
we already have one box store on the other side, like how does that -- how are we -- I'm
having a hard time getting my head around what that overall concept looks like or what
we want our community to look like to people coming into our city.
Mansfield: Yeah. Chairman Grove, that's another great question and I think there is a --
there is a couple different answers to that. You know, we are proposing a large format
retailer. There is no doubt about it. It's a big box. It's a large box. However, you know,
this is a major regional intersection and that's where large boxes want to be. That is why
we have secured this particular tenant and we are providing right on the corner, you know,
an 80,000 square foot office building, just like you see at every other intersection -- or,
sorry, interchange in Meridian, to kind of, you know, provide -- and, you know what, it's
-- it's -- if you look at our project it is only two mix of uses. You know, I'm not going to
beat around the bush there. Tanner Creek provides the third and we have been working
with them, but, you know, you do provide -- we do have 80,000 square feet of office. So,
50 percent of the stuff that's getting annexed into the city is office and 50 percent is going
to be retail. The other stuff on the north that's already zoned, so that's already something
where, you know, we are experiencing this intense demand for this aux user and we could
put them there, you know. So -- so, we are trying to -- we are -- anyway, I will -- I will let
-- I will leave it there.
Grove: Yeah, I get what you are saying. It -- it feels to a certain extent with -- with how
it's positioned that that southern portion is landlocked and being held hostage here in
terms of how we have to think about this. So, having a hard time feeling good about that.
So, just giving you some pieces there. I can jump off my soap boxes for a minute, but if
anybody wants to jump in with questions. I have another. So, you -- you said you did
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 28,2022 F53
Page 50 of 66
have your traffic identity -- or traffic study and you have a general idea at least of -- what
is your -- you know, trip count look like per day coming out of the overall development?
Mansfield: Sure. That's actually displayed right here on the screen.
Grove: Okay.
Mansfield: So, we can definitely talk a little bit about that. The total daily trips with the you know, sophisticated modeling of the reduction in pass-by trips, you know, that's --
that's, you know, captured by people driving by -- is nearly 11,000 primary trips. That's
740 in the a.m. and 950 in the peak period. Again, the recommendations in the TIS are
reflected in our transportation kind of analysis of the site and our proposed improvements.
So, based on this, our engineer proposed the improvements that we are proposing to
make and I should say that there is actually one additional re-striping of Franklin Road as
it -- or on 5th Street as it goes north to Franklin Road to provide a left and a right turn,
where currently there is just one lane. There is no widening. It's only a restriping. So,
didn't want to confuse the conversation, you know, of these bigger changes by including
that, but that is also included in our proposal.
Grove: Well, if we don't have any other questions, we will go ahead and open it up to
public testimony. Mr. Clerk.
Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Chair. First is Kelsee Lorcher. Kelsee, you should be able to
unmute yourself.
K.Lorcher: Hi. Kelsee Lorcher. 2099 -- oh, sorry. Can you hear me?
Grove: Yes.
K.Lorcher: Okay. Kelsee Lorcher. 2099 West Snyder, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. 1 do not
agree with this --this proposal at all. I actually agree with the staff report. This application
does not have a master plan with Tanner Creek development to the west. The City
Council last year said that they needed to do it together to get both sides approved and
Hawkins has not done that. He has moved forward without Tanner Creek, but yet his
proposal relies heavily on Tanner Creek development to be mixed use zoning and also
for his emergency access as well and also for Corporate Drive. Tanner Creek's the one
who is going to be building Corporate Drive, not Hawkins. We do not have both Hawkins
or Tanner's traffic impact study, so without having both of those developments traffic
impact studies we do not know the true impact this will have to Waltman Lane and to the
gateway of our city and to that intersection of Meridian Road and Waltman. This
development is way too high traffic for Waltman Lane and to the gateway of our city and
even according to the Fire Department staff report on this application, it stated that the
current resources would not be adequate to supply service to this proposed project, which
entails greater risk for the occupants, as well as the first responders. In addition, the
intersection at Waltman Lane and Meridian is already, as you said, a mess and a -- it's a
burden with high traffic and there is -- it's landlocked. There is no wiggle room for
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 28,2022 F54]
Page 51 of 66
improvement or any major improvement. It's landlocked. It is what it is and we are already
high traffic and we do not want to become an Eagle Road and this project is just too big
for the area. You know, the -- the comp plan it -- it said that this needed to be mixed use
community for a reason, not a mixed use regional. And, lastly, the parking lot is not
designed well or safe for pedestrians or bicyclists and that's basically all I have to say
tonight. Thank you.
Grove: Thank you. Mr. Clerk?
K.Lorcher: Also -- I'm so sorry. I have Joe Lorcher here with me.
Johnson: Mr. Chair, I was going to say, Kelsee, if Joe is with you, but, Joe, you are up
next.
J.Lorcher: Can you hear me?
Grove: Yes.
J.Lorcher: Joe Lorcher. 740 West Walton Lane, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. My family and
-- and I have worked in -- on Waltman Lane and lived on Waltman Lane since 1976. 1
understand that this is being considered the gateway into the City of Meridian, but I'm
hoping that we don't turn it into, like my daughter said, an Eagle Road where it just
becomes a standstill. Certain times of the day the intersection -- you literally watch the
light change three times before you can get to the light to even turn left onto Waltman
Lane and if this traffic study that was up there a second ago shows another 10,000 more
cars, the intersection just can't handle it. The proposal of Tanner Creek to punch
Corporate Road through to Waltman Lane will help, but first Tanner Creek has to pass
and it's already been denied three times or two times --
K.Lorcher: Two times.
J.Lorcher: Two times. And the whole idea last time was for them to produce Tanner
Creek and Hawkins together and that's what the City Council wanted and it's not
happening, so -- and go back to the traffic study, we --we need to wait until we learn more
about the traffic that's going to happen for this intersection, so that it just does not become
a complete parking lot all the time. Ethan was talking about using Tanner Creek to help
with the mixed use qualification. He's assuming that Tanner Creek is going to get passed.
That's why both of them need to come in together to see if they work together and will get
passed and presented together. Overall the applicant should wait until the traffic study is
complete and also should stay away from the MUR to keep it so it's not so dense and
keep the traffic down. And, finally, do work with Tanner Creek and come together, so that
both proposals are presented together and Council and Planning and Zoning can listen
to both sides and decide what's best for the Waltman Lane area. So, hopefully, we can
postpone this and let them wait until traffic's done -- traffic studies are done and they
come together and work it together. That's all.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 28,2022 F55
Page 52 of 66
Grove: Thank you.
Johnson: Mr. Chair, Clair Manning is next. Mr. Manning, you are going to see yourself
rejoin the meeting. He has a presentation to share.
Manning: Good morning, Council. Clair Manning at 650 West Walton Lane. I'm going to
go ahead and share my screen. Oh, it's blocking me from sharing my screen.
Johnson: You can do that now, Mr. Manning.
Manning: Oh. Thank you. Okay. So, first off, I would like to thank the planning staff for
their detailed analysis of -- of their -- of this application. I think their conclusions make it
evident that you have no other choice but to deny this application. Are you seeing my
PowerPoint right now?
Grove: Yes, we are.
Manning: Okay. So, this city has spent a lot of time and resources developing a
Comprehensive Plan. There is a good reason. This was a designated mixed use
community and not mixed use regional. The simple fact of the matter is there is not
access -- there is not access to this area. It's not well suited to high traffic that these kind
of commercial buildings will provide. So, I have a couple quick pictures just to illustrate
that point. I think you guys are all familiar with the intersection, but as you can tell from
this right picture here, there is a very short runway where you can stack up cars here and
it's very very easy for them to back up and block the entire artery into the city here on one
lane. Second off, it's extremely problematic once you also get onto Walmart, because it's
very easy to back this up, because there is such a short runway before you need to start
turning into this intersection. So, it would be very easy for cars to back up and just block
that all together. So, let me direct you to that picture on the lower right. You can see I'm
parked there right where you need to turn and I'm causing a really dangerous situation
just for cars trying to get out. So, now imagine that you have semi trucks coming in and
out to stock that big box store and imagine the kind of a mess that you are going to have
with that. So, you know, overall this plan doesn't integrate very well with the overall area.
The developer to the west is proposing high density apartments right across from Ten
Mile Creek that look right into the back of the big box commercial area. So, you mix that
kind of low cost housing with that environment and you have all the perfect makings for a
slum and, you know, as staff points out, this area needs a Comprehensive Plan
considered together, so -- and you must have that detailed traffic study combining both
project to make a good decision. You cannot ignore that. This is a critical area. The
2018 traffic study on Tanner Creek already estimated 2,928 trips per day on Waltman,
which clearly demonstrates -- you will see the 3,000 trip guideline for a collector. So, I
can't really say any better than your staff did when they said this could cause irreparable
harm to the flagship entrance to the city. So, I think you have a responsibility to deny this
application. Thank you.
Grove: Thank you. All right. Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone else signed up?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 28,2022 F56
Page 53 of 66
Johnson: Mr. Chair, that was everyone.
Grove: All right. And it looks like we have someone in the audience who would like to
come forward. So come join us again, please.
Schultz: Good evening. Matt Schultz. 4914 South Colusa in Meridian and before I dive
into this application let's say just as a resident I'm excited that something is planned for
this corner. Something. Because it has been sitting there vacant and we have done the
big interchange work. It's just sitting there and what really triggered this is -- I brought a
little exhibit. Put on my reading glasses --that I did back in 2018. That corner was actually
14 parcels back in 2018. One of those being the ITD parcel that Hawkins bought first,
which is the one that you called the hostage parcel -- that needed to be re-comp planned,
but they have since -- and kudos to them for assembling all the other parcels, including
the last two. They got all but one acre up there in Waltman to do a master plan, instead
of having several little trials. So, it's a positive that they have taken that on. They have
assembled it all to the Comprehensive Plan. I speak for -- I'm the owner's representative
for the -- the nine parcels under one ownership to the west that we have called Tanner
Creek in the past. P&Z approved it twice. ACHD approved it. Staff approved it twice.
And we got to Council and the first time in 2018 City Council said, you know, Matt, they
are all tired from their budget meeting that day, he says, you know what, you know, the
comp plan is going through right now; right? The area comp plan; right? Yep. Well,
okay, well, you are going to have to wait until that goes through. So, that's where that
dead ended and, then, we waited -- I think I met Mr. Grove through that process of the
comp plan meetings and steering committee and with Tanner Creek we were previously
approved for commercial before our time. They had about 10,000 trips approved and
that's what's approved on Tanner Creek right now is a commercial zone with about 10,000
trips and a big box, which, ironically, I think it might be the same big box user that now
wants the better piece, which we have always said is the front 30, not the back 30, for
commercial. So, with Tanner Creek we asked for a rezone to go to -- go to residential to
be a better transition on the west side of Ten Mile Creek, which is a division between the
two properties. The only reason we haven't submitted is traffic studies take forever to get
run through ACHD right now and we -- ours was approved previously. The results of that
one in 2018 were extend Corporate Drive, connect Ruddy and make Waltman a collector
and nothing had to be done to that intersection out there, even though everybody couldn't
believe nothing had to be done to that intersection, because we had two 2,500 trips or
whatever it is. Well, obviously, when a big box commercial, like 10,000 trips, something
has to be done to that intersection. We did --we redid our traffic study, because it was
four years old. That's what ACHD has. They did their traffic study. We both used each
other's numbers. We both coordinated with two different engineers. Came to the same
conclusion. So, one last thing. They are already approved. They could do -- probably
go do their big box right now under the entitlements. I know you feel like it's hostage, but
I do feel like they are producing a Comprehensive Plan and we are excited, because
Council told us come back when we know for sure that commercial is going out there
before we change your commercial to residential, so we can have one big mixed use
project. We would be here today if not for the traffic study, but we do think it's a great
project and we think it's something that would be great for this -- this corner. Thank you.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 28,2022 F57
Page 54 of 66
Grove: A question for you, Mr. Schultz.
Schultz: Yeah.
Grove: Are you -- I'm -- I'm going to take a guess and say you are, but are you open to
working with the applicant to make a more comprehensive integrated multi or -- I'm going
to get -- been doing this too long tonight. To get a more integrated overall feel for that
entire Waltman property?
Schultz: Commissioner Grove, we feel that we -- we have the transitional portion on the
west side of the Ten Mile Creek, which is a hundred foot natural barrier that's going to
divide it. That's -- that's the tran -- that's the transitional buffer between commercial and
residential, instead of putting the previously approved commercial right up against
existing residential. We are connected. We have the use that complements their use
and vice-versa. Are we all integrated, all mixed up together? No, because we have
separate properties. But we are connected. We are working together on a flood study.
We are working together on a traffic -- we coordinated our traffic studies and we are
working together on it. As far as -- you are saying more integrated. I don't know if you
are like mixing residential on theirs with commercial on ours. The commercial all needs
to be up front and the residential needs to be on back and that's what we have always
said and we are kind of sticking with that.
Grove: Yeah. My -- my question there is not to move one or the other, it just feels like
there is a very -- it's such a clear delineation between the two that it doesn't feel -- I -- I
would like to see, as you know, staff had -- what Council had said before, what the public
had said just a minute ago in terms of looking at those more holistically, because of how
that's going to be coming in and the prominence of where it's at in our city, so --
Schultz: And I understand completely and that front 35 is very important to get right. I'm
not saying the back 35 is not important to get right. It's all important to get it right and we
have -- our application is not in front of you, so I don't want to go off in the weeds with
ours, but I would just say that it has been approved twice by P&Z and, if not, for the fact
that theirs was in for commercial already, we probably would have already had it half built
out as a residential with a pathway along the Ten Mile Creek and a good project, so --
Grove: Thank you.
Schultz: Thanks.
Grove: Any other public testimony? All right. If we could get the applicant to come back
up, please.
Mansfield: Thank you, Mr. Grove, Commissioners. I would like to talk about four things
that I just heard in testimony, so -- and it more -- more than anything else it's just
clarifications to make sure we are all on the same page. So, the first thing I would like to
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 28,2022 F58
Page 55 of 66
chat about tonight is that I want to make it clear that Corporate Drive will be extended
regardless of whether Tanner Creek comes in. It's not their responsibility. It's the first
developer's responsibility to construct the Corporate Drive extension. So, whether --
mean we are assuming Tanner Creek is coming in, because of everything you have heard
tonight, but if it doesn't, Corporate will still be extended. Second, I want to just also kind
of talk about the coordination and collaboration that Matt and I have had in the past six,
eight, ten months. It's been overwhelmingly extreme and that's a good thing, but it's like
we are talking two or three times a week, half hour, hour long conversations. How are
you guys? Where are you guys? Hey, what are you doing here with this zone? What
are you doing with that zone? What -- what's the status of your TIS? Can you share your
TIS data with us, so that we can actually provide a comprehensive package to our
respective engineers and because --you know, because we have separate developments
they are coming in at two different times, there is no doubt about it. We have two TIS'es,
but they are using the same data and we have ensured that. So, I think it's important to
understand that we are actually very heavily incorporating that TIS into our TIS and vice-
versa. We submitted within a week of each other to ACHD. Finally -- well, number three,
I would like to point out that, you know, there is a lot of traffic on Meridian Road. Like
said, it's a regional draw already. So, it -- it makes sense to put regional uses with other
regional uses, because, then, you don't have regional uses on, you know, Linder and
Chinden, you have community uses on Linder and Chinden, you know, you don't have
regional uses down on like Amity and, you know, way, way -- you know, like in no man's
land. You have community uses there. You have regional uses right on the interstate.
