Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-01-07 Item 1. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting January 7, 2021. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of January 7, 2021 , was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Ryan Fitzgerald. Members Present: Chairman Ryan Fitzgerald, Commissioner Lisa Holland, Commissioner Bill Cassinelli, Commissioner Andrew Seal, Commissioner Rhonda McCarvel, Commissioner Nick Grove and Commissioner Steven Yearsley. Others Present: Adrienne Weatherly, Andrea Pogue, Bill Parsons, Joe Dodson, Alan Tiefenbach and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE X Lisa Holland X Rhonda McCarvel X Andrew Seal X Nick Grove _X Steven Yearsley X Bill Cassinelli X Ryan Fitzgerald - Chairman Fitzgerald: Okay. So, at this time I would like to call to order the regularly rescheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for the date of January 7th, 2021, and let's start with roll call. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Fitzgerald: Thanks, ma'am. Happy New Year to all of you and to those joining us on Zoom and in person. First item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. A couple of things I wanted to point out. The first item on the agenda I was hoping with the permission of the Commission -- or agreement of the Commission to move the election of officers or the chair or vice-chair to the end. I'm not sure where that will play out, but if there is someone who has not been a commission -- or a chair or vice-chair before, I want you guys to have the benefit of the -- the prep meetings that the chair has. So, if that's okay with you guys, we will move that to the end, because, if not, you have to take over -- whoever gets elected gets to take over the meeting. So, if we want to move that to the end that's great. If not we can deal with it right now. And, then, the second item -- we will be opening up Item No. 4, the Vicenza North Subdivision, H-2020-0108 -- 08. Excuse me. That was not properly posted in a timely manner, so we need to postpone that one or continue it to a hearing date and I think we are targeting January 21 st for that one. As I retire you guys are really really busy in February, so -- and it starts like March, too. know they are stacking up five or six at a time. So, I think we are looking to -- to put that on the January 21 st meeting date. There is five or six on there right now, but it's -- those -- there is a couple that are individual homeowners just looking to hook up to sewer and water and be annexed in the city and, then, one Bill's pretty sure it will be continued to later. So, I think the January 21 st date looks like the best possible candidate, because Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 7,2021 6 Page 2 of 38 February is -- is loaded and so do all those things sound copacetic? You guys good with an adjustment to that and, if so, could I get a motion? Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I move we adopt the agenda as presented with one note that we move Item 3 to the end of the agenda for the vote of the chairperson and vice-chairperson. Cassinelli: Second. McCarvel: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as adjusted. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Okay. Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] 1. Approve Minutes of the December 17, 2020 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 2. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Poiema Calvary Chapel (H- 2020-0095) by The Land Group, Inc., Located at 3727 E. Lake Hazel Rd. Fitzgerald: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. We have two items on the Consent Agenda, the approval of the minutes for December 17th, 2020, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for Poiema Calvary Chapel, H-2020-0095. Anything need to be pulled out for further discussion? If not, can I get a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. Holland: So moved. Cassinelli: Second. McCarvel: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Fitzgerald: So, first let me explain the public hearing process for this evening. We will open each item individually and start with the staff report. The staff will report the findings Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 7,2021 7 Page 3 of 38 regarding how the application adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and Uniform Development Code with their staff-- with our staff's recommendations. After the staff has made their presentation the applicant will come forward via Zoom or in person and make their presentation on -- regarding the approval of their application and respond to any staff comments or commissioner comments. The applicant will have 15 minutes to do so. After the applicant is finished we will open the floor to public testimony. There is a signup opportunity in the back if you are in person. There is an iPad back there for each application we are going to be hearing tonight. Please make sure you sign up. If you are online, please, raise your hand via Zoom and we will make sure you get transferred over so we can hear from you on that application. If there is any individual that's here to speak on a larger group, as an HOA, we will give you a little bit more time to speak on behalf of the HOA, but we ask the people that are -- that are speaking on their behalf not to get up and reiterate the same comments. One thing I want to make sure we are clear on as -- as we are hearing from -- we are going to use Zoom and in person as we continue to do the business -- the business of the city, we appreciate everybody's patience as we deal with technology. One thing we would ask, though, is if you get your three minutes as an individual, please, take the time wisely, because you won't have a second chance to get up and provide testimony again. You get your three minutes and, then, the applicant will have an opportunity to come up and close. They will get ten minutes to do that. But, please, use your three minutes wisely as we won't be able to hear from you again a second time. So, with that after all testimony has been heard, like I said, we will have the applicant come back and answer any questions they have of the commissioners or any questions that came up during public testimony and, then, we will close the public hearing and commissioners will have a chance to deliberate and make -- hopefully make recommendations to City Council on the applications. ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] ACTION ITEMS 4. Public Hearing Continued from December 15, 2020 for Vicenza North Subdivision (H-2020-0108) by Bridgetower, LLC, Located in the Northwest Corner of N. Black Cat Rd. and W. McMillan Rd. A. Request: Rezone a total of 63.56 acres of land for the purpose of rezoning 41.58 acres to the R-8 zoning district and subsequently reducing the C-C zone from approximately 37 acres to 3.67 acres, reducing the L-O zone from approximately 10.6 acres to 1.56 acres, and increasing the C-G zone from approximately 13.2 acres to 16.76 acres. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 169 single-family residential building lots, 6 commercial building lots, and 8 common lots on 56.99 acres of land. C. Request: A Modification to the Existing Development Agreement Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 7,2021 8 Page 4 of 38 (Inst. #:2019-055407) for the purpose of removing 76.58 acres of land north of W. McMillan Road and west of N. Ten Mile Road from the boundaries and terms of said agreement and enter into a new one, consistent with the proposed development plan. Fitzgerald: With that let's move to our first hearing item, which is the public hearing continued from December 15th for Vicenza North Subdivision, file number H-2020-0108. And, Joe, do you want to take this real quick? Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, sir. Everybody hear me okay? Fitzgerald: Yes, sir. Dodson: Awesome. Yeah. As Mr. Chair alluded to before we got into this, they -- they didn't post the site in time. It's just a freak -- fluke thing by the applicant's representative. He's usually really good about it. We just missed it by a day. So, we are going to have to continue it and I agree with the chair's opinion that I think the 21 st is probably the better date. Once we get into February it starts to get a little bit more beastly with the size of the projects, as well as the contentiousness potential. I don't know if that's a word, but -- I think that the 21 st probably works the best and already started the staff report, so we should be good. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Joe. Is there any questions of staff? If not, can I get a motion? Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I move we continue Vicenza North Subdivision, H-2020-0108, to January 21 st. Grove: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to continue the hearing for Vicenza North Subdivision, file number H-2020-0108, to the date of January 21 st, 2021. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. 5. Public Hearing Continued from December 17, 2020 for Mile High Pines Subdivision (H-2020-0099) by Baron Black Cat, LLC, Located in the Southwest Corner of N. Ten Mile Rd. and W. Pine Ave. A. Request: Annexation of 17.46 acres of land with a request for C-C (6.04 acres) and R-15 (11.42 acres) zoning districts. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 3 building lots and 1 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 7,2021 191 Page 5 of 38 common lot on 15.95 acres of land in the proposed C-C and R-15 zoning districts. C. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of a total of 135 residential units on 11.42 acres in the proposed R-15 zoning district. Fitzgerald: Next we will -- next on the agenda is the continued public hearing for Mile High Pines Subdivision, H-2020-0099, and I will turn it back over to Joe as this was continued to pretty narrowly -- we gave some specific things we wanted to see on this continued public hearing and I think, hopefully, we wrap that up. Joe, do you want to take it from there? Dodson: Absolutely. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. As noted this was continued from the December 17th hearing to mostly work with some of my conditions of approval in the staff report and revise any plans that were related to the conditions and, specifically, those related to the utility easements and -- but within the private streets for the public sewer and water lines. Specifically in regards to that we did receive a memo from Public Works that they endorsed the plan and the revisions that have been made. Again, they cannot formally approve anything with this application, because they have not been part of our process. We do not get formal construction drawings at this point. So, those will be applied for probably with final plat. That's when they come in. So, we are a ways away from that. But in the interim Public Works has provided two memos, actually, that they are in support of this and if anything needs to change from here on out they should be minor changes. So, planning staff very much appreciates that from Public Works. Second to that, the applicant has submitted some revised plans which resulted in some recommended changes to the conditions of approval. I'm basically just going to go -- skim through my memo that I sent out to you guys, so I hope you guys had time to read that. I don't want to rehash all of the other stuff, just because we had some very specifics that we continued this for. Notably none of the open space and parking counts have really changed much from -- with those revisions, so that's good. Also I don't want to get into those again. It's going to stay the same. Secondly, those numbers will be added to the staff report following this -- you know, whatever recommendation you guys make to City Council. The noticeable revisions are as follows: The zoning and the preliminary plat now match, so -- come on, let me click. Let me click. There we go. So, they revised the zoning and the plat to show that the --this red line is going to be the C-C zoning and it matches where the commercial is going to occur. So, we had mixed zoning that crossed some of the property lines, which cannot occur. They added an additional commercial lot here -- technically two, I guess. One here and, then, one in the middle. So, now everything is okay with that. I already have a condition within the revised --well, within the staff report to provide revised Iegals. Today prior to the meeting the applicant did provide those, so I will add a recommended condition -- or recommended change from the Commission that you guys strike that condition, because it's no longer necessary. In general the C-C zone is about six acres. This is the zone here. And on the R-15 it's about the 11th. So, it now matches with what was originally proposed, which we appreciate very much. As within the other Modern Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 7,2021 Flo] Page 6 of 38 Craftsman, the clubhouse is residing within the C-C zone and that can occur. It doesn't -- multi-family can be in commercial and residential. So, there is an area -- this area right here is the clubhouse and it will be in the C-C zone. The applicant also revised this three- way intersection as you can see, which we very much appreciate. It's no longer that -- that awkward roundabout thing. Now, it's kind of a T intersection, which should be more beneficial I think to the traffic flow. There is -- I'm not aware of whether or not there are going to be stop signs on that. That's not something that we usually dictate when it comes to those things. I think they will work that out. If there is stop signs I presume that the north-south will not have them, so that the traffic from the commercial and into the site can be pretty free flow. Other than that I don't have any other comments, but we do appreciate and approve of the revised layout there. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Joe. Any questions for staff at this time? Okay. Hearing none, is the applicant with us? I think they are online. Nelson: Good evening, commissioners. Deborah Nelson. 601 West Bannock Street. On behalf of the applicant. And we appreciate all of staff's work to review our new submittals and Public Works as well and we will just -- we are just here to stand for questions, because we feel like you have probably received every single thing that was asked of us and so if you have any questions about those items we would be happy to answer them. Fitzgerald: Deborah, thank you guys very much. We appreciate your understanding of our need to have more information. So, thank you guys for the -- working with us and I appreciate the changes. Any change -- any questions for Deborah at this time? Holland: I would just echo I appreciate you working with staff on getting some of those changes so it was a cleaner staff report and easier for us to make that move to Council. Fitzgerald: Okay. Deborah, we will let you close in just a minute. I just want to make sure we don't have any public testimony and, then, we will come back to you for closing remarks. Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli, go right ahead. Cassinelli: Yeah. I just had one question for Deborah. I know -- I was kind of maybe hoping to see one -- I think before on that three-way intersection was it -- wasn't it a two way roundabout? Nelson: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Cassinelli, before what we had was a small triangle island in the middle. There isn't space there for a roundabout, so we addressed it with a T that we think provides the same safety with the curvature there that we were hoping to achieve, but also provides an attractive entry. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 7,2021 Fil Page 7 of 38 Cassinelli: Okay. Because I was thinking like before you had an island, but it was a -- it was -- or that -- I guess it was a triangle, but it was a -- the traffic around it was two way and not one way. That's what I was hoping for. But it looks like you have added some landscaping in there, because roundabouts oftentimes present -- you know, offer up a nice visual effect when you get that island in the middle, but it looks like you have got that. I -- my only question there seeing -- seeing the landscape design is -- is the visibility particularly to the south coming from the -- coming from the private road there, if you were stopped there is there -- you know right -- right up there. Is there going to be decent visibility to the south if you were going to head on out? Does that make sense? Nelson: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Cassinelli, yes, we will make sure that that visibility complies with all standards, with your site triangles, and I'm sure that will be reviewed carefully in the CZC time frame and it's certainly in our interest as well. Cassinelli: Okay. That would be my only concern on that. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Any other questions for Deborah at this time? Madam Clerk, do we have any public testimony or anyone in chambers that would like to testify in this application? Weatherly: Mr. Chair, we do not have anybody signed in on this application. Fitzgerald: If there is anyone online, please, raise your hands or, Commissioner Seal, is there anybody in chambers with you? Seal: There is not. Fitzgerald: Okay. Deborah, do you have any final comments for us, seeing that there is no additional thoughts or folks who want to testify? So, do you have any additional thoughts for us? Nelson: Mr. Chairman, thank you. We would just say that we are in full agreement with the revised and added conditions from staff and ask you to approve it as recommended by staff. Fitzgerald: Sounds good. And, please, tell David thank you for all his work. I know it was -- it was a yeoman's work at times. So, tell him thank you. Nelson: We will pass that along. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Any final questions for Deborah or for staff before we close the public hearing? If not, can I get a motion? Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 7,2021 F12 Page 8 of 38 Seal: I move that we close the public testimony on file H-2020-0099. Cassinelli: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on Mile High Pines Subdivision, H-2020-0099. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Fitzgerald: Anyone want to lead off? I think Commissioner Cassinelli had my -- my only question was the sight triangles, too, and I think that it looks much better than it did. So, I think it -- everything we asked them to do it looks like it got taken care of, but any additional thoughts? Yearsley: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: I think it looks good and I agree with the applicant that sometimes the landscapers get a little happy with where they placed trees and so it's more of a graphical look than an actual -- where some of the trees may sit. So, I think that they will make sure that the sight triangles are there and not having any issues and with that I'm -- I'm in support of this application. Fitzgerald: Thank you, sir. Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal. Holland: Mr. Chair? Seal: Just looking at it again I really like this product. I think it's a great addition to our communities here in Meridian, especially with the -- the -- the -- what do you call them? The business on the bottom and residential on the top. Fitzgerald: Live-work. Seal: Yeah. Live-work. I really really like that. I hope -- I hope that that has a lot of success in our community. That--that's something that is very very appealing to me and, again, I hope it has good success. Thank you very much for all the work that's been put into this. That's a -- kind of a tough spot to put things in and I'm very happy to hear that this is going to add credence and moving forward with getting Pine Avenue punched all the way through as well, so that's -- that's another benefit for -- for all involved for sure and the only -- the only thing I will say is the -- the fourth color palette they picked is -- somebody really has -- has it in for the Army monotones as it would be. So, I was kind of Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 7,2021 F13 Page 9 of 38 hoping to see like a blue or an orange in there maybe, but other than that if -- if that's the paint schemes that are going to be in there that's totally livable and I'm sure people will be very happy with them. Dodson: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Yeah, Joe, go ahead. Dodson: Just to that point -- I didn't get to it quite well, but to Mr. Seal's point the -- the applicants did add a fourth color palette and I believe it is a bluish color, so it does add a little bit of flavor to the site. I agree, I was having flashbacks to being at West Point for a few months there, so that's a lot of green. But I think we will be okay. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland, I think you had chimed in there before, ma'am. Go ahead. Holland: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would just echo the other comments of the other commissioners. I think they did what we asked them to do and I don't see any big concerns. It's nice to have a -- a different product style that's not four-plexes stacked up, but it's something that will provide a good product that's affordable and has that live-work component, which I really appreciate. Fitzgerald: Agreed. McCarvel: Yeah. Just -- Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel, go right ahead. McCarvel: Yeah. I -- I agree. I was kind of on the -- the only thing I had wanted to see changed really last time was that intersection as well and I couldn't help but chuckle at Commissioner Seal's description. I guess we have to call these a mullet building now, with the business on the top and the living on the bottom. But I do -- I like them. I think that's a good integration. Fitzgerald: Very good. Grove: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Grove. Grove: I don't have anything substantial to add other than I think they have done a great job incorporating what we asked them to do and they have done a good job of creating a sense of community and within this development, which is always something that I like to see with these types of things where they have thought through how to integrate different aspects of the development, so that it flows together and creates a sense of space. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 7,2021 F14] Page 10 of 38 Fitzgerald: Thank you, sir. Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: It checks every box. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony I move to recommend approval to City Council, file number H-2020-0099 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 7th, 2021. And I don't think there is any modifications. Yearsley: I think there was one. Cassinelli: Was there? McCarvel: There was one. Yeah. Yearsley: The condition of the legal descriptions I think or something to that effect. Seal: There is actually quite a few. Dodson: Mr. Chair? Seal: And, yeah, Joe -- Joe summed them up nicely in his letter. Fitzgerald: Yeah. Dodson: I was going to say, if you -- if you made it per my memo -- Cassinelli: Yeah. Okay. Fitzgerald: Per the staff memo. Dodson: And, then, the additional one of removing the condition requiring revised Iegals and, then, I think we are kosher. Cassinelli: Okay. I amend my motion to do the modifications to -- let me get that -- pull that memo up -- to be in line with the staff memo and the revised legal condition. Holland: I will second. McCarvel: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to recommend approval of file number H-2020- 0099, Mile High Pines Subdivision. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 7,2021 F15] Page 11 of 38 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Fitzgerald: Deborah, thank you guys. Good luck and we will see you in the future I'm sure. Nelson: Thank you very much. Dodson: Good night, everybody. 6. Public Hearing for Tetherow Crossing Subdivision (H-2020-0112) by Hayden Homes Idaho, LLC, Located Northeast of N. Linder Rd and W. Ustick Rd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 7.58 acres of land from RUT in Ada County to the R-8 zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 46 building lots and 8 common lots on 13.99 acres of land in the proposed R-8 zoning district. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Joe. Okay. Moving on to the last -- second to the last item on the agenda, the Tetherow -- Tetherow Crossing Subdivision, file number H-2020-0112. Alan, I will let you take the lead on the staff report, sir. Tiefenbach: Happy New Year, Mr. Chair and Members of the Commission. Can everybody hear me okay? Give me a thumbs up. Seal: A little faint. Tiefenbach: See my screen. Fitzgerald: You're a little bit -- on your voice, sir. So, if you can get a little bit closer. Tiefenbach: Wow. Sure. You're about the first people I have ever heard in my life that told me they can't hear me, so awesome. Usually my wife tells me to, please, keep it down. Is this better? Okay. Great. Fitzgerald: That's good, Alan. Thanks. Tiefenbach: So, this is an annexation, a zoning, and a preliminary plat. You said you could see my screen? Thumbs up, please, somebody? You can't see my screen? Cassinelli: Can see it. Fitzgerald: I can see -- Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 7,2021 F16] Page 12 of 38 Cassinelli: Oh, no. Fitzgerald: I can see something. Is that yours? Cassinelli: It says a Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Tiefenbach: Okay. All right. Fair enough. Okay. I was -- I was trying to be cool, but I guess it didn't work. But this is an annexation, zoning, and preliminary plat. The site consists of about seven and a half acres of land. It's zoned RUT in unincorporated Ada county. It's located on the northeast of North Linder Road and Ustick, but to the west of the property is zoned C-C. That went through a proposal for a townhouse development some time ago, which did not get approved. To the northwest up at the top is Eddington Commons, which you should remember and that was recently approved. To the east is the Woodburn West No. 2 Subdivision and to the south is the Creason Creek Subdivision. A little history on this property. In 2006 there was a proposal for this property. It was for 35 single family lots. That was not approved, but the Council denied that because they believed at that time that it wasn't ready, they didn't have the infrastructure, it was a leapfrog type development. Since that time it is mostly filled in and infrastructure has come out to the site. The property is zoned to medium density residential, which is eight to 12 dwelling units per acre. And, again, this is a proposal for annexation, a rezoning to R-8, and a preliminary plat to allow 46 building lots and eight common lots. I will go to the plat here. Okay. So, first of all, there is five points of access. I'm going to use the color plat, just because I think it's a little easier to see on a public screen. There is five points of access proposed with this. There is three stubs. So, this is the first stub here to the north, if you can see my pointer. This is the second stub here to the west. And down here to the east is a third stub. So, those three properties have not yet -- although -- although this one to the west here -- this is Eddington Commons and it is in the process of--they just finished their final plat. So, you should see that develop very quickly. There are two existing points of access. The first is here. That is West Woodpine Street and that is the Wood -- or Woodburn West Subdivision. That's existing there now. There is a second point of access. Right now it's -- if you can see my pointer here it's actually called North Llama Road and it's a little over here to the west right now. It runs --the road runs right directly through the middle of this. As part of this development the applicant is going to shift the whole thing over to the east and is going to have now what's called a new Northwest 12th Drive. You can't see it on this picture, but on the other side of Ustick, below here to the south, is an existing Northwest 12th Drive. Usually the city does not support taking access off of an arterial and we usually recommend that those go away. In this particular case ACHD supports this and the reason why is because the existing access off of North Llama does not line up with any other access. It's configuration. This particular access they are going to align this Northwest 12th with the Northwest 12th below it. Also, the spacing requirements from Ustick and Linder are supposed to be 1,320 feet. The existing access, the North Llama, doesn't come close to that. This one is shifting it over and picking up a couple of hundred extra feet. ACHD is supportive of the waiver to the policy of this, because it's increasing the intersection distance, even if it isn't meeting it, it's better than the existing situation. There isn't going to be any required road improvements along Ustick. It's already a five --five travel lanes, a bike lane, and vertical Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 7,2021 F17 Page 13 of 38 curb and gutter and detached concrete sidewalk. However, the applicant will be required to construct all the internal roads to a 33 foot ACHD template. As you can see on the color plat, there are sidewalks proposed on both sides of internal streets and there is one common driveway that is proposed. Can everybody still hear me okay? Thumbs up? Yep. Okay. Good. Open space and amenities. I will move on to this next screen. This development proposes a total of 15.12 percent of open space. This includes several small landscaped areas over here and down here. Those aren't really being proposed as qualified open space. What it also proposes is this 25 foot buffer that is down here to the north of Ustick. It proposes several pathways, which we will talk about in a minute. A central open space at the northeast side of the property. Over here this is an existing ditch and there is an existing pathway here that is maintained by this HOA over to the east. This proposal is tying in to that walkway. So, they are orienting all of their common open space over to this existing ditch and over to this existing walkway and they are connecting with a walkway here and they are connecting with a walkway there. So, again, just a little bit to talk about the qualified open space. Thirteen percent of this would meet the requirements for qualified open space. This includes the central park, which is pretty much close to the center of the development. It includes several pathway common lots. So, there is a pathway lot down here to the west. There is another dog park and a sitting area and a pathway lot here and there are two pathway lots -- two pathways, one here and one here, and both of those connect in to the existing pathway that's along the ditch. Also half of the buffer can be counted as a qualified open space. This would be required to provide one amenity per our regulations. They are actually providing a -- quite a bit more than that. So, first of all, they are -- they are -- they are giving us a park or an open space of at least 50 times 100 feet. So, that's one thing to be qualified as an open space. But in addition to that you can call it an amenity if there is an additional 20,000 square feet and in this particular case they are proposing 33,000. So, maybe three quarters of an acre. It's significantly more than they would be required. So, that -- that -- just that amount of open space would be called an amenity. In addition to that they are proposing a recreational amenity, which they can talk about. It's going to be a playground and a seating area. They are also proposing the two pathways and the way that our code works -- it says that these pathways are not required per the code, then, they will be counted as an amenity, as long as they meet the minimum landscaping requirements and that's a five foot landscape strip on either side and one tree per hundred. In this particular case they are proposing two pathway amenities. And, finally, they are proposing this dog park and this sitting area here. One thing I want to mention is about the trees. There is quite a bit of mature landscaping here. There has been some -- some discussions between the applicant and the arborist in regard to whether or not they can preserve those trees. The applicant hasn't really given us any details yet on the tree preservation plan, but we are recommending that as a -- as a condition of approval of the final plat, that the -- we get a tree mitigation plan. It would say which trees would be preserved and which would be mitigated. Finally, there are -- the applicant has submitted sample elevations of single family homes for this project, but these homes are depicted as two story structures with two car garages, a variety of architectural elements and finish materials, including gabled roofs, dormers, stone wainscotting, lap siding, exposed timber and scallop wood shingles. Those types of scallop we see back in -- if you can see my pointer there. These little tiles here, these like fish scale things are the scalloped wood shingles. Some of these houses Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 7,2021 F18] Page 14 of 38 will be very visible from West Ustick Road. Therefore, staff recommended as a condition of approval that the rear and sides of these two story structures visible from West Ustick incorporate minimum articulation requirements. You will see that added to our recommendations for the development agreement. The last thing I want to talk about is there was a couple of clarifications that were made to the staff report. The first was on the original plat there is an easement that's shown there and it's -- it's kind of funky. There is a note there that says that, basically, the title work shows that there is an access easement there, but they couldn't find any evidence of that being actually recorded. So, staff had concerns -- the property to the north, we didn't want them to be cut off. We recommended as a condition of approval that the applicant provide us a recorded access easement to make sure that the property to the north has access. Since the time of the staff report the applicant has told us that they have gotten that access easement. It wasn't very clear on the plat, but they have given us the access easement and so staff is okay with that. So, you can actually strike that condition if you would like, that the access easement is no longer required. Fitzgerald: Hey, Alan, what number is that? Tiefenbach: Oh, boy. Let me -- Fitzgerald: Make sure I'm -- Tiefebach: That would be -- give me one second here. That would be on 1-C in the development agreement conditions. Can you still see the screen or did it go away? Okay. Good. Because I backed out I wasn't sure. There is two clarifications and these don't really need any changes. The first is that there was a condition in -- from -- from water in regard to roadway extensions to West Oak Creek Drive and Dixie Avenue. Those aren't pertinent to this development. The public -- or water should have removed those. I will make sure those are stricken for the staff report to the Council. The second thing is the fire district. There is a typo in there that says that they cannot meet the targeted goal of 80 percent or greater, but, actually, they can. So, I will make sure that we -- we had Fire send us updated corrected comments, so you don't need to worry about that. With that staff recommends approval of the annexation and zoning and preliminary plat with the conditions listed in the staff report. It is my understanding that the applicant is in full agreement. They do have a presentation, however, and I will stand for any questions if the Commission would choose at this time. Thank you very much. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Alan. Are there any questions for staff at this point? Seal: Mr. Chair? Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal, go right ahead. Seal: I'm just -- in looking at the -- the open space kind of in that L shaped, do we know Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 7,2021 F19 Page 15 of 38 how the subdivision basically to the west lines up to that? Is that open space in that adjacent subdivision or are their houses there? Just trying to get a sense of how -- if that's boxed in or more wide open. Tiefenbach: If you give me a second I will pull up the GIS and take a look at that for you, sir. If you have any other questions in the interim. Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli, go right ahead. Cassinelli: I kind of have a question that sort of piggybacks off that and that was that -- that mixed use parcel on the corner there, is that going to get--will they get cross-access? I think the cross-access was lined up directly to where that shared driveway is. But correct me if I'm wrong there, Alan. Tiefenbach: No, they are not proposing access to that commercial lot. I would assume that they probably don't want to have cars driving in and out from the commercial off of Linder. They are providing cross-access to the subdivision to the west through West Woodpine Street and I believe ACHD was okay with that. I'm -- go ahead. Cassinelli: Is that going to be an issue, though, down the road in trying to develop that commercial piece on the corner without -- without proper cross-access? Tiefenbach: Again, ACHD didn't have any concerns with that. The applicant has not proposed that. But I think -- we wouldn't really want to see cut through traffic coming through it. Right now it's zoned for commercial. It's not zoned for mixed use. If -- if townhouses or apartments went in there that certainly, I guess, there could be some -- some need perhaps for access, but if this is commercial it could serve as a cut through there. So, no, staff has not -- I'm not sure if I have a very good answer for that, other than staff has not perceived that for that particular reason. Parsons: Yeah. Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Bill, go ahead. Parsons: Yeah. I can elaborate on that a little bit for Commissioner Cassinelli. When we first started pre-app'ing with this applicant we had entertained the thought of maybe having some cross-access or at least a stub street to that property. Given the proximity to that intersection and the fact that, you know, as Alan alluded to, we didn't want to funnel commercial traffic in front of all of those homes to get them out to Ustick. So, we agreed to work with the applicant and have them at least stub a pedestrian connection and that's what you see on the north side of that common drive that's currently located in the southwest corner. Where I think some of that interconnectivity is going to be coming from Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 7,2021 F20 Page 16 of 38 is this project does connect into Eddington Place. If you recall we did require a stub street as part of that project that does drop down into the commercial. So, yes, if there is commercial that goes on that corner they may have to go out to Ustick to get access to it or they could use that local street network and drive a little bit out of their way and go through the adjacent residential to the west to make that happen. But anything that goes on that corner I think is going to be a challenge and we just didn't want to burden this residential project with all of that commercial activity. So, essentially, staff made a concession, along with our partner ACHD, to allow a pedestrian only connection and at this point we don't know what's going to happen on that corner. It could be more residential. It could be commercial. As we discussed a few years ago, we all know there is a concept plan that shows all commercial on this site, but staff has met with a potential developer who is thinking about self storage and a commercial pad at the corner. So, if self storage goes on this it's more likely not going to get that interconnectivity that we desire, but it made sense to at least get a ped connection at this point. I don't -- I don't know what the long-term effects will be on that, but I think from -- I think when we went through that exercise of townhomes or four-plexes developing on that site and having a token commercial we will all agree it's just a tough corner. We just don't know at this point what's going to go on there. It may have a residential component with a small commercial aspect to it,just --just don't know at this point. But more than likely there may be another access granted to that piece off of Ustick in the future, at least a right-in, right-out only. Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Tiefenbach: I was going to -- sorry, Commissioner Holland. Holland: Go ahead, Alan. Tiefenbach: I was going to follow up -- I was going to follow up on the question in regard to the open space and the existing properties to the east. If you can see -- can you see that colored drawing that I have right now? This is a track that's owned by the HOA. So, this will be a track that's owned by the HOA of this particular development. This in here is a track that's owned by the existing HOA and, then, beyond that track are the backyards of houses. So, it won't be directly backing to the houses, it will be backing to the track of the HOA of what that ditch and that pathway runs through. Seal: A follow-up question to that. Fitzgerald: Go right ahead, Commissioner Seal. The -- so, the houses that backup to that, they have the visibility fence requirement; is that correct? The houses that are going in with this development would have the requirement. Correct. It would have to be either an open style fence, which would be -- open style or four feet opaque with two feet of lattice on top. I can't speak for the fences on the other side. I'm pretty sure that they are solid, but I don't know that for a fact. But, yes, correct, they would have to have -- for CPTED, Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design, they would have to have Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 7,2021 F21 Page 17 of 38 visible fencing for that path. Parsons: Mr. Chair? I did the site inspection for that subdivision. Right on that east boundary there is four foot fencing along that -- that pathway in Woodburn West. Fitzgerald: You said four foot fencing? Parsons: Four foot solid fencing. Yes. Fitzgerald: Okay. Commissioner Seal, did you have follow up there? Seal: No. Thank you for specifying that, Bill. That's -- I'm just trying to get -- it -- it's kind of boxed in back there, it creates a little private area that's -- would be kind of hard to monitor what was going on back there. So, knowing that that's open on the backside -- or to the east of it, I guess, would make that a moot point. Fitzgerald: Okay. Commissioner Cassinelli, did you have any follow up on your question? Cassinelli: No, other than -- I mean I can address it once we -- once we close it. My concern there is -- is that piece to the -- directly to the west that's commercial, we have had so much problem with it and, then, cutting out. I know originally we had talked about -- you know, had that gone in first there would have been cross-access through there and now it's going to make that piece even more difficult to develop. Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: My comments and question for staff are along that same lines that Commissioner Cassinelli just shared, too. I -- of all the projects we have looked at on this commission -- and we have looked at a lot -- this corner is the one that's giving me the most heartburn as a commissioner. We have looked at so many different projects and potentials for that -- that commercial piece and I really wish we had spent more time looking at it when we were doing the comp plan process, because I think we should have expanded the amount of commercial required there, because it's going to be a tough piece to fill, unless you just do something like storage and we have already approved a lot of storage on this corner. So, I would hate to see that happen there, because I think we have -- the northwest corner of Ustick and Linder also approved for a storage project. So, I would hate for it to be storage corner, because it's a great walkable corner with a lot of residential nearby, so it's just -- I don't know if there is -- I mean it's in the future use map it's medium density residential, but I don't know if-- if staff has any -- if they had any conversations with the applicant or if the applicant would be willing to entertain doing anything different -- adding some commercial components to their frontage there. That would make me feel a lot better if there was a possibility of doing that, so we would make that piece viable. But, again, that's redesigning an entire site plan. So, it's -- it's a tough piece, because I feel like while we are trying to follow what the future use map shows, Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 7,2021 F22 Page 18 of 38 which is for medium density residential, we also try to make sure that the comp plan comes together in a way that supports overall development and I think by approving this -- and I had the same concern with the development that was to the north of that commercial parcel that we -- that went through the process, that by putting both of those first we box in that commercial piece and it's going to become unusable and becomes something that's not in the best interest of the city. So, that's my concern. I don't know if staff has any other comments about that. I don't know if we can make a request to have a better mixed use piece there that ties in with it, but I'm struggling with it just as much as Commissioner Cassinelli is. Fitzgerald: But you said it more eloquently. Tiefenbach: I don't think I can't add anything that -- that Bill has already -- hasn't already said. I mean it would certainly require a complete redesign, a whole new project for them. I don't think the applicant is proposing to do that. I would defer to them at this point to see if they really wanted to look at that. I'm reviewing the project based on what they gave us. Parsons: Yeah. Mr. Chair, Commissioner Holland, I -- I think you bring up the same points I brought up back when we were looking at that four-plex on this site and, then, when Delano --or Eddington Place came in and itjust-- unfortunately I think we all wanted that mixed use to float either to the north or -- or to the east to try to blend in the commercial a little bit better with the surrounding residential uses. Unfortunately, the applicant that had a four-plex project, he just could not get all the parties to work together and have that come to fruition, because I think -- if I remember correctly this body wanted some of that commercial to float up along the Linder frontage and now we have kind of -- that -- that ship has sailed. We have approved a residential subdivision that butts up -- right up against C-C zoned property. I would share with the Commission that at least on the northwest corner, that storage facility is not moving forward. That gentleman never executed the development agreement and, therefore, it never gained any traction. So, it's still technically on the books approved for commercial across the street. It doesn't solve this problem, but rest assured I don't -- I think we are with you, we don't want to see -- for lack of a better term -- storage alley either on those two corners, because I think we want to have some of that walkability and some of that neighborhood serving commercial, because we are -- we have lost so much at the half mile even farther to the east. We want to preserve that. We do have a plan in the books with a development agreement that shows access coming off of Ustick and Linder for that site. So, although it may not mesh one hundred percent with these two developments, there is still something in a development agreement that -- at least that property owner is vested with and will have to come back and either develop it that way or work with the adjacent property owners to do that. But I'm -- I'm with Alan, let's -- let's get through our portion and let's open it up for the applicant and -- and see what they are willing to do and see if they are willing to make some kind of concession to either convert that common drive to a public street and -- and stub a street there. I mean that's certainly within your purview if you want that connectivity. I can assure you I have had these conversations with them and trying to figure out how we could better integrate that and, you are right, it doesn't always work to Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 7,2021 F23 Page 19 of 38 have commercial directly integrating with a residential subdivision. Typically you have a -- a different zone or a different -- a higher density project to transition away from -- transition with. But, anyways, I -- that's -- there is my feedback. I'm certainly open to whatever the commission wants -- Fitzgerald: Hey, Bill -- Parsons: -- staff to look at or if the applicant is willing to make some minor -- minor changes. Fitzgerald: Just -- I want to make sure we are real clear, because the -- so, the northwest corner cannot proceed forward with a project without coming back before us; is that correct? They can't put storage up without coming back through us; correct? Parsons: You mean the -- Fitzgerald: The last -- I want to -- I want to understand that -- what you just said -- Parsons: Yeah. If they wanted storage they would need to do another DA mod and go through the Council and, then, come back to this body with a conditional use, just like the C-C that's adjacent to this property. Storage is a conditional use permit. Fitzgerald: Okay. Parsons: So, it's not -- it's not by right, they still -- there is still a public hearing involved and they would have to modify their DA as well, because the -- the original -- a DA that was approved for that site in 2014 showed three commercial pad sites -- Fitzgerald: Yeah. Parsons: -- on that corner. Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: That makes me really happy, because I hated storage on that corner. I think I -- I don't know if I -- I think I was chair, so I didn't vote, but I was like, please, God, no. So, that makes me happy. Commissioner Holland, go right ahead, ma'am. Holland: I would echo that, Mr. Chair. It kept me up all night for sure. Fitzgerald: Yeah. Parsons: Well, the other -- the other thing we tried to get the applicant to do was have a shared access to Ustick on their -- their west boundary -- shared with that commercial so it would not go through the residential, but it would just be used --almost like the Maverick on McMillan and Locust Grove where they built that road into the commercial and you Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 7,2021 F24 Page 20 of 38 had the residential on one side and you turn into the commercial on the other side. Fitzgerald: Yeah. Parsons: That's something, again, the applicant could pursue with ACHD. I'm not sure if they are going to support that, given the offset of those access points onto Ustick. It just doesn't meet any of their policies. But those are conversations that we definitely had with them as well. Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Go right ahead. Holland: My follow-up question is are we still having active conversations with anyone on that commercial C-C parcel? Parsons: Again, the last pre-app we had was several months ago and it showed a multi- tenant building on the corner and, then, some storage that wrapped around that and we told them -- we had talked with the applicant about this project, because I -- it was in the process and we told them at a minimum you are going to need to provide pedestrian connection to that neighborhood and, then, figure out how to bring that other street into the -- that stub to your north boundary into the site and provide that connectivity. We told him we would entertain a small segment of storage. It couldn't all be storage, but if -- if they wanted to create a buffer from the multi-tenant building and maybe develop the northern half with some flex buildings and some self storage to go along with that we could be supportive of that, but they really needed to work with ACHD on access and try to integrate with the surrounding development as far as architectural style and walkability and even to that point of some kind of access or connectivity to one of the neighborhoods. So, it is somewhat consistent with our mixed use standards. Holland: Thanks, Bill. Appreciate it. No more questions. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Bill. That was hugely helpful. Commissioner Cassinelli, did you get all your questions squared away? Cassinelli: Yeah. Yeah. I'm good. Fitzgerald: Cool. Okay. Any other questions for anybody right now? If not we will bring up the -- or Mr. Erickson take over and hear from the applicant. Ross, are you with us? I think? Maybe? Erickson: Can you guys hear me? Fitzgerald: Yeah. Go right ahead. Erickson: So, I believe, actually, Tim Mokwa had a presentation prepared for this product. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 7,2021 F25] Page 21 of 38 He was more of the resource for technical or engineering questions, so -- Fitzgerald: Tim, are you available? Mokwa: I am available. Can you hear me okay? Fitzgerald: Yes, sir. Please state your name and your address for the record and the floor is yours, sir. Mokwa: Okay. Thank you. This is Tim Mokwa with Hayden Homes. 1406 North Main Street, Suite 109, Meridian. 83642. And what I'm trying to do is share my screen. Can you see the little cover page of a PowerPoint there? Fitzgerald: We got you. Mokwa: So, I will try to be brief. I suspect there is going to be more question -- more value in question and answer than there would be in a long drawn out presentation and I think Alan did a good job of covering the project and the staff report is very detailed as well. So, as was mentioned we are proposing an annexation with a zone of R-8. This property is an in-fill parcel surrounded by R-8, as well as the R-15 Eddington, and, then, the project -- the parcel we have been talking about here at the corner. I have had conversations -- it was probably around the same time that this potential applicant was meeting with staff for a pre-app and they -- we did discuss the potential for cross-access here, as well as a potential shared access on the property line. They were opposed to that and we were opposed to that as well. This is a seven and a half acre site that we are working with and to introduce potential storage unit traffic through here or commercial that we have no idea what it's going to be, it just doesn't seem like this seven and a half acre residential site is a contiguous -- or a consistent use with that commercial at that corner. They do have an access from Eddington Common -- Commons that was approved and it's up here and we are providing a interconnectivity with Eddington as well. There is also a -- and I know -- you know, I don't know the details of this, but there is a Ustick Road north -- the north boundary or north improvements there is a curb cut to this existing parcel. I don't know that ACHD would stand by that, depending on -- I guess on what the use and what the site layout look like. I'm jumping around here. I'm trying to think of what questions were asked. Let me -- let me get back on point here. So, we are proposing 46 building lots in here, eight common area lots. Our average lot size is 4,236 square feet. We did work with staff. We revised this area quite a bit. Can you see my cursor? Okay. So, we have revised this area quite a bit to make this a larger central play area. Originally we had our -- had a play area down here, which was about the size of one lot. So, we have -- we have consolidate -- consolidated that into a more central area. I wanted to talk just briefly about some of the communication that we have had with our -- our neighbors, particularly the neighbor to the -- the neighbor to the north. This is going to remain a county RUT parcel and, then, the neighbors to the east of us -- this existing Woodburn Subdivision. So, with the owners of the north, Mr. and Mrs. Lloyd, we had several meetings and eventually became to some agreements here. Staff mentioned that there is an existing access easement that runs right -- roughly right through the center of Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 7,2021 F26 Page 22 of 38 the site and tied into his driveway access right here. This access -- we believe that we have the right to vacate and access as long as we are not land locking him and we are providing him some public right of way access to his property. You know, we -- we had a little bit of a difference of opinion initially, but we were able to work through some of those issues and come to an agreement that he would not challenge vacation of this easement provided we met a couple of conditions, specifically that we locate this Llama Way stub at the location that currently meets his access point to his property. The reason that that was important -- it saved a berm and some landscaping along this boundary and it just worked well with the way his property is currently set up. We also agreed with him that we would -- which we are going to be required to by code anyway, but that we would install this six foot solid vinyl fence prior to doing any home construction. We -- there is an existing large -- I would say it's at least 20 -- maybe 30 inch caliper or more willow tree that's a quality tree on his property, but we agreed to hold our house back and our fence back, so that we can create an easement on this Lot 5 of Block 2 to protect the root zone of that tree and, then, lastly, we agreed that Lots 2 through 5 would be limited to single story to prevent some of the impacts on his adjacent property. So, that was one of the areas. The other one was with work -- in working with the HOA management people for the Woodburn Subdivision. They were in agreement if you -- if you follow this tree line there is an existing ditch there that is a -- it's just kind of a skunky stagnant water ditch with a lot of volunteer overgrown shrubbery. It's in both of our interest to clean that area up. So, our -- our proposal to them was that we would remove this existing -- there is -- they had fencing along their back -- their lot, as Bill mentioned, but there is an existing chain link on the east side of this ditch as well. So, we would remove that. We would tile that ditch and fill it in and, then, landscape this area, including even -- even a little on their side where we are, you know, having to fill in that ditch and I think it makes for a much better landscaped common area and appearance from both subdivisions. One of the factors, though, was that Bill -- Bill or Alan mentioned there is a lot of existing trees along here. Many of them are dead within the ditch itself, so we -- I met with the forester out there. Matt went through and flagged up all of the existing trees that are worth saving and so we surveyed those in and when we are doing our design for the tiling of this ditch we are going to save as many of those as we can and where we can't we will -- or per what staff mentioned here -- as Matt mentioned here, this 346 inches of tree mitigation required, that would be required if we removed every one of those trees that he flagged up. Our intent is to save as many of those as we can. So, anyway, back to the overall. You know, there is really not a lot that I wanted to add beyond --you know, we are meeting the comp plan. The six units per acre seems to be a good transition from the higher density of the Eddington to the R-8 here. We have met the city's requirements for -- and exceeded the city's requirements for common area and amenities and qualified open space. But I guess I would just be happy to answer your questions, if I can expand on some of that a little bit. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Tim. We appreciate it. And we appreciate the efforts to work with the neighbors and bring that into -- and that's not always an easy thing. So, thank you for that. Any questions for Tim at this time? Tiefenbach: Mr. Chair, this is Alan. Staff. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 7,2021 F27 Page 23 of 38 Fitzgerald: Go ahead. Tiefenbach: Sorry to interrupt. I wanted to note that this is the first time we have been told about the agreement with the applicant and the homeowner regarding the one story requirement on the north side and the fencing. I think it's important that that be added to the DA if -- if we are going to go forward with that. If -- we don't have that in the DA or the conditions of approval and that doesn't exist, because we have not heard this before. Fitzgerald: Got it. Thanks, Alan. And, Tim, you're -- you're fine with adding to the DA? Mokwa: I would be happy to add that to the DA, because we are required to do that as part of our agreement that both us and the neighbor to the north signed. So, yes. Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you. Commissioners, do we have any questions for the applicant on -- especially the commercial questions you had. Anybody want to discuss that with -- with Tim at this point? Commissioner Holland or Commissioner Cassinelli, do you guys have a question? Cassinelli: No. I'm good. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland? Mokwa: Could I add one more point? Fitzgerald: Oh, yeah. Go ahead, Tim. Mokwa: Okay. I just wanted to tell you -- back to this issue about an additional access or making this a vehicular. I -- you know, I have worked on a lot of projects. This is a seven acre site with five access points right now. So, I think -- I think the amount of interconnectivity that we are already providing, both, you know, vehicular and pedestrian is -- it's pretty high for a site -- in-fill site this small. So, I hope you will take that into consideration when -- if you are considering asking for another access point here. Fitzgerald: Appreciate that. Commissioner Holland, go right ahead. Holland: Mr. Chair, I -- Tim, I think you heard some of my comments before we -- we listened to yours and I appreciate that this is a -- it's a tough site and I know you guys -- you guys create great product. I have seen some of your product where it does interface with commercial in some other neighborhoods that you guys have developed, too, and I wish that there was a win-win here and I know that it's -- it's not your responsibility to develop that site that's adjacent to you, but I'm still trying to figure out a way that we can help make it successful in the future. I would hate to see storage be on a hard corner. I think this commission in general has that comment every time there is a storage facility that comes in on a hard corner. So, I think it would be our hope that whatever comes forward we might push back to have maybe some sort of office use or something that's maybe not a retail use that has a lot of traffic going through it, but maybe there is some Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 7,2021 F28] Page 24 of 38 sort of win-win in how we can develop that to be -- you know, maybe it's a hair salon type thing or it's a doctor's office, dentist, those kind of things that could go in there. Some of that kind of neighborhood commercial. But I -- I still don't like the -- even if that doesn't go through, having a shared drive kind of going in there, where it could have been a full access going through, it -- it's still a tough layout for me just in that piece and I don't know if there is anything we can do to make a compromise that would give a little more visibility there and I understand your comment about having five access points and certainly don't want to make you have another one, but I would sure like to see that road go through, even if it was -- I don't know exactly how we can change it, but I just don't want to pigeon hole that other commercial development so they can't develop it as anything but storage. Mokwa: Yeah. I don't -- I don't know what I can say. I mean I really -- I mean we would -- we would certainly consider if it's -- if it's a condition of getting our project approved. I -- I really don't like it for--for our purposes, which is what I have got to be concerned with. I -- you know, I -- I understand where you are coming from and I -- I definitely can see your point. Part of why we put the shared driveway with the pedestrian pathway there, because we thought that having the pedestrian connection to an -- to an ultimate commercial, hopefully, was a good, you know, interconnectivity. But just the -- just the idea of inviting additional commercial traffic through this small area, I just -- I have my reservations. So, I'm sorry, I don't know what to propose to -- to help there. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland, go right ahead if you have follow up. Holland: That's all I have got for now. I just wanted to make those comments. Fitzgerald: Okay. Holland: Thanks, Tim. Mokwa: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Any additional questions for Tim? Okay. Tim, we will come back to you in a minute after we take any public testimony and let you close. Mokwa: Okay. Fitzgerald: Thank you, sir. Madam Clerk, do we have anyone in the audience or online that would like to testify on this application? Weatherly: Mr. Chair, we do have one person signed in wishing to testify and he's here in house with us and that's Rick Wagner. Fitzgerald: Okay. Mr. Wagner, if you will come and join us at the podium, please, sir. And, please, give us your name and your address and the floor is yours when you are ready, sir. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 7,2021 F29 Page 25 of 38 Wagner: My name is Rick Wagner. I live at 1250 West Ustick and I have the property to the east of this development. I have two concerns. One of them is that I noticed that one road is going to go -- it looks like it's going to go right through my house when they extend it. That one. Right there. Yes. And so I would like, you know, a barrier along that whole property line. Vinyl six foot solid fence. I get enough problems with the subdivision to the north. They use my property as a thoroughfare to Ustick. So, I would like something to stop that from your subdivision. The other thing is that there is a ditch in the front that runs along Ustick. It's a Nampa-Meridian Irrigation ditch. I use that for flood irrigation on my property. I know that the City of Meridian is going to require pressurized irrigation. I got a question. What's going to happen to my ditch? That's two things I have got. Fitzgerald: And, Mr. Wagner, we will make sure that Tim clarifies that when he -- when he closes, but I know that they have to keep your water -- they have to keep your access to your water, so that -- that will be maintained no matter what. That's a requirement of development. So, we will make sure that that -- and Tim can talk about that, but we will make sure you are covered on the water side, because that's a requirement. They have to make sure your ditch rights and your water rights are maintained. Wagner: Thank you. How about a fence? Fitzgerald: Let me let Tim talk about that. If you want to take a seat I will have him close, if he's willing to take that on. But I know there will be a sign that stubs -- at least a barrier of some kind, but I will let him do that when he closes. Wagner: Okay. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Mr. Wagner. We appreciate you being here tonight. I don't see any other attendees. Madam Clerk, is there anyone else who would like to testify? Weatherly: Mr. Chair, I don't have anymore information on anybody wishing to testify. Fitzgerald: Tim, do you want to answer Mr. Wagner's question and, then, close when you have a chance? Mokwa: Certainly. So, first on the fence we would install a six foot solid vinyl fence along this entire common property line, including across the stub street and the barricade or the standard ACHD -- this road is intended to be extended in the future sign would be mounted on that six foot vinyl. So, sometimes you will see where they will -- they will put the vinyl fence along the property line and leave this gap open. We will fence right -- right across the road. So, this entire property will be separated by that. Secondly, my answer on the irrigation would be the same as yours, Mr. Chairman, is that per Idaho Code we are required to -- you know, we can't impede anyone's water right or their ability to drain their -- their flood irrigation water. So, if that's what's happening along the ditch along Ustick Road now, we are required by Idaho Code to maintain that. Fitzgerald: Perfect. Thank you, sir. Do you want to close? Any further comments? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 7,2021 F30 Page 26 of 38 Mokwa: No. Just that, you know, we -- we have taken quite a while to get here to this point. You know, this -- this -- discussions with the property owner to the north and the access to Ustick and the alignment here, I mean we have had so many meetings and conversations with ACHD and a couple with Meridian staff. That all evolved from our discussions with Mr. and Mrs. Lloyd to the north and I think we were able to come to a solution that they were happy with or at least -- I mean their preference would be that this would stay an open field, but in the absence of that I think they are happy with the solutions that we worked out and we tried to be accommodating with them. ACHD was happy with our access plan here in that, you know, there is an existing 11 th Street, I believe it is, that -- that borders Mr. Wagner's property over on the east side of his property. That's what drove this stub street connection here, is that that, then, provides an opportunity for, you know, cross-access with this piece, should it ever redevelop, and our property to a one safer aligned intersection on Ustick Road. So, those were some of the -- some of the things that led to the sign that you are looking at tonight and so, you know, is it perfect? Probably not, but we tried to be as accommodating as we can and also to do what we feel like is going to be a good project. So, with that I -- I'm done. Fitzgerald: Thank, Tim. We appreciate it. Further questions for Tim at this point? Okay. Hearing no further questions, can I get a motion to close the public hearing? Seal: So moved. Grove: Second. McCarvel: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Okay. Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Fitzgerald: Anyone want to lead off? McCarvel: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Go right ahead, ma'am. McCarvel: Alan, can we get that one picture back up on how this connects to everything around it? Tiefenbach: Which -- McCarvel: You had a good -- you had a picture during your presentation. Tiefenbach: Oh, let's take a look here. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 7,2021 F31 Page 27 of 38 McCarvel: Okay. Seal: I think it was GIS data. McCarvel: And while you are looking for that -- Tiefenbach: Yeah. Oh, was it? Bill, can you bring that up? Because I can't do that from my end here. McCarvel: Okay. Holland: It might have been the one from the applicant. Tiefenbach: Bill -- Bill, I can't get to the computer at work from where I am right here, I will have Bill share it. Parsons: Yeah. It was the applicant's presentation. McCarvel: Oh, was it? Okay. Parsons: So, you can -- you can give him the right and he can probably just bring it back up. McCarvel: Okay. Parsons: I noticed that, too. I was like that's a great graphic. I wish I had that in my presentation. And it does -- it does show how it interconnects with all the adjacent properties -- McCarvel: Yeah. Parsons: -- and what's happening in the area. I think that's critical for you all tonight. McCarvel: Yeah. And -- Fitzgerald: Madam Clerk, can you bring Tim back into the panelist side, so we can ask him to -- Parsons: Bring up his presentation. Fitzgerald: -- bring up his presentation again. Seal: She had to step out for just a second, so as soon as she comes back in I will let her know. Fitzgerald: Oh. Okay. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 7,2021 F32 Page 28 of 38 McCarvel: Okay. Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel, do you want to go right ahead with your comments. McCarvel: Yeah. In the meantime, yeah, we can take a look at how that all connects again. But, otherwise, I really appreciate this applicant working so well with the neighbors and going the extra mile and some of those details. Of course, I always like to see a little bit bigger corner lots, instead of those common drives, but for a small site I think there is a lot to like about what they have done with the pathways connecting to the subdivision to the east and just in general keeping that open space more centralized and utilizing that well. Yeah. I don't think we have ever seen a seven acre site with five accesses. So, yeah, I mean in general we like it. I -- I like it. But, yeah, if we can -- if -- I guess this is our one stab to see if there is anything that can be done with the site to the west on the corner, but, then, again, it's not this applicant's problem to solve, unless it -- you know, there is something that makes sense. Fitzgerald: Yeah. I'm kind of-- I have a tough time with this one, because I -- I think there is -- we are asking a lot of the applicant. I remember one day when I was on the other side of the dais where I am now when we were asked to masterplan a giant, you know, section around us and after spending all that money and doing that it was denied anyway. I understand the desire to not pigeonhole one square, but we are putting the -- that onus on the applicant and I think that's -- that could be a little bit brutal. But I know that -- that's where it's never going to be easy. It's not now or will it be in the future, whether we have cross-access or not, just because of the way it runs and there is a giant lateral that runs through it. So, I -- and I think we got to be --we got to be cautious about how we approach this, because I mean there are small businesses, like little coffee shops or some that can use -- that don't have a ton of traffic, but I -- I understand that we have looked at this corner 40 times, so -- and I think we asked Steve Arnold to redesign it four times. So, I get the concerns, because I think they are all there. But I do like the effort that -- that they have put into making this work and I know the -- especially the RUT piece to the north, we have heard from that homeowner several times in different applications and I appreciate that -- the work that went into doing that. They are making it so it would work for his family, so it's tough. It's not an easy one for me either. And it is -- it does meet the comp plan and the zoning currently, which is another piece I have to wrestle with. So, Commissioner Holland, you came off of mute. Go right ahead, ma'am. Holland: I did. I still struggle. I -- I like the idea of being able to have a shared access road that would divide these two, because I think that would fix some of the problems for me, too, but that would be redesigning their site plan and I know that they weren't in favor of that option. Because I think it does work really well. I have seen it in a couple places. There is a spot on Linder and McMillan I want to say that they have something like that, too, where residential is on one side and commercial is on the other side of a road and it works really nicely there. I wish that that was something that we could have them look at. I understand their concern, too, about having another access point that comes through their neighborhood, because people would probably float through there. I just hate seeing it blocked off there. So, I'm still struggling with it. I don't know what else we can do there, Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 7,2021 F33 Page 29 of 38 but my -- my preference would be to -- my number one preference, if we had the ability to have them do it, would be to have that shared access road that would divide this property line, because I think that would make a big difference. But I don't know if that's something that this commission would like to look into, because that would mean that they would have to redesign their plan again. I don't know if that's helpful. I -- I do appreciate what they -- what they have put forward. I think it's -- if you are just looking at the site by itself it's not a bad development. I know the product type looks good. It will match with what Eddington Commons does and it's such a good transition from Woodburn. It's just a tough -- I hate that it's -- it's tough in the regional perspective of what it's going to do for what's around it. I wish the other piece was done first. Fitzgerald: Or master planned into it and I -- I know it's really hard to do that. And we have asked everybody to try that and it hasn't seemed to work. Holland: Yeah. I wish that they could come in together jointly with these projects. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli, I know you popped off mute, sir. What do you have to say? Cassinelli: I kind of have a question and, first, let me say that I do like the project. For an in-fill I'm happy with the R-8, that's it's not R-15, that we are not -- you know, I like the layout. Their product is -- their product regionally is -- is good. I'm happy with all that and -- and I -- you know, I -- I sympathize with them with -- with five access points there that's a -- that's a ton for -- for seven acres. But I have got a question for staff. I just want to pose this. Either for Bill or Alan. If that commercial would have developed first -- and I know it's not, but had that developed first with a cross-access point to the -- going -- going towards this -- this parcel, would there be a requirement for this developer to line up with that and to -- to make that happen? Tiefenbach: This is Alan Tiefenbach. If there was already an access that was required we would make them line up for it. The thing is it's not going to meet -- first of all, it's not going to meet ACHD spacing requirements. They are going to have an issue with that and it just depends on what kind of commercial development it is, because depending on what it is they wouldn't want that cross-through traffic. So, yes, if there was one already approved they would have to line up with it, but I'm not sure ACHD would support additional accesses coming through there. Bill, do you want to add anything? Parsons: I think you have it covered, Alan. I think -- when I'm looking at the -- so I'm looking at the approved concept plan and the development agreement for that piece that came in. It was called Sugarman and there was never a shared access on the property like we are talking about tonight. It goes back to almost what Tim's comment was where there is an existing curb cut already constructed out there and that's where they showed their access coming in from. And, then, they were tied into the property to the north. So, even on the approved concept plan it never contemplated anything to the west -- or the east of this -- this east boundary here. I'm going to look at some of the DA provisions and see if that was the case. But I -- I don't recall it being the case. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 7,2021 F34 Page 30 of 38 Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli, did you have follow up there? Cassinelli: I did. For Bill or Alan. In previous talks with -- well, with a potential project there on that corner, is ACHD -- are they in agreement to keep that curb cut access there if there is not the cross-access, so at least that parcel would get a right-in, right-out off of Ustick? Parsons: Well, I'm looking -- well, that's -- that's a good question. It goes back to almost -- you know, like anything -- here is my experience with ACHD and these -- these access points. Sometimes as part of a road widening or intersection they will widen it and they will put the access points in. Sometimes they work with the property owner and they, basically, vest that property owner with those access points. Other times I have seen it where they have said, no, we reserve the right to remove it at any time when there is a conflict or depending on the use. So, I'm not sure if any of those agreements exist for this particular development. All I can do is go off the concept plan that we have approved as part of that development agreement. It shows a curb cut. It does say that direct -- so, I'm -- I'm quoting verbatim from the recorded development agreement for that commercial property. It says direct lot access to West Ustick Road and North Linder Road is prohibited, except for the access points approved with the plat. I can tell you the plat has expired. There is no longer a valid plat. Only the development agreement runs with the land currently. So, it says access to North Linder Road shall be restricted to right-in, right- out and -- only and access to Ustick Road shall be determined by ACHD. So, again, as determined by ACHD. So, they have the ability -- Fitzgerald: Hey, Bill? Parsons: -- to say no, they have the ability to say yes, just -- again, it's going back to -- it's contingent upon what -- when the actual development is proposed and right now all we have is a concept plan and zoning. Fitzgerald: So, looking at the -- at Google Maps, there is curb cuts on both sides. There is one on the north boundary on Linder and there is a Ustick curb cut and that's after they have widened both roads. Parsons: Yes. And that's consistent with the concept plan that's in the DA. Fitzgerald: So, I'm just -- just for informational purposes for the commission -- I don't know if we can bring up Google Maps. I have it open. Cassinelli: Yeah. I'm looking at it, too. Fitzgerald: So, there is curb cuts that are there and that's post widening. I would guess that that's where they go. But I understand the concerns. Parsons: And, then, I'm looking at the plat that's tied -- that was at one point valid and it showed those curb cuts were -- that's where the cross-access drives would come into the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 7,2021 F35] Page 31 of 38 development and serve of all those commercial lots. So, again, it's consistent to what the contract is currently on the property. Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Yeah. Go ahead. Commissioner Holland, go right ahead. Holland: While I don't want to pass the buck onto Council, we could always just make a note instead of requiring that they change it, that Council take serious consideration on whether or not they think there should be cross-access there and just make a note that it was a big concern of ours, but not condition it. I might be willing to do that as a compromise, because I don't know that I have got a good solution for them of how to fix that, but I would at least want Council to consider with the applicant whether or not they could do a shared access or have that common drive become a public drive through to give cross-connectivity. But I don't really want to condition it. I would just at least like Council to have that conversation with them and see what they think. I don't know if that makes a compromise, but -- Grove: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Grove, go right ahead. Grove: So, a few things. You know, reiterate a couple of things that were said earlier. You know, this is a lot of interconnectivity already for such a small piece, but, you know, in-fill is hard and I appreciate the work that they have done, especially in regards to working with the neighbors to address their concerns and really being thoughtful of making sure that their designs took those considerations and integrated them accordingly. I am lucky enough to not have been through some of the trauma that you guys have with this -- this particular area, so coming at it with, you know, a little bit naivete -- a little bit of -- whatever that -- Fitzgerald: We call it fresh eyes, Commissioner Grove. Fresh eyes. Grove: One thing that I'm looking at, though, is -- I like how -- I like this project and I like what they have done with it, you know, with the constraints that they have. With the commercial lot, that piece to the west that we are discussing, I understand what we are saying with creating that connectivity, but I'm somewhat of the mindset that I don't necessarily think that having that direct connectivity is the absolute best piece -- or best idea just in terms of-- there would still be connectivity to the north and --which allows the access back out to Linder to the north and, then, out to Ustick, you know, by going east and south, which creates a longer path, but I think that allows for that connectivity, but it's inconvenient enough for people that people wouldn't use it as much because people take the path of least resistance and so almost saying, yes, there is access there, but it's not direct access, so we are somewhat limiting it, because we are -- it's almost a traffic calming feature by not having direct access. So, that's my counter point. I don't know that it's valid necessarily, but that's just kind of how I'm looking at it, with not having been Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 7,2021 F36] Page 32 of 38 through what you guys have on -- on these other projects, so -- Fitzgerald: I appreciate that. I think that's -- fresh eyes are always helpful. Additional comments? Commissioner Yearsley, you came off mute. Yearsley: Oh, I -- I agree with Commissioner Grove not having dealt with it. On the -- on its own merits I think the subdivision looks good. I think they have done a decent job. You know, there is already two access points on that property already. So, I would be in favor of just moving it forward. McCarvel: Yeah. Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: Yeah. I think there is a lot of reasons to not have that cross -- cross-access into the commercial right in front of the residential there. I mean they -- they don't have to redesign the whole thing and I think -- yeah. On its own it's -- it looks good. Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal, go right ahead. Seal: Yeah. Echoing a lot of what I have heard already, I like the piece as it -- as it stands. I mean they have worked really well with the neighbors. They interconnect really well. They provide an abundance of interconnectivity. I -- I do agree that it's very concerning that that commercial property doesn't have the cross-access happening to it out of this, but to land that burden on this project is -- is a little troublesome, too. So, I agree that we should maybe -- that we should put something in there for City Council, let them know it was a large issue for us, you know, in case they don't read through everything that has happened here tonight. I do imagine when we get to that -- the next application for that commercial piece of property we are all going to roll our eyes as it comes through, because it's -- it's a tough piece. I mean it really is. You know, I -- I have been here for one of the hearings on it. I was here for the storage that was approved across the street and that was very contentious as well. So, it's going to be a tough one. But as far as this project I'm very much in support of seeing it move forward. And with that I can take a crack at a motion, unless somebody wants to jump in. Fitzgerald: Go right ahead. Motions are always in order. Go right ahead. Seal: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number H-2020-0112, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 7th, 2021, with the following modifications: That they strike recommendation 1-C. That they add agreements with the northern -- northern neighbors to the formal DA. That we ask City Council to consider cross-access to the commercial property to the west as it was a large concern for the Planning and Zoning Commission. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 7,2021 F37 Page 33 of 38 Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal, is there a discussion about making sure that fence continues across the road for Mr. Wagner's -- or I mean Mr. Wagner's property? Would that be amenable to your motion? Seal: I think he addressed that, but if -- do we want to make that a formal recommendation? I mean I'm -- Fitzgerald: It's up to you. I think I would like to make sure that that gets somewhere in there, so we can ensure that that's blocked off. Seal: Okay. I will amend my -- my motion to include that a six foot fence is down across the eastern border of the property from the common area to the north all the way to Ustick Road. Grove: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to recommend approval of file number H-2020- 0112. Any other further comments before we take a vote? Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Can -- can I just get a repeat of the language on the recommendation to Council regarding the cross-access? Seal: What I said was that we ask that City Council consider cross-access to the commercial property to the west, as it was a large concern for the Planning and Zoning Commission. Cassinelli: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Any further comments? Seal: I'm just surprised I can read my own handwriting there. So, that's my only comment. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to recommend approval of file number H-2020- 0112, Tetherow Crossing Subdivision. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. 3. Election of 2021 Commission Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson Fitzgerald: Tim and -- we appreciate you being here tonight, sir. Ross, thanks for being here. We look forward to -- good luck on City Council and hope things go well. Okay. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 7,2021 F38 Page 34 of 38 Last item on the agenda. I'm retiring, so thanks, team. It's been a blast. We have to make a formal discussion on who wants to take lead of the commission. It's been fun leading the crew and I'm retiring after next meeting, so, please, take over and our fearless attorney leader will be guiding us if there is any questions. But any comments or questions or thoughts on who would like to take on the role of chair first? Or vice-chair. I would entertain any comments or thoughts on either one of those. Yearsley: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: Not it. Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Not it. Fitzgerald: Okay. That -- that narrows it down. Commissioner McCarvel, you came off of mute. McCarvel: Mr. Chair, I nominate our Vice-Chair Lisa Holland. Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Well, I don't want to continue the trend of saying not it. I -- I will start with -- I am very grateful for the opportunity to have been vice-chair this year and I have really enjoyed the opportunity to fill in for a few meetings. With having a new little guy and having a lot of extra on my plate with trying to balance him, I think that this would be the year I would prefer not to be chair. I would be more than happy to consider being vice- chair again, if you would like -- would like me to fill in from time to time, but with the extra time commitment I think it would be a good year for someone else to have that opportunity, if that's all right. But I certainly appreciate the nomination, Commissioner McCarvel. I would return to say that I know Commissioner McCarvel has been chair in the past and has done a fabulous job and if she would be willing I would nominate her to be chair, since she's had experience and, again, if -- if anybody would like me to, I would be more than happy to continue serving as vice-chair, but I would also be happy to let someone else have that opportunity if they would like to. I know Commissioner Seal does an excellent job as motion maker, but I can certainly see you with an interest in potentially having that opportunity. So, I will leave that out there. But I certainly appreciate everybody on this commission and really enjoy the opportunity to still stay a part of all the discussions moving forward. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 7,2021 F39 Page 35 of 38 Cassinelli: I would -- Commissioner Seal as well. Fitzgerald: Commercial Seal or Commissioner Grove, any thoughts? Seal: Yeah. I'm -- I think it's something that in the future I would like to do. At this point I don't know -- I don't even know what the extra duties are, so -- and I don't know that I have the right cheat sheets to get by with the whole thing. So, yeah, I mean if it came down to that I would gladly serve and do it, but I don't know that I'm the best qualified person in this panel to -- to do that at this point. I'm still learning. Yearsley: I'm sure Ryan would hand you all his cheat sheets. Fitzgerald: I don't know about the cheat sheets, but the staff is awesome about meeting with you on Thursday afternoon and helping you get all the things you need, too, so -- but I also -- I understand having -- it was nice to serve as vice-chair first and, then, get to step in the chair. So, I -- I have been there as well. Commissioner Grove, any thoughts? Do you want to throw your hat in the ring or are you happy -- Grove: I do not. I can barely make a motion. Yearsley: Well, that's the great thing as chair, you don't have to make a motion. Fitzgerald: Exactly. Just hang out and watch. McCarvel: Commissioner Grove did not say not it. Grove: Not it. Cassinelli: Commissioner McCarvel, what's your thoughts? Would you -- you do -- are you ready again? McCarvel: I would do it if nobody else is going to -- Yearsley: I was going to say, be careful what you ask for. McCarvel: I know. Yeah. If Commissioner Seal would prefer to do vice for a while, I would do it and I'm sure there would be plenty of opportunities on my calendar for him to practice a few times. Fitzgerald: That almost sounded like a motion, but you can't motion yourself. McCarvel: No. No. No. Holland: Well, first of all, I will make a formal motion to appoint Commissioner McCarvel as chair for the 2021 year. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 7,2021 F40 Page 36 of 38 Seal: Second. Grove: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to appoint Commissioner McCarvel as the new chair for 2021. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Fitzgerald: Congratulations. McCarvel: That is not the way I saw today going. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, you want to take over now or -- you want to do last motion? McCarvel: Well, I nominate -- are we -- we got to do vice? Fitzgerald: Yes, ma'am. McCarvel: I'm thinking -- I would move that Commissioner Seal be vice-chair. Cassinelli: Second that. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to appoint Commissioner Seal as vice-chair of the Planning and Zoning Commission. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Besides Commissioner Seal, you can't oppose yourself. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Holland: I will give you my cheat sheets, too, Commissioner Seal. Seal: Thank you. I appreciate that. Luckily, we live close. I can just walk over and say help me. Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel has all the notes, too. She's good at that stuff. McCarvel: Yeah. Well, I don't have all the new stuff with all the Zoom technology. That's a different little spiel at the beginning. But, yeah, I would like to get some experience spread around here. Holland: I will send it out to everybody, so you all have it in case you want it. Cassinelli: Commissioner -- Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: Yes. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 7,2021 F41 Page 37 of 38 Cassinelli: How long have you served on the Commission? Fitzgerald: Five wonderful years. Cassinelli: And are you just retiring because it's been five wonderful years or do you have something big on your agenda that -- Fitzgerald: I have coaching baseball and being a helper in my -- my son's Scout troop. So, that's Thursday nights and that's where I told the Mayor I was reluctant to step off because I love doing this and I like working with you guys, but my kid is ten years old and he's getting bigger fast, so I'm going to go coach baseball and help him with Scouts. Cassinelli: Awesome. Seal: Very cool. Yearsley: Sounds like a great opportunity. Fitzgerald: I will miss you guys. It has been -- it has been an awesome ride. I saw Greg Wilson today and we were joking around, because he's like you made it the full five years, I'm so proud of you. Because he bailed on me, because we got sworn in together and he was giving me a bad time, but -- yeah. No, it's been a pleasure, guys. It's been fun. So, I will miss you. Maybe Commissioner Yearsley in a year or two, it's like get dragged back into this stuff. McCarvel: We will see you back in in a few years. Yearsley: Well, you know, it's kind of nice to know what's going on in the city. You know, for the last couple years I have been not -- not been in it. It's -- I was like, well, what's going on? What's this going in? So, it is nice to know what's going on. Fitzgerald: Totally agree. Totally agree. It's been cool to watch some of the things we have approved get built, too, so -- McCarvel: Yearsley is going to be a lifer. Holland: I almost nominated Commissioner Yearsley to be vice-chair just to keep him rooted in with us. McCarvel: Oh, that's a spectacular idea. Cassinelli: How quick he was in there with that not it. Fitzgerald: Well, thanks, team. I will be with you as a commissioner for one more meeting and, then, go from there. So, Madam Chair, it's all you. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 7,2021 F42 Page 38 of 38 McCarvel: Well, would somebody like to make the last motion? Commissioner Fitzgerald? Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, I move we adjourn. Yearsley: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded that we adjourn the meeting of -- what is today? January -- Fitzgerald: 7th. McCarvel: -- 7th. All those in favor. Any opposed? Meeting adjourn. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:41 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED 1 21 �2021 RYAN FITZGERALD - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK