Loading...
2017 10-19 Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda – Thursday, October 19, 2017 Page 1 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. City Council Chambers 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Thursday, October 19, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. 1. Roll-call Attendance __X_ Treg Bernt __O__ Steven Yearsley __O_ Gregory Wilson __X__ Ryan Fitzgerald __X_ Jessica Perreault __X__Bill Cassanelli _X__ Rhonda McCarvel – Chairperson 2. Adoption of the Agenda Adopted 3. Consent Agenda Approved A. Approve Minutes of October 5th, 2017 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 4. Action Items A. Public Hearing Continued and Re-noticed from September 7, 2017 for Linder Village (H-2017-0088) by Lynx/DMG Real Estate Partners, LLC Located 1225 W Chinden Recommend Denial to City Council – Scheduled for November 21, 2017 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 81.61 Acres of Land from the RUT Zoning District in Ada County to the C-C Zoning District (64.75 Acres) and the R-8 Zoining District (16.87 Acres) in the City. 2. Request: Preliminary Plat Consisting of 16 Commercial Building Lots, One (1) Residential Building Lot, One (1) Common Lot and Three (3) Other Lots for Future Right-Of- Way Dedication on 78.29 Acres of Land in the Proposed C-C and R-8 Zoning Districts. 3. Request: Variance to UDC 11-3H-4B.2 for two (2) accesses via W. Chinden Boulevard/SH20-26 MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda – Thursday, October 19, 2017 Page 2 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. B. Public Hearing for Linder Mixed Use (H-2017-0095) by TMEG Properties, LLC Located at 5960 and 5940 North Linder Road Continued to Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting November 16, 2017 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 5 (Five) Acres of Land with C-C (1.59 Acres) and R-15 (3.41 Acres) Zoning Districts 2. Request: Rezone of 3.36 Acres of Land from the L -O to the R-15 (1.43 Acres) and C-C (1.93 Acres) Zoning District. C. Public Hearing for East Ridge Estates Subdivision (H-2017- 0129) by DevCo LLC Located at North of East Lake Hazel Road and West of South Eagle Road Recommend Approval to City Council with Modifications– Schedule for November 28, 2017 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 40.99 Acres of Land with R-4 and R-15 Zoning Districts 2. Request: Preliminary Plat Conisisting of 139 Building Lots and 7 (Seven) Common Lots on 40.99 Acres of Land in a Proposed R-8 Zoning District D. Public Hearing for Movado Greens Subdivision (H-2017-0104) by DevCo LLC Located at the South Side of East Overland Road Between South Topaz Way and South Cloverdale Road Recommend Approval to City Council – Schedule for November 28, 2017 1. Request: Rezone of Approximately 11.08 Acres from C-G to the R-15 Zoning District 2. Request: Preliminary Plat Consisting of 96 Single Family Residential Lots, Six (6) Commercial Lots and 7 (Seven) Common Lots on Approximately 24.23 Acres in the proposed C-G and R-15 Zoning District 3. Request: Conditional Use Permit Modification to Reduce the Acreage of the Apartment Project, to Reduce the Number of Units, Modify the Proposed Amenities and other Specific Changes to the Previously Approved Project (H-2016-0060) E. Public Hearing for Veranda Senior Living (H-2017-0130) By Brighton Investments LLC Located Approximately ½ Mile East Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda – Thursday, October 19, 2017 Page 3 of 3 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. of South Eagle Road on the South Side of East Amity Road Approved 1. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a Residential Care Faciltiy on 3.38 Acres of Land in the C-N Zoning District Adjourned 12:06 am Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting October 19, 2017. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of October 19, 2017, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Rhonda McCarvel. Members Present: Chairman Rhonda McCarvel, Commissioner Treg Bernt, Commissioner Bill Cassanelli, Commissioner Ryan Fitzgerald and Commissioner Jessica Perreault. Members Absent: Commissioner Gregory Wilson and Commissioner Steven Yearsley Others Present: C.Jay Coles, Charlene Way, Ted Baird, Bill Parsons, Sonya Allen, Josh Beach and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-call Attendance __X___ Treg Bernt _______ Steven Yearsley ______ Gregory Wilson ___X___ Ryan Fitzgerald __X___ Jessica Perreault ___X___ Bill Cassanelli ___X___ Rhonda McCarvel - Chairman McCarvel: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Could I have everybody take their seats who is wanting to sit and we do have additional seating in the conference rooms adjacent to the lobby if you would prefer to sit in the -- the audio is on in there. Okay. At this time we would like to call to order the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission on October 19th, 2017. Let's begin with roll call. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda McCarvel: Thank you. The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda . We would like to make one change to the agenda. Item labeled E, the public hearing for Veranda Senior Living, H-2017-0130, we would like to move to the top of the agenda, as it is anticipated to be -- to take not very much time. Could I get a motion to adopt the agenda as amended? Bernt: So moved. Fitzgerald: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda as amended. All in favor say aye. Opposed. Motion carries. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 2 of 100 MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Item 3: Consent Agenda A. Approve Minutes of October 5th, 2017 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting McCarvel: The next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and we have one item on the Consent Agenda. It's the approval of minutes for the October 5th, 2017, Planning and Zoning meeting. Can I get a motion to adopt the Consent Agenda as presented? Perreault: Madam Chair, I make a motion to adopt the Consent Agenda as -- as presented. Cassanelli: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the Cons ent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. McCarvel: At this time I'd like to briefly explain the public hearing process for this evening. We will open each item individually and, then, start with the staff report. The staff will report their findings regarding how the item adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and Uniform Development Code, with the staff's recommendations. After the staff has made their presentation the applicant will come forward to present their case for approval and their application and respond to any staff comments. The applicant will have 15 minutes. After that -- after the applicant has finished we will open to public testimony. There is a sign-up sheet in the back as you entered for anyone wishing to testify. Any person testifying will come forward and be allowed three minutes and there is a timer on the screen at the podium, so you can keep track. Any person -- if they are speaking for a larger group, like an HOA, and there is a show of hands to represent that group, they will be given up to ten minutes. After all testimony has been heard, the applicant will be given another ten minutes to have the opportunity to come back if they desire. After that we will close the public hearing and the Commissioners will have the opportunity to discuss and, hopefully, be able to make a recommendation to City Council. Item 4: Action Items E. Public Hearing for Veranda Senior Living (H-2017-0130) By Brighton Investments LLC Located Approximately ½ Mile East of South Eagle Road on the South Side of East Amity Road 1. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a Residential Care Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 3 of 100 Facility on 3.38 Acres of Land in the C-N Zoning District McCarvel: So, at this time we would like to open the public hearing for item H-2017- 0130, Veranda Senior Living, and we will begin with the staff report. Allen: Thank you, Chairman, Members of the Commission. The first application before you tonight is a request for a conditional use permit. This site consists of 3.38 acres of land, it's zoned C-N and located approximately a half mile east of South Eagle Road on the south side of East Amity Road. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north is East Amity Road and a future school site currently being farmed, zoned RUT in Ada county. To the west is future neighborhood commercial uses, zoned C-N. To the south are also future neighbor commercial uses and a city park in the future zoned C-N. And to the east are future medical offices also zoned C-N. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for this site is mixed use neighborhood. The applicant has submitted an application for a conditional use permit for a residential care facility in the C-N zoning district as required by UDC table 11-2B-2. A single story 59,126 square foot assisted living and memory care facility is proposed that will contain a total of 75 units, with a maximum of 88 beds. Thirty-one units in memory care and 57 units in assisted living. Access to this site is proposed by a driveway from East Amity Road, approved with the preliminary plat. A cross-access easement will be granted between all lots in the development when the plat records. Access will be available from and through the adjacent properties by South Hillsdale Avenue. To the east is currently Howry Lane and South Tavistock Avenue and East Hill Park Street. Off-street parking is proposed in excess of UDC standards. The director has approved the alternative compliance request for design of the parking lot. Landscaping is proposed in accord with UDC standards. Building elevations and renderings were submitted with this application for the proposed structure as shown. Building materials consist of Hardy lap, shake and flat siding, stone veneer accents, stained wood trusses and brackets, and asphalt shingle roofing. Compliance with the design standards listed in the architectural standards manual is required. Written testimony has been received from Jon Wardle, the applicant's representative in agreement with the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions. McCarvel: Any questions for staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? Wardle: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Jon Wardle. My address is 12601 West Explorer Drive in Boise. We have worked with staff on this project. We have reviewed the recommended conditions and we are completely fine with those. This project was previously submitted as -- with a development agreement that we provided when this project or property was rezoned and we are just going through the CUP process to go next to design review and building permits. So, we request your approval on this project. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Thank you. Wardle: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 4 of 100 McCarvel: Okay. At this time we will take public testimony on this application. There is no one signed up on the sign-in sheet to testify, but is there anybody in the room who would like to testify on this application? Okay. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: I move we close the public hearing on H-2017-0130. Bernt: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H -2017- 0130. All those in favor say aye. Oppose? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. McCarvel: Thoughts from us? I think it -- it looks like a great project and a great use for that area and I know it's been platted and talked about before. I think -- I'm in favor of it. Bernt: Pretty straight forward. Fitzgerald: Madam Mayor, yeah, we have seen the project built out at Paramount. It looks -- it looks -- it's a nice facility. We know what to expect and it's been on a radar screen, so I'm in a favor. McCarvel: Could I get a motion? Fitzgerald: Madam Mayor -- McCarvel: If no other comments. Fitzgerald: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony I move to approve file number H-2017-0310 and presented in the staff for the hearing date of October 19th, 2017. Cassanelli: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve H-2017-0130, Veranda Senior Living. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. A. Public Hearing Continued and Re-noticed from September 7, 2017 for Linder Village (H-2017-0088) by Lynx/DMG Real Estate Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 5 of 100 Partners, LLC Located 1225 W Chinden 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 81.61 Acres of Land from the RUT Zoning District in Ada County to the C-C Zoning District (64.75 Acres) and the R-8 Zoning District (16.87 Acres) in the City. 2. Request: Preliminary Plat Consisting of 16 Commercial Building Lots, One (1) Residential Building Lot, One (1) Common Lot and Three (3) Other Lots for Future Right- Of-Way Dedication on 78.29 Acres of Land in the Proposed C-C and R-8 Zoning Districts. 3. Request: Variance to UDC 11-3H-4B.2 for two (2) accesses via W. Chinden Boulevard/SH20-26 McCarvel: Thank you. At this time we, would like to open -- or continue the public hearing for item H-2017-0088, Linder Village and we will begin with the staff report. Perreault: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yes, Commissioner -- Perreault: Prior to starting this I would like to -- McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: I'd like to just bring it to the Commission's attention that there was -- it has been brought to my attention recently that there was a Facebook post that had been posted by Winco and I had liked that post unaware that it had anything to do with the Linder Village development and so when that came to my attention I went in and unliked it, because I wasn't aware that it was associated with that and just wanted to bring that to the Commission's attention, let them know that I have no affiliation whosoever with the development, with the applicants, and would like to proceed in an impartial way and so I just wanted to bring that to the Commission's attention. McCarvel: Absolutely. I don't see a problem as long as you feel you can be impartial and it was inadvertent and -- unless legal has an issue with it. Baird: Madam Chair, Members of the Council -- the Commission. The statement that the Commissioner has just given that she believes she can be impartial is really all we need. There is no legal conflict. There may have been an aware -- an awareness or a perceived bias, but putting this on the record and stating that she can proceed to consider all sides has cleared -- cleared that up, so I would suggest that we proceed. McCarvel: Perfect. Thank you. We would like to move forward with the staff report. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 6 of 100 Allen: Chairman, Members of the Commission, the next applications before you are a request for annexation and zoning, preliminary plat -- and that's it. There is a variance request in also, but that is only acted upon by the City Council. No recommendations are needed from the Commission. This site consists of 78 acres of land. It's zoned RUT in Ada county and it's located at the southeast corner of North Linder Road and West Chinden Boulevard, State Highway 20-26. Adjacent land used in zoning. To the north are commercial uses consisting of retail, restaurant, vehicle washing facility, and a fuel facility and single family residential uses in Reynard Subdivision, zoned C-3 and MUDA in Eagle. To the east are single family residential properties in Paramount Subdivision, zoned R-8, and vacant undeveloped property zoned C-C. To the south are also single family residential properties in Paramount, zoned R-8 and RUT in Ada county. To the west is North Linder Road and commercial uses zoned C-G and single family residential uses in Lochsa Falls Subdivision, zoned R-4. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation, as shown there on the left-hand side of the screen, is mixed use community. That's approximately 30 acres of land. And medium density residential, which is approximately 24 acres of land. The applicant is requesting approval to annex and zone 81.61 acres of land from the RUT zoning district in Ada county, to the C-C zoning district, which is 64.75 acres and the R-8 zoning district, which would be 16.87 acres in the city. The proposed zoning is consistent with the future land use map designations of mixed use community and medium density residential for the site. The proposed residential area is approximately seven acres, less than depicted on the future land you map for the medium density residential designation. But the map is only a guide, so -- just wanted to note that. The applicant has submitted a conceptual development plan as shown, which depicts an 85,000 square foot community grocery store for Winco as an anchor for the development and that is right down here where my arrow is pointing. With a mid-size retail use and retail shops in the southwest portion of the development . Mixed use offices, retail, live-work in the northwest portion of the development. Pad sites adjacent to Chinden Boulevard and other mid-size retail and entertainment users, shops, and restaurants in the middle of and at the east end of the development. Specific development plan for the eastern portion of the site is proposed to be submitted at a later date and that is noted as future development area and future residential development . Staff recommends revisions to the plan as stated in the staff report in accord with the Comprehensive Plan and I will go over those later in my presentation. A preliminary plat -- let me back up for a minute. This is just a use map here that's showing the type of uses that will develop in this development. A preliminary plat is proposed that consists of sixteen commercial building lots, one residential building lot, one common lot and three other lots for future right of way dedication on 78.29 acres of land in the proposed C-C and R-8 zoning districts. A large residential lot and large commercial lot on the east end of the site are planned to be resubdivided in the future into smaller lots. That is all of this area right here. Access is proposed via three accesses from North Linder Road and two accesses via Chinden, State Highway 20-26. The southern most access via Linder, which is right down here at the corner of the property, and the eastern access via the state highway, is planned to have a traffic signal in the future when warranted. Because the UDC prohibits new accesses via a state highway, a variance is requested for the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 7 of 100 proposed accesses via the State Highway 20-26. This request, as I stated earlier, does not require Commission action, only City Council. There are three local stub streets to this site from the adjacent residential neighborhood. At the south boundary there is two right here and at the east boundary of the site. And another right there. However, the portion of the site that abuts these sites is not being developed at this time. Cross- access, ingress-egress easement and driveway is required to be provided to the property to the south in an effort to decrease access points to the arterial street . An east-west backage drive is proposed through this site from Linder Road to the east boundary of the commercial area, as shown on the circulation plan before you. Another such public street is proposed at the south boundary of the site and should extend to the east boundary for extension to North Fox Run Way and the traffic signal at the intersection of Fox Run and Chinden. Street buffer landscaping is required in accord with UDC standards. A 35 foot wide street buffer is required along both Linder and Chinden, both entryway corridors into the city. A pathway is required as part of the city's regional pathway system within the street buffers along Linder and the state highway. A semi private wood screen wall is proposed along the south boundary of the commercial property on the eastern portion of the site adjacen t to the future residential development. A little detail of the fence. You can see right here. And this is a cross- section of the development. A CMU wall is proposed behind the community grocer and the pet and mixed retail area. Business hours of operation in the C-C zoning district are limited from 6:00 a.m. when the property abuts a residential use or a district. Extended hours of operation may be requested through a conditional use permit. The Winco store is proposed to operate 24 hours a day. Staff is recommending, as a development agreement provision, that business hours of operation are restricted to those stated , since there are loading areas for truck deliveries at the rear of the store near existing and future residential uses. However, if the Winco building is turned, as recommended by staff, so that the rear of the store faces Linder Road, staff does not feel the hours would need to be restricted, as deliveries shouldn't impact the neighbors. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the main anchor Winco there at the bottom of the screen and the mid anchor and retail shops as shown at the top. Building materials consist primarily of stucco, with smooth and split face CMU, metal panel siding, and stone and veneer -- brick veneer accents. Nonresidential buildings are required to be proportional to and blend in with adjacent residential buildings . Future buildings are required to be consistent with the design standards in the architectural standards manual. Staff is recommending several changes to the conceptual development plan in order for this plan to be more consistent with development and mixed use community designated areas as follows. With this plan the most intense commercial uses should be located along Linder Road and Chinden Boulevard, State Highway 20-26, and transition to less intense commercial, live-work, and residential uses at the south and east boundaries of the site. The plan as shown is pretty much opposite of that . At a minimum the strip commercial buildings, which are these that are attached along the south boundary here, should be reconfigured into an L shape and/or detached to break up the building mass and uses adjacent to the existing and future residential area and the future east-west street. The rear of the Winco building should face North Linder Road as previously mentioned, so that the loading docks aren't directly adjacent to the existing and future residential areas. Vertically integrated residential live-work pads -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 8 of 100 there are currently a couple of them located right here near the corner of the Linder and Chinden intersection. Staff is recommending that those be relocated on the periphery of the commercial development near the future residential uses and less intense commercial uses, rather than in the middle of a busy commercial area in the parking lot adjacent to the state highway. Based on the MUC designated area, 54 acres and the increase in the building size of 25,000 square feet for the Winco store. A minimum of 3.27 acres of public and quasi-public uses, such as parks, plazas, outdoor gathering areas, open space, library, schools, et cetera, are required to be provided for the development. Community grocery stores are allowed to go to up to 60,000 square feet in mixed use designated areas and they are, instead, asking for 85,000 square feet. So, the -- the comp plan does allow for increases, as long as that is made up in the public and quasi-public spaces within the development. Staff suggests that reconfiguring some of the buildings in an L shape, as recommended, could provide a more usable and attractive plaza and public use gathering area , rather than at the end and in front of a strip of stores as currently depicted. So, right now the percent common area -- there is actually more of that -- is designated along the east end of this site and in front of these stores. Staff would like to see a little more usable area and an increase in the area commensurate with the proposed building size of the Winco store. Lastly, include a street driveway, pedestrian network, that depicts vehicular and pedestrian connectivity between the proposed commercial development and the existing and future residential neighborhood. Street connection between North Linder Road and the east boundary of the site for future connection to Fox Run Way and access to the traffic signal and this will also serve as a break or transition between the commercial and residential areas on the site. An extension of the existing stub streets. Also include a bubble plan for possible future uses in the future development area to give a little bit more of an idea of how that will develop . Written testimony. There have been many letters of public testimony that have been received on this application , both for and against the project. Those are all included in the public record and have been distributed to the Commission for review and they are also available for the public to view as well on our city website. Dave McKinney, the applicant, submitted a response in a -- response to the staff report and he will go over that in his presentation. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed project with the conditions of approval in Exhibit B of the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions. McCarvel: Any questions for staff? Would the applicant like to come forward and, please, state your name and address for the record. McKinney: My name is David McKinney. I'm with DMG Real Estate Partners, 2537 West State Street, Boise, Idaho. 93702. McCarvel: And, unfortunately, those microphones -- you have to speak right into them, because -- McKinney: Okay. Can you hear me okay? McCarvel: There you go. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 9 of 100 McKinney: I have a presentation also. Okay. So, next slide. McCarvel: And you can move the mic over if you are going to be standing -- thank you. McKenney: Okay. What you see there is the site as it exists today and we have about 81 acres total. It's, obviously, undeveloped. It's RUT in the county and in the Meridian City impact area. The property tax that we pay annual in there is about 3,000 dollars a year. Okay. Our group has owned it since 1993 and, historically, it's been used for farming. Okay. While I have this aerial up, I think it's good to know that you see where the Paramount Subdivision and in the existing residential wraps to the south and to the east. Our proposal, as Sonya indicated, is to annex and zone the mixed use community and medium density residential. We feel like we are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and including our site plan. Our main goal when we developed our site plan was to buffer the existing residential. We want to build a first class mixed use community center that has great lifestyle amenities. Our uses include retail, office, residential and entertainment. We have also agreed with ITD to improve and widen Chinden and, obviously, that 3,000 dollars a year we pay in taxes, it's going to have a big increase. Before I get into the meat of the balance in my presentation I would like our land use attorney to come forward just for some quick bullet points. Ballard: Good evening. My name is Brian Ballard. 877 Main Street, Boise, Idaho. I'm here with my partner Christine Nicholas and we are both attorneys with Hawley, Troxell, Ennis and Hawley. Sonya, I have asked Bill if he would run that clicker for me to go through the slides. Each of you have a packet up there that shows the slides and I want to be very brief and to quickly present some slides with a bit of commentary. The reason I do this is to focus on one central theme , that being that the Comprehensive Plan provides policy, guidelines, concepts, encouragement, goals and objectives, but the Comprehensive Plan, legally speaking, is not law. In looking at some of the comments, we were concerned, Christine and I, that it may be misunderstood that the Comprehensive Plan is not law, is not a statute, it is not an ordinance, and as such it cannot set the exact requirements that mandatorily must be met. Each case is differ ent and each case must be judged based on the facts presented. Christine and I put our heads together and here are some things in these slides that we think you should keep in mind as we move through these proceedings. The first slide -- the first slide -- that one. That was the first slide. And does it show the slide on that overhead? It does? Okay. The first slide sets the premise, which is the Comprehensive Plan policies are guidance, not law. Zoning ordinance is law. Comprehensive Plan is not. Zoning ordinance may diverge from the Comprehensive Plan. It's a policy guide. The next slide set forth that Linder Village is in compliance with the policy guide, as will be discussed more completely by the speakers that follow. Briefly the Meridian f uture land use map designates the land comprising Linder Village for mixed use community, with a C-C zone. C-C zoning allows for a broad mix of use and the applicant proposes conforming mixed uses as you can see. Slide number three. The next slide menti ons the comp plan's encouragement of employment. Linder Village will provide medium density residential, the same as the density for the surrounding Paramount Subdivision Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 10 of 100 and a concept which includes live-work. Next slide. The next slide, number four, references the comp plan's encouragement of the public and quasi -public spaces and uses. Linder Village aspires to meet that goal, including a public plaza and a community meeting center. Next slide. Connectivity is next. A big word in planning. The comp plan encourages connectivity, but the spirit of servicing as a guide and not a mandate. The comp plan calls for and suggests connectivity with reference to pedestrian accesses that link subdivisions together and promotes connectivity to streets that enhance connectivity in a design that incorporates connectivity, but there is no shall in all of these words. Connectivity is not -- is -- is a goal. It is not a string of explicit requirements. Next slide takes connectivity to the highways and I will defer to John Ringert, our expert -- traffic expert to talk to you about that. The next three slides mention the comp plan's goals of providing housing options close to employment opportunities -- opportunities and close to shopping centers. Medium density, live -work, goals Linder Village aspires to meet. The next slide. Some of the additional goals and objectives that Linder Village aspires to, as prompted by the comp plan. Healthcare, daycare, community grocer and so forth. Next slide. Almost the last. Bear with me a few more mentions of the things that the comp plan likes, suggests and encourages and a few ways Linder Village will respond. Now, we go to the last page, the last slide and -- almost at the end. You have understood now that there is no mention in any -- any -- of anything in the comp plan that is absolutely and positively explicitly required and why is that? Number 12 sets it forth with some clarity. The Idaho Supreme Court has held a comprehensive plan is not a zoning law or a displacement of ex isting zone law that sets forth explicit and mandatory requirements. A Comprehensive Plan is a statement of policies and guidelines that assist in zoning decisions. Zoning -- zoning must be in accordance with the policies of the comp plan, but the policies are not mandatory law and you, as the Planning and Zoning Commission, are entitled to listen to the facts and make your own recommendation based on those facts , guided by the comp plan, but not statutorily controlled or handcuffed by what it says. Indeed, as a closing comment, Idaho courts have recognized that it is not only likely, but it's expected that applications will not comply with all of the provisions of a comp plan. If someone says that the comp plan sets forth explicit requirements -- explicit requirements, it is not -- it does not. It is a policy guideline. Thank you. I stand for questions or I will defer to the next person. McCarvel: Questions for this applicant? Let's just start -- it's not going to be -- we are going to have more questions -- I think we will address them as they come up. So, Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: So, Mr. Ballard -- Ballard: Yes. Fitzgerald: So, I understand your comment -- what you're saying and I appreciate the -- the legal education. The challenge I have is -- is when we put a policy in place it is the goal and so I'm kind of feeling to -- to meet the connection where you're trying to get to, because I -- when we put together our comp plan it's the goal of the city. It's to get the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 11 of 100 connectivity, it's to get to live-work where it makes sense and the buffers. So, I'm -- I'm failing to make the connection. So, can you help me there? Ballard: Madam Chair and Mr. Commissioner, the connection I'm trying to make is that when somebody says that this is an explicit requirement of the comp plan and you must put in what it is that you propose, that's not true. Fitzgerald: And I understand that. I just want to make sure we are on the same page. Ballard: I was just fearful from reading all the comments that there was some misunderstanding there and I think -- Fitzgerald: You know, I think we understand kind of our role in this process. Ballard: Yeah. Fitzgerald: I think it's the -- we still have a -- the best plan for our city and that's our goal and our job is to help City Council. Ballard: Absolutely. I just don't want to elevate -- excuse me for speaking directly. I'm sorry. Fitzgerald: You're fine. Ballard: If it's okay. I just don't want to elevate a comp plan into a zoning law. Fitzgerald: Got it. Thank you. McCarvel: Commissioner Bernt? Bernt: No. I think Commissioner Fitzgerald asked the questions and made the clarity that I was wanting, so I think we are good. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Ballard: Thank you. McCarvel: More applicant testimony? McKinney: Again David McKinney with DMG. McCarvel: And, please, speak directly into the mic. You got a very soft voice. McKinney: All right. So, what you have before you now is our conceptual site plan and I just wanted to give you a feel for how we came up with the same . First of all, again -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 12 of 100 McCarvel: Just bend it towards you. Got to be like this close to it. McKinney: Our goal -- McCarvel: There you go. McKinney: -- was to buffer the existing neighborhood as best we could and if you remember the aerial that I had up originally, it showed where the residential -- there you go. Where the residential is, okay, on the east and south portion of the property. Now, let's go to the conceptual site plan and you will see what we tried to do. We tried to buffer that same area. We purposely chose the placement of the Winco building as far away from the existing residential as we could and we also lined up that bu ilding in that area with what we understood to the south of that property to be , which was MUC future comprehensive plan designated property. So, we were trying to get what we saw, an intense use, away from the residential area, number one. We also took land that was designated as mixed use community and converted that to residential. So, we specifically would not have commercial buildings of any sort up against the residential properties and so if you were to -- in looking at the site plan, count the lots that are on the south end of his property, just go over six lots, that's about the dividing line where the mixed use community and the residential separate . So, we took mixed use community property and converted it to residential in our proposal. Was there any questions on that piece? Okay. Moving on then. McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: Mr. McKinney. So, in regards to your design -- and I think Sonya talked about it, is live-work -- usually we go close to residential. Can you give me an idea why you moved live-work on to the -- onto Chinden? McKinney: Yeah. Fitzgerald: And what that would look like? McKinney: Yeah. In fact, if you were to flip the page, next slide to the use plan, you will see that live-work area and the two buildings to the south of it, the other buildings that are kind of held within that area, we see that as our Village area. We see that as a more pedestrian friendly livable area. With the temple, we feel like we have some rental opportunities on an upper level. These will be two story buildings on an upper level section. We believe that the lower levels would be perfect office spaces. If people wanted to both live and work in those buildings they could. So, in essence, condos up top and offices down below. The other buildings you see there are restaurants. We have interest from a bank. We have a drug store. And with what we are doing with the setbacks off of Chinden and Linder and landscaping there and the berming, we feel like that could be our Village area, even though it's out front on -- on a very visible intersection. The other buildings you see along Chinden, those are high intensive uses. Gas stations. Drive-thrus. Those uses would not locate in the -- in the rear or the south Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 13 of 100 end of the shopping center. They need the access and visibility close to the main roads. The buildings, like Winco, which is 85,000 square feet -- that's a big building. They can afford to be farther back on a property, because they are a larger building and they have visibility and although they want convenience and visibility, just like everyone else, they can sit farther back and have that visibility from the streets because they are a bigger building. Questions on that? McCarvel: Staff had recommended that the building -- number one, that every -- all of this should be flipped. But, then, in addition to that, that the Winco building itself should be flipped, so that the truck area faces Linder and that's, obviously, not how you have presented it here tonight. So, what -- McKinney: We -- we have looked at a lot of different ways to place the Winco building on the property. We feel like this is the best place for it. We do disagree with staff on that. And we have told staff that. Plus we don't think it's appropriate to have the docks facing across the street where there is other residential and, you know, a main road. We don't -- we don't think that's realistic, so -- and I would say a third point is it's not viable. All these tenants that -- not only Winco, but adjacent to Winco is a pet food store. Adjacent to the pet food store are service shops. They all want visibility to the road also. So, I'm not trying to be an obstructionist or anything, disagreeable, but it will not work if we flip the building so that the docks face Linder and these buildings face interior. Bernt: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Bernt. Bernt: I had a question for you, Mr. McKinney. Are you -- are you opposed to redesigning this or is this written in stone? McKinney: I can -- I'm -- I'm flexible in the way that if there is points here to make it better, I want to hear those. Always. Okay. But if you're asking me will we flip the building so that the dock faces Linder -- or docks face Linder and the store fronts face to the east interior, we will not do that. McCarvel: Okay. Perreault: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: So, that entire eastern area will be residential, so there is no consideration of putting Winco on the east side of that commercial area; is that right? McKinney: No. Winco's placement is as -- as we show it on the site plan. Now, I will tell you north of the residential area where we have future development , we have been Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 14 of 100 contacted by -- which will be pretty neat if it happens -- by a medical office complex that would be very nice for the community in a campus atmosphere . We signed a confidentiality agreement and can't give the name, but we are working through all that. Bernt: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Bernt. Bernt: Did you -- did you get a report from ITD in regard to the traffic situation in your -- for your proposed development? McKinney: Yeah. We -- we actually have approval from ITD for our access points as shown on the site plan and also the traffic signal that 's shown at Urban Way. Now, I also have a traffic engineer here that can address all the road improvement that are planned. You know, what we have proposed and ITD has accepted, is that we would widen the road for an additional two lanes. So, through Meridian Road and actually will taper at the midpoint to Locust Grove and, then, as you know ITD is planning to widen Eagle Road. Bernt: Correct. McKinney: They have actually indicated they may be able to move up their time frame where the whole stretch could be done. But I have got to tell you, this project drives that and having the ability to spend the money to do that . Bernt: I'm excited to hear the traffic situation. McKinney: Let me -- let me have our architect come up and walk through the elevations -- Fitzgerald: Before you leave -- Mr. McKinney. So, in regards to the -- Mr. Ballard had mentioned a plaza meeting place. Is that in the middle of the live-work or is there somewhere else I'm missing? McKinney: There is -- there is a couple different areas and, you know, a lot -- and this is a hundred scale plan, so it's not as prevalent as if you were looking at a large 24 by 36 inch plan. But all the green you see along the front, that's more than what's required, first of all. Okay. And, then, the plaza area that you see that they mentioned on the southeast corner of the entertainment section, I -- we place that there and you see there is also a community meeting place. We place that there because that was the most convenient tie in to our residential area to the south. You see that is a walking path that takes you back into residential from that plaza area in that community meeting place . So, in that section. We also -- this is a very large esplanade that you would walk along the storefronts and we plan to have, you know, kiosks and so forth along those areas where it would be very friendly to pedestrians. Then the area you see on the -- more in the corner of the property, which I refer to our center within our center or our Village Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 15 of 100 area, that dark area, there we plan for that to be comparable to say a -- you have Brownley Crossing in Boise or BoDo, that kind of atmosphere there. Bernt: Which area? McKinney: Out in -- towards the north central part of the site where you see the live- work and, then, the buildings associated with that. Bernt: You think that's going to be a like BoDo? McKinney: Yeah. That would be like BoDo or Brownley Crossing in the general look. So, you see the brown areas and the -- kind of the intersection that's created within the site there, that would be like that. Fitzgerald: The concept of the community meeting spaces, give me an idea of what you're using that space for. McKinney: Use it -- anyone can use it -- I tried to have meetings, you know, for this project. It's tough to find places to have meetings. So, this would be for, you know -- you know, people that locate within the center. It would be for the residential area around it. It would be for the school. It would be for whoever wants to use it. Nominal cleaning type charge. But they are available for the community to use. Like a clubhouse. Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you. Slocum: Good evening, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. Craig Slocum. 200 Broad Street, Boise, Idaho, with CSHQA Architects. I think I will -- I'm going to -- in the spirit of time -- we have got a lot of other folks from our team that I think need to address some items. Sonya described the conceptual elevations that we have provided with the application. It's a -- kind of a modern contemporary theme using brick, stucco, stone, metal. I think one of the points -- and, obviously, there are representatives from Winco here today, but they have -- this is not a prototype Winco elevation. You will see they have gone a long ways to match the -- the design theme we have tried to present for the entire center. I think it's a very warm, inviting -- certainly through the use of broken plains, both vertically and horizontally, so that there aren't any flat plains. Obviously, the code doesn't allow that, but we wouldn't do that through a mixture of materials and plains. I think more importantly, I wanted to address -- we have read in some of the comments and heard from some of our neighborhood meetings -- I think we described the distance that Winco -- which in its current placement abuts what would be a public street and, then, to the south of that is commercial -- what will be -- it's currently RUT, but is comp planned for MUC as well, showing the distance and the berming that we are providing, both landscaping, screen walls -- if you click two more. This is really what I wanted to spend a little bit of time on. I think there is a lot of concern about the placement of Winco as it relates to the distance to the existing residential and what we have provided to you in your packets are some examples of some similar sized Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 16 of 100 buildings throughout the city and their proximity to residentially zoned properties. The Albertson's at Ten Mile is about 90 feet . If you will go pretty quickly through these. You know, you will see Eagle and McMillan is only 73. This is the Kohl's out at Centerpoint, 107, with a street between it. But as you go through these you will see they all range from 75 to about a hundred at its most -- you know, down to less than sixty in the case of Target. I think what's important is that on our conceptual plan , as it's -- I don't know if you can get back to the conceptual plan. The distance between the back southeast corner of Winco and the first residentially zoned property is about 208. So, more than twice what most any other grocer -- neighborhood grocer in the City of Meridian provides today. As you look farther to the east, the kind of entertainment area, that mid anchor B, which you see, which is -- there is some discussions with a theater -- that's approximately 375 feet from the existing residential. So, it's -- it's tough to -- I think it's hard sometimes for people to understand the kind of distances we are talking when we are talking about an 80 acre site. I think it's just important to see 200 feet from the back corner of Winco to any existing zoned residential property today. And with that I would -- Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? Slocum: -- stand for questions. McCarvel: Yes. Fitzgerald: So, the question still is -- you guys are asking for 24 hours -- at least my understanding is Winco wants to roll for 24 hours and so most of the stores you're talking about are not 24 hour stores. So, you're bringing in trucks all night long, you're -- people are there all night long. Am I incorrect in saying that? McKinney: You're correct they are asking for 24 hours. Yes. Fitzgerald: And our staff is asking to shift it so that we are -- it's not directly towards that residential neighborhood. Slocum: City code -- we do not abut any residential property. The Winco parcel does not abut residential property. Fitzgerald: Okay. Slocum: By code it can be a 24 hour operation. Fitzgerald: Okay. McCarvel: And that point you're measuring from, that is exactly where the trucks load and unload; right? Slocum: Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 17 of 100 Fitzgerald: Is it angled? Yeah. Sorry. McCarvel: And I notice -- I mean the -- some of the examples you gave on those distances you are using as examples, they are from the non-shipping side of the building. Several of them. The Target was. The Walmart is turned so that is not their loading side on Overland. Some of those measurements you're taking from the side of -- a side of a building that has really no truck activity on it. Slocum: Probably a fair statement, Commissioner. Fitzgerald: Mr. Slocum, can you tell me where you are going to load from this picture, how the trucks are going to load from that in this concept? Slocum: They would come off of Linder onto the public street, enter the second access route right where -- thank you, Sonya. Enter the second access point, pull in, back up, turn 360 degrees and pull back out onto the public street . Fitzgerald: Okay. McCarvel: And you're asking for -- to have what was in here, that if it's to -- to the residential area that it's usually not a 24/7 store and you will be taken -- is there any consideration to have -- I mean I'm sure that's when you want your truck deliveries is in the middle of the night, probably. Slocum: I will let the representative -- McCarvel: Yeah. Slocum: But -- McCarvel: Okay. Slocum: And they happen throughout the day, but certainly they do happen in the evenings and nighttime. McCarvel: Any other questions? Cassanelli: I have a question, Madam Chair. Can we go to that slide that showed the cross-section of the berm and the wall with the road? There was -- I think -- McCarvel: The one before it. Yeah. Cassanelli: The one before. Okay. That one. The -- where -- in relation to this road coming off of -- coming off of Linder, where is that wall and berm? Is that on the north side of that roadway or the south side? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 18 of 100 Slocum: North -- it's on the north side. Cassanelli: So, the -- the wall is on the north side of that road? Slocum: Correct. Cassanelli: With the -- with the truck activity does it make sense to put that on the south side? That's one question. Number two question. Have you looked at a -- at a taller wall? I know there is -- it's the Lowe's on Overland, one thing they did -- that was years ago now -- is they put -- it's either an eight foot or a ten foot wall between -- on the back side of that and they also did some effects to the lighting on the back side of that to minimize -- because we haven't talked about lighting yet . I'm sure there is -- that will probably come up, lighting on the back side of these buildings. Slocum: I can respond, Commissioner -- Madam Chair, Commissioner. In regards to the wall on the north or the south, I think the property to the south is zoned for -- is comp planned for commercial and there will be some access and tie in there . I think you would want the wall to remain on Winco's property. The -- as Mr. McKinney has indicated to me, if there is a desire to extend the height of that wall , we can consider -- we would be willing to look at that. Cassanelli: And the trucks -- just to double -- just to reiterate on that question, the trucks will enter on that typically -- would typically enter on that second access point. They are not going to go further than that bend. Slocum: Absolutely not. Cassanelli: Okay. Slocum: You are correct -- Cassanelli: I mean right now is -- right now it's a roundabout and I'm assuming that's going to be extended in the future. Slocum: It would come with the future residential development. Cassanelli: Okay. Thank you. Ringert: I think we are skipping a couple slides. Okay. Madam Chair Person, Commissioners, John Ringert with Kittelson and Associates. 101 Capital Boulevard, Suite 301, Boise. McCarvel: Can you speak up. Ringert: All right. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 19 of 100 Bernt: You almost have to eat that mic. Ringert: Okay. Bernt: The next person has to smell your breath on it. That's how close it is. Ringert: Is this better? Bernt: That's better. Ringert: Gobble it up. Okay. Madam Chair, Commissioners, John Ringert. Traffic engineer with Kittelson and Associates. 101 South Capital Boulevard -- 101 South Capital -- McCarvel: There you go. Ringert: You're right. It's gotten worse. John Ringert. Kittelson and Associates. 101 South Capital Boulevard, Suite 301, Boise, Idaho. 