In addition, the traffic volumes, you know, they are going to come right off the interstate
and they are not -- I guess what I'm trying to say is it's not like we are trying to send a
regional use out to the hinterlands where we are like annexing and rezoning something
way out there. This is an in-fill project and we are proposing to upgrade the utility -- the
street -- the streets that are already there, so, you know, this concern about the
transportation network, it can still remain a concern, certainly, but it's not going to look
like it does right now. We are not just dumping a bunch of cars onto this existing network
where Waltman's not even built out at all, it's like this little farm road; right? We are -- we
are putting that on a four lane collect -- collector roadway, two --two lanes in one direction,
center turn lane, one lane the other direction goes into a bunch of different turning
movements. It's probably going to be better, if anything else. I counted the p.m. peaks
in a per minute basis -- or I'm sorry -- yeah. Per minute basis and this is the worst it's
expected to get, 13 cars per minute. You know, I mean like 13 cars per minute -- I guess
doesn't seem like a lot to me. It's a lot, it's not a lot a lot. And, then, finally, I just want to
talk about the integration of our two projects together. So, I think if we had come in in the
same application, we would have split it up the same way. Ten Mile Creek is a perfect
natural buffer to buffer residential and commercial uses. It just works and we are
providing a bridge over the creek and we are redoing the bridge on Waltman over the
creek, with a ten foot multi-use pathway and so it's tough to say how do we get more
integration over that creek, because it's like, well, we -- it doesn't make sense to tile the
creek, because it's a nice amenity and Tanner Creek is actually constructing a sidewalk,
a pathway all along it, to connect to the ten foot -- the regional multi-use pathway and we
are providing a park right on our side, which is, just to be clear, not actually -- our parcel
does not touch the creek at all. It's all on the Tanner Creek parcel. But we are
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 28,2022 F59
Page 56 of 66
constructing a park -- a one-acre park right on the creek there and we did that instead of
putting it in the middle of a parking lot, which we realized -- you know, I think even Sonya
-- Sonya mentioned this, it doesn't make sense to put a one acre park in the middle of a
parking lot. It makes sense to put it kind of adjacent to where the people who are walking
and biking from are actually going to use it and it also allows, you know -- you know,
visitors to our shopping center to use it as well and -- and workers who work there. So, I
think I hit everything. Thanks, again, for letting me present and I appreciate your time.
Grove: Thank you. Appreciate it.
Johnson: Mr. Chair, I know the applicant's closed. I do want to point out as soon as you
went to the applicant there was a hand raised in Zoom. So, it's -- it's up to you with the
advice of Legal, if you want to hear that, then, have the applicant speak again. Completely
your call.
Starman: I think -- I think it's a Chairman's discretion. I would recommend that you allow
the person to testify.
Grove: All right.
Johnson: Nona Haddock. You should be --
Haddock: Can you -- can you hear me now?
Johnson: We can hear you.
Haddock: Okay. Thank you. What I remember from the last time that we had this meeting
-- the main thing that we were concerned about was the traffic and coming out of Ruddy,
all of the traffic in that subdivision to the west, will be a tremendous amount, because
people will not want to go down Linder Road and down Franklin Road to get to the
freeway. Of course they, will pick the easiest route. The way it's designed now that would
take all those people through the Tanner Creek Subdivision and I strongly request that a
road be made where Ruddy connects that goes over against the freeway and follows the
freeway up to the intersection, so all the development happens on the north side of that
road. That road can be abutting along the side of the freeway and it will give more length
for traffic than Walmart Lane ever will and it will give better access. That way you don't
have people going through Tanner Creek coming and going from work. It will divert that
traffic into a safer zone. Thank you.
Grove: Thank you. All right. And we will have the applicant come back up if you would
like.
Mansfield: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I don't have much. I -- I do think that, you
know, if there was a collector roadway that was placed along the freeway we would
certainly use that. ACHD has not acquired right-of-way there. So, you know, we are
using the existing right-of-way to construct a collector roadway, which is designed to carry
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 28,2022 F60
Page 57 of 66
the number of vehicles that ACHD predicts will be, you know, generated through this
Tanner Creek and other developments who might use the collector roadway that exist
now. Thank you. Appreciate it.
Grove: All right. At this time we can take a motion to close the public hearing or if we are
leaning towards doing a continuance maybe it's more prudent -- sorry. I keep turning.
Maybe it's more prudent that we keep it open for that purpose. But wanted to have that
conversation with you all now before we close it in case you want to close and, then,
discuss and open back up or close and -- and continue on, but --
Yearsley: Mr. Chair?
Grove: Yes, Mr. Yearsley.
Yearsley: I'm just going to speak openly, like I always do. I -- I like the project. I -- I think
it's an appropriate fit. I -- I think your -- your-- your -- your improvements are appropriate
for the area. There is not much else you can do to make the traffic better and everything
and I think -- I actually approved the Schultz development when it came to the first time
as well. So, overall I think it's good. However, at this juncture I don't know if I can feel
comfortable going against staff's recommended denial at this point, based on the
concerns that they have and especially with the TIS and I understand that the issues that
-- my guess is they are trying to get it going, so they can get locked in with their tenants
and stuff like that, but I don't know if I'm comfortable making a motion to proceed forward
with this and -- and my guess is he would prefer a denial versus a continuance, so he can
go before Council, instead of just waiting. And so I would recommend we close public
hearing and just proceed forward.
Wheeler: Mr. Chair?
Grove: Mr. Wheeler.
Wheeler: I would like to go ahead and make a motion that we close public testimony on
H-2021-0099.
Yearsley: Second.
Grove: Motion has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing. All those in
favor say aye. All right. Motion passes.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Lorcher: Mr. Chair?
Grove: Commissioner Lorcher.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 28,2022 F61
Page 58 of 66
Lorcher: I need to give full disclosure. A couple of people who testified tonight are family
members. Kelsee Lorcher and Joe Lorcher -- Joe is my brother-in-law and Kelsee is his
daughter. I do not have any invested interest in the property. I don't live in that area. I
consulted with Legal to see if I needed to recuse myself and because I have no financial
interest he didn't say I had to, but I did want to let you know that I did have some family
members testify tonight.
Grove: Thank you.
Yearsley: I wondered if that was the case.
Wheeler: Mr. Chair?
Grove: Mr. Wheeler.
Wheeler: I -- I have -- I'm trying to just get things sorted out in my head, maybe it's just
because it's a little bit late and part of it's because what I'm reading here and what I'm
hearing being taught, discussed, or somehow-- I'm -- maybe I'm not picking it up together,
so I was wondering if-- Sonya, if you can help me, just get some parameters on what we
are actually approving today here. So, from what I understand all we are doing is that we
are -- we are approving and if -- if we were what they are -- what they have been coming
before us is they are requesting approval for an annexation to have that rezoned to C-G
for that 18 acres, is that what I understand?
Allen: Mr. Chair, Commissioner, yes, that's correct.
Wheeler: Okay. And, then, the other part is they are asking for just a re-zone in the
bottom 33 and some change acres from MU-C to MU-R. Is that what I understand?
Allen: No. It's -- it's not a re-zone, it's an amendment to our future land use map in the
Comprehensive Plan.
Wheeler: Okay.
Allen: The land use designation -- the future land use designation from mixed use
community to mixed use regional.
Wheeler: Okay. So, that being the case, their site plan that they put up there with all the
stuff, we are not approving that at all.
Allen: That concept plan is associated with the annexation request.
Wheeler: Okay. But not what's going on --
Allen: So, it's two separate applications. The concept plan is for the overall site and it
does include the portion that's already annexed in the city and is zoned C-G. So, that
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 28,2022 F62
Page 59 of 66
portion is actually entitled to develop per the uses allowed in the C-G zoning district. It is
not -- future development will not be tied -- if you -- if you recommend approval of the
annexation tonight and if Council actually approves the annexation, that northern portion,
although it's part of the concept plan, will not be part of the development agreement.
Wheeler: Okay.
Allen: Only the southern portion that's subject to the annexation request will be subject
to the concept plan if it's approved.
Wheeler: Okay.
Grove: Sonya, I have a question regarding how that would work out. So, if the C-G
continued, they built that, but, then, sold the property below, how -- because there is no
DA with the C-G, how would we guarantee access to that property that would be south of
the C-G property, but east of the canal and north of the freeway and west of the on-ramp,
essentially?
Allen: Well, the parcel configuration isn't changing, Mr. Chair. It's -- it's the same.
Grove: My -- I think my question is where would you -- like where would you get access
-- like -- because there -- if there is not a cross-parking lot agreement and -- for the DA,
is that a concern?
Allen: No. It's all under the same developer.
Grove: For now. I guess that the -- I mean I -- like I would just be -- I don't know. I'm
nervous about that I guess and -- I don't know -- I don't know if I'm -- I know that I'm not
clearly expressing that, so -- Bill, can bail me out?
Parsons: Mr. Chair, I think I'm following your logic. So, essentially, if Hawkins developed
the C-G portion of the property and sold off the property that's currently in the county,
then, we would require a cross-access agreement with the development of the C-G
portion and they would have to provide that executed agreement with us in the future and,
then, when that property to the south were to annex or develop, they would reciprocate
and make sure. We can't -- we can't approve a development and close off their access.
