Meridian council approves 61‑lot Driftwood Townhome subdivision amid concerns about Venable & Eustic signal timing

Meridian City Council voted unanimously on March 17 to approve the Driftwood Townhome Subdivision (file H-2025-0051), clearing a package that includes a rezone from Community Business (CC) to Traditional Neighborhood Residential (TNR), a preliminary plat subdividing a 4.81‑acre site into 61 individual building lots, and a modification to the development agreement.

The project will replace an earlier multifamily approval and increases the northern portion’s buildable lots from an earlier plan (previous approvals contemplated multifamily units) to 61 two‑story townhome lots at a density staff described as about 12.68 units per acre. Staff said the proposal removes a prior community center from the northern parcel, provides 0.51 acres of common open space and proposes private streets with a mix of front‑loaded and alley‑loaded townhomes. "We are not proposing a change" to the site's future land use designation, applicant Eli Benski said, adding that the developer has provided revised plans and is agreeable to recommended conditions.

Why it mattered: council discussion focused on traffic and timing. Staff and commissioners flagged the Venable & Eustic intersection as congested and noted the commission recommended that a traffic signal be completed before development or that a cooperative development agreement (CDA) accelerate installation. The commission modified a staff provision (DA provision 1.4) to require that Settlers Park mitigation include a signal at Venable & Eustic and to allow the developer to manage construction if the city parks department, Ada County Highway District (ACHD) and the developer enter a CDA.

Council exchanges and timeline: City planning staff presented the proposal and noted the planned mix of home types, internal private streets and a proposed 4‑foot sidewalk along an alley to provide safe pedestrian access. Councilman Taylor pressed staff and the applicant about whether a CDA already existed and asked for a projected timeline for when the signal would be warranted and built. Garrett White, representing Parks, said a draft CDA had reached his desk earlier in the week and that it was being routed for legal review: "I reviewed it this morning. We should be sending it to legal for their review, and our comments by the end of this week," he told the council. White said the city’s intent is to have the intersection signalized before the planned community center opens, but that the schedule depends on coordination with ACHD and other partners.

Applicant responses and design details: Eli Benski (Brighton Corporation) told council the draft CDA is "in the works" and that the developer had already received a draft and was negotiating redlines with Parks and ACHD. Benski described design decisions intended to limit off‑site impacts, including two‑car garages plus parking pads at each unit and an additional 40 on‑street stalls internal to the private streets. He also confirmed alley widths of 24 feet for carriage‑lane units. The applicant asked the council to approve the modification to DA provision 1.4 to avoid tying final plat approval to a CDA that had not yet been fully executed.

Council view and vote: Several councilmembers voiced support for the project’s housing type and aesthetics while urging the city and developer to expedite the CDA and signal work because of existing congestion, particularly during weekend baseball events at nearby parks. "My biggest concern is just the timing of the light," Councilman Taylor said. After discussion, Councilman Taylor moved to approve the file as presented in the staff report; the motion passed on a roll call with all voting members recorded as yes.

Next steps and remaining uncertainties: The council approved the subdivision and associated rezone and development‑agreement modification. Staff and the developer will continue finalizing the CDA with Parks and ACHD; council members noted they expect the city and partners to prioritize the signal work but no binding construction timeline was provided at the meeting.

Ending: The approval allows the developer to proceed with final platting and building‑permit processes under the modified development agreement; city staff and the developer said they will return with implementation details as the CDA and permit reviews proceed.