83702. We did the traffic work for this project. So, I know that it came up earlier about the traffic. I want to say that this -- this has been a long process. It's been about two years of working with ITD and ACHD. I believe this is really the first project on this corridor to really -- not just say there is a problem, but just -- but actually ask what could the solutions be. So, you know, by asking that, obviously, that opened up a lot of doors. So, when we first entered this we looked at this and said, well, you know, already just -- just if we let the existing residential developments build out we are already going to overload Meridian Road. I think most people that commute out there and see it daily and probably most of you have been up there enough to know that , you know, Chinden Boulevard probably deserves a little widening, you know, a decade ago and it's just, you know, funding and other constraints that kept that from happening. There were some improvements done with the Eagle Island Marketplace at Chinden and Linder that almost built it out, but didn't quite, and, you know, when we looked at that, you add up all that background development that being approved on those corners and now that's getting close to capacity. So, we went back to ITD and ACHD and said, you know, we can -- we can kind of just do this as any other development and go in and say , well, we don't know what to do about Chinden, but instead we looked at different options. How to make -- how we can make this all work. So, essentially, we said, well, we are going to get commercial here. We got to have some signalized access. At some point you have to have some access to a signal out there, because sooner -- we are going to have Chinden medianed in the future, so will Linder. We also have ITD -- we also have ITD's plan for widening. They have a -- they have a study, which gets you through the environmental process, but it's unfunded. It's only funded to get to Locust Grove. So, we are talking many years before we would actually be out to Linder, much less beyond Linder. So, what we did is we proposed kind of a whole package of improvements that really do rely on this development being successful. They are essentially -- the biggest one is not only widen the site frontage -- there. That's kind of strange. Okay. I can't Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 20 of 100 see it, but -- you can see the edge. I can't see the edge. The first one is widen Chinden to five lanes. Let's just get it done. Start at Meridian Road, widen through Linder. Once ITD connects -- once they get to Locust Grove hopefully we can do a joint project that connects and it will only be about a thousand feet between those two projects, but you really can't make a connection until you have a set of plans for both projects, so -- you know, because one way or another somebody's going to be off. The next one is let's build out the Chinden-Linder intersection. Add double lefts to the eastbound and westbound approaches. Those were left out of the improvements done with the Eagle Island Marketplace. Finally, let's get a signal at Bergman and the site access and let's build that as -- kind of as big as we can, just to be able to make sure we take as little of an impact on the -- on the amount of capacity we have on -- on Chinden and, then, essentially, set back everything for widening seven lanes in the future for ITD, including a future CFI. We are not sure if that will ever be funded, but it continues for the intersection plan that would essentially take right of way on all four corners and it would be very hard to do later. So, work with them. We have incorporated their footprint. We have located our access outside of their influence area and they have had a chance to review all that. So, this is a picture just showing kind of that comprehensive plan. The purple are the site frontage improvements, which would be, you know, Linder, completing that -- that five lanes and connecting to an ACHD project. Chinden I have already described where we -- we, essentially, widen to five lanes and our frontage right of way for seven lanes in the CFI and, then, go to Meridian Road, widen that to five lanes, and, then, hopefully, you know, in future years between us and ITD connect the two projects. It would be great if you could get them so it looks seamless, but -- if that's -- that would be -- that be determined in the future. So, essentially, you know, these improvements are significant. I think the widening of Chinden is well above what I have seen ever be proposed by a development on -- on this corridor. It's going to significantly improve traffic operations. It's not the end. Obviously, ITD shows the need for seven lanes in the long term. But at least we can get this one step done . By doing the right of way now -- giving the right of way to ITD, at least on our site, our frontage where we can for all seven lanes. Hopefully getting that right of way also on the south side through some of the widening. That really helps with accelerating the future widening, if needed, in the future once this gets funded and the new signal allows not only our access, but it provides options as medians go in on Chinden for the -- for the developments on the north side of the road. Not that -- you know, that will still have to be worked out how they do with their connections. So, if there is any questions. Bernt: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Bernt. Bernt: Question. When would these improvements be made? Prior to development or after development or is there a time frame? And maybe you said and I didn't hear. I apologize if I'm asking a question you already stated. Ringert: Madam Chair Person, Commissioner, essentially, right now what the process would be is to enter into an agreement with ITD, similar to your development Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 21 of 100 agreements, we would enter into what's called a star agreement that would go with the permit. Depending on the design right now, the location of the edges of the road are being worked on. It really boils down to right of way. You know, if we -- if we were to give the right of way for all seven lanes at the same time to the south as we build the five lanes, there is some parcels that you have to go through and get right of way from and that -- that could stagger time frames. So, really, at this point it really ends up being detailed in that agreement, which it still -- which is going to take a while. So, you know, the plan is to get them done as fast as possible, but at least -- and the frontage is, obviously, easy and Chinden and Linder is pretty easy, but getting through Meridian Road, it really depends on how you widen the road and how much right of way you get. ITD doesn't want to -- they'd like to take one big shot and get right of way and, then, go back to people later, so -- and they are willing to help out on that process. Perreault: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Excuse me. Was there any consideration made of a light at the Linder entrance and what is the distance between that and the light at Cayuse Creek? And, then, also could you further expound on widening to five lanes on Linder to match ACHD. They're doing that in 2019; is that right? Ringert: Uh-huh. Perreault: So, is that -- the plan is just to allow ACHD to continue with that or is there going to be -- is the applicant going to be involved in that as well? Ringert: Okay. So, let's see, can I go back one -- there. Okay. So, I will answer the first question. A signal on Linder. At the very southern end of the site there could possibly be a signal there. That wasn't part of the initial discussion with ACHD. It doesn't meet their spacing standards and so they are not committed to a signal there. It also at this point enters the back of the site and we don't really want to promote all the people going to the back of the site. You know, it's -- that street there is still unsure about how it will come through the residential, so the -- right now there is not a signal planned there. There could be possibly in the future, but at this point that's -- that hasn't been -- and having gone through the process and ACHD said that you cannot considerate it, but not right now. Further, the other accesses further to the north, they are just too close. They either are going to be basically too close to the existing signal and if you look at the future plans for the continuous flow intersection from ITD, those will actually have to be -- at least the northern one will have to be medianed off. So, there is just -- it's just not realistic to have a full signal there. Maybe there is some options to work with ITD, CFI and get some partial movements. Cassanelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassanelli. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 22 of 100 Cassanelli: Was there -- were there concerns from ITD on the location of the signal at Bergman Way being too close to -- to Linder? Did they have concerns with that -- with a signal there? Ringert: Madam Chair Person, Commissioner, that was a lot of the analysis. Essentially, ITD really likes to stick with half mile spacing. What kind of -- kind of caused the issue initially is Fox Run Way got moved off that half mile spacing and got connected to a very low -- low density residential neighborhood to the north and so when we looked at this, you know, optimally ITD said, geez, we would just love to move that whole signal and serve both your sites right on the property line. W e did go through analysis and we confirmed with ITD going back and forth that the signal would operate okay. It's out of the area of influence from the -- from the future CFI. You know, with one additional signal and I think, you know, optimally you don't have additional signals, because they do cause a little more delay. But the capacity improvements offset that significantly. So, we went through that process and -- you know. And they agreed with the overall plan. McCarvel: Any other questions? Bernt: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Bernt. Bernt: So, is there a potential that the widening or the construction on Chinden wouldn't be until far after this development has been built out? Is there that potential? Ringert: Madam Chairperson, Commissioner, I -- I can't see -- I don't see ITD giving an open -- I don't -- I don't see that having an open time frame . I work on many projects with ITD and they want -- they want certainty in their projects. You know, I'm just saying you can't commit to a certain day, because there is a lot of pieces that are moving that come into doing -- you have seen this happen, probably, with ITD's projects. There is just a -- there is just a lot of moving parts and, you know, stuff you think takes six months, takes a year and stuff you think takes two years takes six months and it really is figuring out how to put it all together when you're talking about a project this big . So, I don't see it carrying on a long time, but you will -- you will notice there are other developments that have done large infrastructure improvements like this that they have done a certain set up front that they had all the right of way for and, then, they -- and, then, they worked out deals with ITD to do little pieces after that they needed right away for. So, there could be some stuff that's longer. I can tell you that the connection to the Locust Grove -- to fix Locust Grove probably wouldn't happen until ITD is done with their project we know and that -- and that could be -- that could be 2021, 2022. So, you might -- you know, you might even have this all widened and still have a little -- you know, you would still have that section of Eagle Road to Locust -- to past Locust Grove, that narrow section. So, there is a lot of moving parts. Hopefully that gives you some -- some relative certainty. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 23 of 100 McCarvel: Thank you. Ringert: You're welcome. McCarvel: Yeah. How many other presenters do you have? You're it? Taunton: Just myself. McCarvel: All right. Taunton: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, my name is Bob Taunton. My address is 2724 South Palmatier Way in Boise. 83716. I have been asked by Dave to provide a little commentary on the residential component. Realize it's not part of the application, other than simply the rezoning it to R-8 and I have one slide that I would like to show you. If we could move forward to the pictures of the residential -- there we go. Mr. McKinney had asked me to provide a little bit of indication of what the residential development could look like within the R-8. So, we had opportunity at the neighborhood meeting last week to show this exhibit board and based on the conversations that I had with a number of people, it was quite well received. Again, we are not proposing four- plexes, we are not proposing apartments, those do not fit with the zoning. But we wanted to try and portray the character that we would likely see in the area and it's -- it's comprised of kind of clustered single family development, townhouses, and duplexes. And those are product types that really kind of match the market demographics today . You know, previously everybody had to fit into an 8,000 square foot lot with a three bedroom or a four bedroom floor plan . But today there is -- there is more differentiation in the market. There is some more innovative product that's taking place and, fortunately, it's been very well received by the -- by the marketplace, because it's -- it's capturing their life stages, it's capturing their income levels, it's capturing their preferences, as opposed to trying to have them all fit into one thing. The advantage of this type of residential product -- it, obviously, fits well within the zoning category -- is that it's more flexible in terms of its site design. So, if you know what the -- if you remember what the site looks like, it's a fairly narrow linear site. It's about 300 feet wide, four hundred feet wide and it's 2,000 feet long, basically, as a plot goes. And so it's very difficult to do that in a kind of conventional single family type of neighborhood or a product type that is based on that sort of format. So, these product types offer us the opportunity to do some really innovative things. Just to give you an idea of what -- the number of units per acre, the -- the column to the left shows housing that's single family detached at eight units per acre . It's very successful, very delightful in terms of living experience. The next column in the left is really small lot single family, alley loaded and that's typically about five and a half to six units per acre . Third column, obviously, is townhouses. And the fourth column has a couple of townhouses . The right-hand column. But the lower -- the lower unit is actually a duplex. So, it's a great opportunity to mix these different housing types and create that diversity, which is really an important principle for us to follow in terms of doing the residential . Again, we are not trying to just put some houses into a leftover piece of property that's not commercial as Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 24 of 100 an afterthought. The goal here is to create, you know, a neighborhood that has itself the elements of a really delightful place to live. There will, obviously, be some amenities that are designed into this when we move forward with the planning on this . But, again, we just want to give you a sense of the character of the residential component that we will see in the future and, again, that's -- none of that work has really started yet. We would begin to do that after the approvals and, then, move forward. We are talking to staff and importantly talking to the neighbors. So, with that I can stand for questions. McCarvel: I think maybe we will hold our questions to when this comes before us. Okay. All right. Taunton: Thank you very much. McKinney: Madam Chairwoman and Commissioners, thank you so much for allowing us to take the time to walk through our project. The last few slides show the number of support that we have and received. I know you have that in your record also. But happy to answer further questions. McCarvel: Okay. At this time we will open the public testimony and I think -- we have many pages of people that have signed up to testify. I think, just to put a little organization to it, do we have people here that are heads of their HOA or are requesting the ten minutes? All right. Okay. And that -- you would be speaking as the head of the HOA and speaking for other people in the group. Okay. All right. Let me see a show of hands again. All right. Why don't we just start in the front row. That's fine. Absolutely. And as you have heard this evening, please, approach -- when you approach the mic state your name and address for the record and, please, bend the mic just as close to you as possible. Carroll: Good evening, Madam Chair, Commissioners. My name is Andrea Carroll. My address is 714 West Street and I represent a group called Protect Meridian. It's a group of private citizens that have come together to hire me . I'm a land use attorney and they came together to put their resources together to hire me , because they wanted private representation, independent representation of their property right interest in this matter. So, I'm going to ask for the full ten minutes and would you all, please, raise your hand. Protect Meridian. We are all in one spot, to make things easy. So, first of all, I want to commend the staff report. They did an amazing job with going through line by line all of the required criteria that's in the ordinance. This is in the -- in the comp plan as the developer's attorney pointed out. The -- the decision criteria for each of these permits is required by ordinance. You have to consider these and you have to make those findings in order to be able to operate in the City of Meridian's ordinances past these permits -- or approve these permits and the staff -- the staff report goes into great detail with the comp plan and the reason the comp plan is important is because it's mentioned in the ordinance. Now, while it incorporates by a reference and it certainly doesn't carry the same weight, because it's not passed with the same process, it is part of your decision criteria and you can't ignore it and certainly I -- I really appreciate the analysis with regard to the variance, which I know is not before you. So, I'm going to save some Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 25 of 100 of that detail for the City Council hearing. There is one thing that I want to quibble with and it's because it deals with ordinance interpretation and if you look -- this is actually taken from the staff report and it concerns the hours of operation and if you go to that last line, I think that the staff is interpreting the ordinance in a way that I'm not quite sure fits with the way the ordinance is defined. If you look at that -- because this is an annexation provision above and beyond the UDC standards may be implemented through the development agreement. So, what they are saying is if Winco redesigns the site, that you do have the ability to give them additional hours that are provided for in the ordinance. So, this is the ordinance. These are the actual words of the ordinance. If you look at it, it's not discretionary, it says shall, and it says that these are -- these are supposed to be the hours of operation for business and the cc zone when the property abuts a residential use or a district and as I looked through the staff report, it was clear to me that -- that the staff was interpreting when the property abuts as if it was the same thing as when the use abuts or when a commercial building abuts a residential use and that's how they got to the conclusion that if you moved the Winco Closer to Chinden, that it would be okay to grant them the additional hours. However, it says in the ordinance that you have to approve the conditional use permit when the property abuts a residential use. So, the applicant's attorney talked about what the Idaho Supreme Court says about land use cases. They also talk about what cities are allowed to do and not allowed to do when interpreting their own ordinances. Now, the city will be given a great amount of deference in interpreting its own ordinances , but it has to be a reasonable interpretation and if the plain language of the ordinance says one thing and the city is saying the other, the court is not necessarily going to uphold that and, in fact, they won't. So, if you go to the definitions in Meridian City Code There is -- there is no ambiguity here. Abut is defined. Property is defined. And it's defined as the entire parcel. So, if any part of that parcel is abutting residential use, which it is, you have to approve this through the conditional use permit process and that is very important, because a conditional use permit carries with it other required findings that are not before you today. There hasn't been an analysis on it and there hasn't been a public notice that has been made properly for a conditional use permit and none of the permits that are before you today have the exact same required findings that a conditional use permit has. So, you can't actually approve the -- the unlimited hours, the 24 hours that Winco needs to operate through this process. Now, the other point I have to make is about the development agreement . Now, Idaho Code is what -- through LUPA, gives cities the ability to enter into these development agreements as part of a zone and this is what LUPA says, this isn't the city's ordinance that they have discretion in interpreting, the courts are going to interpret the statue and this is the -- what the statute says, that you're allowed to require a permit as a condition of rezoning, that the owner or developer make a written commitment concerning the use development of that subject property or the subject parcel . So, in other words, when you are assigned a zone you have sort of a default bubble of uses that you're allowed . You're allowed to constrict that bubble by asking the developer to make additional commitments. What you can't do through a development agreement is you can't enlarge that bubble. You can't, for instance, grant a variance through a development agreement. You can't grant a conditional use permit through a different agreement. There is a different process that's outlined in state code and if a court is looking at this , I Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 26 of 100 -- I don't know that they are going to agree with staff's interpretation that you have the authority to enter a development agreement to grant a conditional use permit that was not noticed for the public and that the proper findings were not made by the City of Meridian. So, I don't know. The mouse isn't working and I'm trying to get this to play. It's a video. If you could help me out there. So, the reason I included this -- it's a three minute demonstration in Salem, Oregon. I will just spend a second introducing it. The lady who took this video, she -- there is quite a bit of existing residential that has been planned and has been established for a long time, but in -- but in Salem it's just about illustrating -- this is what planning and zoning is about. We don't want this to happen. Can you hit play or -- okay. Well, what I will say is that I included the link to the YouTube video in my legal memorandum. It's dated October 12th and I know that you spend a lot of time preparing for these hearings . That is -- and I do hope that you review that prior to making your decision. Thank you very much. I will stand for questions if you have any. Perreault: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: I actually attempted to view that video and the link was also not working. I took the actual hyperlink and put it into YouTube directly and it did not open a video that was functioning. McCarvel: Yeah. I did the same thing. Carroll: I don't know if staff can -- I included the video in the file that I put into the public record, the raw video, and it's in the folder. No. It's the actual video. It's not YouTube. McCarvel: You know, if we can't get -- Carroll: It was working today. The link. So -- it's fine. McCarvel: Yeah. Carroll: I will make sure it's fixed. McCarvel: I think the narrative you had included with it -- I mean pretty much explained what the video -- Carroll: Well, if I could have one minute to describe the video. The reason why I included -- and the reason why I sought out the woman in Salem is because before I went to law school I actually worked on a Winco freight crew. I was part of their -- their team and so I personally know how loud it is. Okay. Great. I personally know how loud it is behind a Winco and I -- I know that when I was working at the Nampa Winco there was an open field. There wasn't -- there weren't residential developments right behind us. It just -- it's inappropriate. I came in just a few minutes ago. Commissioner, I'm Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 27 of 100 going to pause this, because -- we are not going to try to push the round pegs in a square hole as the opposite. I just wanted to let you know that this is why you're here is to make sure that the uses that are placed next to each other, whether we are talking about existing residential or whether we are talking about the residential that's planned for the -- for the phase two. It's important to make sure that when you place uses -- like commercial and residential next to each other, that they are complimentary and they don't put -- put one property per the owner in a situation where they are making a residential family or person unable to live in there. Thank you. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. And who do you have designated -- not -- sorry. Who is -- who do you have designated next? Okay. Marshall: Madam Chair, Commissioners, my is Joe Marshall. I live at 5937 North Arliss Avenue here in Meridian. I'm speaking for a group we are calling ourselves Smart Growth Meridian and we are not associated with the national group. It's sad. I'm going to start off with that. It's really sad, because, you know what, we wan t shopping, we want everything they are offering on this property. We do. We just want them to rearrange it, you know, following the Comprehensive Plan, because I taught land planning for fifteen years and I could do a good job with this. I promise you. They are not listening to us. They are obstinate. I'm sorry. I'm going to hand this to the clerk. This is what I have on the public record and my power -- will this actually -- as assume it will. Thank you. All right. So, I'm going to ask you -- and, I'm sorry, I did not know your curriculum vitae, so I don't know your background, but I was really impressed with some of the questions. So, you do have some background. Please bear with me. I just wrote this after the staff report came out Tuesday, 5:02 p.m. I rewrote my whole thing. It was more based on what you're receiving there , which is on the public record. So, I rewrote the whole thing and part of this is meant as part of my first year of land planning classes. Have you ever painted a room? Changed the color of it? Have you noticed that it changes your mood. It changes the way you feel about it. Now, I know a lot of you this is pretty basic. Color can have a huge impact on your emotion . How you feel. Your mood. Every color produces a different feeling or emotion. There is a study that shows that blue makes you feel calm. So, in a blue room it's actually proven people sleep longer and feel more rested. Why do you think McDonald's uses red and yellow? Because you feel more active and you eat more. There is a lot of studies behind this. Now, why am I talking about color? Well, it has a lot to do with -- let's say architectural planning, layouts. There are literally thousands of articles about how architectural layouts will affect your mood and your emotion . Guess what? How buildings are laid out, their size, proportions, scale, have the same effects as architectural layouts and colors. They affect you. You want to get the feeling. All right. They affect mood and emotion. And how those buildings are laid out, their size, proportional, scale, that's land planning and so -- the City of Meridian recognized this long ago. Committees were formed to study this. Experts from every field were consulted. Hundreds of case studies have been evaluated -- we wanted Meridian to be a really nice place. We want people to feel good when we come here. We want them to be proud of -- we want people from other cities to come here to shop. We want businesses to come and want to be here, not over there. Right? So, we came up with this plan. The plan evolved Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 28 of 100 over the last several decades and it's meant to be a minimum level that we as a city expect -- you know, you're right, it's not the law, but rules that we try to follow and it's flexible, we allow a little flexibility in there, we like -- you know, I want people -- everything to be a little different. If we came up with a grid system right now, if you look at that, the Comprehensive Plan mixed use community example we provided, is a modified neo-traditional plan. The example in there. Well, do we expect everybody to do that? Well, no. But we do throw out some minimums that we think people ought to aspire for. It's flexible, so developers can go above and beyond with new theories as they develop. So, what's your role in this? From the Comprehensive Plan, word for word, require that the Planning and Zoning Commission duties include detail review of the adopted Comprehensive Plan at least once a year and the decisions explicitly reflect support and advance of the plan as a primary factor of approval. Is that the law? No. But that is your mandate from the city. What does this mean? You need to evaluate every project in front of you as measured by the Comprehensive Plan and you need to know the plan. I will give you my review -- I just handed you my review of the project and it is on the public record. It's the same thing. There is sixteen pages there. I went through the Comprehensive Plan looking at this plan and tried to say how does this match and, to be honest, most of what they are asking for, with this plan, if I cut out all the buildings and made them individual buildings, I could probably rearrange this to work for everybody. But they are not listening to that. And, to be honest, that's what we would like, just rearrange the whole thing following the plan and this works for everybody -- a much better job working for everybody. In fact, if you look in my review, you will find it agrees with everything in the staff report. The staff report says what I was going to say in the next 20 slides, so I removed them. Okay? This is all new. Except one thing. I do -- I do have -- well, can't say I'm quite sold on the L building. I think if you take a strip mall and bend it in half , you still get kind of a bent strip mall. But maybe you could show me something to convince me. I like the fact they are trying to think outside of the box and they are really trying to find something that works for this developer. Because we want the development to go forward. They want it to go forward. We want it to go forward, but just look a little different, please, because it makes a huge difference to everybody. Everybody. Staff is telling you to abdicate your role in this. Kind of kick it down the road to City Council I think. Okay. That's my opinion. When they tell you to approve, but they are saying -- in the modifications they are asking the developer to completely redesign this thing. Right? That's what it says in the staff report and come up with a comprehensive -- a -- as well as a conceptual plan for all that future development area over to the side. They are supposed to have all that for City Council. They are saying approve this. They need to make all these changes. Redesign the thing. Move the Winco. Make these changes. And, then, City Council gets to do -- the problem is when do you do your job? Aren't you supposed to be the one reviewing the plan, making the recommendation for approval or denial to City Council? If you require them to redesign the entire plan before City Council, again, when do you review it? Isn't that your job? Now, City Council has a lot on their plate. They got budget items, personnel issues, and I know some of you have looked at their agendas and it's -- there is a lot they got a deal with. That's why you exist. To be honest, there are some newbies on there and they are probably feeling a little overwhelmed. This is why this Commission exists. You're supposed to take something Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 29 of 100 off the Council's plate. You're supposed to review these projects and recommend approval or denial to City Council. That's your job, not City Council's, and I don't like kicking it down the road to City Council, because they got too much on their plate. CSHQA, I'm assuming you did the land planning on this. I'm calling you out. I have met with Jeff Schneider back when you guys were across the street and you guys had one heck of a group of people in there. I assume you still do. Maybe even better today. You guys nailed it in with this one. This is the same stuff. If I go down Eagle Road, this is the same stuff I see all down Eagle Road. You -- you're successful. You have got the it factor that the Comprehensive Plan is asking for. If people refer to you by your subdivision name -- I'm going to the Village. They have got -- they have got the it factor and, guess what, a lot of those -- those shops on the inside that you can't see him from even outside in the parking lot, let alone the highway. McCarvel: Mr. Marshall, you -- Marshall: Am I about over? McCarvel: Your time is up. Marshall: My time is up. Okay. Well, I appreciate -- again, just saying don't kick this down the road. All right? One of the big things -- the hardest thing to design is a mixed use project to do it right. All right? And -- well, I timed this earlier and it went a lot faster. One of the biggest things -- one of the biggest things about a mixed use project is it's got to be pedestrian oriented. You funnel people into locations. The reason the Village does well is because it gets people out of their cars walking . If I'm going to Lowe's or Kohl's or to something like that, it doesn't have the it factor, because I'm going to that store, not the subdivision. I don't even remember the names of those subdivisions. But when I go to the Village I go to all those stores and I get out of my car and I walk and it's pedestrian oriented. Don't let anybody tell you that this concept plan we have seen is pedestrian oriented. It is automobile oriented and every sidewalk on there is an afterthought. All right. McCarvel: Thank you. Marshall: Thank you for the opportunity. McCarvel: Okay. Yeah. There are a lot of voices to be heard here tonight and we do have a structured process to make sure that all these opinions are heard by the Commission, so we'd like to conduct this without a lot of verbal and physical outbursts. So, we -- we get it. We hear it all, so -- okay. And you, sir, who are representing? McKinney: I'm David McKinney. I live at 1225 West Bacall Street in the Paramount Subdivision. My wife is on the HOA advisory board for the Paramount Subdivision and I am speaking on her behalf and on behalf of a number of residents who are -- McCarvel: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 30 of 100 McKinney: Thank you. I'm tempted to say I'm the real David McKinney. There is no relationship between me and Mr. McKinney. Bernt: Will the real David McKinney, please, stand up. McKinney: Right. Exactly. I'm an attorney. I'm also a civil engineer. And I spent about six years on a planning and zoning commission in the city of West Jordan, Utah. So, I'm familiar with the development and planning and zoning and traffic and highway related issues that affect this site and this proposal. Myself and the people I represent, we are not opposed to a commercial development on this site . Excuse me. It's been expected and understood and we would like to have a commercial development . But it needs to be done right and that's the purpose of this Commission is to make sure that happens. We are concerned about the size of the box buildings and the stores that are on this site. The way they are arranged on the site and their proximity to the residential areas and we are also concerned with the access to Chinden, because that's a major issue here and even though -- even though that's an issue that the planning commission doesn't address directly, what the planning commission does here can determine whether or not these things happen in the right way or end up creating a bigger traffic jam on Chinden. A couple of -- a couple of issues. Let me just sort of echo a lot of what Mr. Marshall mentioned. The buffering is an issue on this site because of the proximity of existing residential and landscaping alone is not the kind of buffering the zoning ordinances call for. Buffering is different uses, less intense uses going from the highest intensity to the lowest intensity at the residential areas and this -- this plan as this Commission has recognized, it's kind of backwards from that. Likewise, it appears in many ways that what the developer is proposing is basically just another strip mall and I know Mr. Marshall said that, but we run the danger of becoming like other cities where you have a mass of suburbia with strip malls and traffic jams and what we want to do -- what we want to see as neighbors to this site is so mething that's walkable and something that's attractive and something that's enjoyable for the people of Meridian, because that's what the people of Meridian -- that's what's in the best interest of the city. Now, my expertise primarily is in the field of traffic and highway engineering. I used to work for Keller Associates Engineering, which is here in Meridian, doing traffic and highway projects. I noticed that the traffic engineer who stood up -- he didn't actually -- he sort of referred to the traffic impact study that was done, but that was done according to the first proposal of the developer and I don't believe it's been updated since then and he didn't go through the numbers specifically, so we don't have any -- I don't have any knowledge specifically of what is the basis for the determination that the signal on Chinden is warranted. If we put in another signal there, that will negate most of the benefit we get by widening it. So, the developer is saying how great it is to widen Chinden throughout this development area and the y say, right, that is great, we want it widened, but you add another signal and you shoot yourself in the foot and take back a lot of that benefit, if not all of it. Likewise, the -- all the access points along Eagle Road are what make it not function as a major arterial highway. Eagle Road was supposed to function that way and it doesn't, because of all the access points that have been allowed. If we allow that along Chinden we will do the same thing and we will get the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 31 of 100 same result and I don't think that's a result that the people of Meridian want. The question about the location of the signal -- the comment was made that ACHD says, well, a signal there on Linder adjacent to the development would be too close to the signal that's already at Chinden and the one at Cayuse Creek. The trouble is that's about the same distance as between Fox Run and Linder at the moment. So, if it will be too close on Linder to put a signal there, on what is a collector road and not a major arterial, and it's not too close to put it on Chinden between Fox Run and Linder Road, that doesn't make any sense. It actually will cause more problems than it will solve . The -- what I would like to do is this: The developer's attorney got up and talked about how the Comprehensive Plan is not law and he's right, basically, and that was addressed already. But what is law are the zoning ordinance and what is law are the Meridian City Code sections that apply to it and I'd like to bring the Commission's attention to Meridian City Code Section 11-3H-4. It relates specifically to access along State Highway 20-26, along with some others, and it basically says that when you increase the intensity of use, when the use changes on a particular parcel, existing accesses that are along there can no longer be used, unless certain criteria are met and those aren't met here. Benefits. If an applicant proposes a change or increase in intensity of use, the owner shall develop or otherwise acquire access to a street other than the state highway. The use of the existing approach shall cease and the approach will be abandoned and removed. Now, that's talking about existing approaches. No new approaches directly accessing a state highway shall be allowed. Public street connections to the state highway shall only be allowed at the section line road and that's where Linder is. A half mile mark between section line roads . That's where Fox Run Way is. And these half -- these half mile connecting streets shall be collector roads and that's, of course, what we already have is Linder is a collector road. Now, number three -- and this is the condition that needs to be put on this development . Again -- and this is Meridian City Code. The applicant shall construct a street generally paralleling the state highway to provide future connectivity and access to all properties fronting the state highway that lie between the applicant's property and the nearest section line road and/or half mile collector road. The intent is to provide for future connectivity and access to all properties fronting the state highway that lie between the applicant's property and the nearest section line road or half mile collector road. The street shall be designed to collect and distribute traffic. Now, the developer -- it's talking about the -- what they call the backage road that goes through the property, but its truncated, it doesn't go all the way. It doesn't go the distance it is supposed to go. The -- it needs to go all the way to Fox Run Drive to provide that connectivity. The applicant shall be responsible to construct the segment of the street within the applicant's property. This standard is not intended to require off-site improvements. The street shall meet the road standards of the Ada County Highway District. The street shall connect to the section line road at a distance that is no closer than 660 linear feet from the intersection with the state highway. So, the -- that's what the city code requires. So, if this Commission approves the plan that's been set forward here today, the plan is directly contrary to city law. Now, one final thing. The -- and so the -- the applicant is requesting annexation and a zoning designation . No problem with that. Where the applicant is requesting approval of the preliminary plat, that plat is dependent upon the site plan as it's currently arranged and currently shown by the applicant . That site plan Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 32 of 100 just doesn't work. It puts a heavy intensive commercial use right back up against residential property and you notice -- if you look at the -- the plat, the preliminary plat, and you remember what the applicant said about how the parcel of the Winco does not directly abut residential properties. Well, if you look at the plat, yeah, it's shifted off by a few feet. It's not very far, though. And so that's really kind of a technicality. We are splitting hairs there. The reality is the parcel -- in fact, we have got the picture right here. The parcel with the Winco, yeah, it comes down and it abuts that little cul-de-sac road, extending from Linder Road, but we are, you know, otherwise about as close as you can get to residential properly. So, that's kind of a technicality. My urge -- I urge this Commission to deny the -- recommend denial of approval -- not approve the preliminary plat, to not approve the preliminary site plan or at least base d upon the preliminary site plan that's presented and recognize that significant changes are needed. What the residents want -- the developer is calling this Linder Village. We would like it to be Linder Village. We would like it to be like a Village. Something that will be friendly and attractive and won't prevent -- present the troubles that plague a lot of the developments in other places and we will make our city a better place. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Okay. Do we have one more designated at ten minutes? Okay. Reynolds: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Sally Reynolds. I live at 116 Bacall Street. I represent a group of Paramount residents that would like to see this corner developed in accordance with the Meridian City Plan. If you would, please, raise your hands. Thank you. I will present an overview of our neighborhood , our stance on the Linder Village proposal, along with our concerns and the reason this application should be denied. Oh, sorry. Can I -- do I have control of it? Okay. Thanks. You're fine. So, as you can see, Paramount is a wonderful place to live. Over one thousand households reside in this carefully master planned community, with schools, churches, and businesses nearby. Businesses on the outskirts are enjoyed and frequently patronized by Paramount residents. In fact, my family's dentist, eye doctor and salon are in the business park right next to Rocky Mountain. Our vet is next to Dutch Brothers right there, who has delicious frosts, if you aren't into half hour at Sonic, which you can go over there if you are. My children bike to Walgreens to get Red Box movies and we enjoy the DQ that is currently opened on the corner. More similar businesses are currently being built right out there and we welcome them to the neighborhood. When the Linder Village proposal was announced many residents were excited for the possibility of what we believed would be a smaller, similar version of the Village at Meridian, a popular local destination with a wonderful mixture of retail shopping, restaurants and office spaces. But when it was unveiled, we were dismayed to see that it was nothing more than a couple of strip malls held together by massive asphalt parking lots. These concerns were communicated to the developer and the Winco representatives at the first informational meeting in August and I will add again at the second informational meeting. However, they were unresponsive to any suggestions and it became clear that the meeting was merely to check off a box on the city application. To make our voices heard, over 643 residents signed a petition asking the developer to redesign Linder Village to be more community friendly. These residents Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 33 of 100 came together with a common goal through a grassroots effort that lacked the funding and the manpower of a major regional retailer. As illustrated, three hundred -- about 350 signees, who would ask for Linder to be redesigned, live in Paramount and the other 300 live in nearby neighborhoods and these would be the people who would be using this facility the most, according to NUC designation. Conversely, only 20 Paramount residents support the current site plan, with the majority of other supporters spread across Meridian, Eagle, and even six percent from Star. This clearly demonstrates that the intended draw for this development exceeds the one to four mile radius recommended by the NUC designation. You read the staff report that outlines all the ways the application violates the Comprehensive Plan. Each violation negatively affects the quality of life for nearby residents. I would like to highlight three major concerns. Noise, traffic and safety. Now, I know these are commonly mentioned at hearings like this. However, the violations in this proposal are so egregious that I believe it warrants highlighting again here tonight. First noise. Winco is a 24 hour business with 24 hour deliveries. Ms. Carroll has already delineated many of the sources of the noise that attracts rooftop air conditioners, idling, loading and unloading, forklifts, employees going -- et cetera. And this will be addressed by another resident later. The noise from this 24 hour operation can never be fully mitigated. But more than the token measures that are in the current site plan, should be taken to reduce it as much as possible as noted in the staff report. Traffic. We understand that this body is not ACHD and does not have jurisdiction over final road design and approval , but you are a recommending body and final approval of things like plats, pad locations and pedestrian walkways will basically determine road design. The types of businesses allowed in this area will also determine how much traffic flows to the area . We recognize that the city encourages connectivity in MUC designated areas. We also recognize that ACHD commonly requires connectivity to alleviate congestion on major roads. However, the Paramount neighborhood with its unique mix of schools, churches and main public spaces was not designed with major regional retailers in mind . The streets connecting to the stubs were never intended to handle the volume of traffic this proposed development would generate. As people from outlying areas seek shortcuts through the unfamiliar neighborhood, in addition to the hundreds of already high school drivers that are on these roads, the risk of accidents will increase greatly. Because the current site plan does not provide any additional detail into future connectivity, it's impossible for recommendations to be made that would decrease this risk . This future connectivity activity is also crucial because depending on what stub street is the first one that is access to the site, could become a major thoroughfare, especially as Chinden is widened. This leads me to safety. This area has a large number of very young children, specifically 550 children are enrolled at Paramount Elementary, 525 are in a walking zone with no busing option . This does not even account for the kids who attend North Star, Challenger, Galileo or are home schooled and not even middle schoolers or high schoolers. Many of these children walk and bike ride through the neighborhood to go to places, such as church events, sports, scouting functions or simply to visit a friend's house and they should be able to continue to do so safely. Paramount was designed with walking and biking in mind. The pathways are frequented by residents of all ages and their pets . This -- the site plan, with its large parking lots, limited pedestrian walkways, and distant placement of the live-work area Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 34 of 100 presents hazards to these citizens. So, the P&Z staff has done a wonderful job of outlining how this application supports or does not support the Meridian city plan. However, we are confused as to why the staff report recommends approving the proposal without any further review from this Commission. If the developer has not taken the last three months to modify the site plan to conform to the city plan , what indication is there that they will be willing and able to make the required changes in the next three weeks or before they come before City Council. The sheer number of complex changes, the incomplete site plan, and the failure of the developer to independently implement positive changes provide a solid foundation for denying this application. A denial sends the message that Meridian city will not tolerate poor planning that wastes the staff resources and time and strings the public along. Let's look at each of these. First, the P&Z staff noted the current site plan diverges from the MCU requirement in a number of ways and this is just in the staff report. Road usage. There is no collector roads. Building size. Footprints exceed the max size. Building layout. It's too much of a strip mall design. Building intensity. High intensity is too close to residents. Building elevation. Does not blend with nearby structures. Common area. There is not enough of it and it is poorly placed . And that's their words. Residential area. Insufficient by seven acres. Business operating hours. Outside of C- C parameters. If the developer makes all of these changes, the site will be drastically different. Someone will need to go item by item and decide if it meets the spirit of the P&Z recommendations. The Members of the City Council are not P&Z commissioners, they are not equipped with the time, resources or experience to thoroughly vet the next proposal. Handing the responsibility to the City Council puts an undue burden on them and it compromises the integrity of these -- staff's recommendations. Without specific guidelines recommended changes are open to interpretation . Therefore, it's only logical that the people who recommended the changes review the proposal to ensure it meets these requirements. City guidelines state that, quote, a conceptual plan for the entire mixed use area should be included in the application. In this case it is not. Without a complete picture of the entire site, the future impact to your residents is unknown and you can see that quote from the staff report. I will also note that the future development is the area that's closest to the residents who will be impacted . Finally, if the developer ever intended to meet the spirit of the MUC designation, it begs the question why are there so many changes recommended in the staff report. This hearing was originally scheduled for August 3rd and continued to August 7th due to a technical error on the application. By this time the developer knew that Costco would not be in the site plan, but they did not remove Costco and update the plan. And during the second continuance in which they claim to be making changes to address residents' concerns, none of the major issues stated by the residents were resolved . In reality, all they did was remove Costco and shuffle some commercial pads. In fact, they went backwards by then omitting the concept plan for the eastern portion of the site. In conclusion, we acknowledge there is significant pressure to develop this corner, but what you decide today will forever determine the look and feel of this area . We don't want this to be a plan passed through with only the minimum requirements meant. We would not like it to -- end up looking like Fairview and Eagle with businesses later abandoning it for a much better location a half mile down the road . We welcome the additional services, jobs, and tax revenue a development on this corner would provide and we advocate for a Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 35 of 100 plan that adheres to all of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan requirements, with a little more imagination, careful planning and good faith responsiveness to community input, Linder Village could be a treasure and -- a treasured commercial and residential destination, a distinctive gateway to the city and a source of pride for its residents. However, if the Commission allows this application to proceed to City Council as is, it would undermine the effectiveness of this Commission as an advisory body to the City Council. It would also set a dangerous precedent for future development in Meridian. We respectfully request that you deny this application. Thank you for your consideration of our concerns. McCarvel: Thank you. Okay. I know my fellow Commissioners -- I know I'm coming up against our two hour rule and possibly a bathroom break. We will get up and stretch and we will come back in as quickly as possible, two, three minutes. (Recess: 7:47 p.m. to 7:55 p.m.) McCarvel: If everyone could take their seats we will begin. Okay. We would like to continue the public testimony portion of this hearing . Are we finished with the designated ten minute speakers? Is that it? Okay. Let's go -- do we have anybody else that's designated for -- either for or against? Okay. Is there anyone who had -- okay. We will go through the -- I very much appreciate the organization of all these thoughts. So, if there are people who would -- I don't want to tell you not to speak. We want to hear everybody and, trust me, we have read every letter. I went through them one at a time, including all sixteen pages of Mr. Marshall's -- I read every word. But I think there has been very organized thoughts here and we appreciate that . So, if there is anybody who still wishes to speak and have a different thought heard we welcome that. We literally have -- I mean we have pages of people that have signed up to speak. So, instead of going through this list I think we will just -- we will go with the raise of hands and we will pick up and we will start with you. And just remember how close you have to get to this microphone and trust that the last person used some mouthwash I guess, but if you would state your name and address for the record . Charlene, is that on? We are not hearing him. Okay. There we go. Kahnoski: Jonathan Kahnoski. My wife and I live at 357 West Heston Court, Meridian, Idaho. 83646. That is part of the Paramount Subdivision. I wanted to speak briefly tonight about four things that we know. First, we know how to design and build beautiful communities. Mr. Marshall referenced this. We have decades of research that have taught us how colors and forms, lighting and materials, affect our sense of well being. How the ambiance of a room, the charm of a building's entry or decor, the architectural character of a community or the carefully playing community itself, all determine our sense of serenity and peace of mind and sense of security in our homes and in our public spaces. Second, we know Meridian has a Comprehensive Plan for growth. Growth and development. A plan that applies that knowledge, decades of learning, to make Meridian not only a growing community, but a city that honors beauty and preserves the private -- the primary place for human beings in the community. Third, we know that Linder Village as proposed to date fails all of this miserably. Your own Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 36 of 100 staff has said this. Look at the project, the vast desert of parking spaces, the lack of pedestrian amenities to get from one area to another -- and I would point out that what their plan is right now is three distinct commercial areas isolated from each other , like pacific islands with the ocean in between . How -- if you were going to have dinner at one of the restaurants up in the northwest corner of the development , would you get to go down to the -- the proposed theater in the southeast corner? Would you walk? Especially after dark. Or would you decide, eh, it's safer to get in the car and drive? Does that make any sense within the overall plat plan, to drive within the shopping center? Not to and from it, but within it? Looking at this plat four words come to mind. The first one is strip -- the first two are strip mall. Forgive the other two from the Army, but butt ugly. And, you know, the developers don't care, because if they did they would either compromise their business model, their plan, and make sure that it offers something that conforms to the Comprehensive Plan and the current zoning or they could propose their 24-7 quasi industrial operation to a site -- for a site that is already zoned to accommodate that kind of operation. Instead, they want to do this and pound it into that and that's not right. I fear that no for them is to hell with -- hell with Meridian and its silly Comprehensive Plan. To hell with the commuters and the other people driving on Chinden that are going to be stuck for miles, backed up for miles behind fo ur traffic signals within one mile between Linder and Meridian. And to hell with the Paramount residents who are going to have th e loading docks in their backyards with all the noise and stink, one of the things that hasn't been mentioned is that the dumpsters are back there, too, and the bright lights all through the night that that loading dock or that loading area will bring. And a six foot wall and some trees that may grow tall enough some day, is not adequate given the height of the lighting poles that are probably required by city ordinance. Ladies and gentlemen, we know -- and this is my last point. We know tonight that you have the opportunity to plant a flag in defense of quality growth in Meridian. To give a resounding no -- a resounding no to mindless growth for growth's sake and a fervent yes to making Meridian a beautiful, inviting city, indeed, the real gem of the T reasure Valley, if not all of the Gem state. Can you see that vision for our city? Do you have the courage to hold to the Comprehensive Plan and protect and nurture that vision ? For a better Meridian, please reject this monstrosity and vote no. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. I saw some hands over here. Sir. In the front. Bernt: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Bernt. Bernt: Could we keep it to three minutes? It's just -- we have a lot of people to talk and so three minutes and we are done. Babendure: Casey Babendure. 4978 Miguel Avenue. I have concerns about it as outlined. The sound wall south of Winco does not look sufficient to mitigate the noise. There are several breaks due to easements. Additionally, if this comes in what comes Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 37 of 100 in the future development? That's very concerning for me, as well as the pla n to widen Chinden does not seem sufficient. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Navy. Wolford: Thank you for your time. Diane Wolford. 915 North Glen Aspen Way. I would encourage you to adopt this. Winco is a great company. Both of my sons have worked there part time when they were going to school and it helped offset the staggering cost of BSU and other schools and it's -- they have had nothing but the best opportunities working with them. They are so flexible working with them while they were in high school and college, working with their schedule and offering them benefits that is absolutely beyond recognition. I cannot speak high enough of their praise that they have given me on that and thank you for your time and I want to thank Winco for the opportunity for them to further their education. Thank you. McCarvel: Someone in the back. Brown: Good evening, Madam Chair and Members of the Commission. My name is Greg Brown and I represent the Russell Corporation. We are a commercial construction management general contracting firm here in Meridian. I want to speak in favor -- Bernt: State your address, please. Brown: Pardon me? Bernt: Address, please. Brown: 1940 South Bonito Way. Bernt: Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Brown: I want to speak in favor of the p roject. As you know, the Russell Corporation was the construction management general contracting firm for the Village and we are very proud of that project, by the way, and -- and it is -- it is unique and wonderful. But I would point out to the Commission that there is a large component of that project that is very much similar to this project. We have what we call the power center that -- it's just north of the Village, comprising strip retail and commercial shops to the -- to the south Eagle corridor. And as I look at the plan -- and this is just me making an observation, this isn't technical or legal, or anything else, but this plan is very consistent with what I see right across the street with the Fred Meyer project and very consistent with many other projects that have been approved recently in the City of Meridian. They have attempted to -- to enhance the project with lifestyle components and -- and they have positioned those in ways that are consistent with other projects that we see. We are Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 38 of 100 very active in this market and we are currently building two city parks for the City of Meridian, building the south Meridian Y on the south Eagle corridor, south of Amity Road, and we are involved in a lot of the projects as well. We are the contractors who built Bound Crossing in Boise, the Cottonwood Grill, and the Forest River project in Boise and so as we look at this project and as we consider it, it seems consistent with a number of others and I will just stop there. Thank you. McCarvel: Let's go over here. The gentleman in the black. Lyngaas: My name is Roger Lyngaas and my address is 12713 West Renwick. I will be brief. I'm against this project. The infrastructure on Chinden-Linder is far from being ready for a new major development. Perhaps ten years away. But it's far from ready. Two. There is no consideration for public transportation. Not just a bus stop, but a possible bus-bicycle hub. Number three. Where is your green space? McCarvel: Thank you. In the purple. Wheeler: My name is Nate Wheeler. My address is 2989 East Loon Creek Street in Meridian. I just want to make some extemporaneous comments from what I have just heard. One of them has been the placement of the Winco and its proximity to a residential zone on that. Ten years ago I was working with a developer. He came in, he had concerns, too. He wanted to put a grocery anchor development in town and it was -- actually is placed where we are looking at is Meridian and we went to the Winco there at Fairview and -- and Milwaukee and we drove around the back and we said what kind of a job does Winco do in making a buffer here next to a residential zone and it just so happened that there was a gentleman outside mowing their yard and we just asked him how did Winco takes care of this for you guys and he said phenomenal. He said we never had a problem. He said when we have had trees that needed trimmed they were there. When we said, hey, it looks like there is some paint that's chipping off the back side, they were there quickly. So, I don't have a concern that Winco, who is headquartered here, is going to do a great job for their patrons in making sure that this buffer is maintained well. I'm concerned about it actually being turned 90 degrees and giving it more of a utilitarian, more of an industrial look off of a collector road, as it continues to widen, as it gets utilized more, especially since it's only one of three roads that go over the river down and connects it over with State Street. Linder -- this intersection is going to be a major intersection whether we like it or not , because of its proximity to the temple, to the access down over the river as it goes into Eagle Island State Park. There is already a commercial development there. It's just going to continue to get more and more use as it goes on I also am one that does like this project. I am in support of it and in favor of it and thanks again for your time. McCarvel: Gentleman in the back. Williams: Chis Williams. 1762 Canyon Ranch in Meridian. I am a resident of Water Song Subdivision, a little bit further down Linder. I am in support of this consentual -- excuse me -- conceptual development plan. Like the last gentleman I do have some Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 39 of 100 concerns with the Winco being turned 90 degrees. Again, I also agree that I think that would give more of an industrial feel driving down Linder. So, I would propose -- you know, I would support the way that it currently sits as of now I don't -- in my opinion I am very familiar with that area. I shouldn't say my opinion. Living there I'm very familiar with that area. I feel, again, with the distance being over 200 feet, compared to some of the other sites, grocery stores, et cetera. I recognize that they may not have been measured based upon with loading docks, but, again, you know, I will keep this brief. I am in support of this, you know, proposed development. So thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Okay. Gentleman here in the maroon. Twitchell: My name is Doug Twitchell. I am at 2184 West Glade Creek Street. I'm a resident of Lochsa Falls Subdivision and a professor at Boise State University. My concern with this project is the proposed traffic signal at Bergman and Chinden. Putting a traffic -- an additional traffic signal on Chinden in such short distances will aggravate already -- the already heavy traffic there. Growth is, obviously, going to continue along the Chinden corridor and traffic is only going to increase. The proposed traffic signal will reduce Chinden's ability to be an effective regional thoroughfare and that's something we have kind of missed here. We are talking about local stuff, but this is a regional issue that -- that Chinden is -- this is your chance to stop Chinden from becoming other -- like other problem areas, other traffic areas in the -- in the valley, such -- as State and Glenwood is a good example of a really clogged up area and, of course, the renowned and infamous Eagle Road. The -- the traffic signal is not part of the -- the ITD corridor study. It is not part of COMPASS's regional plan and although it will help access to the development, that will come at the cost of hindering everyone else who is just trying to get through. According to the submitted documentation, the signal was part of a deal with the Mayor, Costco, the developer and ITD, ostensibly to lure Costco. Costco is gone. It's going somewhere else. So, the reason for that deal seems to be gone. However, Costco wasn't worth the light and now the current development is even less so. ITD's prior agreement seemed also reluctant, given that in their letter they stated that -- or they wanted to remind Meridian of Chinden's importance in the greater regional transportation system. A better proposal would have something like what we see at Eagle and State in Eagle. The Eagle River development there has an actual road that goes through the development that is parallel to state and it goes from Eagle Road all the way over to the next half mile, which I believe is at Edgewood and so that's the kind of development that we should see. It's an actual road with sidewalks, with bike paths and does a good job of connecting those things together. Let's see. So -- let's see. And this was -- as the traffic engineer -- the applicant's traffic engineer has testified, was the preferred solution that ITD really wanted, which was to have something go through and have access to a modified Fox Run. Also, as we heard from the other engineer Dave, this access may also be counter to Meridian City Code. The plat before you seems to require -- I can't see how it could work without the signalized access at Bergman and so given that that access may be against city code, it's concerning that it would get that far and so for the sake of everyone who needs to get somewhere on Chinden, I ask that you -- you reject this plat. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 40 of 100 McCarvel: You're next. Muhlestein: Hi. I'm Alicia Muhlestein. I am on 584 West Dreyfuss and I am the person Sally Reynolds referred on -- talking about the imprint of Winco and I am talking about community livability. Winco operates 24 hours a day. This is their business model and from previous meetings they have said they will not change t his model. Walgreens on McMillan and Linder, around the corner, wasn't granted a 24 hour a day store, because it was too close to homes, yet Winco is asking that it should be allowed to build closer to homes, with a much larger footprint, volume of traffic, deliveries and noise pollution. If you could go to all Winco Foods in Meridian, Eagle, Boise, Nampa and Caldwell, none except for the one on Fairview in Boise has a neighborhood behind it, as this developer is proposing be done at Linder Village. The Fairview Winco has a wall -- as you can see in the pictures. A green space, trees, and a road that separates the loading area from homes. Even with all these generous landscape buffers, this is what you get. Play the video. And it needs to be volume up. Or just volume. Maybe. Is it working? There you go. We need sound. You can hear the air brakes. Backing up. And, then, if you turn around you can see how close the homes are with the street on the other side. On page 15 of your report, the P&Z report, it states: With a street between Linder and the east boundary of the site for extension to Fox Run, the commercial property should no longer abut residential property. All the deliveries at the loading docks will still likely affect adjacent residents and we just saw the effects, even with a street and generous buffers. If you pull up the map right there, Winco's Eagle store off State Street to the east -- is a neighborhood across Horseshoe Bend Road. This road is two lanes, with a center turn lane and small businesses on the other side. We talked to some of the neighbors there. Around 2:00 a.m. a bell goes off inside Winco when a delivery has arrived. The people in the house in the back can hear a bell, get disturbed by this every night. A house with a fence had to build a six foot fence, raised on stilts from eight -- eight to nine feet to block out lights from trucks that deliver at night. Both streets have also put up no trespassing signs. We urge you, the Planning and Zoning Commission, to ensure Winco abides by the guidelines and reports or relocate to a new area and unless City Council members read all of your fifty pages of the report and deny developer money promised them if they approve this, they should not be allowed. It's a judgment call. This should be in your hands. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. There were more over here? Stripped shirt. Badigian: Good evening. My is Lori -- can you hear? My name is Lori Badigian. I live at 6161 North Booth Avenue in the Paramount Subdivision. I work for -- I'm a regulator in land development for Central District Heath Department, so I list sanitary restrictions for all of Ada county, so I work a lot with the land developers. So, I have a brief letter. It shouldn't take too long. So, my family and I live in the City of Meridian. We have lived in the Paramount Subdivision for 11 years. We live directly adjacent to the east boundary of the proposed Linder Village development. Prior to purchasing our home we reviewed the city's Comprehensive Plan. We consider this Comprehensive Plan to be a road map to the direction that Meridian would ultimately allow this property to be Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 41 of 100 developed. We were pleased with the amount of detail that was in the Comprehensive Plan and the mixed use designation. Residents make the biggest investment of their lives, a home purchase, based on this plan and we did, as well as my in-laws, they moved with us into the Paramount Subdivision. In 2007 an application was made to the City of Meridian to develop this land and that plan was very similar to this current plan. My husband and I communicated via e-mail with Anna Canning and Mayor Tammy regarding that application at that time. I'm going to read just a portion of the response we received from the Mayor regarding this proposal. This is part of -- this e-mail chain was part of the public record that we submitted. Should be on file if you want to read the entire chain. So, from Mayor de Weerd: Thank you for your e-mail and taking time to share your comments. Your concerns are very valid and I understand why are you writing to express them. First, our planning staff will need to determine if the proposed development conforms to the city's comprehensive land use plan or not. I can tell you that the City Council follows our city's plan very closely. It is our blueprint for how our city should grow and, as you noted, has been developed through an extensive public process. Certain types of amendments to the Comprehensive Plan can only legally be considered every six months. This does not happen often in our current city area of impact boundaries. This process is heavily scrutinized, as it has ripple effects on many different services and it is rarely successful, particularly in areas that are developed, unless the requested change is supported by the surrounding development. If the application filed is determined by staff to fit the definitions of the city Comprehensive Plan and the Unified Development Code, it will, then, be scheduled to begin the public hearing process. Staff, will evaluate the application on a number of considerations that would include compatibility with surrounding land uses and how it would transition from the existing residential to a higher use. Transportation-related issues on access to state and local roads, as well as the existing internal infrastructure , comparable design standards, and et cetera. This evaluation is based on the applicable city ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan. Although the city is not the road planning agency, Ada County Highway District is the road authority, traffic and safety will be a large consideration as well. That's the end of her letter. I would hope that the application scrutiny described in 2007 still applies today. I want to reiterate, we are in favor of developing this land. We moved there knowing that it would be developed, we just -- and we purchased our home based on what we thought Meridian would allow that development to become. We are requesting two things. One, that the application as submitted is denied and required to be revised , so the plan meets the design standards laid out in the Comprehensive Plan and that the Planning and Zoning Commission and staff do not remove themselves from any further review. The changes required are significant enough that will warrant another detailed review of the entire plan . We feel that not only is it the job of the Planning and Zoning staff, as indicated by Mayor Tammy, but that the Planning and Zoning staff are the specialists in this process, not the City Council. As I said, I work as a regulator in land development. Many people rely on me to use my knowledge and expertise to do my job , to thoroughly review an application as it comes across my desk to make sure that it meets guidance and rule before I sign it and move it on in the process. Even if that means rejecting working with the developers, the applicants, and re-reviewing it numerous times. That's my job and that's what I do before I move it on. I ask that any revisions are to be resubmitted to the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 42 of 100 Planning and Zoning staff and Commission for another review before it is moved on to City Council. McCarvel: Thank you. There in the -- Turek: Good evening. My name is Catherine Turek. My address is 5374 North Sun Shimmer Avenue in Meridian. I oppose this project for two reasons. Number one, because it will bring too much traffic to Chinden Boulevard. There is already too much traffic on Chinden. A two lane road that may or may not be widened for some time. Number two. I opposed this development because the proposed traffic light is not placed at the development's exit that is parallel to the exit at the Fred Meyers -- at the Fred Meyer shopping area. I shop at that Fred Meyer and it's already very difficult to turn left out of that exit onto eastbound Chinden. The increased traffic from this new development will make it impossible to turn left onto eastbound Chinden from the Fred Meyer shopping center, unless a traffic light is placed there instead. Mr. John Ringert, who spoke about traffic lights and widening of Chinden and Linder in connection with ACHD and ITD, one of his slides said that this new development would provide access to the Eagle Island Marketplace and one of his slides said that this development would provide an access point for properties on both sides of Chinden. I would respectfully like to say that those statements are misleading, because the traffic light proposed at Bergman Way will provide access to that subdivision and a small retail development that's under construction there that contains maybe four or five stores, a bakery, a fast casual food place. But that development will not connect to the greater Fred Meyer -- Fred Meyer development. That's what we would mostly know as the Eagle Island Marketplace. We have been to the planning department at the city of Eagle and we were told the Eagle Island Marketplace and the other retail development are not owned by the same developer and the re is no right of way between the two. So, there would be no access for any of the Fred Meyer or any of the other shoppers in that Eagle Island Marketplace. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Okay. One more back there. Brownlee: Hi. I'm Tony Brownlee at 797 Barrymore in Paramount. I grew up here. Well, first of all, this isn't about Winco. I -- I also like Winco. I shop there. My family shops there. This is about a huge store with huge loading docks that are in m y backyard. I grew up here. Learned to ride my bike at my grandparents' house on Eagle Road and maintained ties to this community all the way through -- through college and stayed away for 23 years working professionally. Came back here 12 years ago. We still own the family farm down on Eagle Island. Before I chose where to build a house in all of Boise and all of Meridian, this was my choice, we looked at that Comprehensive Plan, because I had been burned on building a house down in Salt Lake before and we looked at it -- specifically looked into what the Comprehensive Plan meant. We were very comfortable with what was there. We knew that -- that there would be growth, but we trusted you all, every one of you, to do your job and keep your word, that that growth would be controlled, that that growth would -- would mean that my children would have a safe place, with a safe environment, with great living conditions. Specifically my Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 43 of 100 concerns are that -- with the traffic flow and access, so that I can get out to work, so that we can function, so that people aren't cutting through our -- our neighborhood and endangering my kids. But, specifically, I have a little girl. At 4:00 o'clock in the morning on a winter's eve with -- with their slap fence and a couple of trees, is not going to stop much noise or much light from coming into her room as she is trying to sleep and also the fact that tonight -- and I have been to -- to meet the developer at the first thing and it's been the same all the way through . Nothing's changing. They are not addressing any of our concerns. The fact that tonight they said they are unwilling to change anything speaks louder -- louder to me than anything else in the process, that they are going to push this through no matter what. Depending on you all to keep your word and to keep my kids safe. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Okay. One more over here. Stewart: Good Evening. My name is Doug Stewart. 5960 North Linder Road. That gentleman who just said that the property would back up into his back yard -- and I haven't seen him, because I own all of the property that Winco backs up to and it doesn't back up to one house but mine and I don't mind that, because I would like to develop my property, too. Just a little history lesson. You know, I have been there 41 years and I bought that property and I bought it specifically because it was zoned that we were not going to cut up any of these 40s into eight smaller parcel than five acres, which I have the five out of the 40. But when Paramount came along, that zoning evidently changed and I still have the plan someplace where they were going to build five acre parcels, which would be consistent with what was there around the perimeter of that particular section. But imagine when I go back and look at the foundations and find out they are R-8 and I got a house every five feet. So, when they are worried about the problems and the zoning, the zoning exchanged three times on me and no one's ever -- no one's ever allowed to stop it. So, when you buy next to an open field I think you have to expect that one day that will be developed and I hope you will take into consideration the fact that widening the road will ruin our property and my neighbor's property, because it takes the frontage off of it. So, we would like to see the entire area developed. In the Winco, the back of the Winco backs up to that five acres, not to any of their homes. Just to mine. And if my home is not there, it backs up to commercial property. So, I don't think it's near the problem they would like to make it out to be . If you remember when they were developing the stone quarries down Linder Road, the residents down there had a fit and predicted that there would be truck crashes and children killed by the dozens. Not one of those things happened. No one ever points that out when those things don't happen. So, I hope you keep an open mind and can develop this properly. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Okay. If that's the end of the public testimony, we will have the applicant return, if they wish, to address what's been brought up and so have ten minutes. Okay. Lamer: Chair, Members of the Commission, pardon me, I'm suffering from a cold. Like everybody. It's cold and flu season. My name is Chad Lamer. I am in-house counsel Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 44 of 100 for Winco Foods. I am also an urban planner. A member of the American Institute of Certified Planners. I have been a planning commissioner, so I understand the role that you folks play and appreciate all the time that you spend doing this. I'm going to make this brief, because there is some other folks who will follow behind me . But I just want to comment on just a few key items that we have heard today and some that we haven't. I mean there has been a lot of discussion about the role of the Comprehensive Plan and I think we are all in agreement on how important that is for the community. But there has been an item in the Comprehensive Plan that hasn't been touched. We talked about how there is elements in this proposal tonight that meets the Comprehensive Plan and, then, there is other elements that don't and your role as Commissioners is to kind of balance those and come up with what you think in your best judgment is best for the community. W ell, we haven't heard a lot. We haven't heard a single word about this -- is a whole section of the Comprehensive Plan that's devoted to economic development and I'm going to touch on that just a little bit, because Winco, as opposed to a lot of other industries or commercial projects, it's employee owned. So, basically, every individual that works for us for a certain period of time is an owner in the company and those are members of your communities -- of your community in particular and a lot of them work at Wincos throughout the valley and they are given an opportunity to have a stake in that company, much like any other business. So, we pride ourselves on that and we feel that's an important component of how to get back to the community and support our -- our employee owners. So, that's something that's been completely not touched upon tonight, but I think that's important in your consideration when you're balancing all these different objectives and I bring this to your attention, because this is an important element within your Comprehensive Plan. In fact, your citizens when they worked at one is they didn't -- they devoted a whole chapter -- chapter four to this and if we just look at some of -- some of the key words in there, the preamble, it's create new jobs, develop regional talent, which is what Winco does. You heard testimony tonight from an individual who said this has helped her sons go through college. We promote from within. So, that is developing this core group of regional talent. Foster innovative ideas and increase the tax base and we really haven't talked about the tax base, but, you know, that's probably about six percent sales tax not to mention that there will also be property taxes that are included on the roll. So, that's just one point. And I will move on from that. The second thing that I want to touch on -- and this is -- this goes directly to the hours of operation conditions that was proposed by staff and we have heard testimony tonight on that and the testimony has kind of gone back and forth. From staff we heard, you know, the hours of operation are -- should be imposed on this development if it's in a location as proposed by the developer and the reason staff says that is because there is an exception within the code that says if the project -- if the parcel abuts residential property, then, you shall impose these hours operations. It's a conditional use. So, staff says if -- if the developer is willing to shuffle the site plan and move the project towards Linder, with the loading docks facing Linder, then, we are okay. We don't need those conditions. And staff understands it's code. Probably better than anybody else, because they have to dig through it day in and day out. Now, we heard testimony from Mrs. Carroll and she said she disagrees with staff . Okay. She says that that development can't -- that use can't be located anywhere within the site without that conditional use and the reason for that is she says if any portion of the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 45 of 100 whole project touches a residential use, then, you have to impose that condition. Staff disagrees by their own -- item J in their findings. So, then, we heard testimony from another attorney David McKinney and Dave McKinney came here and he looked at the plat and he said, you know, really, the Winco parcel does not abut residential property. He called it a technicality. Well, you know, lawyers we kind of operate in the world of technicalities. Actually, we operate in what is the law and when I hear someone say it's a technicality. It sounds to me like that's the law. And staff tends to agree, because staff has said if you shuffle it over here and it doesn't abut residential property, then, those conditions should not be applied and so from Winco's perspective and I believe the developer will echo this, those conditions should not be attached to this parcel. Now, we also heard some testimony tonight about the esthetics of moving -- of shuffling the Winco over towards Linder Road and part of your job here is to examine those esthetics and consider that when you're making your decision. So I would -- I would ask you to balance all three of those elements that I have just touched on. I would ask you to look -- look for staff on whether or not the property abuts residential and whether or not that exception applies. We think it does. Staff seems to agree in the instance of the Linder Road. But we think that they have overlooked the commercial designation on the plat where the Winco parcel does not abut residential. I would also ask you to examine the esthetics of it and, then, I would ask you to weigh the balancing of the economic opportunities afforded by Winco with this project and we will stand for questions after we have finished with this presentation. Or now at your convenience. McCarvel: You have three and a half minutes left of the presentation part and, then, we will get to questions. McKinney: David McKinney with EMG and I just had a couple other items. McCarvel: Yeah. Pull that mic right up close to -- McKinney: I just had a couple other items just in summary. Linder Village as proposed is not a strip mall. It's a community center with lifestyle amenities. That is a quote from the International Council of Shopping Centers. I don't know if you're all familiar with that. It is -- it's not a strip mall. We have so many amenities planned here with pedestrian connectivity, with the landscaping, the berming, we think we have buffered existing residential and future residential with those amenities. As far as traffic, ITD has said that the road improvements will allow the traffic to flow and improvement better as your heard from John Ringert. The traffic signal will help the safety in turning movement. You know, there was a lot of comments about Winco and their trucks and the delivery hours and I didn't speak to it, but, you know, noise, odor -- first of all, their trucks do not have beepers when they back up . The trucks drop off the trailers, leave them and, then, come back to get them. They have truck seals at their loading docks that keep the sound inward to the store. It doesn't escape out. The refrigeration -- refrigeration trucks are not sitting there idling. They are plugged into the dock, so they are quiet. As far as odor, they have compactors, so there is no dumpsters. It's all contained within a compactor. If there ever is a leak that's taken care of immediately. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 46 of 100 So, I think Winco does a lot more with their truck receiving areas than people really realize. Thank you. McCarvel: Is that the end of your presentation then? McKinney: Yes. McCarvel: Do we have any questions for Commissioners? Okay. Bernt: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Bernt. Bernt: I move that we -- we close the public hearing. McCarvel: For Item H-2017-0088? Bernt: That's the one. McCarvel: All right. Do I have a second? Perreault: Second. McCarvel: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing for Item H -2017- 0088, Linder Village. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. McCarvel: Who would like to go first? All right. I guess you nominated me. My gut check on this is I'd love to see Chinden at least widened that much. I think it would do a lot. And I agree, I mean the jobs with Winco and what this is potentially going to provide is a great opportunity. I also think the opportunity is there for a better design that more coincides with our recommendations from staff to have a little better outlook and flow and pedestrian activity and I'd like to see where these other roads are supposed to connect. I mean there is just a lot of issues that were brought up in the staff report that I think it would be unfair to just send on down to City Council without actually seeing some of these things being resolved and if they are not going to be resolved, then, this is where we are. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: And, yeah, I want to commend Winco. They are an exceptional local company. This is not a referendum on them by any means. It's a conversation about Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 47 of 100 how best we want to develop that corner and so I'm -- I'm kind of of the mind set I'm -- I'm a little confused by the live-work portion being up in front of that where you know that thing is going to get widen significantly. I'm significantly concerned by that additional light there. I think that is just going to cause more traffic and so I’m not -- I know there was a traffic study done, we had -- originally had the conversation when Costco was going to go there and that was kind of the portion of that discussion that was moving forward and that's no longer the case and so we have lost a lot of detail on the eastern portion of this site that I think is warranted in this discussion. I think it's a master plan discussion. Paramount is an exceptional community that Brighton brought forward and they master planned the majority of the land they owned and even land that they didn't own and tried to get a vision for what this mile square would be. I know that they own the land, I believe, that's close to Fox Run -- or the -- at the end there and so I'm not sure there is a discussion about a frontage road that it needs to connect there, instead of having another light at Bergman. I don't think that light makes sense to me. I know -- I'm pretty sure in looking at Eagle Island is that that commercial section where they are building the pizzas and that's going to connect to a lot of that I'm sure, so you would get some connectivity to in a light, but I don't think a third light there would be a smart traffic move if we are trying to make that a free flowing highway and I mean I think 20-26 is the east-west corridor that we desperately need. I don't know what ITD is doing, to be totally honest, but we will talk about that later. So, I might -- I have lived in lifestyle communities on the east coast and in other places. I think that -- I mean I know when I lived in D.C. Harris Teeter was notorious for putting an anchor store on the corner of a project and it looked beautiful, because they made it look like a lifestyle community. So, saying that that can't be done I know is not the case and so I -- it is -- this looks like a giant parking lot to me. I mean it's -- for all intents and purposes -- I know that there is trees and I know that there is connectivity in certain circumstances, but there is a concern to me that we are not connecting this thing in the way that we could. I know that we just approved not very long ago that Albertsons that was at Amity and Eagle and that thing is very close to the road and, then, it's connected to -- connected back to the community without walls, without places that have -- you know, it shuts the neighborhood off to the actual being able to walk there and enjoy it and so I think there is additional thought process to be had here before we make a decision . McCarvel: Next? Cassanelli: I guess that's me. McCarvel: All right. Commissioner Cassanelli. Cassanelli: I'm going to kind of second a lot that Commissioner Fitzgerald just said and I -- I would be happy with a -- with a Winco there, because it puts -- would put one closer to my house than having to go where I have to go and -- and we enjoy shopping at W inco, which we do -- I'm sure most people do for obvious reasons. Because it's -- I mean it's, obviously, a good business model. It works. I just -- there is -- I look at this and I see a parking lot, too. I hear -- you know, what I hear is pedestrian friendly and walkability and I -- I don't see it in the plans. I would -- you know, there is -- most of the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 48 of 100 things that I see there I would love to see on that corner. I just don't -- I don't -- I don't like the way it's laid out. I don't -- I don't think a lot of things fit there. I don't see live- work working up in that corner. I wouldn't want to be on top of Chinden personally. It's not the buffer. It doesn't flow into the -- into the residential on the south. There is a lot of things -- and, then, the traffic is -- is a huge one. One of the comments that was made by one of the speakers was the y talked about the development -- I can't think of the name of it. But down off of Eagle Road, Eagle and State, and how the road winds off. Now, it's mostly a business park down there, but the flow of that and taking that traffic elsewhere -- I think there is -- I think there is developments all over in other parts of the country that can be a model for what -- what this could be and I -- I think this could be something really nice with a little more thought. McCarvel: Okay. Perreault: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: I -- I don't think this captures the idea of mixed use community in the way that the Comprehensive Plan intends it to. I don't -- it doesn't feel integrated. It just feels like a commercial area and the residential and the commercial don't feel integrated, which was the whole idea, and so I'm just concerned for the residents that would be -- the future residents, you know, on the south and east side and the anchors that are here on the east side of the -- of the complex and I agree with Commissioner Fitzgerald, I'd like to see the live-work areas -- it's not a great location. I'd like to see more information on what's going to happen with the residential on the east side and with the staff's recommendation that there be a through street all the way over to Fox Run. I think that sums up most of my thoughts on it. McCarvel: Commissioner Bernt. Bernt: My turn. You know, I -- we have seen numerous developers come into these very chambers and I have seen developers and homeowners and HOAs work together and to come up with solutions that really matter. There has been times when people have came up and gave me hugs, you know, homeowners who came in upset with serious concerns and came up and gave me , you know, fist pumps and, you know, thank you so much for listening to us. So, I don't -- this isn't a referendum in -- with Winco, in my opinion. You know, we are all pro growth, you know, we understand that pro -- that growth is going to happen, but I'm also a staunch supporter of pro growth and smart growth. To me this -- this isn't smart growth. To me I think that we need to do -- I think that we need to rethink this project. I think that we need to -- and I agree with all of the comments that have been made previous to -- by my fellow commissioners, but I think we -- I think we need to rethink this a little bit. I think that there is ways in which the -- the developer can come together with -- with the homeowners and -- and I don't want to make it sound like we have to agree on everything , you know. I get that, you know, we don't have to -- we may agree here and we may not agree here , but there has Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 49 of 100 to be some type of middle ground for the most part where we can -- where we can, you know, have somewhat of a, you know, forward thinking development that will be around for generations to come and so I -- unless the developer is willing to listen to the local home -- homeowners more than -- than they have, then, I move to -- to deny this project as it stands. McCarvel: And I think we know this has been a closely followed application and it's been a long process, especially with the two continuances and, you know, continuances are a fairly common occurrence in this whole process for various reasons and the Commission has traditionally granted up to two and I guess I was a little disappointed in seeing what finally came out of all that extra time and , then, with the staff report and everything that is still not addressed from what's been asked . So, I think it sounds like we are already to -- Fitzgerald: So, are we discussing denying it outright or are we going to give them another shot to run with it? I mean staff who would -- Sonya, would you -- what would you rather do? Take another run at it or just -- I mean, obviously, a denial has certain consequences that come with it and that's -- and I don't want to put that in the court of the applicant. Obviously, they can go to City Council, but I -- what's your thoughts, ma'am? Allen: Chairman, Commissioners, staff has made a recommendation in the staff report of what staff believes would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the mixed use community designation. The Commission has to make a decision whether they agree with that in full, in part, or not at all. McCarvel: My personal gut check is that with as many -- with as huge as these staff recommendations are, that to just send it to City Council as is now is -- Bernt: No way. Fitzgerald: No. McCarvel: -- is not a good -- Fitzgerald: I'm just saying, either we continue it and let them go -- McCarvel: Yeah. Fitzgerald: -- and that's -- I mean that's another -- Allen: Madam Mayor, excuse me. If the applicant isn't interested in doing revisions to the plan, there is -- there is not really a lot of point in continuing it. Bernt: I mean I asked the developer point blank are you willing to change it and he said no. I mean it's on the record. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 50 of 100 Fitzgerald: Yeah. McCarvel: Okay. Bernt: I gave -- I mean I purposely asked that question, knowing that -- hoping that he -- you know, he would, you know, at least listen and maybe change a few, you know, listen to the homeowners, listen to staff, listen to what we -- the direction that we have given them. McCarvel: Well, I'm wondering if we give it one more chance at a continuance and with the applicant knowing that if they come back with the same layout and that these things aren't addressed it will be denied. Perreault: Madam Chair. I would agree with a continuance and give them one more opportunity to address these specific items. Fitzgerald: We have a pretty specific set of items that we -- and it's large. McCarvel: Yeah. And that's I guess the decision we need to make is is it too big, do they just need to go back to the drawing board and that pulls it out for a year? Bernt: Commissioner Cassanelli, do you have a thought? Fitzgerald: Hey, guys, we have heard everybody's testimony. We don't need any additional comments, please. Let us deliberate and think about it. We are taking everybody's thoughts into account we promise and this is a hard one, so -- as they all are. Bernt: Are we -- are we -- I mean what's the thought process on having a 24 hour Winco at this -- at this -- at this property? Is that something that is -- if the developer is willing to change and redesign is -- are we in support of a 24 hour grocery store at this -- at this location or do we want -- or we want to -- or are we wanting to take this a different direction? McCarvel: I think I would be in support of the Winco itself if it was up closer to the road, farther away from all the residences, and there was more addressing a road -- yeah. And even the traffic of going all the way through to Fox Run and -- I mean it's just a lot to move around. But I'm not opposed to the Winco being there. I think that would be an added benefit to the entire area. But I think the way it is it's not the best layout. That corner -- and, like I said, for what it could be. Fitzgerald: Yeah. So, this is -- we go back to -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 51 of 100 Perreault: Madam Chair? I -- I'm not -- I'd like to hear the Commissioners thoughts on changing the orientation. I am not particularly a fan of having the back of Winco facing Linder myself. McCarvel: You know, honestly, I think if they are willing to, you know, put up the berm and the fence and whatever and that's supposed to be good enough for the residences, it should be good enough for the people driving by Linder. I mean -- Fitzgerald: There is ways of going -- McCarvel: Yeah. There is ways of doing it. There is all kinds of large stores that have angled themselves in a way where that all doesn't back up to what's considered mostly residential. Perreault: So, as it sits with the requests for C-C and R-8, are there any thoughts on that or -- Fitzgerald: About annexation and zoning only? Perreault: -- mixed use community? Bernt: What did you say? McCarvel: I think doing the annexation and zoning without having the preliminary plat -- Fitzgerald: It takes away our teeth. McCarvel: Yeah. Fitzgerald: I mean it takes away our ability to do anything -- to put a development agreement and other things together all at once. I think Bill has taught us well about what annexation means and so that's where we have the teeth still and so I think if we are going to do one, we do all. At least that would be my opinion. Cassanelli: I would agree. Bernt: Is that Bill? Did he say something? Cassanelli: I said something. I would agree. Fitzgerald: Gut check on giving them a month or -- McCarvel: Yeah. I hate to take it away from them for a year. I mean -- but I guess if we grant the continuance, they either come back with it as a design that the staff and area residents and this Commission has recommended or they can withdraw and -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 52 of 100 Fitzgerald: And that's another option. McCarvel: -- and, then, they would have -- and, then, they could bring it back in six months if they wanted to, instead of being eliminated from -- Fitzgerald: That's a great point. McCarvel: -- consideration. Bernt: Your microphone. Baird: I have it on mute. I wanted to make sure I understand when you're saying one year, your recommendation still goes to City Council, whether it's approve or deny it. It's the City Council's -- McCarvel: Correct. Baird: -- decision that would affect their ability to reapply, so -- so, no matter what decision you make tonight, if it's approve or deny, it will go to City Council automatically. McCarvel: Okay. Baird: So, I just wanted to get that -- make that clear in your heads as you're deliberating. Fitzgerald: A continuance will give us another shot at this -- Bernt: So, what happen if it was denied then? Baird: You have three -- three options. You have got approve, deny, or continue for a specific purpose. If it's a recommendation for denial, that recommendation is what lands at the City Council that you have considered what's in front of you and you're recommending that the city take -- take an adverse action on it. So, either -- either of those two decisions, approve or deny, lands in front of City Council. They don't have to appeal it. It goes there automatically. McCarvel: So, we could recommend denial as it is on its face and, then, the City Council could remand it back -- Baird: It's a de novo hearing. A brand new hearing at City Council. So, it would be up to the developer whether to propose the same plan or to make -- to make changes at the City Council or they could remand it back to you. McCarvel: Okay. Okay. Bernt: Do we ask -- do we even ask if -- you know, what the developer would like? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 53 of 100 McCarvel: No. We have heard what the developer -- Baird: If you decide to do that, I would recommend that you reopen the -- McCarvel: Yeah. I don't think we need to do that. That's my opinion. Fitzgerald: We are not doing that. Bernt: It's only 9:15. McCarvel: All right. Cassanelli: My -- my thought before we get to a motion is I think there is too much to deal with in this -- where to put -- you know, where to possibly move Winco. Where to -- to rearrange everything to where people are -- well, get the most agreement I guess. Not everybody is going to be happy on this. The traffic issues -- access -- I mean access to and from Linder is going to become an issue down the road. There is -- there is so many points I don't know that -- that 30 days -- McCarvel: Yeah. Cassanelli: -- is going -- is going to do it. Bernt: No. I would agree. McCarvel: I think -- I mean with the sound advice of counsel I think it's logical that we could -- we just recommend the denial and City Council can then -- I mean take -- it's denial as is. I mean -- unless they show up with all those significant changes as recommended by staff and the things that have been talked about here, that's our recommendation. Who would like to make the motion? Bernt: I'm packing up like I'm going home. We still -- McCarvel: Yeah. We got three more items. Bernt: I know. McCarvel: Anyone? Bernt: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of file number H-2017-0088 as presented during the hearing on October 19th, 2017, as presented. Fitzgerald: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 54 of 100 McCarvel: Make the reasons for the denial. Bernt: Give reasons. Laundry list. Let's start out with -- McCarvel: The laundry list as stated by the staff report. Bernt: Can I just say as stated by the staff report? Fitzgerald: You can talk about design, access, traffic -- Cassanelli: Proximity to residential. Fitzgerald: Yeah. Cassanelli: Or 24 hours. Traffic studies. Fitzgerald: Lack of detail on the future development. Bernt: Do I have to say those -- all of what you just said basically. And traffic design. Connectivity. All of the above that Commissioner Fitzgerald stated. Cassanelli: I will second that. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to deny application H-2017-0088, Linder Village. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion to deny carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. B. Public Hearing for Linder Mixed Use (H-2017-0095) by TMEG Properties, LLC Located at 5960 and 5940 North Linder Road 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 5 (Five) Acres of Land with C-C (1.59 Acres) and R-15 (3.41 Acres) Zoning Districts 2. Request: Rezone of 3.36 Acres of Land from the L-O to the R-15 (1.43 Acres) and C-C (1.93 Acres) Zoning District. McCarvel: At this time we will open -- okay. At this time we will open the public hearing for Item No. H-2017-0095, Linder Mixed Use, and we will begin with the staff report. Allen: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. McCarvel: We will wait just one minute, but if everybody who is going to leave can do so quickly, because we have got still a long agenda ahead of us. Okay, Sonya. Let's continue -- begin with the staff report. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 55 of 100 Allen: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. The next application before you is a request for annexation and zoning and a rezone . This site consists of eight acres of land, zoned RUT in Ada county, and L-O in the city and is located at 5940 and 5960 North Linder Road. This property is directly adjacent to the previous property to the south. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north is vacant, undeveloped property zoned RUT in Ada county. To the east are single family residential homes in Paramount Subdivision, zoned R-8. To the south are offices and vacant undeveloped land, zoned L-O. And the west is North Linder Road and single family residential homes in Lochsa Falls Subdivision, zoned R-8. The L-O zoned portion of the site was annexed with the Paramount development. A development was required -- a development agreement was required as a provision of annexation and has been subsequently modified. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for this property is mixed use community on the northern five acres that 's currently the county piece and mixed use neighborhood on the southern 3.86 acres. It's currently zoned L-O. The applicant proposes to annex and zone the northern five acres of land with C-C zoning, 1.59 acres, and R-16 zoning of 3.41 acres. A rezone of 3.36 acres of land is also requested from the L-O to the R-15 district, consisting of 1.43 acres and the C-C district, consisting of 1.93 acres. The applicant has submitted a conceptual development -- development plan, excuse me, as shown on the right that depicts four multi-family structures and two townhome structures. The townhomes are the ones here at the right-hand side adjacent to the existing residential properties. They contain a total of 113 dwelling units. They have the clubhouse and a fitness center and an open grassy area over 50 by 100 feet in area. A sports court and three one acre commercial pad sites along the frontage of Linder Road. The concept plan depicts one vehicular access via North Linder Road at the south boundary of the site and a north -south drive aisle that serves as a frontage road to North Linder Road that stubs to the north and south property lines for interconnectivity with adjacent developments . One vehicular access is proposed from the driveway for the multi-family portion of the development with a stub driveway to the north for future interconnectivity. A pedestrian pathway is proposed between the multi-family and commercial developments. A segment of the city's ten foot wide multi-use pathway system is also designated along the frontage of Linder Road. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the multi-family structures shown on the left. They consist of three stories, townhome structures that consist of two stories that are in the center, with varying material types and colors. Concept elevations were also submitted for the commercial structures shown on the right that are all one story in height. One is shown as a stand-alone building, while two are shown in strip-type configurations. In the MUC designated area, as discussed at the previous project, strip building configurations are not desired and the structures are required to be proportional to and blend in with the residential structures. All structures are required to comply with the design standards in the architectural standards manual . Written testimony has been received on this application from Justin Carpenter, Jerry -- Jeremy Evans and Sally Reynolds has submitted a petition that you should have in your public records information. Trevor Gasser, the applicant, has submitted a letter in agreement with the staff report. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions in Exhibit B of the staff report. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 56 of 100 McCarvel: Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward? Please state your name and address for the record. And speak directly into the microphone. Gasser: Madam Chair, Commissioners, my name is Trevor Gasser, I reside at 824 North McKittrick in Farmington, Utah. 84025. I am here to propose the annexation and rezoning of an eight acre development consisting of five acres of residential, three acres of commercial. I had a neighborhood meeting an d I -- I had a lot of residents there that had concerns with -- with what I was putting forward. I had previously put up R-40, instead of R-15, and that was one of the concerns and so I reduced that down to R-15. Also there was concern about the residential component with three stories backing up to the Paramount homes that backed the east side of this property. So, I reduced that down to townhomes and did two stories and kept the balconies on the bottom level, so they wouldn't be looking into any residents' backyards and, then, I even went and put some more open space in the back there to even buffer it more between the Paramount development to the east. I know it's been a long night, so I will let you guys ask any questions that you have. McCarvel: Okay. Any questions for the applicant? Commissioner Perreault, are you -- no? Okay. Perreault: I'm thinking. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. At this time we will take public testimony. First on the list I have -- there is a long list, but a lot of them -- a lot of you have indicated you do not wish to testify, so we will work through those that do wish to testify and, then, we will go from there. Doug Stewart. Okay. Mr. Marshall. Well, the pages weren't numbered. You were first on this page. Marshall: I want Doug to note -- Doug, did you notice I marked, yes, I'm in favor? Good deal. All right. So, I'm going to tell you what, Trevor over here has been really good to work with and I am one of four Paramount -- McCarvel: Name and address, please. Marshall: Oh. Joe Marshall. 5927 North Arliss Avenue. McCarvel: And are you speaking for yourself? Marshall: I am speaking for myself. I only get my three minutes. McCarvel: There you go. Marshall: That's all I need. McCarvel: All right. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 57 of 100 Marshall: Trevor has been absolutely awesome to work with. I am actually one of four Paramount residents that actually literally back up to this. I'm right there on Arliss. Back right up to it. It's going to be in my backyard. I appreciate everything Trevor's done. He's been working with us. This is the appropriate thing for this. It's marked C-C and some L-O. This is actually what the plan calls for. Can't say it's the prettiest apartment complex design, but he's going to sell off the apartments, so I do have a couple asks, Trevor, and we talked about one and the second one was before I saw the concept plan for the residential. Okay. Two things. He's going to build that commercial out there. It's an appropriate location. It's an appropriate thing. I'm really glad that now the other project to the north of this can help factor this in . Really that Ferney Street should go from the fire department all the way across to Fox Run Way and I had hoped they would contact him. They never contacted him and I talked to David Turnbull and they didn't want to work with David Turnbull either on Fox Run Way. Yes. Okay. So, my two asks. One. We have got a problem with the high school kids cutting across that property and especially the stuff to the north does develop and I hope it does soon and, yes, the Winco ought to be part of it and, thank you, we should back up to Linder with a berm and idle that. But those kids are going to be cutting through there and -- and I got dogs, they bark and the kids kick in my fence and they have done it to the neighbors, too, and Trevor mentioned he might be willing to put up a split face CMU wall there to keep the -- because there is actually -- Doug's got a fence over there about four foot between my fence and his fence and that's on my property. Our property were kind of -- our fence was moved in towards us so a ditch could run through there. Doug moved the ditch to the other side now, so what I'm going to ask is maybe put that up and since our property sits higher there is about 18, 24 inches, maybe put a 36 inch berm along there and put a six foot CMU wall, because we don't know when that property is going to develop and we get a lot of high school kids cutting through there and I just -- and how long it's going to -- right now I get a lot of noise in my backyard from the Homestead. I don't call the police. I don't -- because I like the Homestead. It's packed all the time. I have never been there, because it's too packed. But the music drives me nuts and I would really like something to block that out and he -- he seemed like he would be okay with that when I first talked to him. I will let him address that in a minute. The second issue is after I saw this -- just for proportionality, because the houses this is backing up to are typically between -- I think we have got a 2,200 up to 2,800 square foot houses. Our footprints are between 11 hundred and 14 hundred. This -- these townhomes there on the east side, I would ask that maybe they be broken up into four and five buildings, instead of -- well, actually, about five buildings, instead of two, keeping the footprint around the 3,000 square foot, because 3,000 gives them 6,000 square foot total. That's more than twice the largest house it's backing up to and trying to keep a proportionality going through. I don't think that's inappropriate. And, to be honest, the differences -- we are going -- we are R-8, but we are built out at 4.1 dwelling units per acre. He's going to R-15. He's at 13.5 dwelling units per acre and going from 4.1 to 13.5 is pretty significant, but it's what our plan allows and it's the jump that's appropriate, so -- again, thank you for working with us. I really appreciate it. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 58 of 100 McCarvel: Thank you. As -- shall we go with Sally Reynolds. No? You're good? Okay. Okay. Yeah. We will just go a show of hands. Somebody over here? Nobody? Okay. Hessing: My name is Matt Hessing. I live at 1153 West Bacall Street in Paramount Subdivision. I'm in opposition to the annexation and proposal. I moved to Paramount in August of 2015 and looked at the map to understand what -- what could or would potentially be built. I know that there are a lot of apartments and other townhome units that are currently in the mile block. Currently now, as all of them are being built out or are rented, there will be 560 units once those are -- are done. This would add an additional 113, pushing the number of units to around 670, roughly. I used to live in Kelly Creek, Lochsa Falls area and, actually, backed up to the Selway Apartments a couple years ago. My main issue is safety. With the massive amount of compaction with people, I had multiple car break-ins, as well as a home invasion. Now, I know -- I know this -- this could happen anywhere, but I just want to -- want to make my statement known that there is a concern on my behalf and I'm concerned with -- with the level of -- of impact and the amount of density that's going in. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Woolner: My name is Amber Woolner. I live at 4272 West Bolton Drive. And that's in the Fox Tail Estates Subdivision just north of Chinden. My children go to Paramount and Heritage and they are slated to go to Rocky Mountain, but right now the schools are extremely overcrowded. I'm concerned, number one, with the amount of extra overcrowding this is going to bring to our schools. Already my children -- they are talking about moving them to Star, to Eagle, because there is just not room to accommodate my kids on the north side of Chinden. My other concern is crime and drugs. I grew up in a town off -- out of Portland -- a suburb of Portland, Oregon, called Gresham, Oregon, and it was a lot of -- what's the term of this property. Not residential, but it's multi-use -- McCarvel: Apartments. High density -- Woolner: It used to be farmland and, then, they rezoned and allowed apartments, townhomes, and within a matter of less than ten years we saw a regular new segment called Meth Watch. Crime went up significantly. Drug use went up significantly. It brought in all that and my concern is we start here by rezoning and allowing these to come in, it's just going to be a matter of time before it's allowed all around us and it becomes a crime and drug problem. McCarvel: Anyone else wishing to testify on this issue? Sir. McKinney: Dave McKinney. 1225 West Bacall Street in Paramount Subdivision. I live about five houses away from Joe Marshall. My one comment that I think is worth considering here -- and this is, actually, partly for the developer here and I wish the other David McKinney had stayed, because the border between these two Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 59 of 100 developments that are being considered here is a perfect place to -- well, the two developers work together to create something that works and the suggestion has been made that the DMG partners -- the live-work property or some professional office or something that's more of a buffering type of use adjacent to the southern bounda ry of their property -- and this is a perfect place to do it, immediately to the north of these apartments that are being proposed. I think the concerns about this development have been addressed by Mr. Marshall pretty well and I would just like to offer that suggestion that the -- in any event, this Commission can present back to the developer of the Linder Village property to have a much more -- what, a more contiguous feel going from residential to live-work to perhaps some other commercial uses and so on. That's what buffering is all about. That's what zoning is all about. Thank you. McCarvel: Anyone else? W.McKinney: Good evening. My name is Wendy McKinney and I'm also at 1225 West Bacall. I have had a really hard time with this whole development we are talking about right now. I have friends on both sides of the fence and I wasn't planning on talking until just now. We all want the best for the City of Meridian and I just want to express my appreciation that we can come before you and that we can take the emotion out of these decisions, so that we as neighbors can live together in peace and I appreciate the burden that you bear. Thank you. McCarvel: Do we have one more? Okay. Reynolds: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Greg Reynolds. I live at 1166 West Bacall -- McCarvel: Hold on. Is that -- Reynolds: Is it dead? McCarvel: Yeah. Reynolds: Which one? McCarvel: There you go. Reynolds: There we go. Is that working now? Okay. I will stay right here. 1166 West Bacall Street in Meridian. That's right there in Paramount. There is several people here that ceded time to me. I won't need it, just to let you know. I think they are going to be disappointed by the fact that my wife is so awesome and presented a presentation , but I just plan to say a couple of words tonight. Mr. Gasser, I will echo the words, has been wonderful to work with. He's made changes that have helped make this impact less. My concern with this development continues to be echoed by other people, the fact that we are adding more high density residential units to an area that's already experiencing a colossal growth in this regard. You know, there is several hundred apartments being Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 60 of 100 built to the south. Who knows what's going to be built up in the Linder Village area. The question I think that this Commission needs to ask is what benefit does this development bring to the community. Low cost housing that's already taken care of by the other units and also the Selway Apartments, I believe, are now government owned, so they are ultra low cost. So, that's not alleviating any problems here. Is it increasing tax revenue? Well, commercial sites are going to bring in a lot more than high density residential. You know, are we talking additional employment again? It's apartments. It's not additional commercial. I have no problem with the commercial on the street. In fact, I would encourage it. I think we are all looking forward to it. So, on the flip side what does it bring to us? Well, you have heard a lot already. Increased traffic through the neighborhood. Crowd -- more crowding on the schools. Potential of more crime. There is nothing new there. So, the question is what benefit does this give to us versus the cost that we are going to have. Is that worth just filling that space at this time. I believe the answer is no. I would -- I believe firmly that Mr. Gasser will come back with a better plan if given a chance to address some of these other concerns . Maybe put in some more low density housing, instead of the higher density ones. More townhomes, instead of apartments. More houses on the edge. So, I would respectfully urge the Commission to take that in consideration. Give him more time to come back with a plan that's more community serving. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Okay. Yes, sir. Stewart: It's my second time, so still Doug Stewart and I still hold that five acres that we are talking about. If you would take a look at it you would see that the proposed road widening is going to destroy our property as far as a livable piece of property . So, something has to be done with it. I am a little offended that all the people who are now living in the cornfield are -- now want to dictate what will happen on these last two pieces of property. They are going to be developed I have had said to me, well, what we like looking over the fence and seeing your cows. Well, that's real nice, but we're going to have to get out of there and let's build something that is an advantage to the neighborhood, that those houses are going to have to go anyway, so let's clean it off and build something that is going to be beneficial to the neighborhood and it's not going to hurt them. There is four houses adjacent to these properties. Four. So -- and John is one of them and he said yes. So, that's got to be something great. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Okay. Would the applicant like to -- oh, sorry. One more. Hessing: My name is Emily Hessing and I also live at 1153 West Bacall Street. We had a -- McCarvel: Please get closer to the mic. I'm sorry. Hessing: My husband mentioned that we went through some traumatic -- other one. McCarvel: There you go. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 61 of 100 Hessing: And I do understand that what people are focusing on are the aesthetics of the apartment complex. The four homes that back up to these townhomes right there. When my husband and I lived over on Wapoot Street by Selway, we also had townhomes that backed up to our house. The concern that we had was not our view outside, because we actually had a beautiful backyard that we landscaped and we had trees and we had no problem actually selling our house when we wanted to sell it, because it was so beautiful. You couldn't even see the apartments. The problem that we had is that the issues of crime and traffic through the neighborhood and people coming through don't just hit those four houses right there, they extend for multiple streets and the areas that we lived over there in Kelly Creek had increased crime and it wasn't just us. We were probably the only ones that had a home invasion, thank goodness. We were the only ones. But multiple people had increased crime. Multiple people had kids jumping the fence, doing vandalism, doing all kinds of things. I'm not opposed to apartments, but I don't see why Paramount mile block needs 600. We only had 171 over there in Lochsa Falls area and, I tell you what, all those people over there did not appreciate all of these added stressors that we had. Any time another apartment complex has tried to come in in that mile block they fought it and they fought it, because they have had to deal with a lot of these issues that we had over there . I don't want Paramount to become a neighborhood that is surrounded on every corner by apartments, where there is no safe spot to go in Paramount, because people feel like already people are having, you know, their cars broken into constantly. On NextDoor that's all you hear about all the time. Someone broke into my car. Somebody is doing this, somebody is doing that. It's not going to get any better. I don't see how adding all these apartments are going to help. When we looked to the Comprehensive Plan we saw L-O, which we thought meant light commercial office. So, we thought it was going to be just like all of those other commercial properties right there . Something that was nice. We didn't realize that that meant it could be turned into high density apartments , because we had been through that before. If we had known that we wouldn't have purchased our home. Linder Village -- that's a totally separate issue. We were prepared for that. What we weren't prepared for was more apartments right next to our home. And I tell you what, my family -- my little kids, it terrifies them because they are the ones that were affected the most. They are the ones that were inconsolable when they had someone in their home fighting with their dad, because he came in in the middle of the night. They are the ones that we had to tell be careful when you go on this street or that street, because of traffic. They are the ones that are going to be affected by this the most when all the traffic is coming through and -- excuse me -- they have to deal with that. So, I appreciate that the developer has worked to try to help those four homes right there only have townhomes, but why can't the whole thing just be townhomes? Why can't it be light office? Why does it have to be three story apartments? We already have them all over. We hear it all the time. How do those ones on the southeast corner even get put in? They are horrendous. There is so much. Why do we need them? But no one's paying any attention to this. So, I urge you to, please, consider that, because I don't think Paramount needs 600 apartments and townhomes. That just seems a little excessive. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Okay. Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 62 of 100 Reynolds: You probably don't want to hear for me again, but I will make it quick. I was the person who submitted the petition, obviously, having my hands so full with Linder Village. Oh, sorry. Sally Reynolds. I live at 116 East Bacall Street in Meridian, Idaho. I wasn't able to devote very much time to this project, but I do agree with everything that's been said. Mainly, the brunt of the petition that 118 people signed in just one day, because that's all I had time to get together, their concern was the overcrowding of schools and I realize that you're not with the school district, you don't normally weigh in on that, but the Meridian plan does say that the -- one of the -- I think the second goal is that decision planning that you will make will support not overcrowding our schools and Heritage right now is 25 percent overcrowded. Rocky is 25 percent overcrowded. In a balancing act, an article by Holly Beach in the Meridian Press less than a month ago, Eric Exline from West Ada School District said we can grow -- we can handle the growth and one paragraph later he says, well, we have kids in Mountain View and Rocky Mountain that are eating lunch on the floor -- on the floor of Rocky Mountain and so there comes a point where -- I know West Ada will get a chance to comment before it comes before the City Council, but I don't know any time that they said, hey, we can't handle this growth and so there is a point where common sense has to come in and you look at these numbers and look at the kids and you look at kids eating lunch on the floor and you say -- and that's not even -- that's just the kids who go there. My son doesn't even go to Rocky, because it was too overcrowded. So, we elected to have him go somewhere else. That was a major deciding factor. And I live around the corner. I am super mad he isn’t just walking to school now. So, we would urge you to really consider the school overcrowding as a major factor in this. Some of it is residential and that's great and if they develop as residential with less units wonderful. And Mr. Gasser has been wonderful to be a developer, it's just that this is not zoned for that and we don't see a compelling argument to make the rezone for that one. It's going to have a negative impact on our children, the traffic and everything else. There is also a traffic engineer and he's not here. He felt like it would be a conflict of interest and he didn't submit public testimony, but he said with 113 units the traffic -- taking their children to Paramount and Heritage will create hazards in our neighborhood and we are already going to be dealing with the Linder Village, whatever that is. I guess the last statement that I will make is I agree we do need affordable housing, but in the staff report it even says, yes, this is multi-family dwellings, but we don't know how affordable it's going to be. So, without those definitive answers and without a huge benefit that we see to the community, I don't see a reason to rezone that one area right now, especially when the 320 units of Brighten on the corner, they are not even occupied yet. Those children are not even in our schools and so -- and the residential in Linder Village, that's going to be in our schools as well and so I just feel like this is something that we would not be able to bear as a neighborhood right now. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. And did we have one more? Eastman: I will be very brief . My name is Chris Eastman. I live at 1192 West Bacall Street in Paramount. I just wanted to stand up here and echo what has been said by my neighbor Sally, who helped write the petition and the reason why I signed it. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 63 of 100 Regarding the overcoming of our schools -- you know, Rocky Mountain already is over 610 students overcrowded and Heritage is 341 students. Overcrowded right now. And that is not taking into the account the multi -- the multi-family housing that's being built right now on the corner of the Paramount by Brighton. That's going to bring in 300 additional housing units into our school districts and into our neighborhoods. When we built our house -- when we bought our house we knew about that area , we knew they were going to put apartments in the area and we -- we looked at the plan and we were okay with that, knowing that would be an option. But we don't need -- we have so many apartments in our neighborhood -- look at our one square mile. We don't need any more apartment buildings. If they are willing, like they have said, that they are willing to change and lower the amounts of units, that would be so much greater for our neighborhood. We don't need 113 more units. Maybe changing it to more townhomes more compatible with our neighborhood, that would be very much appreciated by our neighborhood than having all these apartments surrounding us. Thank you. McCarvel: Yes, sir. Wilson: I'm Tyler Wilson. 5809 North Arliss Avenue. Just to put it in perspective, that's 610 overcrowding at Rocky Mountain, that's the freshman class. An entire class of students. That's a lot. And we will add more to that and that's a concern of mine. I love what the developer has done. I think it's great that he worked with the community, but we have so many apartments as it is and so many people and we can't handle it. The students can't handle it. And this is their education. So, I just urge you to keep that in mind. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Would the applicant like to come back forward or -- are we done? Okay. Gasser: Do I need to state again -- Trevor Gasser. McCarvel: The microphone on your left. Gasser: Trevor Gasser. You know, I -- I hear what everybody is saying, you know, and when you get down to it, you know, I can't appease everybody. You know, I feel like there has got to be some give and take on both sides. I have tried to give on my side. You know, obviously, I would -- I would rather have this be zoned R-40 and put the townhomes, you know, three levels and get more units on it, because, you know, I'm not doing this for fun, I'm here to make a living, too, and, you know, where land costs are today as well, you know, things don't pencil. And I will say just land costs and construction costs today, I would say that the -- the rents on these apartments are going to be closer to the top of the market and -- which would probably benefit the surrounding area versus low income. And, Joe, I would -- we talked about CMU. I looked around kind of the area, I saw nice wood fences. I would berm it, too, for you and -- and do some nice landscaping right there. We can still talk further about that, but I would -- I would definitely consider that. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 64 of 100 McCarvel: Okay. Any questions? Perreault: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Mr. Gasser, the staff commented in the staff report that they would like to see a common area in the commercial section . Can you address that, please, and -- and, then, also -- I don't know if we have a -- something that shows what the access is here on the north side that is coming into the commercial. Is this that -- is that off that same street that's coming in to the south of the development? We just heard -- Gasser: So, I'm connecting here to the south to the office district and, then, moving north I would anticipate just connecting to the adjacent property, whatever gets developed there. Perreault: Okay. Gasser: And trying to do that connectivity that -- as staff has recommended. And, then, in regards to your question regarding the open space or plaza area of ten percent , I will address that with an updated site plan when I go to City Council if it is approved. Perreault: Okay. One more question for you. I'm in real estate, I understand how numbers work and how things have to pencil out. The intent is to have these rented and the management company and whatnot. Has the -- you or the owner developer considered putting in townhomes that they would sell? I mean talk to me about -- Gasser: Just where construction costs are today, you know, to do townhomes to sell, it's hard to make things pencil at the price that I am at. Perreault: I ask that question because I think that may address some of the neighbors' concerns about it being owned units versus rented units and -- Gasser: No. I -- and I understand, you know, their concerns. I have tried to address as many as I can and still make it a viable development for myself and that is -- that is what I have put forth here today. McCarvel: Thank you, Commissioner Perreault. The question I was going to ask -- you are in agreement with everything with the staff and show up to City Council with all the -- Perreault: I'm sorry, I have one more question. McCarvel: Yeah. Go ahead. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 65 of 100 Perreault: Staff had also commented concerns that there might be a strip mall in some of these commercial lots and, you know, this -- this is an MUC designation and it doesn't feel like that. Same conversation we just had previously. Can you talk about what -- do you already have, you know, groups slated for this or -- Gasser: I have a tenant that is interested in one of the properties. I try to keep those things confidential, because there is so much competition with the development to the north and what's going down on Ten Mile and Chinden. Perreault: Sir, I guess what I'm asking you is is it going to be -- are these maybe single buildings, are they going to be buildings with multiple tenants in them? Is it going to -- Gasser: You know, it will vary. I'm not a builder that builds on spec. Perreault: Right. Gasser: I wait until a tenant comes to sign a lease and, then, build a building for them. So, I envision, you know, financial institutions, small restaurants, those types of uses. Professional offices. McCarvel: Any other questions? With that at this time could I get a motion to close the public hearing for Item H-2017-0095, Linder Mixed Use. Cassanelli: So moved. Bernt: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for H-2017- 0095. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIES: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. McCarvel: Comments? Fitzgerald: Since you led off the last one -- McCarvel: Sure. Fitzgerald: So, I -- this is one of those where I -- this is on a major road. There is going to be significant expansion of that road. I -- I appreciate the fact that the developer has sat down with neighbors and said we are going to try to lower the impact as much as possible. I think what sometimes -- and the audience doesn't realize this -- we get to see information about what's happening in the city and what we have learned is we have the lowest -- lowest approximate level of apartments per capita that we have ever had -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 66 of 100 McCarvel: And we are not -- Fitzgerald: -- and so everybody sees them going up and they think we are overloaded with apartments. We have the lowest -- this is the lowest ratio we have ever had in the history of our city. So, we are not overloaded with apartments and we are definitely not -- we are definitely in need of more places for these -- for folks to live, because we are a destination that people want to live in. So, I appreciate that they are going to be a little higher end. I appreciate that -- the fact that we are going to offset with townhomes against the density -- or against -- the density against the neighborhood and I think it's -- I mean I think it makes sense up against what's coming later. McCarvel: Yeah. Exactly. That's -- that was my thoughts. This is a perfect place for it. It's going to be at the intersection of major roadways there and it is going to be right up against the development that's coming and I like the little frontage road and I just -- I really don't see a whole lot of people wanting to buy individual single homes that close to all that stuff and I think this provides that buffer of residential and I know -- I mean I know we hear a lot about the car break ins and stuff , but I live out in the middle of nowhere and a car gets broke into. So, it's -- it's just one of those things, you can't know everybody. You can't protect yourself from everybody. Any other thoughts? Commissioner Cassanelli. Cassanelli: Random thoughts. Commissioner Fitzgerald, I'm going to push back a little bit on the apartment numbers you talked about, only because I think a lot of those that we saw are before some of the numbers we have approved recently. I would imagine if we -- we look at those numbers, they are going to fall more in line with -- with where we are at, you know, percentage wise. I'm familiar with this -- with this part of town. There are a lot of apartments and multi-family already in this area. I think certainly not -- not what's been approved in -- in a couple other parts, but I think this is -- this area is still -- it's overwhelmingly single family in this area with Lochsa and Paramount. There are -- there are a lot of apartments. So, I'm -- I'm not as much in favor of it, just because I think it's already -- the ratio in this area of multi-family to single family I think is -- is high. I think there is a place for everything. There are single family homes right across the -- right across the road in Lochsa Falls, so to say that single family couldn't work in this area -- you know, I disagree with that. I like townhomes. I think there is some other applications. I'm not in favor of -- of the -- of the apartments in there. That's my thoughts. McCarvel: Anyone else? Bernt: I -- Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Bernt. Bernt: Sorry for -- I agree with Commissioner Fitzgerald that the ratio of single family units compared to multi-family units is pretty low. I think it's thirteen percent and -- to 87 percent. That's -- that's -- that's a big ratio. I think that we do need apartments. They -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 67 of 100 they are in need. There is no doubt about it. I believe that there are many different walks of life in our city that need different types of housing to be able to live in. So, I don't -- those are my thoughts and I'm in agreement with Commissioner Fitzgerald. However, I just don't -- I just don't like this -- this particular spot for them and I will echo what Commissioner Cassanelli said. So, I think it's a great development. I don't really have any disagreement with it. I think the developer did a great job working with the homeowners, which I absolutely love. I think it's great. I just don't like -- I just don't like this particular location for it. I think this area has a lot of apartments. So, I tend to agree the Commissioner Cassanelli. McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: This is almost tougher than our last application. I am -- I'm struggling with this. I don't -- there is something that's not striking me right about it and I'm really trying to put my finger on what it is. But I would -- I would say probably my -- my closest opinion would echo Commissioner Bernt in that -- because there is a lot of apartments in this area. I don't love the location for this. I'm not sure that this design is the best design, in that -- and qualify that with saying that the -- the future land use designation is MUC and I just -- again, I'm going back to this -- you know, we have got the commercial zone next to the residential and it's not integrated well. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: So, I'm going to disagree, because I -- you know, a church property, you have a residential property and you have a commercial property and, then, commercial going above it. So, I'm confused on -- I get what you guys are saying, I just -- and we are getting back to my conversation about in fill and we are going to lose the mile squares again and green space. So, I -- I understand where you're -- I understand the ratios and the mile square having more apartments, but I -- I don't know. This -- along a major road you're not going to sell single family homes . Right across the street is a fire station and you're not selling single family homes right across the street from a fire station, because they are busting out sirens every couple of hours, if not more than that, and so there is a commercial buffer on a major road, there is a residential component in the middle and there is a church. So, I'm confused on where the mixed use doesn't come into it, because that could be office or it can be commercial right in the -- on that strip along the road. And that's just my comments. McCarvel: Yeah. And if I'm looking at this correctly -- I mean there is no way to connect -- if you made this single family homes there is no way to connect that to the existing subdivision, because it's walled off there. It's all backyards and there is no way to connect it to anything. I mean it would be this little funny private three and a half acres -- about five acres that's this little island to itself in amongst all of what's coming to the north and along that road. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 68 of 100 Bernt: Would you -- Madam Chair, would you -- what are your thoughts about just like -- like commercial, maybe office, you know, dentist office, you know, that type of office space. And I'm not opposed to development, you know, say, you know, that's not what we should be talking about, just talking about maybe other types of developments besides -- McCarvel: Besides multi-family. Bernt: Yeah. McCarvel: Any other -- Fitzgerald: I think I know where I am, but I think there is con sensus against it, so -- if anybody wants to make a motion. McCarvel: Yeah. I think we know where everybody stands I think. Make a motion and see where it goes. Cassanelli: We need to figure out the exact reasoning behind it. I'm -- Perreault: Madam Chair, point well taken with the connectivity with putting in the townhouse -- a townhome concept versus the -- the apartments. That makes some sense. Cassanelli: I will give that a go. I'm going to move -- Madam Chair, I make a motion to continue file number H-2017-0129 -- probably need the whys here. Baird: First of all we turn the mic on. As a matter of process I would recommend that you complete your motion, giving your reasons for the continuance and, then, staff would give you a date if the motion is successful, rather than looking for a date at this point. Just -- just a thought. Cassanelli: Okay. Then I move to continue file number H-2017-0129 for the following reasons: To come up with another use for the -- for that parcel to include townhomes, office, mixed commercial, as opposed to the apartments. Does that one work? McCarvel: We just need a second. Bernt: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to continue file number H -2017-0095 to the hearing date of -- staff. Allen: You have the option of November 2nd or the 16th. McCarvel: Both of them just have one item on them at this time; right? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 69 of 100 Allen: Yeah. I'm a little unclear, excuse me, on what you're looking for. You're not wanting multi-family, so what types of -- you're still wanting residential, but not multi- family? I want to make sure I understand, so I can communicate this to the applicant. McCarvel: That seems to be the majority opinion up here. Bernt: I mean I also would be in favor of office. I would be in favor of light commercial. But I'm -- so, that's my opinion. Allen: May I make just a couple of clarifications of some discussion I heard that wasn't entirely accurate, just so we are all on the same page and the m otion is consistent with that. The -- the northern piece of property that's in the county right now, that prop erty is designated mixed use community. The southern two parcels that are currently zoned L-O are mixed use neighborhood. So, they are a little different. Mixed use neighborhood is a little less intense community uses . All of the mixed use areas require component of residential and they are typically higher density than single family residential. So, the front portion was proposed to be zoned C-C and, then, the rear portion was R-15. So, there was no commercial zoning up next to the residential . So, anyway, I just wanted to clarify that. McCarvel: So, as part of that it's an R-15 probably going in there anyway as part of that designation. Allen: What they are proposing is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan currently. But if you are wanting to see different types of uses that would also be allowed in that mixed use community, just, please, be very clear as to what you're looking for. Bernt: What would -- would light commercial and office space be a part of that? Allen: Just a moment. Let me bring up that page in the Comprehensive Plan. Fitzgerald: It has to have a residential component, though. Allen: So, in the mixed use neighborhood designation residential densities should comprise -- or uses I should say should comprise a minimum of 40 percent of the development area, densities ranging from six to 12 units per acre. I mean there is -- there is several guidelines here, but that -- McCarvel: And this falls in at 11 something did I see? Allen: Thirteen units per acre. And mixed use community, there is a requirement for at least three different types of land uses. I would say on a property this size, two would be sufficient, because you're going to have a mix of uses on with the other mixed use designated properties to the north and east also . But in the mixed use community Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 70 of 100 residential uses should comprise a mix -- a minimum of 20 percent of development area, densities ranging from six to 15 units per acre. McCarvel: Okay. Bernt: So, townhomes -- I mean I understand that the developer is saying that they don't pencil out, but what you're saying is that townhomes would be an appropriate part of this mixed use situation. Allen: Townhomes would be, yes. Fitzgerald: The challenge is dictating what he -- I mean that's -- that's a hard thing to ask, but I get where you're going. Cassanelli: If we are recommending R-8 in there, can you pull that off with townhomes? Fitzgerald: It doesn't make any sense. It doesn't make sense on Linder Road, the commercial next to it, doing R-8 next to a church. I mean -- I think the night is getting me, but that's the -- I mean it's -- there is a fire station across the street. That road is going to expand into that section of lot. I don't think anybody is going to want to buy a house up against that road. So, I mean with this -- this configuration of a street -- or configuration of the property. It's very difficult to roll R-8 in there, but -- McCarvel: Sonya. Allen: If I may interrupt. R-8 really isn't a desired zoning district in the mixed use designation. Mixed neighborhood or community. McCarvel: Quite honestly -- I mean I think it's a good buffer between what's going to -- the massive commercial that's going to be to the north of it and what's right outside of it. It looks like they have opened up their green space with the basketball court and what we would ask of any other multi-family and townhomes and what's lining up next to those other houses. I just -- I mean I understand the schools and everything and that's just something we have been fighting for 20 years in this valley. Fitzgerald: So, where are we? We have a motion on the table. McCarvel: It hasn't been seconded and we don't have a date if it is going to be a continuance, so with the further discussion is that still a motion we want to make and, if so, make it and let's move on. Cassanelli: I -- I don't know how I can change the motion to -- to what I think about the project. And I don't know if the developer can come back with things that will pencil and that will fit into the -- into the full usage of that land. I do -- I want to see -- I would like to see some different options in there, though. So, I am -- I'm still with my motion. If it's -- if it -- you know, if it's not seconded, then, it dies. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 71 of 100 McCarvel: Okay. Is there anyone that would like to second it or make a different motion? We need one or the other. Bernt: Second. McCarvel: If that's going to be the motion, Sonya, what date do you want us to put on there? Allen: Madam Chair, if the applicant is revising the plans I would suggest November 16th, because we will need a revised plan at least ten days prior to the hearing. McCarvel: Okay. It has been moved and seconded to continue file number H-2017- 0095 to the hearing date of November 16th. The reasons stated earlier. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Fitzgerald: No. McCarvel: Nay. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO NAYS. TWO ABSENT. McCarvel: Would the Commissioners like five minute stretch break? (Recess.) C. Public Hearing for East Ridge Estates Subdivision (H-2017- 0129) by DevCo LLC Located at North of East Lake Hazel Road and West of South Eagle 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 40.99 Acres of Land with R-4 and R-15 Zoning Districts 2. Request: Preliminary Plat Conisisting of 139 Building Lots and 7 (Seven) Common Lots on 40.99 Acres of Land in a Proposed R-8 Zoning District McCarvel: We would like to resume our meeting. So, if the people that are standing are leaving, please, leave and, if not, please, we take a seat. Please take your conversations out beyond the doors. So, that brings us to -- at this time we would like to open the public hearing for Item No. H-2017-0129, East Ridge Estates Subdivision and we will begin with the staff report. Fitzgerald: Josh looks very fresh like he just finished sleeping. Go on record and say that's unacceptable. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 72 of 100 McCarvel: All right. Beach: Okay. So, as you said, this is an application both for annexation and zoning and for preliminary plat. This property consists of approximately 40.99 acres of land, which is currently zoned RUT, north of East Lake Hazel Road and west of South Eagle Road. To the north are single family residential properties in the Black Rock Subdivision, which is zoned R-4, and undeveloped residential properties zoned RUT, which is also had a subsequent application for Sky Mesa recently. To the east is one single family residential property and undeveloped property, both zoned RUT within Ada county. To the south is East Lake Hazel Road, excuse me, and undeveloped property also zoned RUT in Ada county. And to the west is one single family residential property and also undeveloped property, which are both, again, zoned RUT. If you recall earlier -- earlier this year in March and this application was remanded back to the Planning and Zoning Commission from City Council in order for the applicant to work with the surrounding property owners. The previous plan included 117 single family lots on the same acreage, 40.99 acres in the proposed R-8 zoning district, with a gross density of 2.85 dwelling units per acre. So, the Comprehensive Plan future land each map designation on this property is split between low density residential and medium density residential. So, as I mentioned, the previous iteration of this project was for 117 single family lots. The applicant's request tonight is for -- excuse me. The previous one was for 117 in a proposed R-8 zoning district. The one before you this evening is for 139 single family residential lots in both the R-4 and the R-15 zoning districts. So, the difference in density -- the previous plat was -- it was 2.85 dwelling units per acre and the one before you tonight is 3.39 dwelling units per acre. Both well within the range allowed by the Comprehensive Plan. So, you see on the plan here a couple different zoning designation. So, the R-15 would be the southeast corner -- or, excuse me, the southwest corner of the project. My mouse here is -- the applicant can discuss a little bit further what he's proposing there, but these are the age restricted, zoned R-15 and, then, R-4 would wrap around the north and the east side of that smaller portion there. And so the applicant is proposing to develop the East Ridge Estates Subdivision with three phases. Phase one to commence off the stub street from East Cyanite Drive and generally continue from the north to the south . Access is proposed from the site via one access from East Lake Hazel and be an extension of an existing stub street from Black Rock Subdivision or East Cyanite Drive. There are five common driveways that exceed the maximum length of the common -- of the -- that's allowed by the UDC. The fire department will not approve any length over 150 feet and the applicant's been made aware that they need to revise that. The applicant did receive alternative compliance for common driveways off of a private road, so there is a public road system that, as I said, connects to Cyanite -- East Cyanite Drive. Will stub to the property to the west and will connect to East Lake Hazel. You see where my pointer is -- my mouse is here, this is all a private road system, so the applicant was required to obtain alternative compliance for common driveways off of a private road . That was approved by the director. Like any other subdivision, a minimum of ten percent qualified open space is required to be provided for the development. Based on the area of the preliminary plat or 14.99 acres, a minimum of 4.09 acres of qualified open space is required. The applicant is proposing 4.32 acres or 10.54 percent and consisting of the -- half of the street buffer along East Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 73 of 100 Lake Hazel Road. Open space 50 by 100 and they also are proposing eight foot wide parkways along the local streets and internal common open space . The applicant's propose Lot 14, Block 2. So, I will show you here with my mouse again where they are proposing their one open space. A large portion of the open space for the development. Staff recommends that the applicant relocate the open space to the intersection of East Mores Trail Drive and East Huntley Drive or approximately this location here where my mouse is. Now that will be more centralized and accessible by all the residents. This will also allow the applicant to provide a pedestrian connection through the age- restricted common community through Lots 34 through 39 as required for the private street standards noted above. So, as far as the private streets -- let me back up a second here. Also there is two gates provided for the common -- for this R-15 proposed subdivision, one at least 50 feet off of the intersection on Huntley and fifty feet off the intersection down here on Mores Trail Drive. Our private street standards require that there be two pedestrian access points through the subdivision, so staff condition reads that the open space would be moved to the corner and , then, one additional pedestrian connection would be added through approximately this area and another down to the sidewalk along Lake Hazel Road for easier connectivity to the future park that will be constructed on the south side of Lake Hazel. Essentially across the street from this subdivision. So, all developments consisting of five acres or more are required to provide a minimum of one site amenity -- one additional site amenity is required for each additional 20 acres in accord with the standard of the UDC. Based on the area of the disciplinary plat, which, again, is 40.99 acres, staff requires a minimum of two qualified site amenities to be provided. The applicant proposes to provide an amenity specific to the -- what they are calling their Village concept and other amenities that would be for the use of the estate lots, as well as for the Village concept. So, there is some exclusive amenities for the age restricted or the Village concept. Those residents are also permitted to use the amenities or the open space on the outside. However, the amenities within the gated or Village concept are not -- as far as my understanding from the applicant, are not available for the use of the -- the residents in the estate lots. Similar to what was done with the Movado project, if you're remembering that concept. So, let me back up. Amenities specific to the Village concept include a clubhouse, sitting area, and a large common lot. Amenities that would be shared by both the estate lots and the Village concept include a neighborhood park that includes a large grassy area, a shade structure and sitting areas. With the previous version of the project City Council requested a tot lot for the development and the applicant may want to think about adding a children's play structure. I believe we did require that as a condition of approval for the applicant. The existing homes at Black Rock Subdivision -- to the northwest of the site are located on a ridge approximately 20 to 40 feet above the proposed subdivision. The applicant -- we require that the applicant show an exhibit. I believe they have that this evening to show us the elevation change. So, staff had concerns -- the steep elevation change due to the grading that the applicant is proposing for this entire site would cause impacts to the property to the north, as well as to the east. So, we required them to show us what that -- what that change would be topographically, so we could see that in an exhibit. And as part of this, the applicant has also encumbered these lots with a slope easement. Would not be in a common lot. We are showing that on their existing building lot. So, that was something that typically Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 74 of 100 would be in the CC&Rs of things that they can and cannot put in those areas and the applicant can cover that a little bit further for you if you would like. The applicant has submitted some conceptual sample building elevations for future homes in the development. Building materials appear to consist of a mix of board and batten, stucco and horizontal lap siding, with shake shingles and stone accents. And, then, because homes at lots -- on lots that will back up to East Lake Hazel Road will be highly visible, staff recommends the rear or sides of structures on lots that face the street incorporate articulation through changes in materials, color, modulation and architectural elements both horizontal and vertical to break up monotonous wall plains and rooflines. Additionally, a design review application is required to be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit for any single family attached homes. The applicant must comply with the design standards listed in the UDC. Did receive written testament from a number of folks. Susan Karnes, Kathi Baumgartner, Jim Stroo, Melody Wheeler and a single letter from Susan and Ted Bohlman. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions listed in the staff report and I will stand for any questions you have. McCarvel: Any questions for staff? Would the applicant like to come forward? Conger: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, Jim Conger. 4824 West Fairview Avenue. Josh, thanks for -- for that great staff report and opening speech there I guess. But, yes, I will jump into it. We are excited to be in front of you tonight to present the East Ridge Estates. With last year's annexation and the anticipated growth -- you guys took in about 4,000 acres or so in this area from here to Highway 69. We fit in with that nicely and come into the city's vision, which we will address here as we walk through this. We have held numerous meetings -- and productive meetings as well with the neighborhood groups -- individual neighbors and neighborhood groups. We have arrived at a general consensus. Not a unanimous, but a general, that a typical R-4 subdivision was not in the best interest of most parties . We worked diligently with the neighbors, again, over this last four months since the last hearing dates. Reworked the project substantially. We did not remand back to you, we just resubmitted, that was how substantial of a change it was. We feel we worked out a good compromise with our mix of custom estate lots and the Village product. We have concessions with the surrounding neighbors and -- as well as the Baumgartner land on the -- located on the west boundary adjacent to the Village product we will talk about in a minute. This application, as you heard from Josh, has a great staff report that recommends approval. The neighborhood meetings forged a path of the land plan, but the location of this property, obviously, played a big role in it. A big influence. We are located on Lake Hazel, which will be a five lane, major arterial. This is an east-west transportation corridor in the future and I will call it a major -- it will be the Lake Hazel connection all the way to Orchard, basically, and, then, over to the Ice World area, which is Gowen Road, with a hundred foot wide right of way in this particular location. So, it's -- it's not your -- your typical collector, it is definitely a major arterial. We are also across the street from your city's 80 acre regional park that's slated to be underway next spring and, actually, the water line -- the main line up to Lake Hazel is being installed right now. And as positive as anything, we are one mile from the new YMCA that's under construction, which is extremely amazing in itself. The community -- kind to jump into Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 75 of 100 the -- the explanation of the project, the details and our concessions. The community will consist of two product types. In the orange area will be the 41 custom estate home sites. They average in lot sizes just barely under a half acre in size . I will note a couple of commitments we made to the neighbors during the planning meetings was on the rim lots we will -- they will all be restricted with 45 foot rear yard setbacks and seven and a half foot side yard setbacks. So, we have enhanced or increased setbacks in the rear and the sides. We also modified the park. You heard Josh allude to that earlier. From where the red circle is on my screen to the neighborhood park there, that was largely for three or so of the extreme adjacent neighbors of Black Rock that -- at the end of Cyanite in that discussion and the Baumgartner parcel, which you will hear from -- from her later this evening on our west boundary. Possibly the neighborhood park is slightly better where the city wants it of course. We feel with the regional park across Lake Hazel and the -- you know, the staunch, real strong feelings out of the neighbors for that park to be at that location, was a good enough justification for us and is the right place for that park. The Village product. If I hit the right button -- and I think I have screwed it up, Josh. Give me one more chance and I will do better. Thank you. The Village product. We had the same product in front of you a year and half ago that's underway and we are in our first phase at the Movado development off of Overland Road and Cloverdale and Eagle. Age restricted -- as I indicated, it's 90 -- our application was 98 single level age restricted homes. With us working with the fire department in the last bid in the last 30 days, we actually reduced down from 98 to 96 of those single level age restricted homes and that is a new plat that will be submitted and the development agreement would -- would restrict us down to the 96, not 98, would be fine. As noted, age restricted neighborhood that is gated for security purposes. Our homeowners require a simple and secure lifestyle, an all-inclusive maintenance program and we have a community clubhouse on the interior, as you can see at our entry, that provides a gathering spot for social interaction amongst the 96 homeowners. It consists of single level homes up to 2,000 square feet and, again, all -- all single level. The price point in the high two hundreds and mostly in the low to mid 300 thousand range. The -- it's just a very low intense user, single level. That is why we have worked so well with our adjacent neighbor on the west and really what's helped us drive to this point. But traffic created from this Village neighborhood is really the amazing benefit. Through all our traffic studies in our previous projects of this product type and in this one as well, it's 60 percent less traffic than a typical R-4 neighborhood. I mean that 60 -- it's -- it's sizably different and that is what's made this I think a little more palatable to some. I'm not saying all. And definitely more palatable to our adjacent neighborhood it impacts the most. Again -- and that neighbor is the Baumgartners, who is our western neighbor, we have come to an agreement with them on this land plan that works both for them and works for us. That's, again, four months of -- of continuous meetings ever since that last -- last public hearing. Another benefit of approving this project now would be providing Black Rock Subdivision, which you can see we are in the yellow estate lots there in the upper left. All their homes have one point of access. So, we will -- we will connect or provide their interconnectivity and probably, more important, their second point of access for emergency services. I believe in the previous hearings you also heard they had dissatisfaction with city water. The water line is now in Lake Hazel. In our first phase we will connect Lake Hazel to Cyanite, which will provide a solution to their poor Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 76 of 100 water quality as well. In the previous hearings and meetings we have had some discussions on traffic, as we always do, and, again, the -- the estate lots are -- are the same traffic patterns, the typical R-4, even though they are large lots, because of the size of the homes. The Village product is, again, the amazing part of it, with -- as far as traffic goes. But even though we have added a few more homes, the traffic impact from this project, compared to the previous project, is a 32 percent discount or reduction in the overall traffic. We now have 751 average daily trips versus the 1,104 that was in the previous application. Substantial decrease. Both of those are just excerpts pulled out of the traffic impact study that's -- that's of record. So, those are not made up. From a Comprehensive Plan standpoint, we hear a lot about density and comprehensive plans and allowable uses in all applications. Our property is really the start. We are in the blue. We are really the start of the transition from the medium -- or to the medium high -- or, you know, the medium density and, then, the medium high density residential and we are medium high on half our property -- or medium I mean -- to the higher intense neighborhood commercial node that you see to the left of your screen or to the west. I want to make sure in saying this a lot, you guys kind of know I'm saying it for neighbors and I'm saying it for myself, the -- you know, the Comprehensive Plan, not the zones, is what dictates density. Everybody gets concerned about a certain zone for this, a certain zone for that allowing for the density. That is, obviously, as you guys know, and kind of educate the rest, that isn't what determines the density. The density is determined by your Comprehensive Plan. As you can see for this exhibit in the upper left-hand corner if you take the low density, which is our green areas at 23 acres and, then, you take our medium density at 18 and you add them together, you would have a comp plan allowable of 213 units. We are requesting the 137, down 139, but 137 lots, which is 37 percent less than what the city comp plan could support. We are not saying you get to the 213 every time, but just so everybody understands how the density is calculated in the City of Meridian. We are requesting the R-4 and the R-15 zones strictly for the basis of dimensional standards and street frontages , so we can meet the city code requirements of putting a house on a lot. We are, obviously, pleased with the staff report. We have worked a long hard four months. It's been very beneficial for us. Hopefully, it's beneficial for -- I'm going to hope for a majority of the neighbors the best we can. So, we very much appreciate the staff report. I just need to clean up and would like to throw on the table three clean-up items from staff recommendation. The first one is a little odd for me, but it's in the narrative. It's not a condition of approval. So, I want to clarify the section and I will -- I will put these on the screen in a minute, but it's page seven, roman numeral nine. It's -- it's clarifying the access points for pedestrians. We are providing two, which is to that neighborhood park out the back, and connectivity into east Cyanite. And, again, these access points, we gate the roadways per your city code. We are not asking for any waiver. We don't gate the pedestrian ramps, so -- and those are sidewalks coming in. So, they are not blocked off and have special codes and things of that nature. So, we have access to the neighborhood park in your upper corner and, then, in the bottom, obviously, we have the pedestrian access out our entry, which takes you to Lake Hazel, which will take you to the regional park or as Lake Hazel develops, anywhere you want to walk. So, clarification that we are providing two access points. Now, our next item is the deleting condition 1.1.E. It required a tot lot play structure. Our envisioned amenity package -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 77 of 100 amenity package does not have a tot lot and what we did submit does meet actual code. So, the tot lot is just an arbitrary add on and with -- with these big estate lots and things of that nature and across from a regional park, we believe we would like to stick with -- with our amenity package as submitted. The last item -- somebody took my screen away, but -- is that possible to go back, Josh? The last clean up item is -- is what we have been talking about with the park, which is conditioned 1.12-L, the neighborhood park location. I -- I mean city staff would like to relocate the park. I understand it on a fundamental basis. During our neighborhood meetings and planning process it was strongly requested by the neighbors at this location and I have made commitments to them to keep it there and I am going to do the best I can do to hold my commitment. For what we would gain to move the park, if that's what the adjacent neighbors in this particular case wanted , seems like for as much as we have been remanded back and as many neighborhood meetings as we have been to, it seems like one thing that we could all -- all agree to commit on is deleting the -- the moving of the park. Leave it where it's shown on the drawing in front of you. In closing we put a lot of time, effort and passion into planning this. This last four months actually has been pretty enjoyable, as well as we have worked hard with your Fire Department and we got approvals out of your Fire Department, Police Department, Public Works, your Planning Department and the Ada County Highway District and I think it's extremely important to note that the Ada County Highway District was done at staff level. We respectfully request you move to approve these projects in accordance with the three clean-up modifications that I believe are on your screen and I will put up after my time at rebuttal. For sure if somehow -- you need to memorize it yet. With that very much appreciate Josh's work and being able to speak to you tonight. McCarvel: I have a question for you, Mr. Conger. The staff report -- the developer depicted the rear setback on some of those Village units as three feet and it should be a minimum of 12. Does that impact how those structures fit on those lots? Are you really going to be able to get them on there or -- Conger: Madam Chair, we are comfortable that we can work through that with staff. We have the same conditions at the Movado project and this is the -- you know, the -- almost identical layout. So, we do not see that being an issue. We will work through that. McCarvel: And the other one was the common driveways exceed s the 150 feet and the Fire Department won't approve those, so there is three common driveways -- Conger: Madam Chair, that is the reduction of the two lots that I'm alluding to. McCarvel: Okay. Conger: We have lost two lots and -- McCarvel: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 78 of 100 Conger: -- reconfigured slightly. We can live with that condition. That condition is not a problem. McCarvel: Okay. Conger: We will lose two lots and we have already gone on record with the development agreement -- McCarvel: Yeah. Conger: -- reduced by two. McCarvel: Okay. Cassanelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassanelli. Cassanelli: You showed on some of the -- some of the images there the Orchards. Was that a project you did? So, is that going to be -- is the Village going to be very similar -- identical to -- Conger: Yeah. Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassanelli, yeah, part of our group was definitely part of the Orchards project and that is a part of the concept for sure. We are not part of the Orchards' brand, but it will be -- Cassanelli: Very similar? Conger: Correct. Yeah. And that is the renderings you see there, of course. Cassanelli: Yeah. McCarvel: And I think that they had also asked that prior to this Commission hearing that you had the -- some exhibits for us on the elevations. Okay. There we go. Conger: Yes. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, so we have elevations. I will just show you A first, which is against Black Rock. B is now starting to be -- not against Black Rock, that would be against your Boise Hunter Homes, the one that was approved here a couple weeks ago and, then, obviously, C and D are on the east boundary. Our C and D areas are where we have the larger fill areas, but we will walk through those right now. So, our section A is to Black Rock to our property line is very minor. You can see our lots are deep. You know, we are approximately 240 feet deep against Black Rock. Anywhere from to 220 to 240. We have committed to 45 foot rear yard setbacks. That was all part of the give and take of the four months of meetings. Specifically up here. Obviously, when you get to our Section CC and BB and DD, those are in slopes. We still think that is quite a concession of the 45, because if people have Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 79 of 100 property they tend to figure out how to build on it. So, we wanted to restrict everybody back from the 45 -- 45 feet. These slopes are -- are really identical to what -- what you see in that new Sky Mesa. What is also done in Reflection Ridge. The developer, which is me, will be in charge of any vegetation and putting those back to what -- what we call a natural condition. We don't envision these being sprinkled. Our mix will be back in, will be a little bit of rabbit brush and a lot of natural grasses and things of that nature and a little bit of sage for sure and that will all come back in a natural environment and will be kept that way. Section DD is -- is part of a project board of control -- a small part, which is -- you can see Section DD and, then, you see that line that says irrigation access road -- so, from that irrigation access road line leader back up to Lake Hazel is encumbered by a project board of control easement. If anybody has to deal with them, they are pretty staunch. Their 40 feet means 40 feet. So, our fencing will be up to that part and that small area and you will see an access road down at the bottom that is required by the project board of control. But the fence would be at that house side of the gravel road in a particular case. All our other concessions put wrought iron fence per the neighbor's request at the property lines. In this case we will be off of it a little bit. As well as the wrought iron on that west boundary with the Baumgartner piece as well. But that's in the narrative. That's in the requirements and would be in the development agreement. McCarvel: And can you elaborate on -- and maybe this is a Sonya question. The big bold note here is it -- it was remanded back to us and needs to comply with the R-4. Do you have a play on how you get R-15 by City Council if they remanded it back to us to -- for the R-4? Conger: No, that is a fair question, Madam Chair, and that's part of the -- the four months meetings and, you know, a remand back, usually you think four weeks and six weeks and we are -- we are here four months later -- is we went back and drew an R-4 plan with -- with different types of lots and a little bit bigger towards Black Rock. We sat down with the neighbors. So, that was kind of my opening -- opening part of my speech is it's not unanimous for sure, but a majority, if not very heavy majority, knows that the -- the R-4 plan is not the answer. That -- that lot would produce -- or, you know, that R-4 would produce a bit of a lot that's a little bit more of a commodity. There is quite a bit of them in that area and it would be a second -- I'm going to call it a second tier type builder on most of those lots, because, you know, you're just competing with -- there is just so many out there and the builders that are already, you know, obligated inside of Brighton, Century Farms, and some of the others cannot come up here and build. McCarvel: Okay. Conger: So, our -- our point was sit down with the neighbors, here is R-4. We are happy to do either one. If we do the project that's in front of you today, Tahoe, Black Rock Homes, is -- is my builder that we would partner with on this. If we go with the R- 4, then, we have just got to sell lots to -- to a little bit more of the open market. So, just a little dose of honesty and four months of elbow grease with neighbors trying to bring the best plan that -- that at the end of the day actually is 30 percent less traffic than -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 80 of 100 than the original plan and our original plan had 117 -- almost every lot in there met R-4, but they didn't quite. We redid the math. Our 117 lots would have been about to 103 from 117, which would still have a traffic impact over this one by at least 25 percent. We actually did that math, so I know the exact number, but -- so, our point is is we think we garnered enough neighborhood support . We will soon find out. And I think the biggest one is Baumgartner is on our west boundary, who -- quite honestly, she has taken this R-15 zoning, which, again, isn't dictating density, it's just dimensional -- she has taken it up to her property boundary, because she knows she's getting single level homes, because it's age restricted, there is no stairs, and there are so many pluses that everybody had to give, including me, and the neighbors gave, too, God bless them, and we do appreciate their four months. But that's how we are going to get through City Council. McCarvel: Okay. All right. Thank you. Conger: Yeah. Thank you guys. Beach: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Oh, sorry. Oh. Beach: So, one of the things that you will see in the staff report that we -- as staff were concerned about is typically when there is an undeveloped property up against another property that is five acres in size, we would like to see a stub street to that property. So, in this particular instance -- I have to go back to my presentation. And Jim's got some comments on this, too. But let me get mine back up here. Typically we want to see how -- we want a stub street, so if you see my mouse here, they are providing the one stub street. Kathi Baumgartner has got two five acre pieces of property here. One is this property here to the back and her home is on the one closer to the -- to the front. So, the -- the stub street that -- that Jim is providing for the East Ridge project is approximately in this location. Typically we would also want one to the property that's closer to Lake Hazel, just so that we can make sure that the connectivity for future development is where it needs to be. In the staff report we asked Jim to show us -- kind of a concession to him was we understand what he's trying to do and trying to achieve in this project. Having another stub street to a private gated community doesn't -- kind of defeats the whole purpose. So, in order for us to feel comfortable with that, we wanted to see how a road network through this area would function and didn't see that. I don’t know if Jim has something to share with us to night or not on that regard, but that was one of the things we asked him to show. So, I wanted to make sure that was reiterated before we get too far down the road here. McCarvel: Thank you, Josh. Conger: If you could go to my presentation, Josh. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, Jim Conger again. I literally read the condition and it said I need to provide a document. So -- so, we are fine with the condition. I didn't read it that I Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 81 of 100 needed to do it tonight. So, let's -- let's just talk briefly about that. We will adhere to that condition. The condition is extremely fine and we understand. One of our items -- we brought the neighbors back in with us. All this four months of charretting process started in the city's offices. We had the first couple of meetings in there and it might have just actually been the first one and, then, we quickly maybe got told that we needed to move, but we moved to my office for the next three and a half months . But what that did is we -- we sat down in that first meeting with Caleb and Josh and Bill and said, hey, for this to work, you know, what we are thinking that the neighbors might like better than -- and the neighbors were with us. We were in the first charrett meeting -- is that stub road has to go away, it can't be there. So, we went and sat down with the Ada County Highway District, who removed that requirement and we sat down with -- with your city and we thought we were there . The condition came up and we understand. That's fine. If you can envision your 80 acre park and its main access point right in the middle of it, that's a pretty big canal right there. So, what's going to happen is there is only going to be one crossing in this area and it's going to be in line with a -- kind of de facto collector that's going to cross over out of your -- matching up with your park and, then, veering to the west and, then, doing whatever it does in the master plan off to the west. This leaves two points off getting to both sides of Kathi's and you can see the Baumgartner house in the middle in the -- kind of the real green lusher land -- you know, farmland. So, it's actually going to be very simple to show a road network and we aren't taking away from -- from anything. The -- the traffic in this area is going to -- in the future development -- Baumgartner's development and the other parcel, which is your neighborhood center, all of that is going to that de facto collector anyhow. Nothing is really peeling out the other way as far as intent of the traffic flow. So, we can adhere with that condition. It -- it -- it is a good condition that I think we can work through with Josh, Bill, and Caleb to get -- to get rid of that stub. The stub can't be there. ACHD removed it. The city needs to help us remove it. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Okay. We will open up to public testimony. I have a couple on here. Not sure who is still here. Why don't we just do a raise of hands. Anybody wishes to testify? Okay. We will start right up here in front in the red. Or start with -- okay. Karnes: Good evening. My name is Susan Karnes. I live at 5556 South Graphite Way and I have two statements to give you tonight . One on behalf of the Meridian Southern Rim Coalition. We are comprised of representatives from different neighborhoods, rural corridors, specifically the Lake Hazel rural corridor, Black Rock, Tuscany, Kingsbridge, Sky Mesa and White Bark neighborhoods and we formed as a result of this first initial application in order to work with Mr. Conger and also work with the city, with staff, with developers, because there is a lot of land around us, a lot of activity, a lot of applications and we thought we needed to have a voice and we needed to collaborate as stakeholders and property owners. So, indeed, after this was remanded by Council back to P&Z, Mr. Conger did meet with representatives of the coalition. There was a member who -- Kathi Baumgartner who lives on Lake Hazel. There was a representative from the Locust Grove area and, then, a neighbor who lives in Black Rock, but was not a member of the Black Rock HOA. So, I want to make it clear that as Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 82 of 100 we discussed our discussions with Mr. Conger, they were separate from discussions that Black Rock may have had. So, as a result of these neighborhood meetings, there were two iterations presented to us. One was just a pure R-4. Eighty foot wide lots. Five foot setbacks. The property had been graded. It was feared by neighbors in neighborhood meetings that we held -- we had unanimous opposition to that iteration. Council very clearly -- and that would be in my second statement as an individual property owner tonight -- Council made very clear I felt in their remand that they wanted a distinctive development here and I can get into that further -- Madam Chair, when -- you were puzzled about the R-4. I think this is why Mr. Conger went back to the drawing board, because the typical R-4 neighborhood was considered a cookie cutter. The context here -- I think the staff report fails to be detailed enough for you to truly understand the context. Black Rock is zoned R-4, but it is entirely half acre and one acre lots. It was zoned R-4 because one neighbor's lot didn't conform to R-2. So, the density is well below R-2 in Black Rock. The Baumgartner property to the west described in the staff report as RUT, is a ten acre estate property with a 5,000 square foot home on it. The property to the east, defined as RUT, is a two acre estate property and the property across Lake Hazel to the south is a sixteen acre estate property. So, an aerial view showing a rendering of a typical R-4 or in the case of the initial application that was remanded by Council, it did not, by any reasonable definition, serve the transition as defined in the city's comp plan. So, I applaud Mr. Conger for meeting with us. We have had a lot of discussions, a lot of pull back and forth, and so, basically, what I want to do is just present facts of information t o you. We were unable to meet a consensus. The coalition cannot come before you and say we support or oppose this application. But I will tell you here are some elements that certain members of the steering committee liked the fact that there were now larger lots to the north and the west. The 45 foot setbacks on the north and east offered improved transition over the original application. The single story Village homes were less intrusive. The wrought iron fencing would be less intrusive to the adjoining property. Six foot berms along Lake Hazel were recommended by a land use planner we know and they would help provide good, sound mitigation, as well as create esthetic appeal along Lake Hazel. The age restriction homes, I will be honest with you, were controversial. Some people feel they don't hold their value. Others appreciate the fact that they do produce less traffic. And, finally, we failed to reach consensus due to the following: The original application was 117 rooftops, with a density of 2.85. This application is 139 rooftops, with 3.4 density. There are five foot side setbacks for lots 23 through 28. We prefer ten foot. Seven and a half foot side yard setbacks for the oversize lots. We prefer ten foot setbacks. The density, the R-15 density, we -- there was a discussion by those that oppose this plan that it was incongruent with the future land use map and as I have iterated, before an initial testimony there was some concern about water and the fact that this developer had not secured water rights and I noticed in the narrative in your packet that there will be some irrigation water, but I was told during the previous hearing that was so long and I visited with Mr. Conger out in the lobby, that he will not be able to procure enough irrigation water for the single family homes. He believes that there is ample irrigation water for the common area and possibly the patio homes and in our neighborhood meetings and steering committee meetings and discussion there was concern about single family homes using treated city water, a valuable source, especially for large lots, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 83 of 100 you know, a 40 acre development. So, that's my point of information. And, then, I can come back and talk to as an individual homeowner. McCarvel: Okay. Karnes: Thank you. McCarvel: And did you guys have organized -- who do you want to speak next? Stroo: Good evening. Jim Stroo. 2495 East Cyanite. And I have a presentation. McCarvel: And, Jim, who are you speaking for? Yourself or -- Stroo: Anyone else going to speak? I will speak for myself, so -- McCarvel: So, you have three minutes. Stroo: All right. I will take the ten minutes then, Madam Chair. Fitzgerald: You guys either need to choose to speak individually or together. So, if you all live there and you represent the HOA, then, you have to choose between the two. Either you raise your hands and say we are representing the people in Black Rock or we are going to speak individually. There is not both ways. Okay. So, I think it's a three minute discussion. Stroo: Three minute? All right. So, what I want to present to you tonight is three arguments for denying the application . One is noncompliance with City Council remand. Noncompliance with the FLUM and the neighborhood majority does not -- underscore does not support this plan . Our number one. Noncompliance with city remand. Just history. On April 4th, 2017, application H-2016-0137 was presented and after hours of discussion and testimony Councilman Bird made a very clear and concise motion. That motion -- and it's at the top of my screen -- indicates remanding back for annexation of R-4. Very clear. What Mr. Conger is asking for is annexation for R-4 and R-15. Argument number two. Noncompliance with future use map. So, this land -- this proposed land under the FLUM has 33 percent mapped out as a medium density or an R-8. The -- two-thirds or 66 percent is R-2. Mr. Conger is asking for a step up from the R-8 to R-15, which is allowed. However, 43 percent of the proposed development is going to be R-15. So, that's not consistent with the division currently under the FLUM. Argument number three. Neighborhood majority does not support the plan. So, the applicant -- let me back up a little bit. April 4th the remand of the application occurred. May 31st Mr. Conger held neighborhood meetings in which he presented two plans , R-4 and the Village concept. July 27th Black Rock HOA held a special meeting to vote on option number one R-4. Option number two the Village plan. Or option number three we don't want any of them. Resoundingly the HOA voted option number three. They did not like any of the options. However, the applicant, in his cover letter to staff, indicates that a majority of the neighborhood supported them. Here is my letter to -- to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 84 of 100 Mr. Conger data July 28th in which I indicate the outcome of that special meeting. Notice at the bottom I indicate that we will work with Mr. Conger. We never heard anything from Mr. Conger. We were never enjoined in any conversations as Black Rock HOA with that. Here is the letter to Mr. -- Mr. Hood, the cover letter, and you can see that on -- on the third paragraph Mr. Conger indicates that the majority of the neighborhood supports the Village. That simply is factually incorrect. So, that's all I have. Thank you very much. McCarvel: Thank you. Good evening. Please state your name and address for the record. Herwy: Christine Herwy. 2373 East Taconic Drive, Meridian, Idaho. I live in Black Rock. So, I'd like to make a couple comments. It is I guess concerning for me that we are back here with an R-15 in front of us. It was very clear at City Council -- there was -- there was many comments made that this -- that the first rendition was -- while it might have been an okay development -- a nice development somewhere -- for where it was being developed on the southern rim it did not fit. It wasn't appropriate. And so to Jim's point, when the Black Rock neighborhood had been looking at these two options that were put before us, we were just -- we were going back to the original argument that the City Council remanded back was it didn't fit and we don't see how either one of these continues to fit. There is -- I'm not sure if you can find -- I sent you an e-mail, Mr. Beach, about -- or can you find that aerial? So, Susan had indicated that Black Rock -- we are .5 to one acre lots up there, surrounded by much larger acreages around us. The southern rim is really a special place. We have amazing views and we have really been trying to push and get people to think about the development in that area. There is not a lot of space like this in Meridian. There just really isn't. And so to really think about what you're putting up there we think is really important. So, while he did give two options on the neighborhood meeting, we really felt like he didn't understand or wasn't meeting the spirit of what the City Council had asked him to do, because when he gave us the R-4 we didn't feel as though it really -- it was a stripped down version and I guess to his point it was a cookie cutter place and -- but the City Council made statements as to -- this is not a cookie cutter area. These are million dollar houses up here. You know, we are concerned about a lot of things, but -- in the city plan it's imperative that there is lots of different kinds of housing, but there aren't that many areas like this where people can have acre lots. I mean you can go to Eagle and find them all day long, but you cannot find them in Meridian and so to put something right next to us abutting to this, it just doesn't really make sense and so what's before us as R-15 is really quite, I think, offensive and concerning, because we are -- again, it's not congruent of what's already up there existing and my time is almost up, but in the Sky Mesa application that was just approved staff at the City Council -- the City Council asked that they remove several lots along the rim to make them more congruent with what is on the rim in -- on the other side of Sky Mesa and also in Black Rock and so I guess to the point if they -- I think what's currently up there needs to be considered and what is being projected to be put next to it needs to be considered and there isn't -- it doesn't appear that there is a -- a transition that is -- what's the word I'm looking for? Appropriate. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 85 of 100 McCarvel: Thank you. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Alonso: I'm Annette Alonso. I live at 2204 East Hyper Drive in Black Rock Subdivision and I just wanted to bring up something. I am an active real estate agent here in the area with Keller Williams and we don't have this kind of -- our kind of -- like we have in Black Rock or those larger estate lots available here in Meridian. There is a huge need for that. Just today I had a client -- we drove all over town looking for something like this and he was incredulous that we don't have this. He's from Bend, Oregon, and he's second guessing whether he's going to move here now with his company, because we don't have what he needs out -- out in the area. He's going to be -- he would be in the Silverstone area where his -- his office would be. So, just kind of backing up, one thing this new development -- I can see that these lots are going to want to funnel through Black Rock, down Cyanite. Cyanite is not a street that can handle 751 travels a day. People aren't going to want to pull out onto Lake Hazel and go to the stop sign and come down when they can cut through our subdivision to get there much faster . We already have a problem out on Taconic dumping onto Eagle Road. We can't get out to make a left-hand turn onto Eagle Road, because there is so much traffic and the people turning right from Century Farms are cutting in front of us, because they are not paying attention that we are turning left out of our subdivision. So, adding even 350 more cars coming out of there every day is going to be a problem fo r us. The other thing is -- I think we need to take a step back and look at the fact that we have to put our infrastructure in before we can keep adding these developments upon developments with 139 extra lots, because our roads and -- are not handling what we have now, especially not Eagle Road and we are going to be in the same situation now on the south side of Eagle Road as we are getting on the north side of Eagle Road, because I know leaving our development now in the mornings during rush hour it takes you 20 to 25 minutes to get from our exit to the freeway. We already have that much traffic. So, we have to take a step back and put this infrastructure in before we start approving these developments. We also need to look at the water situation. We are going to want these larger lots in this development, using city water. We are already taxed on our -- on our water pressure up there anyway and I don't know if this new part coming in off of Lake Hazel is going to help that or not, but we are taxed with our water pressure up there. So, you know, we got it -- we got to look at that and, then, he talks about putting these natural weeds -- or natural grasses back in. I can tell you I back up -- I'm on the rim, the lots that are below me in Sky Mesa -- those hills are weeds. I'm out there every day cutting down the weeks. They have been as high as my six foot fence on the back with those people that own those lots. So, natural grass is a problem, especially if there is no water to water them, because those people are not going to water those grasses if they have to with city water. So, that's another big thing. We -- I do feel like R-4 is necessary. We are -- we are second -- we should have second tier builders up there. We should not have the Black Rock homes cookie cutter Tahoe Homes kind of a situation and I know that that's difficult. I do know that, Mr. Bernt, you did get a donation through the -- from the Black Rock homes in your campaign, so I don't know if that's going to be something that's a problem for you in making this decision, if they are going to be building those houses up there. I would hope that you would look at that. But this Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 86 of 100 is a -- this development is a problem and my feeling is we need to deny it, just because it does not fit what we have up there. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Karnes: Susan Karnes again. 5556 South Graphite Way. Madam Chair, you were asking about the remand and I thought it would be helpful for you if you all haven't gone back through YouTube and -- and watched the five hour plus City Council meeting from April 7th, but when this was remanded back to P&Z, Councilman Bird asked staff will the Commissioners understand why this has been remanded and staff indicated it would be and I felt from staff's narrative you really don't clearly understand some of the discussion that took place that night and so I would just like to quote a couple of things in the three minutes I have. Councilman Cavener: My concern is transition. I'd like to see transition that is respectful to current homeowners. Council Woman Little Roberts: I agree with Councilman Cavener regarding transition. It is not a transition to go from R- 8 to a ten acre property. I would look more strongly at lower density. The Mayor said are -- when Little Roberts recommended R-4, the Mayor said: Or R-2. Council Women Milam said 2.8 density sounds pretty good, but if you take out the green space it's really pretty high density. I think it's a nice development, but I don't think it fits there. I don't think it does its neighbors justice and in the long term outlook for our city and our community I think it takes away in this location. The Mayor summarized we have one chance to do it right. I think you have done a nice layout for a subdivision. She was speaking to Mr. Conger. We are familiar with your work. We appreciated the conversation we have had during this deliberation about what we did preserving the north rim. We don't have very many view areas in our community and it is a unique element in our region and we need to take a look at providing not just the same product we have all over town, but offering a choice of housing for everyone and that choice is not just price point. We, too, wanted to find a larger lot and it's hard to find a large lot in Meridian. This is a future area in Meridian that will not be rural. We need to have unique elements and choices in housing. I, too, would be concerned with the transition and losing the opportunity of this unique area to do it right. We are not in a hurry. We have one chance to get it right. And I would add to that during the Council budget meetings this summer they discussed and unanimously supported a revised Comprehensive Plan and a revised future land use map and specifically cited the southern rim as an area that they would be interested in viewing as a specific -- for a specific area plan. So, I urge you to consider the Council's comments in context and rationale for remanding this back to you. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Anybody else? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? Oh, we got one more? Okay. Baumgartner: Kathi Baumgartner. 2310 East Lake Hazel. We are the property immediately adjacent to the west, which Josh referred to as undeveloped and I just want you to know it's not undeveloped, so -- it's my home and we put a lot of effort into developing it. So, that's on you, Josh. Can you put up that map that shows Mr. Conger's proposed development, please? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 87 of 100 Beach: I'm not sure what -- what you mean by the -- Baumgartner: The one has the -- the rear lots and the estate lots. Or the estate lots and the -- so, during the Mayor's summary at the City Council meeting where this was remanded, her closing comment was to Mr. Conger, that she encouraged him to work with the neighbors. Couldn't force him to, but encouraged him to do so. And I have to tell you I was one of the staunchest opponents of this plan -- of his previous plan and Mr. Conger came to the table and I appreciate that. You know, over the last several months we have been -- he's worked with the neighbors, with the coalition and I think made a concerted effort to -- to understand what our concerns are and not to just listen, not to just give lip service to it, but to actually integrate many of the things that we specifically asked him to do, such as the park. I mean he was listening and he responded and I think -- I think that's really important for this Commission to understand. Certainly it's not a perfect plan. It's not what I ever anticipated would be out, you know, in this area, but this area is not what it used to be and, you know, as disappointing as that might be for someone who has owned this property for over 25 years, you know, it's not my property and Mr. Conger has done a good job of listening to -- to concerns of neighbors. He has, you know, put the single story homes on this corner, the northwest corner, which was direct input from neighbors, myself, but it also affects the Black Rock neighbors. He has put estate lots along the rim and along, you know, the north and east sides, making those larger lots. I mean R-4 is not a good plan for this. Any R-4 plan that goes across this subdivision -- or across this property would be a disaster. I mean those are 8,000 square foot lots with five foot setbacks, two story houses. It would just be a wall of houses, just like it is everywhere else. This at least has some unique development architectural, you know, pluses to having more larger estate lots with increased setbacks that he's agreed to , which was specifically, you know, requested from the neighbors and , honestly, the Village plan I think is great, it reduces traffic, it's single story, it's not as obtrusive as having a wall of two story houses there. Those homes -- those estate -- or those Village homes will be obscured by -- by trees and you won't see those rooftops. If you put an R-4 plan on this you will see those rooftops for eternity, because they will never be -- they will never be shrouded by landscaping and trees. So, there is several things in here. He did -- you know, along Black Rock, the one thing that, you know, we asked for was one-to-one lots along Black Rock. He has 1.5 to one. That's the one thing that, you know, we had asked for that he just didn't know he could get to us, but -- but I think that, you know, the applicant has taken our input and integrated those and the -- you know, he has put the density in this northeast corner -- or, I'm sorry, the southwest corner to enable him to make this project pencil, so that he can have a larger estate lots along the rim, which was important to us to help maintain the integrity of the rim, but -- and he has worked with us to provide a reasonable transition, a one and a half -- I mean a one to one against Black Rock would be even better, but he has worked with us to give us the transitional densities between the rural estate lots that are out there now and this more urban density as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and Mr. -- Commissioner Bernt, in your closing -- or in your deliberation of one of the previous applications tonight you mention how beneficial it is for developers to work with homeowners and Mr. Conger has done that and I appreciate Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 88 of 100 that. It's not perfect. It's not ideal. But it's better than any other R-4 plan that I -- I can imagine on this piece of property. So, for those reasons I ask that you approve it and reward Mr. Conger for his willingness to come to the table and work with us. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward. Conger: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, Jim Conger, 4824 West Fairview. Kind of go through just a couple quick -- quick points of the items here. Talking about the comp plan. You heard neighbors say that we are -- we are not complying with the comp plan and I think we heard things like planning needs to be based on matching Black Rock and the Village is not congruent with Black Rock and we are adjacent, which is -- all of that isn't true. The last part we are adjacent. We had a requirement -- and if you go through and dissect the City Council items, we are the transition parcel as you head west. To -- to judge our Village area with the same -- you know, it's already transitioned away from Black Rock, the -- when we sat down with the charretting process and the neighbors and the coalition , number one was transition. That was number one on the list. So, you have heard an individual tell you what City Council said, like we didn't transition. This is a far different plan than what was in front of City Council and the transition did -- our lots average just barely under a half acre. One lot is just barely under one acre in the corner. So, as far as the transition from what, in theory, everybody keeps calling City of Meridian R-4 Black Rock, it was Ada county Black Rock. It -- just in the last annexation was taken in by the city. So, it's a county plat with bigger lots. But the comp plan -- I guess based off of Black Rock, we are transitioning based off Black Rock. We are planning on the only tool we all have in front of us, which is the Comprehensive Plan, which we are 137 lots with a comp plan that would allow up to 213. We think we are taking the tools. Staff obviously thinks we are taking the city's tools and trying to meet with neighbors, go through the process and create the best project possible for the real estate that's in front of us . Transition was number one. So, it was number one on everybody's list. That's where we got with the give and takes to where we are at and the wider side yard setbacks, all of those were because of preserving the rim. So, we have come a long way in preserving the rim. Comp plan -- as far as the remand discussion, this is a new application. It's not been remanded. That application died. We sat down with some city leaders. We have sat down -- before our application was submitted we sat down with staff and , then, we started sitting down with neighbors to figure out whether we think there was a mistake with R-4, what could be the best plan on this. That is why it took us four months. So, the remand -- there is nothing illegal with the remand. This isn't the same application. That application was pulled. Wider side yard setbacks. We want -- you don't need it. You keep making them wider you're guaranteeing yourself two story product. So, we went to seven and a half, which exceeds the deal on the rim lots, because we heard the Mayor say preserve the rim and we understand that. Now, we are hearing preserve the rim and we said we are going to have weeds on our slopes. Black Rock had six scrapers moving dirt for four months. They had every inch of that property destroyed and revegetated it back. They all live in this wonderful land and they do live in this wonderful land, it just has the luxury of 20 years to grow back. It was not the same rim Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 89 of 100 that they manufactured when they built that as the developer and all development and all construction and all new buildings and all this have to go through that process of re -- having -- or revegetating when it comes back. Water. If we want to go into water, this property doesn't have water rights. That's not normal on a day-to-day basis, but that's not abnormal as well. There is provisions in your code and two -- two land owners ago didn't pay their water bill twenty years ago and we have applied for them. We actually got one water right that will get at least eight acres of water and we are taking every opportunity we can. Your code has provision for this. This isn't a new -- new item. I think just closing, we come back to the comp plan and we just take the planning tools you have in front of you -- this is Lake Hazel. You are not taking Black Rock and putting it adjacent to Lake Hazel. We have transitioned away with the larger lots and came up to a reasonable product, as you heard from Mrs. Baumgartner, working with her, she is the one that's taken this Village product right against her property because of the single level and the other concessions that we gave and, quite honestly, the concessions she gave is why this plan is where it is. The benefactors are the Black Rock folks that are getting the large lots, 45 foot deep setbacks and the rear yard setbacks and all the other great things that come with that. I am not going to beat a dead horse. We do need three items cleaned up. We do accept the staff report as written with these three cleanups. We do believe strongly that park should stay where the neighbors would like it. Bernt: What did you just say? Conger: Oh, I'm sorry. I said we accept the staff report with the three cleanup items and I strongly urge that we keep the park -- we delete that item on the -- the open space and keep the park where it is, please. With that I will stand down. McCarvel: Any questions for the applicant? Bernt: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Bernt. Bernt: Mr. Conger, what -- what is the exact lot size of the estate lots, you know, on the rim? You say a little bit less than a half acre, but what is the exact size roughly? Conger: Yeah. Madam Chair, Commissioner Bernt, the lot sizes range from right around -- I believe it's seven -- 17,700 is the smallest. As you can see in front of you, if you come across the top there is -- if you start at Lot 1 on the left you're in the 29, little under 30,000 square foot range, which is five -- Bernt: How much -- how much smaller than a half acre is that? Conger: That's larger than a half acre. Half acres 21,000 square feet. Thirty-two, 24,000 thousand, 23,000, we are half acre or greater on everything fronting Black Rock. Then we are in front of the Boise Hunter Homes space where we are still at 23 and 24 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 90 of 100 thousand square feet. We are at 36,000 square feet. We have in all terms for this new world of Meridian gigantic lots. They are -- they are half acre and greater. Where we start to get down in the 15,000 and 14,000 is on our non-rim side of the entry street. There you can see 15,000 square feet, 14,000 square feet, 19,000, 29,000, 24. We have -- we heard City Council. That's why we are comfortable. We sat down with staff. We sat down with neighbors. And, then, we had to sit down with our own checkbook and say is this the right plan for this and is this the risk to get to City Council with and we firmly believe it is. McCarvel: Any other questions? Bernt: I have one more. McCarvel: Okay. Bernt: So, I get your rationale as to, you know, the transitional, you know, aspect of, you know, your lot size and your R-15 versus whatever you have on the perimeter. So, when City Council -- I mean what -- interesting situation. I'm trying to wrap my brain around it a little bit. So, City Council told you to go R-4 or whatever -- or, you know, maybe R-2. So, what brought you to what you have now, knowing what they had -- what the Mayor and City Council originally told you what to do? Conger: Madam Chair, Commissioner Bernt, we believe in and a straight up -- and I have already said this, so I will try to say it another way. We believe a straight up R-4 is -- is not the right answer for this property. That is your 8,000 square foot lots. As soon as we -- if you go with R-4 you will do a buffer again to Black Rock, you will do a buffer to the east boundary, you will do a bit of a buffer to Mrs. Baumgartner, and you will do 8,000 square foot lots all the way to Lake Hazel, because you cannot do 22,000 square foot lots on Lake Hazel all the way through. We have a smattering of the three that were down to 11,000. So, we -- I guess my building got lambasted, but we have a building program that we would put into this with better product. I'm -- I'm telling you if this is a straight up R-4 we are either selling lots to second tier builders or we are just selling the property and, then, it can -- will get the approval and, then, it's only as good as it's, you know, conditions of approval, which is normal. So, we believe this controls its destiny all the way to the finish line. Everybody knows the product. Everybody knows what they are going to expect. They are getting very big rim lots. We are preserving the rim and we are getting the traffic count that's -- that's below -- below the charts. Bernt: Did you get some feedback from, you know, city leaders in regard to what you're thinking about doing right now? Did you -- Conger: No. Madam Chair, Commissioner Bernt, not officially. McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 91 of 100 Perreault: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Mr. Conger, can you go over with me -- if a resident in the Village wants to walk out to Lake Hazel or go over to the park, it sounds like staff has recommended a walkway be implemented -- Conger: Can you go back to mine, Josh. Perreault: -- on the south side of the -- because this is a private lane that has no sidewalks on the interior; is that right? Conger: This is correct. Madam Chair, Commissioner Perreault, the -- the access points, as I indicated, are in the red circles. Again, this is age restricted, so as much as -- when we went back to the charretting process our number one item was transition. When we are in the middle of a gated age-restricted product the number one item is security. So, we very much value the two points of a very public access in and out , which is from a pedestrian standpoint is our main entry and our secondary entry at the park. To have additional points of pedestrian access is not a model that works well with this type of an individual, as we talked about The Orchards on Cloverdale, we also developed adjacent to it with some single family homes and had to work through the city of Boise, because they wanted pedestrian connections between the two and the entire Orchards came out and we ended up not doing that pedestrian connection . So, they are going to walk out. They're going to take the sidewalks, they are going to take the public sidewalk, and they would ultimately go -- go all the way on that sidewalk, which is not a tremendous distance. Perreault: So, forgive me if this is a simple question , but if they are up here in the northwest corner, they are taking the -- essentially, the road, they are going to walk out to the exit in the southeast corner and, then, take the public sidewalk? Conger: Yeah. Madam Chair, Commissioner Perreault, that is correct. Our -- our road systems, you know, our mail -- we do things -- we have the social gathering center, but we do our mails in four pods. So, people walk to their mail, people walk to the clubhouse, people walk out to the entries. These roads, even though they are not sidewalk, they are all intimate, private. There is very little traffic coming in and out and it is part of their walking system. They would rather walk a little bit than have numerous points of access in and out and lose some safety factors. McCarvel: Anybody else? Okay. Thank you. Conger: Thank you. McCarvel: At this time could I get a motion to close the public hearing for Item H-2017- 0129, East Ridge Estates Subdivision. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 92 of 100 Bernt: So moved. Cassanelli: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for Item H- 2017-0129. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. McCarvel: I will jump off the cliff here. I happen to really like this. I think -- Fitzgerald: Me, too. McCarvel: -- the R-4 -- especially -- I mean on several levels just doesn't work. You know, not that -- maybe not that it couldn't work, I think they are -- as far as transition, they are getting a lot of what they wanted out of having bigger lots and that -- I mean I like the idea of all those being single level. That it's a private area. It's not -- you're not adding kids to the school system. You're not -- I mean it's a diverse product and I just -- having that kind of thing coming right up to what's probably going to be seven lanes there, you know, having a lot of big lots probably right there isn't going to work. I just -- I like the whole overall and it's just -- it's getting late and I can't articulate, but it's all what they said. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: I like it. Fitzgerald: I would agree. I think you have to give somewhere and I think the applicant has given significantly to the neighbors. You have to be able to pencil it somehow. So, if you either do it -- you slap 8,000 square foot lots all across this thing in R-4, you're not going to be happy. McCarvel: No. Fitzgerald: So, you do -- you buffer it as much as you possibly can with -- those are big lots, like 23,000 to 36,000 square foot lots along the rim, those are big lots. Those are not -- and they are 200 feet deep, with 45 feet of unbuildable space, you have got a lot of buffer with that that it gives to the rim and you have a neighbor who -- the South Rim Coalition representative said you have a ten acre lot next door and she is fully on board with one acre -- or with one story homes being next to her. It's a diverse product. You're going to have people that I guarantee will have family members that live in Black Rock that have their parents in this community and it 's -- you're right across the street from an 80 acre park. They can go there. They can -- they can go watch baseball games and they can go watch soccer with their grandkids and I think it -- it makes Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 93 of 100 sense. You get the buffer, but you also allow the developer to be able to pencil it out with a more dense product closer to a seven lane road eventually. McCarvel: Yeah. And I also think with the water issue -- I mean having more lots -- big lots to water just doesn't make sense either. I mean I know that it will get taken care of with -- Fitzgerald: Eventually. McCarvel: Any other thoughts? Cassanelli: I will start on the -- the easy one. The conditions that -- that we are looking at here, I don't think there is a need for a tot lot. I don't -- with the bigger lots there will probably be fewer kids. There will still be some kids, but the lots are big enough that, you know, they are going to have their stuff going on, they don't need -- they don't need a swing set at the park. I think the park where it's at, if approved, is fine. I'm okay with -- with clearing these conditions that they are requesting. The project itself I am -- I like it. I'm a little bit torn on -- it's a tough transition to make and I -- there are very few places in Meridian where you -- you get that R-2 and we are losing them, we are losing them, we are losing them. It's -- so, I'm torn on that, because I would still like to see even some of those be larger lots. I would love to see them be able to pull out a few lots in there and especially -- especially ones that -- on the north side that touch Black Rock there, make those a little bit bigger. I don't know if they can. But, otherwise, that's where -- that's where I'm at. Beach: Madam Chair, if I could just quickly on that. I know we have got -- in the discussion with this previous iteration of this project back in March and April we talked about, obviously, Black Rock, the lots in there are larger than the minimums that would be allowed for the R-2, the minimum lot size for R-2 is 12,000 square feet, with 80 feet of frontage. So, these -- the majority of these estate lots fall within that -- are well over the 12,000 square foot that would be allowed in the R-2. So, it may not all be appropriate in the R-2, but gaining -- with changing the zoning and recommending that the R-2 -- a few of the lots may get a little bit bigger, most of the ones along Lake Hazel, but the ones along the rim are already complying with that standard. Fitzgerald: They would probably get smaller. Beach: Yeah. You could potentially require them to have larger lots, but they would -- the majority of them meet the R-2 standard already, so -- Fitzgerald: Thank you for that, Josh. McCarvel: I think I'm comfortable with the R-15 given of what the preliminary plat is and seeing the product. I mean you throw it up for R-4, R-8, and not be able to see the product. I think -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 94 of 100 Fitzgerald: And it is transitional to -- to the medium high density next door. So, I mean -- McCarvel: And this isn't your typical R-15 activity that you will get out of this neighborhood. Fitzgerald: So, low impact. And this is a product that I think it fits over in that part of the world, because they don't have one yet and The Orchards is an -- is an exceptionally good product that's been successful in multiple places, so -- Bernt: My thought process on this particular development is -- I think the developer did a pretty good job with the transition with the lot size around the perimeter . If I'm remembering correctly -- and this was four or five months ago -- they were much smaller and so I'm trying to think -- I always try to put myself in the shoes of both parties, the developer and I try to put myself in the shoes of the homeowners , who are near the property, owners who will be affected by certain development as well and I don't know -- personally I would be more concerned about the lots that are around the perimeter, knowing that the R-15 that's in the middle of the project, it would certainly be low impact and, you know, single level and so I'm trying to think in my mind in order for this to pencil out and in order to make -- like what could the developer have done to, you know, make it more in line with what, you know, the Black Rock, you know, property owners are wanting and I -- I don't know -- other than making the entire project R-2 or -- you know, I think that it's actually -- I think he did a pretty good job, honestly, trying to, you know -- you know, suffice the needs and wants and the desires of the surrounding property owners and so I think it's unique. You know, I really thought that the Brighton property over off of Chinden, you know, that -- the 55 plus property over there was a fantastic addition to that area and I think that -- now I think that this -- this 55 plus property, you know, this part of the development I think will be a good addition as well in the south. So, I think it's an interesting project. I think I would be in favor of this project. I don't know what the developer could have done to -- you know, to -- other than completely eliminating the -- the R-15 -- I just don't know -- that would -- then it wouldn't pencil out and, then -- you know, then the property is sold and, then, you're dealing with R-4. You know, the R-4 -- I would much rather have this in my backyard than R-4 a hundred percent. You, basically, would have Century Farm on a -- on a bluff, you know, looking -- overlooking, you know. And personally if I were a homeowner I would rather look up to half acre plus parcels -- almost full acre parcels than having -- and I'm not saying anything bad about, you know, Century Farm by any means, but I think I would rather have that look and have that option much more than an R-4, no doubt. So, that's where I stand. McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault. Perreault: Madam Chair. I don't have anything extra special to add to the other commissioners' comments. From a planning standpoint I understand why it would make sense. From a real estate standpoint it doesn't make sense to me , but that's not what we are here for. We are here to talk about whether -- you know, what is best for Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 95 of 100 planning and what's best for the city and the residents. So, I don't have anything additional to add to what the other Commissioners have mentioned. McCarvel: Okay. Would anybody like to make a motion? Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: I will be making the motion. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number H-2017- 0129 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 19th with the following modifications: I think that all three of these modifications make sense to me. I think the access points across that -- that type of a secure neighborhood doesn't make sense and I -- I agree with Commissioner Cassanelli on the tot lot and the open space. That was given to the neighbors. So, I think we -- I would move that all those are eviscerated. McCarvel: Okay. Bernt: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve file number H-2017-0129, East Ridge Estates, with stated exceptions. Baird: Madam Mayor, just for -- McCarvel: Madam Mayor? Boy -- wow, that was an easy run. Baird: We all shut down -- I'm helping Dean to identify who made the second for the record. McCarvel: Oh. Baird: Commissioner Bernt. McCarvel: All right. It has been moved -- did I say that already? Yes. All right. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. D. Public Hearing for Movado Greens Subdivision (H-2017-0104) by DevCo LLC Located at the South Side of East Overland Road Between South Topaz Way and South Cloverdale Road 1. Request: Rezone of Approximately 11.08 Acres from C-G to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 96 of 100 the R-15 Zoning District 2. Request: Preliminary Plat Consisting of 96 Single Family Residential Lots, Six (6) Commercial Lots and 7 (Seven) Common Lots on Approximately 24.23 Acres in the proposed C-G and R-15 Zoning District 3. Request: Conditional Use Permit Modification to Reduce the Acreage of the Apartment Project, to Reduce the Number of Units, Modify the Proposed Amenities and other Specific Changes to the Previously Approved Project (H-2016-0060) McCarvel: I have a suggestion. If the applicant is amenable, since we are closely moving into calling this the Planning and Zoning meeting of October 20th -- do you have a -- the next two meetings have one CUP on them. All right. You can guarantee it. Fitzgerald: Go fast, Josh. McCarvel: All right. We will move forward. All right. We would like to open the public hearing for Item No. H-2017-0104, Movado Green Subdivision. We will start with the staff report. Beach: Very good, Madam Chair. This is an application for five separate applications, two of which are development agreement modifications that are not before you, they are before City Council. So, tonight is an application for a rezone, a preliminary plat, and two modifying existing conditional use permit s. So, the site consists of approximately 23.5 acres of land, zoned C-G, located on the south side of Overland Road, between South Topaz Way and South Cloverdale Road. Overland Road is to the north. Commercial properties on R1-B in Boise is to the east. Single family lots currently under development in the Movado Estates Subdivision that are zoned R-15 are to the south and to the west is commercial property in the Silverstone Business Park. So, in 2016 this project was granted a Comprehensive Plan map amendment, annexation and zoning of 102.69 acres of land from RUT to R-8 and R-15 and as I mentioned the product was showing as East Ridge development is also a product that he's done here with the Movado project and also in 2016 a conditional use permit was approved for a 312 unit multi-family development, approximately 13.5 acres. So, the Comprehensive Plan future land use map is mixed use regional. So, I don't want to go too in depth here, but there is something I definitely need to cover in this. So, the applicant has applied to rezone approximately 11.08 acres from C-G to R-15. The applicant's requesting to reduce the acreage and the number of units of the previously approved Silverstone apartments. Under the existing zoning the proposed multi-family development is a conditional use. The use was previously approved in 2016 and the applicant now desires to reduce the footprint of the apartments in order to plat additional single family lots south of the multi-family and the commercial lots. So, he's modifying the conditional use from 312 units to 112 units, modifying the amenities -- reducing the amenities package from a clubhouse, fitness facility, swimming pool, children's play Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 97 of 100 structure and a 50 by 100 grassy area and bike sto rage to clubhouse, child's play structure, and a sports court, which is consistent with the amenities that we would require for that number of units. A multi-family residential development is proposed. Instead of 112 units, eight three story structures on 5.71 acres of land to consist of 72 two bedroom units, and 40 one bedroom units, containing between 500 and 1,200 square feet. A clubhouse is proposed that will contain a leasing office and a mail center. There are some specific use standards for apartments that the applicant will have to comply with. The preliminary plat the applicant proposal is for 96 single family residential lots, which is part of that rezone. So, this property was C-G and they are rezoning a portion of this to R-15 to accommodate some additional single family residential housing. So, 96 single family lots, seven common lots, and seven commercial lots, which are these lots -- three here and three here on South Movado Way, which is already constructed. A minimum 35 foot wide street buffer is required along East Overland Road and a 20 foot wide strip buffer is required along the waterway. There is one common driveway proposed. The preliminary -- or primary entrance for the multi-family development is from East Overland Road. The applicant has also proposed cross-access to the future commercial development to the east and though direct access to Overland Road was granted with the previous conditional use permit, the applicant is required to obtain approval of that access again, which would be a request of City Council. Primary access to the single family subdivision will be South Movado Way in this location here. They are proposing .83 of an acre or 7.6 percent of open space for the development. You know ten percent open space is required for developments. The applicant in their development agreement modification is requesting that this portion here, the single family, be included in the existing South Movado Way development agreement. They have enough open space and amenities to accommodate the additional lots with the amenities they are posing. So, for the multi- family trash enclosures are required to be incorporated into the overall design of the buildings. Let me get there so I can show you what that looks like. This is the conceptual development plan. They are proposing three trash enclosures. The number and -- number of enclosures and the sizes need to be included -- or approved by Bob Olsen at Republic Services. The applicant did provide some conceptual elevations for the single family detached and attached homes , as well as for the -- for the multi-family. At this time we do not have elevations for the proposed commercial lots . The applicant will, I believe, be selling those lots. Any attached product, just like any other subdivision, is required to get a design review approval and the commercial lots will also be -- the multi-family are also required to get a certificate of zoning compliance and the commercial lots when they come forward will also have to do a certificate of zoning compliance and design review. I have covered the things that are pertinent. I did add the -- both of the provisions for the development agreement -- the applicant has gone through those with myself, modified the things that needed to be tweaked. I know you don't really comment on these, but we -- we have gone through those to make sure that the things that needed to stay in for the South Movado Way project that haven't been constructed yet are still there and the items for the Silverstone project that haven't been constructed yet and aren't being modified are still in there as well. With that I will stand for any questions. I went through that pretty quickly, so let me know if you have anything. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 98 of 100 McCarvel: Okay. Any questions for staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? Conger: Yes, ma'am. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, Jim Conger, 4824 West Fairview. I do apologize. That was more than three minutes, Josh. McCarvel: We saw the write up. We knew it was going to be more than -- Conger: But alls we have to say is between my office and Josh, very appreciative -- and Bill. It was a ton of work for this little application. This is just a -- basically a clean- up on the apartments, downsizing -- or rightsizing and more additional homes. We already have 420 in the Movado that was approved. Again, we are in our phase one and two right now and there is nothing wrong with the staff report. We accept it lock, stock and barrel. Thank you. McCarvel: Okay. All right. At this time we will take public testimony. I don't have anybody that's signed up that said they would like to testify, but is there anybody here that would like to? All right. Perreault: Madam Chair, I have a question for the applicant. McCarvel: Yes. So, would the applicant like to come forward again. Perreault: Mr. Conger, I just wanted to make sure -- McCarvel: Got a question. Yeah. Fitzgerald: I just want to make sure I understood. This -- this section in here about the amenities, -- the amenities package is being significantly reduced because the density is being reduced or -- are these -- are they going to have access to the amenities in the Movado Estates as well? Is that -- would you just go over that? It's late and I just want you to clarify that for me. Conger: No. That's actually a great question. Madam Chair, Commissioner Perreault, the amenity package that was downsized was just for the apartment s. So, we went from 300 plus units down to 1210 or so. So, we are about 33 percent of the size. So, as Josh indicated, a more -- what we would call typical amenity package, no pool with that amount. They wouldn't be able to afford it. Now, the amenity package for the single family residential will share with the already almost, what, 11 or 12 acres of open space, but we also in the corner have what we put in, like are -- we were in front of you with our Verado product and our Salterra product. That is a sport court. It's three different tot lots and we have a lot of young children in these homes, so the amenity package just on a scale -- and I know money doesn't matter, but that's about a 100,000 dollar amenity package. But, again, that's for the single family residential. Now, we already have an identical one of these inside Movado, plus a community pool, plus Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 99 of 100 several other parks and a natural -- natural kind of rock jumping park. This will be used by all of the other 420 homeowners in there as well. Perreault: Okay. So, you have identified the three amenities and staff has asked you for two more? Conger: That was for the apartments. Perreault: Okay. Conger: And we don't understand how that meets code, but we are not arguing it. So, two more. We don't know why, but we are taking it like a champ. Beach: Must be late. McCarvel: Yeah. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Anymore questions? Fitzgerald: Move we close the public hearing. McCarvel: Anybody want to second that? Bernt: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for Item H - 2017-0104, Movado Greens Subdivision. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Beach: Madam Chair, I want to add one more thing to my presentation, just to be clear. McCarvel: Okay. Beach: So, if you see here -- it's called out as Lot 26, I believe. This is not going to be a through street through to Silverstone apartments out to Overland Road. It's actually an emergency access. McCarvel: Okay. Beach: And I wanted to make sure that was clear before we get too far. We -- we had concerns with that that we had to work out and the applicant worked with the Fire Department to make sure those are going to be -- there is going to be a pedestrian Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 100 of 100 pathway through there and there is going to be bollards on either side. So, that was all I had. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Anybody want to jump off on this one? Fitzgerald: I think Commissioner Cassanelli should be happy that he's reducing the the apartment complex 200 units. Cassanelli: Well -- and it's Overland, too. It's already a very busy street. I -- McCarvel: Yeah. Cassanelli: -- you're not going to find me objecting to apartment s along Overland too often, so -- McCarvel: I think it's a good in-fill project between the zone that's up there on Overland and the transition to the -- Fitzgerald: It's the transition -- Cassanelli: Question for staff on that, since we flew through that pretty quickly and I'm pinching to try and keep myself awake. With the reduction in that are we okay? We talked about amenities. Parking. Beach: So, we looked at the part over there, they are adequately parked as far as multi-family goes for those -- the number of -- the size of the units. Cassanelli: Are we at the minimums or are we above it? Beach: I can -- I apologize I didn't have that in there, but I can look really quickly if you would like. While you deliberate if you want. McCarvel: Anybody else have anything to add while -- Fitzgerald: They are turning the lights off on us. Perreault: I just have one more question -- McCarvel: Sure. Perreault: -- for staff. Beach: Bear with me while I -- I can listen while I look for this. Perreault: Okay. Where is the access going to be to the commercial lots? Is it going to be off of Overland? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 101 of 100 Beach: No. The access will be off of South Movado Way, which is this collector. Perreault: Okay. Beach: The only access point to Overland Road will be for the apartments. Their one access. Perreault: Sorry. Say that again. Beach: Yeah. The only access to Overland Road -- direct access from the Silverstone apartments. Perreault: Okay. Beach: The rest of these lots will take access internally to South Movado Way. Perreault: Okay. Beach: Having said that, they were approved for an access with Council with the previous conditional use permit. Because this whole thing is going to Council again, they will have to ask for that direct access a second a time . I don't think the highway district had any concerns with granting them an access again. Okay. So, I found it. They are ten -- ten over what would be required. So, the total that is required is 204 and they have provided 214. So, it's -- it's right there. McCarvel: Okay. Any other deliberation? Would somebody like to make a motion? Cassanelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassanelli. Cassanelli: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number H-2017-0104 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 20th, 2017, with no modification. Fitzgerald: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve file number H-2017-0104, Movado Green Subdivision. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. McCarvel: Can I get one more motion, please? Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 19, 2017 Page 102 of 100 McCarvel: Come on, who wants to -- Fitzgerald: I move we adjourn. McCarvel: We have been waiting for this one. Bernt: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public -- close the meeting for October -- adjourn the meeting of October 19th slash 20th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:02 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED Rtt0NP C DATE APPROVED Sk Ven rs I�, i, ATTEST: 0VXTED AVC&, `off { c;ty at C. AY COL S - CITY CLERK IDIAN loANO SEAL X47 P of 4e iR€k vt Changes to Agenda: None Item #4A: Linder Village (H-2017-0088) Application(s):  Annexation & Zoning  Preliminary Plat  Variance (only requires City Council action) Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 78+/- acres of land, zoned RUT in Ada County, located at the southeast corner of N. Linder Rd. and W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: North: Commercial (retail/restaurant/vehicle washing facility, fuel facility) & SFR uses in Reynard Subdivision, zoned C-3 & MU- DA in Eagle East: SFR properties in Paramount Subdivision, zoned R-8; and vacant/undeveloped property, zoned C-C South: SFR properties in Paramount Subdivision, zoned R-8; and RUT in Ada County West: N. Linder Road; commercial uses, zoned C-G and SFR uses in Lochsa Falls Sub, zoned R-4 History: None Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MU-C (30+/- acres) & MDR (24+/- acres) Summary of Request: The applicant requests approval to annex & zone 81.61 acres of land from the RUT zoning district in Ada County to the C-C zoning district (64.75 acres) and the R-8 zoning district (16.87 acres) in the City. The proposed zoning is consistent with the FLUM designations of MU-C & MDR for this site. The proposed residential area is approximately 7 acres less than depicted on the FLUM for the MDR designated area. The applicant has submitted a conceptual development plan, included in Exhibit A.2, which depicts an 85,000 square foot community grocery store (Winco) as an anchor for the development with a mid-size retail use and retail shops in the southwest portion of the development; mixed use (i.e. office, retail and live/work) in the northwest portion of the development; pad sites adjacent to Chinden Blvd.; and other mid-size retail and entertainment users, shops and restaurants in the middle of & at the east end of the development. A specific development plan for the eastern portion of the site is proposed to be submitted at a later date. Staff recommends revisions to the plan as stated above in Section VII of the staff report in accord with the Comprehensive Plan. A preliminary plat is proposed consisting of 16 commercial building lots, 1 residential building lot, 1 common lot and 3 other lots for future ROW dedication on 78.29 acres of land in the proposed C-C & R-8 zoning districts. The large residential lot & large commercial lot on the east end of the site are planned to be re-subdivided in the future into smaller lots. Access is proposed via 3 accesses from N. Linder Road and 2 accesses via Chinden/SH 20-26; the southernmost access via Linder and the eastern access via the SH is planned to have a traffic signal in the future when warranted. Because the UDC prohibits new accesses via a state highway, a variance is requested for the proposed accesses via SH 20-26 – this request does not require Commission action, only City Council. There are 3 local stub streets to this site from the adjacent residential neighborhood at the south & east boundaries of the site; however, the portion of the site that abuts these streets is not being developed now. A cross- access/ingress-egress easement and driveway is required to be provided to the property to the south in an effort to decrease access points to the arterial street (i.e. Linder Rd.). An east/west backage driveway is proposed through this site from Linder Road to the east boundary of the commercial area as shown on the circulation plan. Another such public street is proposed at the south boundary of the site and should extend to the east boundary of the site for extension to N. Fox Run Way and the traffic light at the intersection of Fox Run/Chinden. Street buffer landscaping is required in accord with UDC standards; a 35’ wide street buffer is required along both Linder & Chinden, both entryway corridors. A 10’ pathway is required as part of the City’s regional pathway system within the street buffers along Linder & SH 20-26. A semi-private wood screen wall is proposed along the south boundary of commercial property on the eastern portion of the site adjacent to the future residential development. A CMU wall is proposed behind the community grocer/pet/mixed retail area. Business hours of operation in the C-C zoning district are limited from 6:00 am to 11:00 pm when the property abuts a residential use or district; extended hours of operation may be requested through a conditional use permit. The Winco store is proposed to operate 24 hours/day. Staff is recommending as a DA provision that business hours of operation are restricted to those stated since there are loading areas for truck deliveries at the rear of the store near existing & future residential uses. However, if the Winco building is turned as recommended by Staff so the rear of the store faces Linder Rd., staff does not feel the hours would need to be restricted as deliveries shouldn’t impact the neighbors. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the main anchor (Winco), the mid anchor and the retail shops as shown. Building materials consist primarily of stucco, with smooth and split face CMU, metal panel siding and stone and brick veneer accents. Non- residential buildings are required to be proportional to and blend in with adjacent residential buildings. Future buildings are required to be consistent with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. Staff is recommending several changes to the conceptual development plan in order for the plan to be consistent with development in MU-C designated areas as follows:  The most intense commercial uses should be located along N. Linder Road & W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26 and transition to less intense commercial, live/work and residential uses at the south and east boundaries of the site. At a minimum, the “strip” commercial buildings depicted along the south boundary of the site should be reconfigured into an “L” shape and/or detached to break up the building mass and uses adjacent to the existing & future residential area and the future east/west street. The rear of the Winco building should face N. Linder Road so that the loading docks aren’t directly adjacent to the existing and future residential area.  Vertically integrated residential (i.e. live/work) pads should be located on the periphery of the commercial development near future residential uses and less intense commercial uses rather than in the middle of a busy commercial area and parking lot adjacent to the state highway.  Based on the MU-C designated area (54 acres) and the increase in building size of 25,000 square feet for the Winco store, a minimum of 3.27 acres of public and quasi-public uses (such as parks, plazas, outdoor gathering areas, open space, libraries, schools, etc.) are required to be provided for the development.Configuring some of the buildings in an “L” shape as recommended could provide a more usable and attractive plaza/public use/gathering area rather than at the end of and in front of a strip of stores as currently depicted.  Include a street/driveway/pedestrian network that depicts vehicular and pedestrian connectivity between the proposed commercial development and the existing and future residential neighborhood; a street connection between N. Linder Road and the east boundary of the site for future connection to N. Fox Run Way and access to the traffic signal (this will also serve as a “break” or transition between commercial and residential areas); and extension of the existing stub streets. Also include a bubble plan for possible future uses on the “future development” area. Written Testimony: Many letters of public testimony have been received on this application in favor & against that are all included in the public record and have been distributed to the Commission for review; Dave McKinney, Applicant (response to the staff report) Staff Recommendation: Approval w/conditions in Exhibit B of the staff report Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2017-0088, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 19, 2017, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2017- 0088, as presented during the hearing on October 19, 2017, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2017-0088 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #4B: Linder Mixed Use (H-2017-0129) Application(s):  Annexation & Zoning  Rezone Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 8+/- acres of land, zoned RUT in Ada County & L-O in the City, located at 5940 & 5960 N. Linder Rd. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: North: Vacant/undeveloped property, zoned RUT in Ada County East: SFR homes in Paramount Subdivision, zoned R-8 South: Offices & vacant/undeveloped land, zoned L-O West: N. Linder Road & SFR homes in Lochsa Falls Subdivision, zoned R-8 History: The L-O zoned portion of the site was annexed with the Paramount Development. A DA was required as a provision of annexation and has been subsequently modified. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MU-C (northern 5 acres) & MU-N (southern 3.86 acres) Summary of Request: The applicant proposes to annex & zone 5 acres of land with C-C (1.59 acres) and R-15 (3.41 acres) zoning districts. A rezone of 3.36 acres of land is also requested from the L-O to the R-15 (1.43 acres) and C-C (1.93 acres) zoning districts. The applicant has submitted a conceptual development plan as shown that depicts (4) multi-family structures and (2) townhome structures containing a total of 113 dwelling units, a clubhouse with a fitness center, an open grassy area over 50’ x 100’ in area, a sports court and (3) 1+/- acre commercial pad sites. The concept plan depicts one vehicular access via N. Linder Road at the south boundary of the site and a north/south drive-aisle that serves as a frontage road to N. Linder Road that stubs to the north and south property lines for interconnectivity with adjacent developments. One vehicular access is proposed from the driveway for the multi-family portion of the development with a stub driveway to the north for future interconnectivity. A pedestrian pathway is proposed between the multi-family and commercial developments. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the multi-family structures that consist of 3-stories & the townhome structures that consist of 2-stories with varying material types and colors. Concept elevations were also submitted for the commercial structures that are all 1 story in height; one is shown as a stand-alone building while two are shown to be in “strip” configurations. In the MU-C designated area, strip building configurations are not desired and the structures are required to be proportional to and blend in with the residential structures. All structures are required to comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. Written Testimony: Justin Carpenter, Jeremy Evans, Salley Reynolds (petition) Trevor Gasser, Applicant (in agreement w/staff report) Staff Recommendation: Approval w/conditions in Exhibit B of the staff report Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2017-0129, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 19, 2017, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2017- 0129, as presented during the hearing on October 19, 2017, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2017-0129 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #4C: East Ridge Estates (H-2017-0129) Application(s):  Annexation and Zoning  Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 40.99 acres of land, zoned RUT, located north of E. Lake Hazel Road, west of S. Eagle Road Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: 1. North: Single-family residential properties in Black Rock Subdivision, zoned R-4; Undeveloped residential property zoned RUT in Ada County. 2. East: One single-family residential property and undeveloped property, both zoned RUT in Ada County. 3. South: E. Lake Hazel Road, and undeveloped property zoned RUT in Ada County. 4. West: One single-family residential properties and undeveloped property, both zoned RUT. History: In March of 2017, this application was remanded back to the Planning and Zoning Commission in order for the applicant to work with the surrounding property owners. The previous plan included 117 single family lots on 40.99 acres in the proposed R-8 zoning district with a gross density of 2.85 dwelling units per acre. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: LDR/MDR Summary of Request: The applicant has applied for annexation and zoning of 40.99 acres of land with R-4 and R-15 zoning districts. Staff believes the proposed zoning designations are consistent with the policies in the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant proposes to develop 139 new single-family residential detached homes on 40.99 acres of land as shown on the preliminary plat. Previous Plat: The previous plat consisted of 117 building lots and 14 common lots on 40.99 acres of land in a proposed R-8 zoning district. The property was proposed to develop in 5 phases. The gross density for the subdivision was 2.85 d.u./acre. The lots ranged in size from 6,600 square feet to over 12,500 square feet, with an average lot size of 9,475 square feet. Current Plat: The proposed plat consists of 139 building lots and 7 common lots on 40.99 acres of land in a proposed R-4 and R-15 zoning districts (see Exhibit A.2). The property is proposed to develop in 3 phases, (see Exhibit A.2). The gross density for the subdivision is 3.39 d.u./acre. The lots range in size from 5,313 square feet to over 12,500 square feet, with an average lot size of 36,726 square feet. Lot 2 of Block 1 does not meet the 30 feet of frontage required for lots in the R-4 zoning district. The applicant shall revise the plat to show compliance with UDC 11-2A-5. In reviewing the age restricted/R-15 zoned portion of the plat, staff has concerns on how those units will be located on the lots and we request that the applicant provide an exhibit that demonstrates compliance with the R-15 setbacks. The applicant is proposing to develop the East Ridge Estates Subdivision in three (3) phases. Phase 1 is to commence off the stub street from E. Cyanite Drive and generally continue from the north to the south. In general staff is supportive of the proposed phasing plan. Access is proposed for this site via one access from E. Lake Hazel Road and via the extension of an existing stub street from Blackrock Subdivision (E. Cyanite Drive). A total of 50-feet of right-of-way is proposed to be dedicated to ACHD from the centerline of E. Lake Hazel Road abutting the site and the pavement is required to be widened to 17 feet from centerline where it doesn’t currently exist in addition to a 3-foot wide gravel shoulder abutting the site. The applicant is proposing a single public stub street at the west boundary. As mentioned above, the applicant is requested to submit an exhibit showing how the properties would develop with the single stub street. Five (5) of the common driveways exceed the maximum length of a common driveway as set forth in UDC 11-6C-3. The Fire department will not approve any length over 150 feet. The applicant should revise the plat to comply with the Common driveway standards set forth in UDC 11-6C-3D. The majority of the proposed streets depicted on the plat are public, with the exception of the streets through what the applicant is calling “The Village,” an age-restricted community.” These cottages will feature private streets with multiple common driveways. With 98 residential home lots in The Village Cottages, the applicant has provided two gated entries for the residents, the main entrance off of the primary subdivision road and a secondary on the north side with quick access to the existing E. Cyanite Drive stub. The private streets will be owned and operated by The Village Home Owners Association with repairs and maintenance paid for by association fees. The applicant is proposing to install two (2) gates to restrict vehicular movement to the private street to those who live within that area of the development. UDC 11-3F-4 allows gates to be installed, subject to the following standards: a. The proposed development shall be for residential uses. b. The proposed development shall have no more than fifty (50) dwelling units. c. The proposed development shall not restrict pedestrian and bicycle access along the private street. The proposed development shall provide unrestricted access to pedestrians and bicycles at a minimum of two (2) additional points within the proposed development. d. The proposed development shall not restrict access to existing or planned multiuse pathways as shown in chapter 3 of the Meridian pathways master plan. e. The applicant shall provide access to the gate for emergency vehicles as determined and approved by the Meridian fire department and public works department. f. To allow sufficient stacking distance, the gate shall be located a minimum of fifty feet (50') back from the ultimate edge of right of way to the connecting public street. The applicant is requesting alternative compliance to allow for a common driveway off of a private street, and also to remove the requirement that two additional pedestrian/bicycle access points be included on a private street. As noted in (C) above, code allows for up to fifty (50) dwelling units in a gated community and staff has interpreted this to allow for fifty (50 ) dwelling units per gate. The applicant has proposed two (2) gates for the community, so will be limited to (100) dwelling units in the gated portion of the project. The applicant’s request to have a common driveway off of a private street is approved by the Director. Eight-foot wide parkways are proposed in all areas where detached sidewalks are proposed in accord with the standards lis ted in UDC 11-3A-17E. A minimum of 10% qualified open space is required to be provided for this development in accord with UDC 11-3G-3A.1. Based on the area of the preliminary plat (40.99 acres), a minimum of 4.09 acres of qualified open space is required to be provided as set forth in UDC 11-3A-3B. A total of 4.32 acres (or 10.54%) of qualified open space is proposed consisting of ½ the street buffer along E. Lake Hazel Road, open space that exceeds 50’ X 100’, and 8-foot wide parkways along the local streets. and internal common open space areas which appear to comply with this requirement. As mentioned above, the applicant intends to have separate amenities for the age restricted (R-15) portion of the project. The applicant proposes Lot 14, Block 2 (R-4 portion of the property) as a common lot for the subdivision. Staff recommends that the applicant re-locate the opens space at the intersection of E. More Trail Drive and E. Huntly Drive, to make it more accessible to residents. By relocating the open space in the new location it allows the applicant to provide a pedestrian connection through the age- restricted community through Lots 34-39 as required per the private street standards noted above. The other pedestrian access to Lake Hazel should be provided between Lots 66-69. All developments consisting of five acres of more are required to provide a minimum of one site amenity; one additional site amenity is required for each additional 20 acres per UDC 11-3G-3A.2, in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3C. Based on the area of the preliminary plat (40.99 acres), staff requires a minimum of 2 qualified site amenities be provided. The applicant proposes to provide amenities specific to the Village Concept and other amenities that would be for the use of the estate lots as well as the Village concept. The amenities specific to the Village concept include a clubhouse, sitting areas and a large common lot. Amenities that would be shared by both the estate lots and the Village concept include a neighborhood park that includes a large grassy area, a shade structure and sitting areas. With the previous version of this project, City Council requested a tot lot for the development. The applicant may want to think about adding a children’s play structure to the proposed common lot. The proposed amenities appear to meet the requirements of the UDC. The existing homes in Blackrock Subdivision to the northwest of this site are located on a ridge approximately 20-40 feet above the proposed subdivision. The applicant shall provide an exhibit showing the elevation change. The applicant should also provide a master grading and drainage plan for the site prior to the Commission hearing. Multiple lots are encumbered by a slope easement due to the topography. The applicant shall provide an exhibit to show the transition between the East Ridge Lots and the existing and future Blackrock and Sky Mesa developments. The applicant has submitted some conceptual sample building elevations for future homes in this development. Building materials appear to consist of a mix of board and batten, stucco and horizontal lap siding with shake shingle and stone accents. Because homes on lots that back up to E. Lake Hazel Road will be highly visible, staff recommends the rear or sides of structures on lots that face the street incorporate articulation through changes in materials, color, modulation, and architectural elements (horizontal and vertical) to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines. Design Review (DES): A DES application is required to be submitted prior to issuance of building permits for the single family attached homes. The applicant must comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the guidelines contained in the Meridian Design Manual. Written Testimony: Susan Karnes, Kathi Baumgartner, Jim Stroo, Melody Wheeler, Susan and Ted Bohlman Staff Recommendation: Approval Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2017-0129, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 19, 2017, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2017- 0129, as presented during the hearing on October 19, 2017, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2017-0129 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #4D: Movado Greens (H-2017-0104) Application(s): Application(s):  Rezone  Preliminary Plat  Conditional Use Permit Modification Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of approximately 23.506 acres of land, zoned C-G, located on the south side of E. Overland Road between S. Topaz Way and S. Cloverdale Road Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: 1. North: E. Overland Road and single family homes in Rolling Hills Subdivision, zoned R1 and RUT in Ada County 2. East: Commercial property, zoned R-1B in Boise 3. South: Platted single family lots currently under development in the Movado Estates Subdivision, zoned R-15. 