I would let the Commission know that there was a street stubbed to that property and the
applicant did go through the vacation process with ACHD to change that from being a
public road access to a future cross-access as you see on the concept plan.
Grove: Okay. Thanks. I will go ahead and jump in with a few pieces, if it's not already
evident, that I have some major concerns with this moving forward, either through denial
or approval, just without having additional information. I feel like this is one of those ones
where it would be really easy for Council to send it back to us, because we are sending it
up without good information, so I -- I would have a hard time doing anything other than a
continuance, but I will -- I'm not making motions, so that's on you all.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 28,2022 F63]
Page 60 of 66
Lorcher: Mr. Chair?
Grove: Yes.
Lorcher: So, the ACHD study comes out in June; correct? That's what he alluded to?
Grove: That's the best --
Lorcher: So, if we were going to do a continuance, can we continue out that far? I mean
we are only -- it's May 1st on Monday, so we are at least possibly eight to ten weeks
away.
Grove: We would --we would conceivably have to push it beyond that, because we would
need to have time for staff to look at it and analyze it with -- through July 4th right there I
would probably be more inclined to say at the beginning of August.
Lorcher: So, are we allowed to push it out that far?
Starman: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Lorcher, yeah, I think in this instance, because
the traffic impact study is such a critical piece of your decision-making and your
deliberations, there is no legal prohibition in terms of continuing the public hearing until
you have adequate information to make your decision. That's my first part of the answer.
But the short answer to that is, yes, you may continue this to July or August. The next
part of my comment is really for the Commission to decide is because of that lengthy -- if
you go that direction you may want to consider re-noticing the hearing in the interest of
transparency to make sure the public's aware of what's happening. That's a pretty lengthy
period of time. I don't -- I wouldn't go as far as to say a legal requirement, but it would be
in the interest of transparency.
Yearsley: Mr. Chair? I think -- as Sonya stated I think there is two aspects with this is
one is the traffic impact study. The other one is -- is analyzing -- you know, as she says
in her staff report, the -- the proposed development is not consistent with the general
mixed use development guidelines as the existing MU-C or the proposed MU-R
guidelines and that's why they are not in support of this annexation. That has nothing to
do with the traffic impact study. So, I mean even if we continue it out there is still that
other aspect that we -- we don't have enough information to -- to analyze and so with that
being said the -- the applicant is -- is willing to take his chance in front of City Council,
hoping that, you know, they can, you know, talk to, you know, for -- for me I -- I'm -- my
rec -- my -- my thing on the Council is -- on Planning and Zoning is does it adhere to the
code and stuff like that. Council gets a little bit better -- I think a little more leeway on
some of these decisions, but based on this information I -- I can't -- I don't see a reason
to continue it based on staff's comment.
Wheeler: Mr. Chair?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 28,2022 F64]
Page 61 of 66
Grove: Commissioner Wheeler.
Wheeler: I had another thought on this here, too, is -- yeah, I see that the -- you know,
the traffic study, but also like what Commissioner Yearsley was saying; right? It had to
do more with like the uses on it, but I mean I'm looking around at just even like aerial
photos, aerial views, you know, which is Google and there -- there is no other residential
that's on any of these corners or even on the other side or across from it and so I can see
why that would be just a very natural thing for the applicant to say, hey, the highest and
best use and what seems to be concurrent with surrounding is -- is office, mixed use --
excuse me -- office, retail, because that's what's around in those side of things and so I'm
-- I'm in support of the -- of the rezoning aspect to mixed use regional, but as staff also
said, there is -- the components even in that side of it aren't -- well, on the site plan aren't
even -- don't even work out with what's there.
Grove: Yeah. You still need three products --
Wheeler: Right.
Grove: -- three types. Pretty sure we build residential as one of those for mixed use
regional; is that correct?
Allen: Chairman, yes. Residential is one component you could have. There is -- there
is several in the Comprehensive Plan.
Wheeler: So -- so, it might be something where they even -- could even put in like a multi-
family function on that -- or even just like a hotel, motel, kind of thing, might be able to
function on this, too. Definitely they are going to want to have an anchor tenant and that
one at that size would be enough to be able to draw the traffic into it, but I mean I -- I'm
just -- I'm just thinking of the concurrency with everything else that's around there, except
for to the west with the residential subdivision, to me it makes a lot of sense to not -- at
least have that residential component on there.
Lorcher: Mr. Chair?
Grove: Legal --
Starman: Let me just put something on the table very quickly and I can pause for a
moment, so with the chairman's indulgence. Yeah, because we are in a quasi-judicial
type setting it's important that everybody has the same information before them, so when,
you know, comments are made, like I'm looking at a Google screen or I'm looking at-- I'm
looking at aerial photographs, that not everybody has -- is privy to, that creates a potential
problem for the record. So, I wonder if I could ask Commissioner Wheeler would it be
possible for you just to share your screen for a few seconds, so that everybody can see
what you were talking about and that way the record is preserved and we have got a nice
clean record of what transpired.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 28,2022 F65
Page 62 of 66
Lorcher: And Mr. Chair?
Wheeler: You bet.
Lorcher: In regard to the west side -- or the north side of Waltman Lane, Commissioner
Wheeler, there are residences over there. They are farms and there is five to ten acre
parcels and, then, the subdivision. So, there are people who live on the -- that side of the
street.
Starman: Perfect. Thank you, Commissioner. I appreciate that. And thank you for
indulging me.
Wheeler: Chairman -- Mr. Chairman? Commissioner Lorcher, what I'm saying is that on
the other three sides is what I'm saying on my -- on my view; right? You have got -- it's
just this area over here nothing residential; right? This whole area here nothing
residential. This area over here nothing residential. It's only on this side where there is
that factor that they have to be coming into and so what I'm just saying is I can see from
the applicant's side that this part right here that's got a high traffic on-off ramp -- on-ramp
here and the -- and the heavy use here, that there is not a residential component on the
side that's -- that's where the -- the on-ramp doesn't even fully merge into 1-84 at that
juncture and I see that it's all -- you know, it's still very high trafficked area that there is
nothing that's there that has a residential component. That's all that I'm saying is I see
why they would say why don't we push that a little bit further west or farther west. Excuse
me.
Grove: All right. So, Commissioner Yearsley, you were getting close to making a motion
at one point of denial. Is that where you still want to take that?
Yearsley: That's where I'm proposing. I guess I can make the motion and see where it
falls. So, Mr. Chair, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
recommend denial to City Council of file number H-2021-0099 as presented in the hearing
date of April 28th, 2022, for the following reasons: That the requested use is not
consistent with the general mixed-use development guidelines and the existing -- the
existing MU-C or the proposed MU-R guidelines and we -- and needing a traffic impact
study.
Stoddard: Second.
Grove: All right. So, we have a motion and a second for denial. All those in favor say
aye. All those opposed say nay. All right. Denial passes.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
6. Public Hearing Continued from April 21, 2022 for Future Land Use Map
Ada County Area of City Impact Cleanup (H-2021-0098) by City of
Meridian Planning Division, Located Citywide
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 28,2022 F66
Page 63 of 66
A. Request: Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to clean up the map
to better align with the adopted Ada County Area of City Impact
(AOCI) boundary AND removing Civic designations and areas that
will be serviced by other jurisdictions (Boise).
Grove: All right. Last agenda item for the night and we have Brian joining us to discuss
public hearing for Future Land Use Map Ada County Area City Impact Cleanup, which is
file H-2021-0098, and we will pass it over to Brian.
McClure: Sorry. I'm finding the PowerPoint. Oops. Good evening, Commission. I'm
here tonight to discuss a Comprehensive Plan future land use map amendment. This
application has no associated entitlements, no annexations, no anything else with it.
Briefly some background. The genesis of this application goes back to December of
2019, like some other things tonight, and it's focused on the area of city impact boundary.
After the new Comprehensive Plan was submitted Ada county staff led some coordination
efforts to work with the other cities and Ada county and as part of that ultimately the Board
of County Commissioners adopted our Comprehensive Plan with some minor tweaks to
the area of city impact. This amendment aligns with those changes. There is also an
additional AOCI, Area of City Impact, change to -- at the request of ACHD. They are
developing a project on Franklin Road east of Eagle. That project falls in both Meridian
and Boise boundaries and they are moving forward in Boise. Both Ada county and the
city of Boise have coordinated with us on that application. As stated, a key element of
this amendment is the continued coordination with other agencies. It's also intended to
better reflect our service planning efforts, to improve transparency, to reduce efforts --
errors and to maintain a plan that is a living document. Broadly, the changes before you
tonight can be categorized into two areas. One is map changes. Those include both
area of city impact revisions and also future land use map designation revisions. The
other one are graphic changes. These are generally other things on the map and include
the legend. The graphic changes includes a new special area designation. Previously
that was just for the Ten Mile Area Plan. That now includes The Fields Sub Area Plan,
which was previously approved, but is not shown on the map. I will briefly walk through
some of these changes. But on the right you can sort of see the areas where the land
use designations and area of city impact boundary revisions are taking place. For area
one here on the left, the only change is to remove a section of the -- of the area of city
impact from our future land use map. That's on the northwest corner of US 20-26 and
Highway 16. That area is no longer being planned for services in the City of Meridian.
You have no access to it from the City of Meridian and Star has already taken that into
their -- their area of city impact and the county has already approved that. The change
on the right is an exceptionally minor change. It would be a scrivener's error, except I
wanted to just sort of daylight why it's there. Generally when we make land use map
changes we like them to be consistent with other -- with other boundaries, so follow a
center line, follow a parcel line, whatever that one is. This one just sort of floated by itself
and didn't follow what other map designations were doing and so in the future when you
have a map amendment that's kind of what I would like to see happen. So, no significance
there, other than just looking for some consistency. For area three on the left here, this
is -- as previously -- previously mentioned is just removing the ACHD property from our
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 28,2022 F67
Page 64 of 66
area of city impact. They do own several parcels -- more area, actually, in the city of
Boise. Area four on the right looks complicated. It's not. There are no impacts in
Meridian. All the properties in Meridian have already had entitlements handled. They
have already had zoning done. This is just sort of modifying the future land use
designation to align with our city limits. The other properties being removed are either
already annexed into the city of Boise or are planned to be serviced by the city of Boise.