4. West: Commercial property in the Silverstone Business Park, zoned C-G History: In 2016, this project was granted a comprehensive plan map amendment, annexation and zoning of 102.69 acres of land from RUT to the R-8 and R15; and a preliminary plat consisting of 430 single-family residential lots and 39 common lots and 9 other lots on approximately 102.69 acres in the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts. Also in 2016, a conditional use permit was approved for a 312 unit multi-family development on 13.51 acres of land. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MU-R Summary of Request: The applicant has applied to rezone approximately 11.08 acres of land from C-G to the R-15 zoning district. The applicant is requesting to reduce the acreage and the number of units of the previously approved Silverstone Apartment project. As discussed above in Section VII, the proposed zoning is consistent with the policies in the Comprehensive Plan. Under the existing zoning (C-G), the proposed multi-family development is a conditional use. The use was previously approved in 2016 (H-2016-0060) and the applicant now desires to reduce the footprint of the apartments in order to plat additional single family lots south of the multi-family and commercial lots . In conjunction with the request to rezone a portion of property from C -G to R-15, the applicant is requesting to reduce the acreage of the project from 13.52 to 5.7 acres; the number of apartment units and layout for the previously approved Silverstone Apartment project (H-2016-0060). An MCU is requested to reduce the acreage of the apartment project from 13.51 acres to 5.71 acres; to reduce the number of units from 312 to 112 units and to modify the site design and amenities included in the plat. The applicant is reducing the amenities package from a 1) clubhouse, 2) fitness facility (in the clubhouse), 3) a swimming pool, 4) a children’s play structure, 5) a 50’x 100’ open grassy area, a 6) enclosed bicycle storage (within the clubhouse), with the capability of storing approximately 60 bicycles, and 7) a business center (within the clubhouse), to a 1) clubhouse, 2) a children’s play structure, and a 3) sports court. The applicant shall provide two more amenities , at least one amenity from the open space category and then one additional qualified amenity of their choice. The multi-family residential development as proposed consists of 112 dwelling units within (8) 3-story structures on 5.71 acres of land. The units will consist of 72 2-bedroom units and 40 1-bedroom units containing 500s.f. and 1,200 s.f. respectively. A clubhouse is proposed that will contain a leasing office, and the mail center. Associated carport structures (19) are also proposed (see site plan in Exhibit A.5). The applicant shall show on both the plat and the Silverstone Apartments site plan the Idaho Power easement that exists along Overland Road. Specific Use Standards: The specific use standards for multi-family developments listed in UDC 11-4-3-27 apply to development of this site as follows: (Staff’s comments in italics)  A minimum of 80 square feet (s.f.) of private useable open space is required to be provided for each unit. The patios proposed with the submitted floor plans do not comply with the required 80 s.f. of private open space per unit. At the time of Certificate of Zoning Compliance submittal, the applicant shall revise the floor plans to meet this requirement.  Developments with 20 units or more shall provide a property management office, a maintenance storage area, a central mailbox location with provisions for parcel mail that provides safe pedestrian and/or vehicular access and a directory map of the development at an entrance or convenient location for those entering the development. The submitted site plan shows the property management office, and mailbox location. The site plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application should depict the location of the directory map and maintenance storage area.  At a minimum, 250 s.f. of common open space is required for each unit containing more than 500 s.f. and up to 1,200 s.f. of living area. Because all of the proposed units (112) contain between 500 and 1,200 square feet of living area, a minimum of 28,000 s.f. (or 0.64 of an acre) of common open space is required to be provided. A total of 1.24 acres of passive and active open space is proposed. Common open space is required to be a minimum of 400 s.f. in area with a minimum length and width dimension of 20 feet. The calculations table depicts 54,200 s.f. of common open space is proposed.  For multi-family developments with more than one hundred (100) units, the decision making body shall require additional amenities commensurate to the size of the proposed development. Because 112 units are proposed, the Commission should determine if the number of amenities is proportionate to the size of the proposed development each from at least one from each category (i.e. quality of life, open space, recreation). The applicant proposes to provide the following amenities: 1) clubhouse, 2) a children’s play structure, 3) sports court. The applicant has provided three qualified amenities for the development. Multi -family projects of this size are required to provide five (5) amenities which include one amenity from each of the three categories as mentioned above. The applicant shall provide at least one amenity from the open space category and then one additional qualified amenity of their choice.  Landscaping is required to comply with UDC 11-4-3-27-F. All street facing elevations shall have landscaping along their foundation as follows: the landscaped area shall be at least 3-feet wide and have an evergreen shrub with a minimum mature height of 24 inches for every 3 linear feet of foundation. The remainder of the area shall be landscaped with ground cover plans. The landscape plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance should comply with this requirement for the sides of the structures that face E. Overland Road.  The development is required to record legally binding documents that state the maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the management of the development, including, but not limited to, structures, parking, common areas, and other development features. The applicant should submit documentation of compliance with this requirement with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application or prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy at the latest. The applicant is requesting to modify two (2) development agreements with the subject application. The first one is to modify the Silverstone Apartment DA that tied the site to a 312-unit apartment complex. And the second is to amend the DA approved with the Movado Estates Subdivision. The revised legal descriptions and exhibit maps in Exhibit C depict which properties will be governed with each amended DA. The specifics of each request are provided below. A preliminary plat consisting of 96 single-family residential lots, 7 common lots and 7 commercial lots on approximately 24.23 acres in the proposed R-15 zoning district is proposed on approximately 10.93 acres of land for the Movado Greens Subdivision. A minimum 35-foot wide street buffer is required along E. Overland Road and a 20-foot wide street buffer is required along S. Movado Way, a collector street. There is one common driveway proposed. The applicant is proposing Lots 36-39 of Block 1, to take access from a common driveway. Per UDC-11-6C-3D, common driveways shall serve a maximum of (6) dwelling unit. With the final plat application, the applicant must provide an exhibit that depicts the building envelope, setbacks and orientation of the lots and structures taking access from the common drives. Lot 26, Block 1 shall be used as an emergency access and shall have bollards placed on both sides of the lot to restrict vehicle access. The applicant shall construct a micro-path on Lot 26, Block 1 to provide a pedestrian connection between the proposed Silverstone Apartments and the proposed Movado Greens Subdivision. The primary entrance for the multi-family development is from E. Overland Road. The applicant has also proposed cross- access to the future commercial development to the east. Though direct access to Overland Road was granted with the previous Conditional Use Permit approval, the applicant is required to obtain approval of that access again, for this application in accord with UDC 11-3A-3. The primary access to the single-family subdivision will be from S. Movado Way. The applicant is also proposing an emergency access through the proposed Silverstone Apartment project. If the multi-family development is constructed after the single-family development, the applicant will need to work with the Fire and Police Departments to ensure that adequate emergency access is provided. A detached sidewalk exists along E. Overland Road however, there is existing gravel in between the existing curb and the sidewalk that must to be removed and the area vegetated with the first phase of this development. The applicant is also proposing an attached sidewalk throughout the subdivision. The applicant is proposing .83 acres (7.60%) of open space for the development. As noted above, the applicant is proposing to modify the existing development for Movado Estates to include these 96 lots within that development. The Movado Estates subdivision provided 15.41 acres (15%) open space for the development, so staff is of the opinion that with the inclusion of this plat into the overall Movado Estates Subdivision, that this development meets the 10% open space requirement. The applicant is also proposing three (3) amenities for the subdivision that include a 1) play structure, 2) a walking path and a 3) sports court. The proposed amenities appear to meet the requirements for common open space and site amenities set forth UDC 11-3G. There is limited visibility on the Lot 46, Block 1, which is designated as a common lot. Staff recommends that any fencing around this lot be constructed as open vision fencing in order to increase visibility through this lot. UDC 11-3A-7 requires that common lots be visible from all public streets. In this case there is very little street frontage. Staff feels that requiring open vision fencing in this case will increase visibility through the common lot that might not otherwise be possible with the other fencing options available. Street lighting is required to be installed within the development in accord with the City’s adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. All development is required to connect to the City water and sewer system unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. Trash enclosures (and other service functions) are required to be incorporated into the overall design of buildings and landscaping so that the visual and acoustic impacts of these functions are fully contained and out of view from adjacent properties and public streets. Safe access and adequate lighting should be provided in these areas in accord with UDC 11 - 3A-12B. Three trash enclosures are depicted on the site. The number of enclosures, sizes and locations should be approved by Bob Olsen, Republic Services. A detail of the trash enclosures should be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application(s). Multi-family Building Elevations: Building elevations were submitted for the multi-family structures and clubhouse. The applicant did not provide elevations of the carports. With submittal of the certificate of zoning compliance, the applicant shall submit the elevation of the carport structures. Building materials for the clubhouse consist of fiber cement horizontal lapped siding and Portland cement stucco with architectural laminated fiberglass roof shingles; stone veneer is listed in the notes as a material but is shown in error per the applicant. Building materials for the multi-family structures consist primarily of fiber cement horizontal lapped siding with Portland cement stucco accents and architectural laminated fiberglass roof shingles. Single-family Building Elevations: The applicant has submitted some conceptual sample building elevations for future homes in this development, included in Exhibit A.4. Building materials appear to consist of a mix of board and batten and horizontal lap siding and stone accents. Commercial Building Elevations: The applicant did not provide elevations of the commercial buildings. The commercial lots will need to be added to the Silverstone Apartments development agreement and as such, staff required a concept plan for the commercial lots. Building elevation will be required to meet the requirements of the design standards manual. Staff will review the site improvements and architecture of those building at the time of certificate of zoning compliance. Future structures built on the site are required to comply with the City’s design standards and guidelines in effect at the time of development and obtain design review approval; the proposed elevations are conceptual only and are not approved. Certificate of Zoning Compliance: The applicant is required to obtain approval of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance application for establishment of the new use and to ensure all site improvements comply with the provisions of the UDC and the conditions in this report prior to application for building permits, in accord with UDC 11-5B-1. Design Review (DES): A CZC and DES application is required to be submitted prior to issuance of building permits for the single family attached homes, the multi-family structures and the clubhouse. With the submittal of the DES application, the applicant shall submit a master site plan that designates the design, color schemes and variations for each unit. The applicant must comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the guidelines contained in the Architectural Standards Manual. Written Testimony: None Staff Recommendation: Approval Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2017-0104, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 19, 2017, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2017- 0104, as presented during the hearing on October 19, 2017, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2017-0104 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #4E: Veranda Senior Living (H-2017-0130) Application(s):  Conditional Use Permit Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 3.38 acres of land, zoned C-N, located approximately ½ mile east of S. Eagle Road on the south side of E. Amity Rd. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: North: E. Amity Road & a future school site currently being farmed, zoned RUT in Ada County West: Future neighborhood commercial uses, zoned C-N South: Future neighborhood commercial uses and a City Park, zoned C-N East: Future medical offices, zoned C-N Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MU-N (mixed use neighborhood) Summary of Request: The applicant has submitted an application for a CUP for a residential care facility in the C-N zoning district as required by UDC Table 11-2B-2. A single-story 59,126 s.f. assisted living and memory care facility is proposed that will contain a total of 75 units with a maximum of 88 beds (memory care – 31 units; assisted living – 57 units). Access to this site is proposed via a driveway from E. Amity Road, approved with the preliminary plat. A cross-access easement will be granted between all lots in the development when the plat records; access will be available from/through adjacent properties via S. Hillsdale Ave., S. Tavistock Ave. and E. Hill Park St. Off-street parking is proposed in excess of UDC standards. The Director has approved the alternative compliance request for the design of the parking lot. Landscaping is proposed in accord with UDC standards. Building elevations and a rendering were submitted with this application for the proposed structure as shown. Building materials consist of Hardie lap, shake and flat siding, stone veneer accents, stained wood trusses and brackets, and asphalt shingle roofing. Compliance with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual is required. Written Testimony: Jon Wardle, Applicant’s Representative (in agreement w/staff report) Staff Recommendation: Approval Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2017-0130, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 19, 2017, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions). Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2017-0130, as presented during the hearing on October 19, 2017, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2017-0130 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting October 19, 2017 Item #4E: Veranda Senior Living Vicinity Map Site/Landscape Plan Building Elevations Item #4A: Linder Village Vicinity/Zoning Map FLUM Conceptual Development Plan Preliminary Plat Conceptual Building Elevations Item #4B: Linder Mixed Use Vicinity/Zoning Map & Conceptual Development Plan Conceptual Building Elevations Item #4C: East Ridge Estates Subdivision- Preliminary Plat Landscape Plan Elevations Development Agreement provisions ►a. Except the public street access to E. Lake Hazel Road from East Ridge Avenue, direct lot access to E. Lake Hazel Road, an arterial street, is prohibited in accord with UDC 11-3A-3. ►b. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the preliminary plat and building elevations depicted in Exhibit A and the revisions noted in the staff report. ►c. The applicant shall comply with the submitted home elevations attached in Exhibit A.4. The rear and/or side of structures that face arterial or collector streets (Lots 2-5 of Block 1, Lots 55, 56, 59, 60, 63, 64, 67, 68, 71 and 72 of Block 2), shall incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation (e.g. – projections, recesses, step- backs, pop-outs), bays, banding, porches, balconies, material types, or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines that are visible from the subject public street. Single-story structures are exempt from this requirement. ►d. The site shall develop with a minimum of 10.54% open space (4.32 acres) and shall include the following amenities specific to the Village Concept and other amenities that would be for the use of the estate lots as well as the Village concept. The amenities specific to the Village concept include a clubhouse, sitting areas and a large common lot. Amenities that would be shared by both the estate lots and the Village concept include a neighborhood park that includes a large grassy area, a shade structure and sitting areas. ►e. The applicant shall provide a children’s play structure in the common lot located in the R -4 portion of the project. The proposed amenities appear to meet the requirements of the UDC. ►f. Timing for the construction of the amenities is proposed as shown on the phasing plan in Exhibit A.2. ►g. The 5-foot detached sidewalk and 25 foot landscape buffer along E. Lake Hazel Road shall be constructed with the first phase of development. Item #4D: Movado Greens Subdivision Preliminary Plat Landscape Plan Landscape Plan Conceptual Development Plan Elevations Elevations Elevations Silverstone Development Agreement provisions ►a) Future development of this site shall substantially comply with the concept plan, site plan, landscape plan and architectural elevations included in Exhibit A and the conditions contained herein. ►b) A maximum of 112 residential dwelling units shall be constructed within this development. ►c) Future development shall comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the City of Meridian Architectural Standards Manual. ►d) A 35-foot wide street buffer is required to be constructed along E. Overland Road, an entryway corridor, with the first phase of development and prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the site. Landscaping is required to be installed within the buffer in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. ►e) Site amenities shall be provided as follows: 1) clubhouse, 2) a children’s play structure, and 3) sports court. The applicant shall provide at least one amenity from the open space category and then one additional qualified amenity of their choice, in accord with the standards listed in 11-4-3-27D. ►f) Cross-access shall be granted to the properties to the east and emergency access shall be provided to the south for future inter-connectivity. The recorded cross access agreement shall be submitted with the first certificate of zoning compliance application. ►g) The commercial lots are subject to certificate of zoning compliance and design review prior to issuance of a building permit. ►h) The applicant shall have the ability to obtain multi-family building permits prior to recording the final plat. Movado Estates Sub. Development Agreement provisions ►a) Future development of this site shall be consistent with the preliminary plat, landscape plan and building elevations attache d in Exhibit A and the revisions noted in the staff report. ►b) The Movado Greens Subdivision shall have the rights to use the open space and amenities approved with the Movado Estates Proj ect and the residents of Movado Estates shall have the rights to use the amenities approved with the Movado Greens Subdivision. ►c) The applicant shall construct the pedestrian crossing over the Ridenbaugh Canal with Phase 5A as shown on the phasing plan dated 09/07/2016. ►d) Two (2) of the common driveways included in the plat are also being used as emergency access for the fire department (Lots 71 , 72 and 73 and Lots 48, 49 and 50, Block 2). These two (2) common driveways shall be striped and signed as “No Parking.” ►e) The applicant shall construct an additional portion of 10-foot multi Use pathway that starts at the south east corner of the property and runs through the proposed subdivision and through the park located at Lot 1, Block 3 to connect with the proposed multi-use pathway on the south side of the Eight Mile Creek. ►f) The applicant shall comply with the submitted home elevations attached in Exhibit A.5. The rear and/or side of structures that face E. Cloverdale Road (Lots 25-31, Block 2) shall incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation (e.g. – projections, recesses, step-backs, pop-outs), bays, banding, porches, balconies, material types or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines that are visible from the subject public street. Single -story structures are exempt from this requirement. ►g) The applicant shall obtain a waiver from City Council to UDC 11-3A-6A in order for the Eight Mile Creek and Ridenbaugh Canal to remain open and not be piped due to the large capacity of their facilities. If a waiver is not obtained, the waterway is required to be p iped. ►h) The 35 foot landscape buffer along W. Overland Road and the 20 foot landscape buffer along S. Movado Way must be constructed with the first phase of development. ►i) Construct the entire landscape buffer along W. Overland Road, including replacing the existing gravel with vegetation in accord with UDC 11- 3B-7C; ►j) The applicant shall construct the entry gatehouse and monuments as proposed. Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: October 19, 2017 ITEM NUMBER: 3A PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Approve Minutes of October 5th, 2017 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting MEETING NOTES CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 5, 2017 Page 27 of 27 Fitzgerald: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to continue H-2017-0117, Rapid Creek Subdivision, to the hearing date of November 2nd. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. McCarvel: Who would like the honors? One more motion. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, I move we adjourn. Wilson: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adjourn the meeting. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:19 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) _ " G 61V A�7 RH N* DA McCARVEL - CHAIRMAN ATTEST: C. J4 COLE Cl CLERK 10 i�6A i� DATE APPROVED O O�JV, AU(, j Cityof (✓M� E IDl� IAN:-- IOAHO �+ S Fye& aPw Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: October 19, 2017 ITEM NUMBER: 4A PROJECT NUMBER: H-2017-0088 ITEM TITLE: Linder Village Hublic Hearing Conlinuecl and Re-noliced from September 7, 20 17 Tor Linder Village - 2017-0088) by Lynx/DMG Real Estate Partners, LLC Located 1225 W Chinden 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 81.61 Acres of Land from the RUT Zoning District in Ada County to the C -C Zoning District (64.75 Acres) and the R-8 Zoining District (16.87 Acres) in the City. 2. Request: Preliminary Plat Consisting of 16 Commercial Building Lots, One (1) Residential Building Lot, One (1) Common Lot and Three (3) Other Lots for Future Right -Of -Way Dedication on 78.29 Acres of Land in the Proposed C -C and R-8 Zoning Districts. R(-ni iiCt- VnrinnrP to I IIS(- 1 1 -.'IH -4R 2 for twC) 171 nrrPeePe Vin W C-'hinriPn MEETING NOTES M o-� on - o Deny = 94oJe Zecom aAerid o 4 is Ce �0 G 5 S -CA er- CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS PROJECT SITE LOCATION MAP / AERIAL IMAGE SEC CHINDEN & LINDER TODAY •Undeveloped Agriculture Property •80+ Acres •RUT County Designation •Meridian City Impact Area •Property Tax $3,099.40/Year •Owned Since 1993 •Used Historically as Farm Land LINDER VILLAGE PROPOSAL •Annex and Zone Mixed Use Community (CC) & Medium Density Residential (R-8) •Consistent with Comprehensive Plan •Buffer Existing Residential •Build a First Class Mixed Use Community Center with Life Style Amenities •Uses include: Retail, Office, Residential & Entertainment •Improve Road Network •Improve Tax Base and Create Jobs COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LEGAL OVERVIEW •Comprehensive Plan policies are guidance not law •zoning ordinance is law, Comprehensive Plan is not •zoning ordinance may diverge from Comprehensive Plan •Comprehensive Plan is a policy guide Linder Village application complies with Comprehensive Plan policies •FLUM designates land as MU-C •Comprehensive Plan policy for MU-C is community-serving mixed uses •request C-C zoning allows broad mix of retail, office and service uses •applicant proposes conforming mixed uses •retail •office •residential •civic open space Plan policy for MU-C encourages employment opportunities for those who live in and around the development •site design concept includes medium-density residential •site design concept includes live/work uses Plan policy for MU-C encourages supportive and proportional public spaces •site design concept includes public plaza •site design concept includes community-use building space •both the plaza and the community-use building space support and encourage gathering of people who live in and near the development Plan policy for MU-C is community connectivity •site design is conducive to foot traffic •site design is conducive to bicycle traffic •site design restricts commercial traffic •site design funnels traffic to arterials Plan policy for MU-C is community connectivity •requested VAR furthers community connectivity •enhances mobility, increases capacity and improves safety via •deceleration lanes •dedicated turn lanes •access channelization •Requested R-8 zoning within site plan furthers MDR policies •provides housing options close to employment opportunities •provides housing options close to shopping center •Site plan furthers MDR policies •extensive landscape buffering and drive aisle configuration protects existing residential properties from non-residential use impact •Linder Village furthers Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives: •protect existing residential from incompatible uses •extensive landscape buffering •live/work •provide housing close to employment and shopping •includes retail, commercial and office employment opportunities •includes MDR and live/work •Linder Village furthers Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives: •supports variety of residential uses •medium density •live/work •locate small-scale neighborhood commercial areas within planned residential developments •site plan provides for neighborhood shopping/dining/service needs to be met within neighborhood Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: October 19, 2017 ITEM NUMBER: 4A PROJECT NUMBER: H-2017-0088 ITEM TITLE: Linder Village Hublic Hearing Conlinuecl and Re-noliced from September 7, 20 17 Tor Linder Village - 2017-0088) by Lynx/DMG Real Estate Partners, LLC Located 1225 W Chinden 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 81.61 Acres of Land from the RUT Zoning District in Ada County to the C -C Zoning District (64.75 Acres) and the R-8 Zoining District (16.87 Acres) in the City. 2. Request: Preliminary Plat Consisting of 16 Commercial Building Lots, One (1) Residential Building Lot, One (1) Common Lot and Three (3) Other Lots for Future Right -Of -Way Dedication on 78.29 Acres of Land in the Proposed C -C and R-8 Zoning Districts. R(-ni iiCt- VnrinnrP to I IIS(- 1 1 -.'IH -4R 2 for twC) 171 nrrPeePe Vin W C-'hinriPn MEETING NOTES M o-� on - o Deny = 94oJe Zecom aAerid o 4 is Ce �0 G 5 S -CA er- CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS PROJECT SITE LOCATION MAP / AERIAL IMAGE SEC CHINDEN & LINDER TODAY •Undeveloped Agriculture Property •80+ Acres •RUT County Designation •Meridian City Impact Area •Property Tax $3,099.40/Year •Owned Since 1993 •Used Historically as Farm Land LINDER VILLAGE PROPOSAL •Annex and Zone Mixed Use Community (CC) & Medium Density Residential (R-8) •Consistent with Comprehensive Plan •Buffer Existing Residential •Build a First Class Mixed Use Community Center with Life Style Amenities •Uses include: Retail, Office, Residential & Entertainment •Improve Road Network •Improve Tax Base and Create Jobs COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LEGAL OVERVIEW •Comprehensive Plan policies are guidance not law •zoning ordinance is law, Comprehensive Plan is not •zoning ordinance may diverge from Comprehensive Plan •Comprehensive Plan is a policy guide Linder Village application complies with Comprehensive Plan policies •FLUM designates land as MU-C •Comprehensive Plan policy for MU-C is community-serving mixed uses •request C-C zoning allows broad mix of retail, office and service uses •applicant proposes conforming mixed uses •retail •office •residential •civic open space Plan policy for MU-C encourages employment opportunities for those who live in and around the development •site design concept includes medium-density residential •site design concept includes live/work uses Plan policy for MU-C encourages supportive and proportional public spaces •site design concept includes public plaza •site design concept includes community-use building space •both the plaza and the community-use building space support and encourage gathering of people who live in and near the development Plan policy for MU-C is community connectivity •site design is conducive to foot traffic •site design is conducive to bicycle traffic •site design restricts commercial traffic •site design funnels traffic to arterials Plan policy for MU-C is community connectivity •requested VAR furthers community connectivity •enhances mobility, increases capacity and improves safety via •deceleration lanes •dedicated turn lanes •access channelization •Requested R-8 zoning within site plan furthers MDR policies •provides housing options close to employment opportunities •provides housing options close to shopping center •Site plan furthers MDR policies •extensive landscape buffering and drive aisle configuration protects existing residential properties from non-residential use impact •Linder Village furthers Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives: •protect existing residential from incompatible uses •extensive landscape buffering •live/work •provide housing close to employment and shopping •includes retail, commercial and office employment opportunities •includes MDR and live/work •Linder Village furthers Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives: •supports variety of residential uses •medium density •live/work •locate small-scale neighborhood commercial areas within planned residential developments •site plan provides for neighborhood shopping/dining/service needs to be met within neighborhood •Linder Village furthers Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives: •encourage services like health care, daycare, grocery stores and recreational areas to be built within walking distance of residences •community grocery tenant confirmed •other planned buildings are suitable for service providers •plaza area provides for neighborhood gatherings •work with transportation agencies/private property owners to preserve transportation corridors, future transit routes and infrastructure/facilitate access management •ACHD and ITD support site access points •neighboring land owner refused to provide through access •Linder Village furthers Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives: •provide pedestrian access connectors to link subdivisions to promote neighborhood connectivity •site circulation plan provides pedestrian pathways to adjacent properties •buffer commercial and residential uses •neighboring non-commercial property to south is buffered by extensive landscaping •neighboring non-commercial property to east will be buffered by residential •Idaho Supreme Court: Comprehensive Plan = policy not law •Idaho Code §67-6511: zoning must be “in accordance with the policies” of Comp Plan •Comp Plan is policy guidance, not mandatory law CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN CONCEPT SITE PLAN USE PLAN USE AREA PLAN BUILDING MATERIALS & ELEVATIONS WINCO ELEVATIONS MID BOX ELEVATIONS SHOPS ELEVATIONS ELEVATIONS BUFFERS, BERMS & LANDSCAPING SITE SECTION / BERM AND SOUND WALL SITE SECTION / BERM AND BUFFER SET BACKS FROM EXISTING RESIDENTIAL VS OTHER PROJECTS Albertsons 10-Mile/Cherry Lane Albertsons Eagle McMillan Kohls Eagle Lowes Overland Target Eagle Chinden Walmart Fairview Walmart Overland CIRCULATION PLAN with PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIVITY CIRCULATION PLAN TRAFFIC AND PROPOSED ROAD IMPROVEMENTS Key Traffic Challenges McMillan Rd Chinden Blvd Me r i d i a n R d Li n d e r R d Fo x R u n W a y Chinden Blvd McMillan Rd Li n d e r R d Me r i d i a n R d Fo x R u n W a y Site Over Capacity & LOS F in Background (without site development) Close to ACHD/ITD Capacity Thresholds No Signalized Access or Long-Term Full Access ITD Plans for Future CFI with Further Access Restrictions Rin/Rout Be r g m a n W y UNFUNDED ITD Plan for Widening Chinden (US 20-26) to 5 Lanes and Ultimately to 7 Lanes Traffic Solution Proposed by Linder Village •Widen Chinden (US 20-26) •Widen to 5 lanes from east of Meridian Rd through Linder Rd •Extend widening to the ITD funded project that stops at Locust Grove •Expand the Chinden/Linder Intersection •Add dual EB and WB left turn lanes •Install a new signal at the Bergman/Site Access intersection: •Operates acceptably with widening and signal coordination •Reduces impact on Chinden/Linder intersection •Also provides access to Foxtail/Ashbury and Eagle Island Marketplace •Provide for future ITD widening •Dedicate ROW for the 7 lanes in the ITD concept plan •Set buildings back for future CFI at Linder/Chinden intersection Propose Off-Site Improvements Summary •Improvements on Chinden are significant •Widening Chinden is well above what any other developments along the corridor have done •The widening will significantly improve traffic operations on Chinden •Right-of-Way and building set backs will help ITD with future expansions •The new signal at the Bergman/Site Access intersection provides a single combined access point for properties on both sides in Chinden RESIDENTIAL POSSIBILITIES RESIDENTIAL CONCEPT TYPES PROJECT SUPPORT Community Support •Letters of support through lindervillage.com: 450 •Total Facebook Page Likes on @YESLinderVillage : 1,201 •Total Facebook Reaction Summary: 323 Likes 15 Loves 1 Angry •Additional Community Engagement: •October 11, 2017 Community BBQ Attendees: appx. 38 •April 26, 2017 Community Open House at Gino’s Attendees: appx. 100 Counts listed above are as of 10/19/17 8:00 am MDT Community Support: WinCo Facebook Page •Posted: 9/20/17 •Targeted to: Eagle, Meridian, Star Idaho •Reached: 7,305 •Comments: 192 •Shares: 59 •Reactions: 560 Community Support: WinCo Facebook Page Community Support: WinCo Facebook Page Total Comments: 192 •YES, I want WinCo!: 55 •I live in the area & would love to have WinCo closer: 36 •Misc. Pro WinCo/Shares: 89 SUMMARY •Linder Village will be a Mixed Use Project •Linder Village is Consistent w/Meridian Comp Plan •Linder Village is NOT a Strip Mall •Linder Village will Provide Pedestrian Connectivity w/ Walking Paths, Esplanade, Public Space, a Community Meeting Place for Existing and Future Residential •Linder Village will Improve Road Network •ITD has Approved Site Access •Linder Village will Provide a Huge Economic Benefit �P, Y` CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET Date: October 19, 2017 Item # Project Number: Project Name: H-2017-0088 Linder Villaae Please print your name For Against Neutral Do you wish to testify (Y/N) Jrea Cn n-�,t( �� Jew ZmvbA ton T>-4 V, cK1nn� ti n 1Glj �ICIrS�1. [ V �� Cy�e 4 CC `f S Al- ijc va �0 Sell, l2e. Vv K, All "IrVL_ V1 / I //^^ 11 essc M �v,\ e N- w�;vc +u X \/f5 it „JJ, SWk CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET Date: October 19, 2017 Item # Project Number: Project Name: H-2017-0088 Linder Villaae Please print your name For Against Neutral Do you wish to testify (Y/N) 7 _v le, e - 41 Cti r, r i rs o� V4 06(.vok("TJ�fr __+_ - I I Cc1rpe�Jce- 6J6 Ve.4.eve o�6 S t ,o�y �� �c c_i�71�k����l5n- � ✓�-� V �Wa k CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET Date: October 19, 2017 Item # Project Number: Project Name: H-2017-0088 Linder Village 90 Please print your name For Against Neutral Do you wish to testify (YIN) l cav � •,lC - cv�e �1u C) L e ri n e1_0 re I Gch i�I �Pr v lV It 0 W6L 1 Ve tye'n l dZ/l� 69 U 1 i/ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET Date: October 19, 2017 Item # Project Number: Project Name: H-2017-0088 Linder Village Please print your name For Against Neutral Do you wish to testify (Y/N) �g - D. -� e,ellle76_41 ' K e'_ X, 1 a�jxJ-, �(t LA l o T �U%t C -C (E k 7 MC C !) l__/ -At 1 a yal's /J D -C �(lazvz °�liy„c�� o It CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET Date: October 19, 2017 Item # Project Number: Project Name: H-2017-0088 Linder Village Please print your name For Against Neutral Do you wish to testify (Y/N) c, - 1 th�1 fad 1 S X in lam" S VA -%f WX c ti-o' cizo�,� Li�lcov, X ins C ,o CzE-Py x �J L, W L cern . Y_ A V_L_ l,� "1 11, tet ► X, Watvt �o WoL i V � �g r a r54 1 1/Utico i X ►v ea v(+ j1.lL�C1 i'► S CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET G Date: October 19, 2017 Item # AB� Project Number: Project Name: H-2017-0095 Linder Please print your name For Against Neutral Do you wish to testifv (Y/N) LINDER VILLAGE the wrong site design the wrong location the wrong plan for Meridian PRESENTATION BY CARROLL LAW ON BEHALF OF PROTECT MERIDIAN STAFF REPORT •Annexation, Zoning, and Preliminary Plat: thorough analysis of Comprehensive Plan design standards •STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Significant Redesign •Variance: confers a special privilege without demonstration of an undue hardship and is detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare •STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial STAFF REPORT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: limit hours of operation UNLESS WinCo is relocated MERIDIAN CITY CODE: “Business hours of operation within the C-C and C-G districts shall be limited from six o'clock (6:00) A.M. to eleven o'clock (11:00) P.M. when the property abuts a residential use or district. Extended hours of operation in the C-C and C-G districts may be requested through a conditional use permit.” M.C.C. 11-2B-3.A.4 WHAT IS A “REASONABLE INTERPRETATION” OF THIS ORDINANCE? MERIDIAN CITY CODE: “Business hours of operation within the C-C and C-G districts shall be limited from six o'clock (6:00) A.M. to eleven o'clock (11:00) P.M. when the property abuts a residential use or district. Extended hours of operation in the C-C and C-G districts may be requested through a conditional use permit.” M.C.C. 11-2B-3.A.4 DEFINITIONS FROM M.C.C. 11-1A-1 •ABUT OR ABUTTING: Having a common border with the subject property. •PROPERTY: A "lot" or "parcel" as defined herein. •PARCEL: A tract of unplatted land or contiguous unplatted land held in single ownership, considered a unit for purposes of development A conditional use permit is necessary to allow a 24-hour use regardless of site design WHAT ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT? Idaho Code § 67-6511A •Cities may “require or permit as a condition of rezoning that an owner or developer make a written commitment concerning the use or development of the subject parcel.” •Authorization to allow cities to further restrict developer •Does NOT provide authorization for a city to approve a use that is ordinarily conditional or prohibited SALEM, OREGON A 3 minute demonstration of why a large loading dock should not be operating near residential use. ESPECIALLY at night RECOMMENDATION: ASK THE APPLICANT IF THEY ARE WILLING TO USE THE PROPERTY WITH LIMITED HOURS If not: RECOMMEND DENIAL OF C-C ZONING RECOMMEND DENIAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT RECOMMEND DENIAL OF VARIANCE aA M ti le4u - Wc6f �� Winco operates 24 hours/day. This is_t Lir business model and from previous meetings, they have said they will not change this model. Walgreens on Mcmillian and Linder around the corner wasn't granted a 24 hour/day store because it was too close to homes. Yet, Winco is asking that it should be allowed to build closer to homes, with a much larger footprint, volume of traffic, deliveries, and noise pollution. Winco needs to look for a more suitable location where zoning meets their needs. If you Google all Winco foods in Meridian, Eagle, Boise, Nampa, and Caldwell, none, except the one on Fairview in Boise has a neighborhood behind it. As this developer is proposing be done at Linder Village. The Fairview Winco has a wall, green space, trees, and a road that separates the loading area from homes. Even with all these "generous landscape buffers" this is what you get: Video on September 23, 2017 at 9:30 AM. On Page 15 of P&Z's report it states: When ... a street between Linder and the east boundary of the site for extension to Fox Run, the commercial property should no longer abut residential property although deliveries at the loading docks will still likely affect adjacent residences. We just saw the affects even with a street and buffers. M tp Pull up the map of Winco's Eagle store off state st. To the East, is a neighborhood across Horseshoe Bend road. This road is two lanes with a center turn lane and small businesses on the other side. We talked to some of the neighbors there. Around 2 AM, a bell goes off inside Winco when a delivery has arrived. The people in House that can hear a bell get disturbed lzy this every night. House with a Fence had to build a 6 foot fence raised on stilts to 8-9 feet to block out lights from trucks that deliver at night. Both streets also have had to put up No Trespassing Signs. We urge you, the planning and zoning commission, to ensure WinCo abide the guidelines in your report or relocate to a new area. And unless city council members read all 50 pages of this report, and deny developer money promised to them if they approve this, they should not be allowed the judgment call. Thank you Wednesday, October 18, 2017 Dear Chairman and commissioners, I understand the position you are in having served on the commission myself for 7 years. You will find my name on the first page of acknowledgements in the current comprehensive plan. I have a leather bound copy that is now well worn. I also served on the traffic task force (before it was a commission). I spent the 90's working in development for a civil engineering firm and then I spent the next 15 years teaching land planning at the post -secondary level. I tell you these things because although I am only one opinion, and many would disagree with me, I do have some semblance of expertise and knowledge of the history that might help shed some light on the decision you have before you, and possibly other decisions down the road. There are two distinct issues that you will need to address. First, does this plan meet the guidelines the city has established for development? The City of Meridian has spent DECADES developing and refining those guidelines. Literally thousands of man hours have been spent creating those guidelines; the Comprehensive Plan. The City has determined that it is vitally important that developers follow these guidelines as a minimum. There is built in flexibility in the system so that if a developer finds a way to improve upon the minimum guidelines it would be encouraged. The city of Meridian even has a stated goal number 7.01.01H: which states Require that the Planning and Zoning Commission duties include detailed review of the adopted Comprehensive plan at least once a year and the decisions explicitly reflect support and advance of the plan as a primary factor of approval. Hey, that is you! Why is it so important to follow these plans? Because much like architecture, land planning has a dramatic influence on how we interact with the built environment. It directly affects our mood and therefore our satisfaction. City Goal Recognize that Meridian's population will continue to grow and positively 3.01.00 influence that growth. City Goal 3.01.02C Support and improve upon the current development review process. City Goal 4.01.00 make Meridian the premier place to live work and raise a family City Goal 4.01.01C provide incentives and standards to attract high-quality businesses The second distinct issue that you will need to address is access points to arterials and express ways. I will address each of these issues in order. I would like once again to point out that city goal 7.01.01H: states Require that the Planning and Zoning Commission duties include detailed review of the adopted Comprehensive plan at least once a year and the decisions explicitly reflect support and advance of the plan as a primary factor of approval. With that in mind, I would like to quote from the Comprehensive Plan and City Code: The following are copied and pasted from the comprehensive plan and from city code. In red are text from the comprehensive plan or city code where there are conflicts or issues with the proposed plan. In blue are the city goals as listed in the comprehensive plan. In green are my personal comments or are areas of concern with this plan. At its heart, everything set in this document (the comprehensive plan) seeks to improve the health, safety, well-being, and quality of life for existing and future residents of Meridian. Quality of life generally represents the social well-being of individuals in a community. Livability is another term used to express the overall relationship between community members and the satisfaction residents derive from their surroundings Often places that are livable have the "it" factor. They are neighborhoods where everyone wants to be at and seen in. Mixed Use Community (MU -C). The purpose of this designation is to allocate areas where community - serving uses and dwellings are seamlessly integrated into the urban fabric. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses, including residential, and to avoid mainly single -use and strip commercial type buildings. Non-residential buildings in these areas have a tendency to be larger than in Mixed Use— Neighborhood areas, but not as large as in Mixed Use – Regional areas. Goods and services in these areas tend to be of the variety that people will mainly travel by car to, but also walk or bike to (up to three or four miles). Employment opportunities for those living in and around the neighborhood are encouraged. Developments are encouraged to be designed according to the conceptual MU -C plan depicted in Figure 3-3. Apartments, Four-plexes or Duplexes Office or Service Use Local or Collector Road Single family Residential Office, Day-care or Service Use Retail Use Arterial Road Figure 3-3. MIXED USE COMMUNITY CONCEPT DIAGRAM Please note that the most intense uses are pushed out to the arterial roads. less intense uses are placed between residential and more intense uses. City Goal Require neighborhood and community commercial areas to create a site design 3.05.02A compatible with surrounding uses City Goal Identify transitional areas to buffer commercial and residential uses to allow 3.05.03A uses such as offices and other lower intensity uses City Goal 3.06.01 Proactively address potential conflicts between incompatible uses. CEJ nntm RfS"Mik DRLLOOM LIt v f' rorwt MMOMPO FUNK RE 5" NUAL CEYttCWLWNT ( num (0moft"T The Proposed Plan... In reviewing development applications, the following items will be considered in MU -C areas: • All developments should have a mix of at least three land use types. • Residential uses should comprise a minimum of 20% of the development area at densities ranging from 6 to 15 units/acre. The conceptual plan only shows two uses... high intensity commercial (calling it CC) and medium density residential (R8). • Non-residential buildings should be proportional to and blend in with adjacent residential buildings. Vertically integrated structures are encouraged. These large scale commercial footprints closest to the residential areas are not even close to being proportional City Goal 3.05.02 maintain integrity of neighborhoods to preserve values and ambiance of areas City Goal require screening and buffering of all commercial and industrial properties to residential use with 3.06.01E transitional zoning City Goal 3.06.01F protect existing residential properties from incompatible land use development on adjacent parcels City Goal cluster new community commercial areas on arterials or collectors near residential areas in such a 3.06.026 way as to compliment adjoining residential uses • Unless a structure contains a mix of both residential and office, or residential and commercial land uses, maximum building size should be limited to a 30,000 square -foot building footprint. For community grocery stores, the maximum building size should be limited to a 60,000 square foot building footprint. For the development of public school sites, the maximum building size does not apply. Key words here are building FOOTPRINT, not tenant size. The buildings in the south east corner show three, approximately 20,000 to 25,000 sq. ft. tenant areas on the west end combined in one building for a footprint of approximately 70,000 sq. ft. That does not include the set back building with shared walls which has a foot print of 45,000 sq. ft. and that does not including the building on the far east end of this strip mall. This is being generous saying that the building is three separate masses... which I would argue that it is not. By definition this is a 125,000 sq. ft. strip mall; the type you would find in a CG location and the type that the city has identified in the comprehensive plan that we do not want to see built anymore, anywhere, in any zone. 40 Ow- M The proposed Winco is 85,000 sq ft. by itself. The three additional tenant areas create a building mass far in excess of what the standards for a mixed use community area allow, approximately 130,000 sq.ft.. This is not good land planning. It is what we are now trying to discourage; "strip malls". Definition Of STRIP MALL : a long usually one-story building or group of buildings housing several adjacent retail stores or service establishments. City Goal Use the comprehensive plan, the unified development code, and the 2.01.02D architectural standards manual to discourage strip development • Supportive and proportional public and/or quasi -public spaces and places including but not limited to parks, plazas, outdoor gathering areas, open space, libraries, and schools that comprise a minimum of 5% of the development area are required. Outdoor seating areas at restaurants do not count towards this requirement. it appears the developer is proposing their "plaza" or "gathering area" in the south east corner. 1 see no other open spaces other than the required landscaped areas. Ask yourself.... Does this even look like a plaza of any kind? Is this a place you would gather? To me it looks like a very nice fancy entrance to a building, nothing more. I sure cannot see myself gathering in front of a store to meet and greet my neighbors and this is surly not a destination I would go out of my way to sit and relax: it does not seem inviting. There are many fine examples of a plaza around the valley. This does not resemble any of them. Also this is nowhere close to 5% of the area (4 acres)... and they do not get to count the setback areas. City Goal provide plazas and public areas and integrate them as destinations that provide 4.04.01C places for recreation, social gathering and civic activities In developments where multiple commercial and/or office buildings are proposed (not residential), the buildings should be arranged to create some form of common, usable area, such as a plaza or green space. Look closely and you will see that this area is NOT defined by arraigning the buildings to accentuate the amenity. In fact it appears to be more of an afterthought pushed down and cast off to the south east corner... The requirement is intended to be a central area, a destination in and of itself. This is just the opposite. it is being used to define the buildings. Hence why I would call it a very nice entryway to the building and not a plaza. For the purposes of the Mixed Use section, the City identifies five different land use types: 1) commercial [includes retail, restaurants, etc.]; 2) office; 3) residential; 4) civic [includes public open space, parks, entertainment venues, etc.]; and, 5) industrial. All development in Mixed Use areas fall within one of_these _five catepories. Industrial uses are typically discouraged in residential mixed use areas. However, if the developer can demonstrate that industrial uses are compatible and appropriate in Mixed Use — Regional (MU -R), Mixed Use Non Residential (MUNR) and Mixed Use Interchange (MU -1) areas, the City will consider industrial uses, when proposed as part of a Mixed Use development. i` mixed use project should include at least three types of land uses. Exceptions may be granted for smaller sites on a case-by-case basis. SPECIALTY RETAIL I 1 LIVE WORK, i HESIAURANIS FAST CASUA FOOD AND BEVERAGE _J I i GROCERY/PETAND MIXED RETAIL / FUEL HEALTH AND MEDICAL --------- [] ENTERTAINMENT J `'1'--� - ` - SOFT GOODS RETAILFUTMDEVIMM While the developer is trying to make it look like they are fulfilling this requirement by listing 6 different potential use areas.., all of these areas fall under "commercial" as defined by the comprehensive plan. When you add in the residential this means that there are really only 2 land uses; not the three that are required. Their "plaza does not count since it is not even a Plaza. Can you identify it on this map as a separate and distinct land use? They do not even try. Community -serving facilities such as hospitals, churches, schools, parks, daycares, civic buildings, or public safety facilities are expected in larger mixed use developments. And where are these? Are they saying that mixed -retail and health/medical may possibly rent/buy from them so that they may comply? There is no guarantee.... Who knows who will rent/buy from them or where they may want to be located... this is just wishful thinking. Nothing in the above concept qualifies as anything but commercial as defined by the comprehensive plan. A conceptual site plan for the entire mixed use area should be included in the application. 1 7` i Areas marked future development do not qualify as part of a conceptual plan. All mixed use projects should be directly accessible to neighborhoods within the section by both vehicles and pedestrians. This is because the city envisions more of a "modified neo -traditional style" development where the residences surrounding the area feel that it is a part of their neighborhood. It should be something of which everyone wants to be a l I I j I N part. Good design faces the EMN, Single Family neighborhood and includes Residential the neighborhood. This Townhouses, I ! proposal turns its -back on the (ondosor 1!. F Apartments local orColledo—vad Space neighborhood. This ��-�cv9v9Jo-� ooa oav development proposal wants Residential l ' u o ` orto attract the people out on � � 90q• Chinden... NOT the neighborhood. If you want to A ° be a part of a group you do Itsnot turn your back on them, Mew Commerciall , Service Use o Retail(ore 0 T r T °icirulm you face them or stand next to 1 1 them. Our comprehensive plan offers visual examples of this. Arterial Road Hours Of Operation: Business hours of operation within the L -O and C -N districts shall be limited from six o'clock (6:00) A.M. to ten o'clock (10:00) P.M. Business hours of operation within the C- C and C -G districts shall be limited from six o'clock (6:00) A.M. to eleven o'clock (11:00) P.M. when the property abuts a residential use or district. Extended hours of operation in the C -C and C -G districts may be requested through a conditional use permit. These restrictions apply to all business operations occurring outside an enclosed structure, including, but not limited to, customer or client visits, trash compacting, and deliveries. These restrictions do not apply to business operations occurring within an enclosed structure, including, but not limited to, cleaning, bookkeeping, and after hours work by a limited number of employees. (Ord. 12-1514, 5-16-2012, eff. 5-21-2012) It has been very clearly stated to us that Winco plans to operate 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Yet they insist that they back up to residential areas. 24 hour operation will have a very negative impact on all the residences anywhere close to this store. They could push this store out to the corner of Chinden and Linder and buffer all the residences with lower intensity uses but Winco refuses to do so stating that "We have a business model we follow". Unfortunately our comprehensive plan calls for something different than their typical business model. lust because they want to follow their typical business model does not mean that we should forsake good land planning. As a neighborhood we would be willing to work with them. We would welcome a Winco to this location. They would have to follow our comprehensive plan and what we as a city have defined as good land planning though. Sorry Winco, we have a business model as well. City Goal Minimize noise, odor, air pollution and visual pollution in industrial and 3.06.018 commercial development adjacent to residential uses City Goal Sustain, enhance, promote and protect elements that contribute to the livability 2.01.00 and a high quality of life for all meridian residents. CITY CODE: 11-3A-19: STRUCTURE AND SITE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Encourage site design that provides an interconnected network of walkways, pathways, streets, and/or drive aisles that combined promote pedestrian and vehicular mobility within the development and connect to adjacent developments. This is City Code. This Concept plan makes a mockery of this code. 2. To facilitate the efficient movement of traffic into, out of, and through a site, protect pedestrian and bicycle users, establish an aesthetically consistent street presence and limit the visual impacts of large parking areas on a site. Again this is City Code. Miles and miles of parking lots do nothing to address this code. The pedestrian pathways are nothing more than adding a sidewalk next to where the cars will be driven... this design is automobile first... pedestrians are an afterthought. If you lived in our neighborhood and you wanted to go to one of the restaurants or stores out by Chinden how would you walk there? You personally might follow the sidewalk all the way around the outside of this development but what do you think the middle school, high school and college kids (and many of the adults) that live in our neighborhood are going to do? They are going to take the most direct route, straight across the parking lot. City Goal 2.01.01A Provide a walkable community through good design 3. Parking Lots: a. For properties greater than two (2) acres in size, no more than fifty percent (50%) of the total off street parking area for the site shall be located between building facades and abutting streets. This is City Code. Looks tome as if 100% of the parking is visible from the streets.... This code is meant to try and /tide most of this parking... while much of the parking can technically said to be between the buildings the design could easily be changed to address this much better than it does currently. Require all new and reconstructed parking lots to provide landscaping in internal islands and along streets, and to positively influence the physical and City Goal visual environment through screening, paving materials, and other landscaping 2.01.046 techniques. City Goal 2.01.02 Support beautiful development City Goal require landscape street buffers for all new development along entryway 2.01.02E corridors Provide landscaping, pedestrian friendly areas and appropriate signage at City Goal gateways, and new development sites throughout town as appropriate, with 2.01.03.1 upscale attractive construction b. For properties two (2) acres or less in size, a maximum of a single drive aisle with parking on one or both sides shall be allowed between the building facades and abutting streets. All other off street parking areas shall not be located between the building facades and abutting streets. c. The design and layout of internal site parking shall avoid long straight unbroken parking aisles, provide crossing drive aisles for internal circulation at approximately one hundred fifty foot (150') intervals, or provide parking that is perpendicular to the building. Please ask yourself if this concept try's to avoid long straight unbroken parking aisles? Can you say it does while keeping a straightface? City Goal Promote area beautification and community identity through building and site 2.01.04G design, signs, and landscaping d. Where on street parking is provided or where vehicle circulation is directed in front of building entries, integrate traffic calming strategies and techniques, such as landscape islands, bulb outs, and/or detailed crosswalks, to increase safety and enhance the development character. Where does this concept do this? Look at the storefronts. Nada. e. In the traditional neighborhood districts parking shall be primarily located behind or to the side of buildings and public spaces, away from block corners and roadways. f. When parking and drive-throughs cannot comply with the standards above, they shall be screened by berms, landscaping, walls, architectural elements, or a combination of these elements to produce an appropriate buffer adjacent to public spaces and roadways. And yet nothing addresses this code.... 4. Pedestrian Walkways: a. A continuous internal pedestrian walkway that is a minimum of five feet (5') in width shall be provided from the perimeter sidewalk to the main building entrance(s) for nonresidential uses. The walkway width shall be maintained clear of any obstructions, such as vehicles, outdoor sale displays, vending machines, or temporary structures. b. The internal pedestrian walkway shall be distinguished from the vehicular driving surfaces through the use of pavers, colored or scored concrete, or bricks. c. Unobstructed walkways at least five feet (5) in width shall be provided for any aisle length that is greater than one hundred fifty (150) parking spaces or two hundred feet (200') away from the primary building entrance(s). d. The walkways shall have weather protection (including, but not limited to, an awning or arcade) within twenty feet (20') of all customer entrances. Yes there is a pedestrian path on the outside and a few pathways in the parking area but they are a joke.... No one will use what is designed here (or at least only a few) Here they are an afterthought attached to where vehicles will flow. A good pedestrian design would naturally funnel people to the pedestrian pathways and would interconnect the entire plan. And where is the required weather ,protection? 11-313-8: PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING: 0 A. Purpose: The purpose of perimeter and internal parking lot landscaping is to soften and rr Kigate the visual effect of a lar � expanse of asphalt in parking lots. Landscaping can also reduce summer heat gain in parking areas and define pedestrian ways. B. Applicability: The requirements for perimeter and internal lot landscaping shall apply to all commercial, industrial and multi -family development, with the following exceptions: 1. Parking spaces adjoining loading areas in the I -L and I -H districts are excluded from the interior landscape requirements. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) 2. For parking lot reconstruction, exclusive of sealing, striping, or overlaying, all current landscape standards of this section shall be met, unless approved as set forth in section 11-1 B-4 of this title. (Ord. 16-1672, 2-16-2016) Vegetation Coverage: Required landscape areas shall be at least seventy percent (70%) covered with vegetation at maturity, with mulch used under and around the plants. This concept uses the bare minimum of landscaping and does not even try to meet the intent. This development would become a huge urban heat island. Wednesday, October 18, 2017 Dear Chairman and commissioners, I understand the position you are in having served on the commission myself for 7 years. You will find my name on the first page of acknowledgements in the current comprehensive plan. I have a leather bound copy that is now well worn. I also served on the traffic task force (before it was a commission). I spent the 90's working in development for a civil engineering firm and then I spent the next 15 years teaching land planning at the post -secondary level. I tell you these things because although I am only one opinion, and many would disagree with me, I do have some semblance of expertise and knowledge of the history that might help shed some light on the decision you have before you, and possibly other decisions down the road. There are two distinct issues that you will need to address. First, does this plan meet the guidelines the city has established for development? The City of Meridian has spent DECADES developing and refining those guidelines. Literally thousands of man hours have been spent creating those guidelines; the Comprehensive Plan. The City has determined that it is vitally important that developers follow these guidelines as a minimum. There is built in flexibility in the system so that if a developer finds a way to improve upon the minimum guidelines it would be encouraged. The city of Meridian even has a stated goal number 7.01.01H: which states Require that the Planning and Zoning Commission duties include detailed review of the adopted Comprehensive plan at least once a year and the decisions explicitly reflect support and advance of the plan as a primary factor of approval. Hey, that is you! Why is it so important to follow these plans? Because much like architecture, land planning has a dramatic influence on how we interact with the built environment. It directly affects our mood and therefore our satisfaction. City Goal Recognize that Meridian's population will continue to grow and positively 3.01.00 influence that growth. City Goal 3.01.02C Support and improve upon the current development review process. City Goal 4.01.00 make Meridian the premier place to live work and raise a family City Goal 4.01.01C provide incentives and standards to attract high-quality businesses The second distinct issue that you will need to address is access points to arterials and express ways. I will address each of these issues in order. I would like once again to point out that city goal 7.01.01H: states Require that the Planning and Zoning Commission duties include detailed review of the adopted Comprehensive plan at least once a year and the decisions explicitly reflect support and advance of the plan as a primary factor of approval. With that in mind, I would like to quote from the Comprehensive Plan and City Code: The following are copied and pasted from the comprehensive plan and from city code. In red are text from the comprehensive plan or city code where there are conflicts or issues with the proposed plan. In blue are the city goals as listed in the comprehensive plan. In green are my personal comments or are areas of concern with this plan. At its heart, everything set in this document (the comprehensive plan) seeks to improve the health, safety, well-being, and quality of life for existing and future residents of Meridian. Quality of life generally represents the social well-being of individuals in a community. Livability is another term used to express the overall relationship between community members and the satisfaction residents derive from their surroundings Often places that are livable have the "it" factor. They are neighborhoods where everyone wants to be at and seen in. Mixed Use Community (MU -C). The purpose of this designation is to allocate areas where community - serving uses and dwellings are seamlessly integrated into the urban fabric. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses, including residential, and to avoid mainly single -use and strip commercial type buildings. Non-residential buildings in these areas have a tendency to be larger than in Mixed Use— Neighborhood areas, but not as large as in Mixed Use – Regional areas. Goods and services in these areas tend to be of the variety that people will mainly travel by car to, but also walk or bike to (up to three or four miles). Employment opportunities for those living in and around the neighborhood are encouraged. Developments are encouraged to be designed according to the conceptual MU -C plan depicted in Figure 3-3. Apartments, Four-plexes or Duplexes Office or Service Use Local or Collector Road Single family Residential Office, Day-care or Service Use Retail Use Arterial Road Figure 3-3. MIXED USE COMMUNITY CONCEPT DIAGRAM Please note that the most intense uses are pushed out to the arterial roads. less intense uses are placed between residential and more intense uses. City Goal Require neighborhood and community commercial areas to create a site design 3.05.02A compatible with surrounding uses City Goal Identify transitional areas to buffer commercial and residential uses to allow 3.05.03A uses such as offices and other lower intensity uses City Goal 3.06.01 Proactively address potential conflicts between incompatible uses. CEJ nntm RfS"Mik DRLLOOM LIt v f' rorwt MMOMPO FUNK RE 5" NUAL CEYttCWLWNT ( num (0moft"T The Proposed Plan... In reviewing development applications, the following items will be considered in MU -C areas: • All developments should have a mix of at least three land use types. • Residential uses should comprise a minimum of 20% of the development area at densities ranging from 6 to 15 units/acre. The conceptual plan only shows two uses... high intensity commercial (calling it CC) and medium density residential (R8). • Non-residential buildings should be proportional to and blend in with adjacent residential buildings. Vertically integrated structures are encouraged. These large scale commercial footprints closest to the residential areas are not even close to being proportional City Goal 3.05.02 maintain integrity of neighborhoods to preserve values and ambiance of areas City Goal require screening and buffering of all commercial and industrial properties to residential use with 3.06.01E transitional zoning City Goal 3.06.01F protect existing residential properties from incompatible land use development on adjacent parcels City Goal cluster new community commercial areas on arterials or collectors near residential areas in such a 3.06.026 way as to compliment adjoining residential uses • Unless a structure contains a mix of both residential and office, or residential and commercial land uses, maximum building size should be limited to a 30,000 square -foot building footprint. For community grocery stores, the maximum building size should be limited to a 60,000 square foot building footprint. For the development of public school sites, the maximum building size does not apply. Key words here are building FOOTPRINT, not tenant size. The buildings in the south east corner show three, approximately 20,000 to 25,000 sq. ft. tenant areas on the west end combined in one building for a footprint of approximately 70,000 sq. ft. That does not include the set back building with shared walls which has a foot print of 45,000 sq. ft. and that does not including the building on the far east end of this strip mall. This is being generous saying that the building is three separate masses... which I would argue that it is not. By definition this is a 125,000 sq. ft. strip mall; the type you would find in a CG location and the type that the city has identified in the comprehensive plan that we do not want to see built anymore, anywhere, in any zone. 40 Ow- M The proposed Winco is 85,000 sq ft. by itself. The three additional tenant areas create a building mass far in excess of what the standards for a mixed use community area allow, approximately 130,000 sq.ft.. This is not good land planning. It is what we are now trying to discourage; "strip malls". Definition Of STRIP MALL : a long usually one-story building or group of buildings housing several adjacent retail stores or service establishments. City Goal Use the comprehensive plan, the unified development code, and the 2.01.02D architectural standards manual to discourage strip development • Supportive and proportional public and/or quasi -public spaces and places including but not limited to parks, plazas, outdoor gathering areas, open space, libraries, and schools that comprise a minimum of 5% of the development area are required. Outdoor seating areas at restaurants do not count towards this requirement. it appears the developer is proposing their "plaza" or "gathering area" in the south east corner. 1 see no other open spaces other than the required landscaped areas. Ask yourself.... Does this even look like a plaza of any kind? Is this a place you would gather? To me it looks like a very nice fancy entrance to a building, nothing more. I sure cannot see myself gathering in front of a store to meet and greet my neighbors and this is surly not a destination I would go out of my way to sit and relax: it does not seem inviting. There are many fine examples of a plaza around the valley. This does not resemble any of them. Also this is nowhere close to 5% of the area (4 acres)... and they do not get to count the setback areas. City Goal provide plazas and public areas and integrate them as destinations that provide 4.04.01C places for recreation, social gathering and civic activities In developments where multiple commercial and/or office buildings are proposed (not residential), the buildings should be arranged to create some form of common, usable area, such as a plaza or green space. Look closely and you will see that this area is NOT defined by arraigning the buildings to accentuate the amenity. In fact it appears to be more of an afterthought pushed down and cast off to the south east corner... The requirement is intended to be a central area, a destination in and of itself. This is just the opposite. it is being used to define the buildings. Hence why I would call it a very nice entryway to the building and not a plaza. For the purposes of the Mixed Use section, the City identifies five different land use types: 1) commercial [includes retail, restaurants, etc.]; 2) office; 3) residential; 4) civic [includes public open space, parks, entertainment venues, etc.]; and, 5) industrial. All development in Mixed Use areas fall within one of_these _five catepories. Industrial uses are typically discouraged in residential mixed use areas. However, if the developer can demonstrate that industrial uses are compatible and appropriate in Mixed Use — Regional (MU -R), Mixed Use Non Residential (MUNR) and Mixed Use Interchange (MU -1) areas, the City will consider industrial uses, when proposed as part of a Mixed Use development. i` mixed use project should include at least three types of land uses. Exceptions may be granted for smaller sites on a case-by-case basis. SPECIALTY RETAIL I 1 LIVE WORK, i HESIAURANIS FAST CASUA FOOD AND BEVERAGE _J I i GROCERY/PETAND MIXED RETAIL / FUEL HEALTH AND MEDICAL --------- [] ENTERTAINMENT J `'1'--� - ` - SOFT GOODS RETAILFUTMDEVIMM While the developer is trying to make it look like they are fulfilling this requirement by listing 6 different potential use areas.., all of these areas fall under "commercial" as defined by the comprehensive plan. When you add in the residential this means that there are really only 2 land uses; not the three that are required. Their "plaza does not count since it is not even a Plaza. Can you identify it on this map as a separate and distinct land use? They do not even try. Community -serving facilities such as hospitals, churches, schools, parks, daycares, civic buildings, or public safety facilities are expected in larger mixed use developments. And where are these? Are they saying that mixed -retail and health/medical may possibly rent/buy from them so that they may comply? There is no guarantee.... Who knows who will rent/buy from them or where they may want to be located... this is just wishful thinking. Nothing in the above concept qualifies as anything but commercial as defined by the comprehensive plan. A conceptual site plan for the entire mixed use area should be included in the application. 1 7` i Areas marked future development do not qualify as part of a conceptual plan. All mixed use projects should be directly accessible to neighborhoods within the section by both vehicles and pedestrians. This is because the city envisions more of a "modified neo -traditional style" development where the residences surrounding the area feel that it is a part of their neighborhood. It should be something of which everyone wants to be a l I I j I N part. Good design faces the EMN, Single Family neighborhood and includes Residential the neighborhood. This Townhouses, I ! proposal turns its -back on the (ondosor 1!. F Apartments local orColledo—vad Space neighborhood. This ��-�cv9v9Jo-� ooa oav development proposal wants Residential l ' u o ` orto attract the people out on � � 90q• Chinden... NOT the neighborhood. If you want to A ° be a part of a group you do Itsnot turn your back on them, Mew Commerciall , Service Use o Retail(ore 0 T r T °icirulm you face them or stand next to 1 1 them. Our comprehensive plan offers visual examples of this. Arterial Road Hours Of Operation: Business hours of operation within the L -O and C -N districts shall be limited from six o'clock (6:00) A.M. to ten o'clock (10:00) P.M. Business hours of operation within the C- C and C -G districts shall be limited from six o'clock (6:00) A.M. to eleven o'clock (11:00) P.M. when the property abuts a residential use or district. Extended hours of operation in the C -C and C -G districts may be requested through a conditional use permit. These restrictions apply to all business operations occurring outside an enclosed structure, including, but not limited to, customer or client visits, trash compacting, and deliveries. These restrictions do not apply to business operations occurring within an enclosed structure, including, but not limited to, cleaning, bookkeeping, and after hours work by a limited number of employees. (Ord. 12-1514, 5-16-2012, eff. 5-21-2012) It has been very clearly stated to us that Winco plans to operate 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Yet they insist that they back up to residential areas. 24 hour operation will have a very negative impact on all the residences anywhere close to this store. They could push this store out to the corner of Chinden and Linder and buffer all the residences with lower intensity uses but Winco refuses to do so stating that "We have a business model we follow". Unfortunately our comprehensive plan calls for something different than their typical business model. lust because they want to follow their typical business model does not mean that we should forsake good land planning. As a neighborhood we would be willing to work with them. We would welcome a Winco to this location. They would have to follow our comprehensive plan and what we as a city have defined as good land planning though. Sorry Winco, we have a business model as well. City Goal Minimize noise, odor, air pollution and visual pollution in industrial and 3.06.018 commercial development adjacent to residential uses City Goal Sustain, enhance, promote and protect elements that contribute to the livability 2.01.00 and a high quality of life for all meridian residents. CITY CODE: 11-3A-19: STRUCTURE AND SITE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Encourage site design that provides an interconnected network of walkways, pathways, streets, and/or drive aisles that combined promote pedestrian and vehicular mobility within the development and connect to adjacent developments. This is City Code. This Concept plan makes a mockery of this code. 2. To facilitate the efficient movement of traffic into, out of, and through a site, protect pedestrian and bicycle users, establish an aesthetically consistent street presence and limit the visual impacts of large parking areas on a site. Again this is City Code. Miles and miles of parking lots do nothing to address this code. The pedestrian pathways are nothing more than adding a sidewalk next to where the cars will be driven... this design is automobile first... pedestrians are an afterthought. If you lived in our neighborhood and you wanted to go to one of the restaurants or stores out by Chinden how would you walk there? You personally might follow the sidewalk all the way around the outside of this development but what do you think the middle school, high school and college kids (and many of the adults) that live in our neighborhood are going to do? They are going to take the most direct route, straight across the parking lot. City Goal 2.01.01A Provide a walkable community through good design 3. Parking Lots: a. For properties greater than two (2) acres in size, no more than fifty percent (50%) of the total off street parking area for the site shall be located between building facades and abutting streets. This is City Code. Looks tome as if 100% of the parking is visible from the streets.... This code is meant to try and /tide most of this parking... while much of the parking can technically said to be between the buildings the design could easily be changed to address this much better than it does currently. Require all new and reconstructed parking lots to provide landscaping in internal islands and along streets, and to positively influence the physical and City Goal visual environment through screening, paving materials, and other landscaping 2.01.046 techniques. City Goal 2.01.02 Support beautiful development City Goal require landscape street buffers for all new development along entryway 2.01.02E corridors Provide landscaping, pedestrian friendly areas and appropriate signage at City Goal gateways, and new development sites throughout town as appropriate, with 2.01.03.1 upscale attractive construction b. For properties two (2) acres or less in size, a maximum of a single drive aisle with parking on one or both sides shall be allowed between the building facades and abutting streets. All other off street parking areas shall not be located between the building facades and abutting streets. c. The design and layout of internal site parking shall avoid long straight unbroken parking aisles, provide crossing drive aisles for internal circulation at approximately one hundred fifty foot (150') intervals, or provide parking that is perpendicular to the building. Please ask yourself if this concept try's to avoid long straight unbroken parking aisles? Can you say it does while keeping a straightface? City Goal Promote area beautification and community identity through building and site 2.01.04G design, signs, and landscaping d. Where on street parking is provided or where vehicle circulation is directed in front of building entries, integrate traffic calming strategies and techniques, such as landscape islands, bulb outs, and/or detailed crosswalks, to increase safety and enhance the development character. Where does this concept do this? Look at the storefronts. Nada. e. In the traditional neighborhood districts parking shall be primarily located behind or to the side of buildings and public spaces, away from block corners and roadways. f. When parking and drive-throughs cannot comply with the standards above, they shall be screened by berms, landscaping, walls, architectural elements, or a combination of these elements to produce an appropriate buffer adjacent to public spaces and roadways. And yet nothing addresses this code.... 4. Pedestrian Walkways: a. A continuous internal pedestrian walkway that is a minimum of five feet (5') in width shall be provided from the perimeter sidewalk to the main building entrance(s) for nonresidential uses. The walkway width shall be maintained clear of any obstructions, such as vehicles, outdoor sale displays, vending machines, or temporary structures. b. The internal pedestrian walkway shall be distinguished from the vehicular driving surfaces through the use of pavers, colored or scored concrete, or bricks. c. Unobstructed walkways at least five feet (5) in width shall be provided for any aisle length that is greater than one hundred fifty (150) parking spaces or two hundred feet (200') away from the primary building entrance(s). d. The walkways shall have weather protection (including, but not limited to, an awning or arcade) within twenty feet (20') of all customer entrances. Yes there is a pedestrian path on the outside and a few pathways in the parking area but they are a joke.... No one will use what is designed here (or at least only a few) Here they are an afterthought attached to where vehicles will flow. A good pedestrian design would naturally funnel people to the pedestrian pathways and would interconnect the entire plan. And where is the required weather ,protection? 11-313-8: PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING: 0 A. Purpose: The purpose of perimeter and internal parking lot landscaping is to soften and rr Kigate the visual effect of a lar � expanse of asphalt in parking lots. Landscaping can also reduce summer heat gain in parking areas and define pedestrian ways. B. Applicability: The requirements for perimeter and internal lot landscaping shall apply to all commercial, industrial and multi -family development, with the following exceptions: 1. Parking spaces adjoining loading areas in the I -L and I -H districts are excluded from the interior landscape requirements. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) 2. For parking lot reconstruction, exclusive of sealing, striping, or overlaying, all current landscape standards of this section shall be met, unless approved as set forth in section 11-1 B-4 of this title. (Ord. 16-1672, 2-16-2016) Vegetation Coverage: Required landscape areas shall be at least seventy percent (70%) covered with vegetation at maturity, with mulch used under and around the plants. This concept uses the bare minimum of landscaping and does not even try to meet the intent. This development would become a huge urban heat island. b. Easements: Where the buffer is encumbered by easements or other restrictions, the buffer area shall include a minimum five foot (5) wide area for planting shrubs and trees. (Ord. 05- 1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) Of additional concern is the irrigation easement all along the southern boundary of this project. it is not shown nor is it addressed in any way. Of special concern is the easement in the area of the "future residential where it abuts the existing residential. How will that area be treated? Chain link fencing and weeds? No trees or bushes can be planted. What about the north facing houses that will be built in the future, will they even have room to plant trees in their back yards? Those are south facing back yards. C. Standards: 1. For Perimeter Landscaping: The following standards apply to the perimeter of parking or other vehicular use areas, including driveways: a. Requirement: Provide a five foot (6) wide minimum landscape buffer adjacent to parking, loading, or other paved vehicular use areas, including driveways, vehicle sales areas, truck parking areas, bus parking areas, and vehicle storage areas, subject to the following exceptions: (1) This requirement may be reduced or waived at the determination of the director where there is a shared driveway and/or recorded cross parking agreement and easement with an adjacent property. (2) This requirement may be reduced or waived at the determination of the director for truck maneuvering areas in industrial districts. (Ord. 09-1420, 6-23-2009, eff. 6-23-2009) b. Landscaping: The perimeter landscape buffer shall be planted with one tree per thirty five (35) linear feet and shrubs, lawn, or other vegetative ground cover. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-8-2005, eff. 9-15-2005). The point is that because the Planning and Zoning Commission decisions must explicitly reflect support and advance of the comprehensive plan as a primary factor of approval. You must ask yourself; does this project meet the explicit requirements of the comprehensive plan let alone the intent? If one of my students turned this in to me they would receive an F. They did not follow the guidelines for the project as clearly laid out. b. Easements: Where the buffer is encumbered by easements or other restrictions, the buffer area shall include a minimum five foot (5) wide area for planting shrubs and trees. (Ord. 05- 1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) Of additional concern is the irrigation easement all along the southern boundary of this project. it is not shown nor is it addressed in any way. Of special concern is the easement in the area of the "future residential where it abuts the existing residential. How will that area be treated? Chain link fencing and weeds? No trees or bushes can be planted. What about the north facing houses that will be built in the future, will they even have room to plant trees in their back yards? Those are south facing back yards. C. Standards: 1. For Perimeter Landscaping: The following standards apply to the perimeter of parking or other vehicular use areas, including driveways: a. Requirement: Provide a five foot (6) wide minimum landscape buffer adjacent to parking, loading, or other paved vehicular use areas, including driveways, vehicle sales areas, truck parking areas, bus parking areas, and vehicle storage areas, subject to the following exceptions: (1) This requirement may be reduced or waived at the determination of the director where there is a shared driveway and/or recorded cross parking agreement and easement with an adjacent property. (2) This requirement may be reduced or waived at the determination of the director for truck maneuvering areas in industrial districts. (Ord. 09-1420, 6-23-2009, eff. 6-23-2009) b. Landscaping: The perimeter landscape buffer shall be planted with one tree per thirty five (35) linear feet and shrubs, lawn, or other vegetative ground cover. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-8-2005, eff. 9-15-2005). The point is that because the Planning and Zoning Commission decisions must explicitly reflect support and advance of the comprehensive plan as a primary factor of approval. You must ask yourself; does this project meet the explicit requirements of the comprehensive plan let alone the intent? If one of my students turned this in to me they would receive an F. They did not follow the guidelines for the project as clearly laid out. Now to address my concerns over access points. So the City of Meridian identified the South East corner of Chinden and Linder to grow as mixed use community. Why? There are many reasons but, first and foremost, the Compass plan identifies Chinden as an east -west express way. That is one step up from Eagle Road which is identified as a major arterial. Compass, our regional planning consortium, of which Meridian is an active participant, has identified Chinden as an "express way", one step above a major arterial and one step below an interstate, from 184 in Caldwell to Eagle road. ITD has even publicized (in a local newspaper a few months ago) a design for the intersection of Linder and Chinden that would be a continuous flow interchange. US 20120 CORRIDOR STUDY :J n .... the model is designed to increase safety and traffic flows, said Adam Rush, Idaho Transportation Department public involvement coordinator. ITD is proposing to use the continuous -flow model at six intersections on Chinden Boulevard in the future, as funding allows and traffic volumes warrant. Those intersections involve Locust Grove Road, Meridian Road, Linder Road, Star Road, Middleton Road and Eagle Road, Rush said By Holly Beech hbeech@mymeridianpress.com May 10, 2017 City Goal work with COMPASS, ACRD, ITD, and other regional partners to develop and 3.03.02A manage a well-planned, sustainable, multi -modal transportation system City Goal Consider and adopt COMPASS regional long-range transportation plan in all land 3.03.02G use decisions City Goal Encourage and promote the preservation and expansion of Chinden Boulavard 3.03.02L (US20/26) by ITD City Goal 3.03.03B provide the most efficient transportation network possible Any approved access to Chinden Boulevard will be detrimental to these plans. To know why we have to go back to the history of development along Eagle Road. Ask anyone, Eagle Road does not flow traffic the way it was originally designed. The speed limit on Eagle Road is 55 mph. How often can you drive that speed on Eagle Road? Typical speeds are in the 35 to 45 range. Again why? Ask any traffic engineer, they all answer the same, because of too many access points. The original design for Eagle Road was to have access points at the half mile. All development, the stores etc. would be accessed through frontage roads that would parallel Eagle. That is not how it turned out though is it? In fact, as it built out, there were so many full access points we were having the highest number of high speed head on collisions and fatalities in the state. There are too many locations where people are getting on Eagle and trying to get up to speed or slowing down to get off Eagle; access points. Why? We as a city did not approve them. The traffic task force was told ITD has a legal mandate from the state within their charter to provide "adequate access to all state highways". ITD has made it very clear that if a city approves large regional shopping, then they feel that they are compelled by this mandate to provide a FULL access point, no matter what they agreed to in the Compass plan. In the applicants packet you will find a letter from ITD stating they agree to a conditional approval for a full signalized intersection. That letter and approval is conditional upon the approval of the city of Meridian. Do not approve a signalized intersection at Chinden and Bergman, at the % mile point. That is right; there is already a signal at Linder, and the % mile, Fox Run, and at the 1 mile, Meridian road. This signalized intersection would be at the % mile. ITD is saying it is up to you. Remember also there is only three major east — west corridors, state street/highway 44, Chinden/highway 20-26, and the interstate. Directly off the ITD website: What are the disadvantages of a stoplight? Stoplights in the wrong location can actually contribute to the problems they were meant to alleviate. Misplaced signals increase rear end accidents and in some cases, angle collisions still occur at signalized intersections when motorists run red lights. Stoplights can also create unnecessary travel on alternate routes and a more congested traffic flow. They can also create excessive delays, which in turn increase driver aggravation and encourage motorists to disobey signals. This problem is increased when stoplights are placed too close to each other. On an average State Highway, where signals are placed one-half of a mile apart, a driver can maintain an average speed of 36 mph. When the signals are spaced one-quarter of a mile from each other, the maximum average speed a driver can maintain drops to 18 mph. i3 n,•, �c '-h o tK o o n w w � m a � m 3 c o o c 3g O c n » o o_ c O F O S V •' N O o - m�m O w W 1, W rel .___.._. • � .r • • 1 i i i3 n,•, �c '-h i3 tlsa � 1, J CD m N (n C O O (n Fly7 C r� a O CL (D 7 ,m�m V 6 Q m 3 D X 3 CL S 3 fDrD rD O y 11 N Q + (D + O 3 O N r} 7 O o M v_ O s3 v m ((D n < -O O O 3 N DO a N zraq n J 3 OO C V WM 3 W 40 J a � 3 q 0 c � m m &R%¥[ O }Si §] (D Q E 2 / E \ ? �&\m o O _0 •e��� . CD ao> \ \ 0 \ � o � @� - (D r C-) . � a O � ? W C Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: October 19, 2017 ITEM NUMBER: 4B PROJECT NUMBER: H-2017-0095 ITEM TITLE: Linder Mixed Use Public Hearing for Linder Mixed Use (H-2017-0095) by TMEG Properties, LLC Located at 5960 and 5940 North Linder Road 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 5 (Five) Acres of Land with C -C (1.59 Acres) and R- 15 (3.41 Acres) Zoning Districts 2. Request: Rezone of 3.36 Acres of Land from the L -O to the R-15 (1.43 Acres) and C -C (1.93 Acres) Zoning District r ,,rETING NOTES CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET Date: October 19, 2017 Item # Project Number: Project Name: H-2017-0095 Linder Mixed Use -- Please print your name For Against Neutral Do you wish to tp-sti (Y/N) 9il^V c P d C1 'M G �� re '>� 'Y A) 1 r �b iv X /2 11 o YI/ M l 114, v,1 LAlf AT" LJa y- It P 1 5 Id ez , V? CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET Date: October 19, 2017 Item # Project Number: Project Name: H-2017-0095 Linder Mixed Use Please print your name For Against Neutral Do you wish to testify (YIN) no L,oa i ,/e +0 A-rr- rte, Re - Ile J �( �1� �� � �r e' wCi t��/r 4.i- � X V �� ICQ, Qr% V J N WL15 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET Date: October 19, 2017 Item # Project Number: Project Name: H-2017-0095 Linder Mixed Use Please print your name For Against Neutral Do you wish to testify (Y/N) J � G k /� � �Jo T-�Ku", o ko �EA)O,J(LV_. �Ofo_n v 5 U-. �h-Q/l�� / /V Akr+ e e " /V CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET Date: October 19, 2017 Item # Project Number: Project Name: H-2017-0095 Linder Mixed Use Please print your name For Against Neutral Do you wish to testify (Y/N) i rC', sA&YS- IAU G{ r S 3 Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: October 19, 2017 ITEM NUMBER: 4C PROJECT NUMBER: H-2017-0129 ITEM TITLE: East Ridge Estates Public Hearing for East Ridge Estates Subdivision (H-2017-0129) by DevCo LLC Located at North of East Lake Hazel Road and West of South Eagle Road 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 40.99 Acres of Land with R-4 and R-15 Zoning Districts 2. Request: Preliminary Plat Conisisting of 139 Building Lots and 7 (Seven) Common Lots on 40.99 Acres of Land in a Proposed R-8 Zoning District MEETING NOTES 9 CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS LAKE HAZEL CORRIDOR 45’ Rear and 7.5’ Setbacks on Rim Lots Open Vision Iron Fence Along North and East Boundary Relocated Neighborhood Park VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD “Age Restricted” Gated Village neighborhood for Mature Buyer Simple and Secure Lifestyle All-inclusive Maintenance Program Clubhouse provides gathering spot for social interaction Single-Level Homes up to 2,000 square feet Price point from the high $200k to the mid $300k Traffic: 60% LESS traffic than a typical R-4 neighborhood BLACKROCK INTERCONNECTIVITY TRAFFIC 32% Reduction in Overall Traffic Revised: Previous: MERIDIAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP Allowable Density per Comp Plan: 213 Total Lots •Low Density: 23 acres at 3 lots per acre = 69 lots •Medium Density: 18 acres at 8 lots per acre = 144 lots East Ridge Estates: 137 Total Lots •Low Density: 23 acres at 1.8 lots per acre = 41 lots •Medium Density: 18 acres at 5.4 lots per acre = 96 VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD PARK LOCATION IN CONCLUSION Clarify Page 7, IX Analysis A. 2. Gates c. Provide pedestrian access at two points. Delete Conditions: 1.1.1.e. – applicant shall provide a children’s play structure in the common lot located in the R-4 portion of the project. 1.1.2.l. – applicant shall relocate the open space. TYPICAL SECTIONS EAST RIDGE ESTATES VICINITY MAP SKY MESA BLACKROCK PROPERTY BOUNDARY MERIDIAN UDC AREA MAP 77 ACRE REGIONAL PARK EXISTING STUB ROAD FROM BLACKROCK TO EAST RIDGE ESTATES BLACKROCK SUBDIVISION Residential Sq. Ft.: 2,572 to 5,757 (with one at 7,747) 300% Value: $412,300 to $875,000 – 212% WESTERN PROPERTIES NORTHEAST CORNER L v v/ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET Date: October 19, 2017 Item # Project Number: Project Name: H-2017-0129 alt East Ridge Estates Subdivision Please print your name For Against Neutral Do you wish to to tify (Y/N) A -h n P,� An n of fluAvn Vv\ \,Tv(K X Y �e ele- AJLAW, 0 J X_:)oa> ' � ob, rc lj(-\--, 01 Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: October 19, 2017 ITEM NUMBER: 4D PROJECT NUMBER: H-2017-0104 ITEM TITLE: Movado Greens Sub. Fublic Hearing tor Movado Greens Subdivision - - y ev o LLU Locateda the South Side of East Overland Road Between South Topaz Way and South Cloverdale Road 1. Request: Rezone of Approximately 1 1.08 Acres from C -G to the R-15 Zoning District 2. Request: Preliminary Plat Consisting of 96 Single Family Residential Lots, Six (6) Commercial Lots and 7 (Seven) Common Lots on Approximately 24.23 Acres in the proposed C -G and R-15 Zoning District 3. Request: Conditional Use Permit Modification to Reduce the Acreage of the _AnnrtmPnt PrniPrt to RPrii irP the Ni imN-r of I Inik Mndif i the PrnnnePri AmPnitiPe nnri MEETING NOTES CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET Date: October 19, 2017 Item # Project Number: Project Name: H-2017-0104 09 Movado Greens Subivision Please print your name For Against Neutral Do you wish to testify (Y/N) F Tel 1, . Kewliki, Movado Greens Movado Greens Movado Estates Urban Product Neighborhood Park Movado Estates Amenities Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: October 19, 2017 ITEM NUMBER: 4E PROJECT NUMBER: H-2017-0130 ITEM TITLE: Veranda Senior Living Public Hearing for Veranda Senior Living (H-2017-0130) By Brighton Investments LLC Located Approximately'/2 Mile East of South Eagle Road on the South Side of East Amity Road 1. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a Residential Care Faciltiy on 3.38 Acres of Land in the C -N Zoning District MEETING NOTES CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET Date: October 19, 2017 Item # Project Number: H-2017-0130 Project Name: 4E Veranda Senior Living Please print your name For Against Neutral DoIu wish totestifv (Y/N)