Area five here on the left is another removal from the area of city impact. You are probably
familiar with this site. It's the old barn on Fairview east of Kleiner Park. That area has
been annexed into the city of Boise and so we are just removing it from our boundary.
Area six here includes some -- what I consider to be cleanup changes. Those are actual
future land use designate -- future land use designation changes that aren't associated
with some of the other things I have mentioned previously. Both of these have civic
designations currently and neither one of these properties are owned by a public agency
or quasi-public agency. The one on the right along Meridian Road is what's happening
across the street. That used to be old city hall, is now in private hands, and the proposal
here is to change the designation to Old Town to match the Old Town zoning and what's
already around it. The one on the left further down Pine is actually a bit of a mystery. It
has had a civic designation for decades. I'm not -- I haven't been able to figure out why,
but it is an R-4 property with a residential use on it and so the proposal here is just to
clean that up and make it R-4, the rest of it. Area seven. These changes are a little less
clean up. The one on Franklin is currently medium high density residential. That actually
covers nothing but commercial uses, though. That includes a commercial development
within the City of Meridian. It's been building out for a while and, then, it also includes a
commercial use in the county. It's right by the cemetery and it's surrounded by industrial
uses. You probably notice the old ranch style home there being operated as a business,
is basically what that area is. And, then, also the office park next door. And, then, the
last one down at the bottom is -- used to be commercial, we are proposing it to go to civic,
because West Ada and ISU own that property. It is an ISU parking lot and fields that are
currently used by both the school and the city. Next up are some of the graphic changes.
This is the new symbology for the future land use map. You have probably actually seen
this in some of the staff reports if you didn't notice. We have been using these for a while
on our internal and unofficial maps. This was an effort to really just sort of improve the
visibility of some of these. A lot of the colors, particularly the yellows and the browns,
bled together. We added some hatching to some of them to differentiate the -- the
extremes. We could add hatching to all of them, but it makes your eyes bleed and we
don't want it to be too busy. So, we -- we try to take a minor touch to that. We did -- I
have talked with some staff that have some color deficiencies and they seem to like this
a lot more. So, hopefully, you find some benefit, but we are always willing to take
feedback. Here you can just see the new special sub area planning boundary and you
can just see that it's both the Ten Mile and The Fields area now it's really just renaming
the legend item. We will note that all the interactive maps when you click anywhere in
here, it not only pulls up the -- the land use designation, but it will also give you a link to
the relevant sub area plan. On March 4th staff did send out letters to all property owners
falling within -- under these areas of changes. I did receive several phone calls from
people who were interested, but no one seemed concerned and as of this afternoon I did
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 28,2022 F68
Page 65 of 66
not see any written public testimony. With that staff is recommending the changes as
proposed and I'm happy to take questions.
Grove: All right. Do we have questions?
Yearsley: Mr. Chair? So, are we making a motion to approve or recommending approval
to City Council?
McClure: Recommend approval to the City Council.
Yearsley: I don't see any problem with it. It just seems pretty -- pretty clear.
Grove: All right. So, it is a public hearing. So, do we have anybody signed up to testify
on this application?
Johnson: Mr. Chair, we have nobody signed up and nobody online or in the room.
Grove: All right. Well, that makes it easy. So, can we get a motion to close the public
hearing for file number H-2021-0098 for the Future Land Use Map Ada County Area of
City Impact Cleanup.
Lorcher: So moved.
Wheeler: Second.
Grove: All right. We have a motion and a second to close public hearing. All in favor say
aye. All right. All opposed nay? All right.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Wheeler: Any comment or -- or I will -- I will let you make the motion. Go for it. Want to
do it? You haven't done one yet. Do you want to do it? No, not yet? Okay. All right. All
right. This is a pretty easy one, so that's why I was like, hey, I will give you a little softball
pitch if you want to make a run at it. No public and -- you want to make a run at it? She's
thinking.
Yearsley: The only problem is there is nothing to read, so that's --
Wheeler: Okay. Okay. All righty. So -- so, Mr. Chair, after considering all staff, applicant
and public testimony, I move that we recommend approval to the City Council on file
number H-2021-0098 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 28th,
2022, with no modifications.
Stoddard: Second.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 28,2022 F69
Page 66 of 66
Grove: All right. It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor say aye. All those
opposed to say nay. The ayes have it.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Grove: Thank you, Brian, for presenting that and good job on all the clean up. The -- the
Eagle Road one, that was a fun one to look through. It -- you say it's not confusing, but
it was. It looks confusing with all the colors. There is a lot of colors going on. So, thank
you for making it better.
Yearsley: Mr. Chair, I recommend we adjourn.
Lorcher: Second.
Grove: Motion and second to adjourn. All those in agreement say aye. All those
opposed? All right. Thanks, everybody.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:00 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
NICK GROVE - VICE-CHAIRMAN
ATTEST: Approved 5-19-2022
CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK