Loading...
2019-12-05MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Thursday, December 5, 2019 at 6:00 PM 1. Roll-Call Attendance __X__Lisa Holland __X__Andrew Seal __X__Rhonda McCarvel _____Vacant 2. Adoption of Agenda - Adopted 3. Consent Agenda [Action Item] - _____Reid Olsen __X__Ryan Fitzgerald - Chairperson __X__Bill Cassinelli A. Approve Minutes of November 21, 2019 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 4. Action Items Land Use Public Hearing Process: After the Public H earing is opened the staff report will be presented by the assigned city planner. Following Staff's report the applicant has up to 15 minutes to present their application. Each member of the public may provide testimony up to 3 minutes or if they are representing a larger group, such as a Homeowners Association, they may be allowed 10 minutes. The applicant is then allowed 10 additional minutes to respond to the pub lic's comments. No additional public testimony is taken once the public hearing is closed. A. Public Hearing for Edington Commons (H-2019-0109) by G20, LLC, located at 3610 N. Linder Rd. Continued to January 16, 2020 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 14.56 acres of land with R-15 zoning; and 2. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 92 building lots, 10 common lots and 4 other lots for common driveways on 13.49 acres of land in an R-15 zoning district. B. Public Hearing Continued from November 21, 2019 for Silverstone Apartments (H-2019-0104) by Dave Evans Construction, Located at 4107 E. Overland Rd. Applicant withdrew application. 1. Request: Modification to the Conditional Use Permit (H-2016-0060) to increase the number of dwelling units in the multi-family development from 112 to 204, increase the acreage from 5.61 to 10 acres, and update the development plan for the site. Meeting Adjourned at 7:59 p.m Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting December 5, 2019. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of December 5, 2019, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Commissioner Ryan Fitzgerald. Members Present: Commissioner Rhonda McCarvel, Commissioner Ryan Fitzgerald, Commissioner Lisa Holland, Commissioner Andrew Seal and Commissioner Bill Cassinelli. Members Absent: Commissioner Olsen. Others Present: Adrienne Weatherly, Andrea Pogue, Bill Parsons, Sonya Allen and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-call Attendance __X____ Lisa Holland _______ Reid Olsen __X___ Andrew Seal ___X___ Ryan Fitzgerald __X___ Rhonda McCarvel ___X___ Bill Cassinelli ______ Vacant Fitzgerald: At this time -- good evening, ladies and gentlemen. At this time I would like to call to order the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning meeting for the date of December 5th and let's start with roll call. Item 2: Adoption of Agenda Fitzgerald: Thank you, Madam Clerk. The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. We have one change. If anyone else is here for the Summerset Apartments application, which is H-2019-0104, they are withdrawing that application, so the applicant has requested that be withdrawn. So, that won't be heard tonight. So, if you are here for that we are going to pass on that application tonight, because they are withdrawing it. With that change, can I get a motion to adopt agenda as amended. Seal: So moved. Holland: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as amended for December 5th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same. Motion passes. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 19, 2019 – Page 4 of 92 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 5, 2019 Page 2 of 43 Item 3: Consent Agenda [Action Item] A. Approve Minutes of November 21, 2019 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Fitzgerald: The next one on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. We have one item on the agenda, which is the approval of minutes for the P&Z meeting for November 21st, 2019. With that being said, can I get a motion to adopt the Consent Agenda? Cassinelli: So moved. McCarvel: Second. Seal: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to adopt the Consent Agenda as presented. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same? Motion passes. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Fitzgerald: Okay. At this time I want to take the opportunity to explain the public hearing process for this evening. We will open each item, which we have one item on the agenda, and, then, start with the staff report. They will report their findings and how the item or the application 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 the approval of their application and respond to any staff comments. The applicant will have 15 minutes to do so. After such time the applicant will -- as they finish we will open for public testimony. Hopefully when you guys came in there is an iPad in the back to sign up. Make sure if you would like to testify tonight that your name is on there, so we can keep track of who is testifying. If any individual is here for an HOA and there is a show of hands, folks who would like to have the HOA representative speak on their behalf , we will give them ten minutes to present on behalf of the HOA and is there anyone here from an HOA or representing an HOA tonight? Just want to make sure. No? Okay. So, after the public has a chance to say their comments, we will provide the applicant an opportunity to close the discussion and respond to any questions or requests or comments from the audience and, then, we will close the public hearing and give the -- the Commission a chance to deliberate on whether they want to make a recommendation on the application. Item 4: Action Items A. Public Hearing for Edington Commons (H-2019-0109) by G20, LLC, located at 3610 N. Linder Rd. 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 14.56 acres of land with R-15 zoning; and Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 19, 2019 – Page 5 of 92 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 5, 2019 Page 3 of 43 2. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 92 building lots, 10 common lots and 4 other lots for common driveways on 13.49 acres of land in an R-15 zoning district. Fitzgerald: So, with that we will shift and open the public hearing to -- on H-2019-0109, the Edington Commons application and we will start with the staff report. Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Mr. Cassinelli. Cassinelli: If I may, before we start, I just want to let my fellow Commissioners know for the record that I -- earlier today I e-mailed both Planning and Legal, because I had -- I live near the area and I had noticed that the -- the notice sign has been down and not visible. In fact, I didn't even -- when I saw it on the agenda I hadn't ever seen a sign and , then, I noticed it was -- it was laying on its side. So, I -- I just e-mailed that to Planning and to Legal, but I want to just let you know that I don't -- that that -- that issue will not -- does not affect -- will not have any effect on my decision, but I wanted to let everybody know that and put that on public record that I did e-mail. Fitzgerald: Appreciate that. Thank you. And, Andrea, anything else we need to do to cover that? Pogue: No. Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you. With that we appreciate your comments and thank you. Sonya, we will hand it over to you for staff report and go from there. Allen: Mr. Chair, Commissioners, the application before you is a request for annexation and zoning and a preliminary plat. This site consists of 13.49 acres of land. It's zoned RUT in Ada county and is located just north of West Ustick Road on the east side of North Linder Road at 3610 North Linder Road. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north is Sawtooth Middle School, zoned R-4. To the south is vacant undeveloped land conceptually approved for commercial uses, zoned C-C. That was the Sugarman property. To the east are rural residential agricultural properties with a home, zoned RUT in Ada county and to the west is Linder Road and rural residential agricultural property with a home, zoned RUT in the county and a future storage facility that was recently approved, zoned C-C. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for this property is medium density residential, which calls for three to eight dwelling units per acre. The applicant is requesting annexation and zoning of 14.56 acres of land with an R-15 zoning district for the development of 92 single family residential attached and detached units, at a gross density of 6.83 units per acre, consistent with the medium density residential future land use map designation. A preliminary plat is proposed as shown that consists of 92 building lots, ten common lots, and four other lots on 13.49 acres of land in the R-15 zoning district. The plat is proposed to develop in two phases. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 19, 2019 – Page 6 of 92 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 5, 2019 Page 4 of 43 Access is proposed via North Linder Road, an arterial street, a stub streets proposed to the east and south for future extension. Public streets are proposed for internal access. Some with 27 foot wide street sections and those are -- are reduced from the typical and only allow parking on one side of the street and that is this entry street right here, Windswept, and, then, Woodpine Street here in the middle. Four common driveways are proposed for access to homes off the public streets. A parking exhibit was submitted as shown that demonstrates the amount of on -street parking available within the development, due to the reduced 27 foot wide street sections proposed for Windswept Drive and Woodpine Street, which restricts parking to only one side of the street and narrow building lots with 20 foot wide driveways, leaving little room for on-street parking. Parking is a concern for this development. A total of 50 on -street parking spaces are available for use by residents and guests , as depicted on the plan there. Although the minimum parking standards for off-street parking are met, staff is concerned the amount of on-street parking may not be adequate as historically there have been issues with residents using their garages for storage, rather than parking, and people parking on both sides of narrow streets where parking is restricted , blocking emergency vehicle access. If the Commission feels the on-street parking is not adequate, wider street sections that would allow parking on both sides of the street, wider building lots and/or additional parking spaces in common areas could be required. They are not curr ently required in the staff report. A minimum of ten percent qualified open space and one site amenity is required to be provided for the development. The open space exhibit submitted includes areas shown is the hatched areas here. It is not qualified towards the minimum requirements. W ithout these areas the project does not meet the minimum open space standard. In order for the area along the northern boundary where the Coleman Lateral is located to qualify as linear open space it would need to have an access at each end and the entire area would need to be improved and landscaped with at least one deciduous shade tree per 8,000 square feet and lawn over the entire area. Because this area is entirely encompassed by an irrigation district easement that this isn't feasible. They won't allow trees. They may allow the -- the grass through a license agreement. I'm not sure. But they won't allow trees. Because the parkways -- excuse me -- the pathways master plan depicts a multi-use pathway in this general area. Staff is recommending a 20 foot wide common lot is provided along the rear of the building lots adjacent to the canal outside of the irrigation district 's easement with a ten foot wide pathway and five feet of landscaping on either side , with a micro path connection to the pathway near the east side of the development. So, that pathway would -- is envisioned to be in a 20 foot common lot along the backside of these lots right here and , then, a micro path approximately in this location right here. This pathway would eventually extend to the east when the abutting property redevelops to the existing pathway in Woodburn West, providing a connection to the on-street pathway along Linder Road and safe pedestrian access to the middle school to the north. Site amenities are proposed in excess of the minimum required as follows: A children's play structure, swing set, seating benches, climbing rocks, climbing dome and a micro path. City code requires irrigation laterals, such as the Coleman Lateral, to be piped if they are not improved as a water amenity or linear open space. As previously mentioned, the area cannot be counted as linear open space and it's not being improved as a water amenity per code requirements. Council may waive the requirement for the ditch to be piped if it finds a public purpose Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 19, 2019 – Page 7 of 92 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 5, 2019 Page 5 of 43 requiring such will not be served and public safety can be preserved. Because fencing is proposed adjacent to the canal, staff feels public safety can be preserved if Council wishes to approve a waiver. If a 20 foot wide common lot is added in this area for a pathway as recommended by staff, a fence would need to be constructed between the pathway and the ditch to preserve public safety. Conceptual building elevations were submitted as shown for the proposed attached and detached structures. All homes along the west perimeter of the development adjacent to Linder Road are proposed to be a single story in height and those are inducted in red here. All the lots indicated in red are single story. The yellow are two story. Building materials consist of a mix of siding, horizontal and vertical lap siding, and board and batten, with stone veneer accents. Colors are very monochromatic. The attached structures are required to comply with the design standards in the architectural standards manual, which include a requirement for a cohesive color scheme to be used, featuring a minimum of two field colors, a trim color, and an accent color or unique material. Garage door colors should coincide with this scheme or other accents. This is recommended as a DA provision. Staff is recommending these standards also apply to the D -- excuse me -- detached units for consistency. To endure homes are constructed with eaves consistent with the proposed concept building elevations for aesthetic, as well as to keep water away from the walls and foundation, staff is recommending a DA provision requiring all homes within the development to be constructed with minimum one foot wide fire rated eaves on all four sides. At the Commission hearing for the Alpina -- Elpina townhome project previously proposed on the adjacent mixed use designated property to the south -- but it was later withdrawn. There was a lot of discussion by the Commission pertaining to their desire for that property and the subject property to develop uniformly to ensure a true mix and integration of uses in this area. Because only a stub street is proposed to the adjacent property and the backside of homes face that property, staff is recommending that the Commission determine if the proposed development provides an adequate transition to the mixed use development as desired. Written testimony has been received from Whitney Montgomery in support of the project and a copy of the letter from Laren Bailey, Devco, the applicant, to Steven and Andrea Lloyd, the property owners to the east, agreeing to limit the height of homes to a single story adjacent to their property on Lots 20 and 23 through 26, Block 1. And that's the red ones right here. Staff is recommending this restriction is included as a provision in the DA per the exhibit shown. Staff is recommending approval with the requirement of a de velopment agreement per the provisions in the staff report. Staff recommends the project is continued to a later hearing date in order to allow time for the applicant to revise the plat , landscape plan, and qualified open space exhibit per the conditions of approval to ensure the project complies with the minimum UDC standards prior to the Commission's recommendation to the City Council. Staff will stand for any questions. Fitzgerald: Thank you, ma'am. Any questions for staff? Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I have got two questions. First of all, you talked about the -- the canal and piping that. It says it's a -- it says Council may waive -- so, that -- that is a Council decision on that one. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 19, 2019 – Page 8 of 92 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 5, 2019 Page 6 of 43 Allen: That is correct, Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Okay. Allen: You may provide a recommendation if you would like, but it is a Council decision. Cassinelli: Thank you. And the other -- can you -- do you have, off the top of your head, lot sizes, dimensions for both R-8 and R-15? Allen: R-8 is 4,000 square feet and -- what's the R-15? Is it 2,000? Two thousand on the R-15. And there is no minimum street frontage in the R-15 district. Cassinelli: No minimum? Allen: No. Cassinelli: And what's the minimum R -- Allen: And the R-8 is 40 feet. Cassinelli: Forty feet. Okay. And do you -- well, I guess to piggyback on that. What -- and maybe I could ask the applicant what the -- what their smallest street frontage is, what they go down to. Do you know? Allen: I think they may have some below 32 feet, but I think most of them are 32. The applicant could answer that question for you. Cassinelli: Okay. And, sorry, one more question if I can. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli, go ahead. Cassinelli: Is there a -- is there a maximum number of lots that can be accessed off a private drive? Allen: Yes. Six. Cassinelli: Six. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Additional questions for staff? No? Commissioner Seal? Seal: Just one question. The report from the Meridian Fire Department, they want to limit the first and second phase to 30 dwellings. Is that something that was tak en into consideration in the staff report? Allen: Yes. They are limited to 30 building lots on a single access. If they get a secondary emergency access, then, they can build the rest. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 19, 2019 – Page 9 of 92 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 5, 2019 Page 7 of 43 Cassinelli: Was that something that's going to be part of this build out or -- I'm just -- I'm not finding it anywhere that that's something that's go ing to be readily available or available by the time they start the first phase. Allen: Yeah. I'm not aware of one. The applicant can respond to that. Fitzgerald: Additional questions? Thank you. Would the applicant like to come forward. Good evening, sir. How are you guys doing. Clark: I'm doing great. Fitzgerald: Please state your name and your address for the record, please. Clark: Hethe Clark. 251 East Front Street in Boise, representing the applicant. Let's see here. So, again, this is a -- a project that is a medium density development and a couple of items that I want to mention right off the top to just kind of get you kind of familiar with the area and some of the thought process with this. This is 92 building lots and we think it's in a very appropriate location. It's near Ustick and Linder. As you know there has been widening in those areas already. There really are no traffic concerns. It is in an area that's near shopping centers, employment centers, it's a very appropriate location for this type of development and you may have seen some of these projects in the past already, so you may know a little bit about it, but it's -- it's high quality, low maintenance product that comes in at a lower price point than what you would -- would -- might see as the average currently in Meridian. As Sonya mentioned, we do have an excess of the required neighborhood amenities. We have the large half acre park , one required amenity under the code, but we actually have five. The children's play structure. The climbing dome swings. Climbing rocks and a seating area. That's in addition to the pathways and sidewalks and, then, the 15 percent open space, which we will talk about here in just a second, because I think we have a disagreement with Sonya on the terms of that calculation. As Sonya mentioned, we have made commitments with regard to the product type and we have made the commitment to do single level in the locations that are indicated in pink on this -- on this diagram and we are in agreement with that being a condition of approval. That's -- that is something that we are more than comfortable with. I want to really emphasize that this is from a -- from a number of perspectives this is a pretty straight up application. It very clearly satisfies a number of Comprehensive Plan policies, including the provision of a diversity of housing types in areas that are close to employment centers, as I mentioned. It is an in-fill project. It's contiguous to services. This is the kind of thing that we should want to see in this location. The proposed R-15 zoning complies with the land use map designations for medium density and it complies with all of the R-15 zone dimensional standards. There is no step up that's been requested with this -- with this project. So, let's get into the details of some of the items that were raised in the staff report. Some of these became conditions of approval that I would like to circle back on. Some of them are just points of discussion and that would include this parking element. So, with regard to parking, the staff report indicates there may be a concern about parking and whether it's adequate. We do meet code parking standards with four on-site parking spots for each resident. So, there is a maximum of Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 19, 2019 – Page 10 of 92 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 5, 2019 Page 8 of 43 three bedrooms in these houses. So, you are going to -- that means that we are in excess of code. In addition, we have 50 on-street parking spots that are available. In our opinion that is very clearly more than adequate for this use. These are small homes . You are not going to see massive Super Bowl parties. There is just not room for that sort of thing. And there is no reason to -- we meet the code standards and there is no reason to change those code standards here. There is not a reason to expand the streets either. The se streets should remain narrow to calm traffic, to promote walkability, and to reduce public cost for maintaining these streets. The more pavement you put in the more public costs there is to maintain and that's an ongoing concern at ACHD. They want to see those streets as narrow as they can be safely maintained. The next item on that was raised that I wanted to address was the relocation of the Lot 21 access. So, you can see I have put a note or an arrow here as to what's being suggested and staff wants to move that down a little bit further. We disagree with that. We don't see a need to relocate it and there is a number of reasons why. First, there is no block length issue. There is not a reason to need to break up that block length and if you move that pathway with this driveway, you are basically creating a dead end in t hat location. With the pathway there you open it up. It allows for a tie in from the property to the west end of this -- of this open space area that I will discuss more in a moment. It also allows for more buffer to our neighbor to the east and, in fact, our neighbor to the east has requested that that stay there. So, in our opinion, we think it's more appropriate for that to remain in the location that it's currently identified, rather than being relocated per staff. Now, with regard to open space requirements, there is -- staff's raised the question as to whether this area that you see where we have -- where I have the red arrows qualifies as open space. Here is the language for qualified open space. Linear open space area that is at least 20 feet and up to 50 feet, has an access at each end, and is improved and landscaped as set forth in Subsection E of this section. Subsection E speaks to common open space shall be suitably improved for its intended use, except that natural features, such as wetlands, rock outcroppings, ponds, creeks, et cetera, maybe left unimproved. It also says at a minimum common open space areas shall include one deciduous shade tree per 8 ,000 square feet and lawn, either seed or sod. Now, there is a misunderstanding with regard to this. There is -- there is an easement in that area for the irrigation district, but it's only 15 feet from center line. What that means is that we do have area within this to be able to do the -- the landscaping improvements that have been requested here. It's about 32,000 square feet, so that means approximately four trees and to fit them outside of the -- of the irrigation district easement seems to us to be not -- not a problem at all. And, again, it will be landscaped per the -- per the code requirements. Now, the next item that I wanted to address is the pathway question. As -- as of an hour ago we thought we had this worked out with the Parks Department. That has apparently changed and so before I describe to you what we are proposing with regard to the regional pathway question , I do want to give you some context. So, the question is whether we should be required to include a regional pathway across our project and in what location. City staff is asking us to allow the general public access across our property, you know, without any justification based on the needs that our property creates. We weren't previously aware that this regional pathway was an issue. That has to do with some apparent confusion between the maps that are on the city's website. At our pre-application meeting the map on the left is what was presented. This is from the Planning Department's page for bicycle and Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 19, 2019 – Page 11 of 92 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 5, 2019 Page 9 of 43 pedestrian resources. You can see the area in the blue there is the Sawtooth Middle School. There in green is Settlers Park. And you can see the regional pathway ending at the backside of the Sawtooth Middle School. We recently became aware of a competing map that is on the Park and Recreation's pathway page. That's shown on the right. And if you look below it extends past Settlers Park, all the way out to Linder. It's still not on our property, but staff has insisted that it be put on our plan. So, we have -- since that has -- insistence has been made, we have investigated to see what's actually out there. So, if you look at this map, you can see you what is existing. The yellow line is an approximation of where the regional pathways are intended to be based on the -- the maps that I just showed you. The blue lines are micro paths and purple are sidewalk. All of those micro paths and sidewalk that we can find are five feet wide. There are -- it's important to note that there are no ten foot paved pathways in the area. We couldn't find any. Nor is there likely to be any that would connect to our project, because as you can see the property to the east just passed our property is already built out and there is not a ten foot pathway that's been reserved in that area to connect to. Now, over the past 48 hours since we received the staff report we have been working on this. We have been -- we thought we had sorted this out with Kimberly Warren at Parks and this is what we thought we had an agreement on. Here you can see in -- in blue where we had proposed the regional pathway to be located. It would be on Windswept Drive on the front side of these lots. In addition, what we had proposed was to include a looped natural surface pathway through the open space up top and, yes, we would be asking the Council for a waiver to allow that to remain open. We have since been informed that that is not -- no longer the -- the preference of Parks, but this does remain our proposal and let me explain why. There is no reason for a ten foot pathway when it will not connect to a similar pathway. We can -- you can see that on the map, that the likelihood of that ever occurring is, essentially, nil, given that the other properties have already developed. You can also see that there are already connections on five foot sidewalks all the way from Settlers Park to Sawtooth Middle School. They don't necessarily coincide with what's shown on those maps, but those connections are there and, again, they are on five foot pathways. It's expensive to install a ten foot path. It's expensive to maintain it for an HOA and an HOA probably won't maintain it if it's just a ten foot path to nowhere. There is no reason to put a regional trail between the Coleman Lateral and drains on the other side. Placing the regional trail in front of the lots is better from a security perspective and it provides a more likely connection to the east and I do want to emphasize that placing a trail like this in front of the lots is exactly what was done at Movado Estates and it's worked perfectly. I want to emphasize that we don't have anything against trails. We don't have anything against -- against pathways. We do them all over the city. We have installed a number -- a high amount of them. We just want to make sure that it makes sense and we don't think that what staff has proposed here makes sense. The next thing was a bit of a head scratcher for me. At the end of the staff report there is a suggestion -- and this has to do with the -- the color -- the color combination prescription and the requirement of eaves. Essentially there is a suggestion that there should be what amounts to design review for this project and -- and -- and individual building codes for this project as a condition of our DA. Again, the staff report recommends things like cohesive color and the minimum one foot fire rated eaves on all four sides. We think those requirements are not only unnecessary, but they are not supported by code. We will be building product that will be Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 19, 2019 – Page 12 of 92 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 5, 2019 Page 10 of 43 attractive to buyers in this market. You know, we have a huge investment in this property to make sure that it's something that people want to buy. We do this all over the city. We are very successful at it. There is no need for the city to micromanage that process. And with regard to the eaves, we are proposing to satisfy the building code, not personal appearance opinions of whomever might be looking at this project. There is no UDC basis for these requirements and they create an administrative headache for the building departments, as they will have to be reviewing development agreements each time they issue building permits and compare those building requirements to the requirements of code. We think it's unnecessary and we don't think it should be part of this recommendation. One more item that I know has been an item of concern that -- for this group and I wanted to address it proactively is the question of schools and school capacity. There is a letter from the West Ada School District in the -- in your packet. I want to point out that this data that you have on your screen is the latest figures that we have from the West Ada School District. This is available on their website. It shows that overall the -- the school district does have capacity and you can see in some of these the highlighted points here. We have shown some examples of schools that are under capacity and sometimes significantly under capacity. As you look at the school district 's letter, the suggestion that's made is that this project wait until Owyhee High School comes online and, to be perfectly frank, that's not a problem, because of where we are in the process. This is, again, annexation and preliminary plat. We still have to come in for a final plat. We won't have residents until the high school comes online in -- in fall of 2021. So, we think that that is mitigated. Over enrollment should be addressed through boundary modifications at the elementary schools and grade schools as you can see here. And one point that I would point out is that we have reviewed the -- the actual residents of our -- in our other projects that look just like this one and one of the things that we have found is that the -- the number of residents with students is actually lower than typical, because this is typical -- typically empty nesters, singles, small families and in those reviews we found that most of the students actually are already within the -- within the district. So, with that I will wrap up. On this slide I have the requested modifications to the conditions of approval. When I come up for rebuttal I will have another one that has these all on one -- on one page, but just to point -- to kind of reiterate what we are asking for, we would ask for a recommendation of approval with deletion of conditions A- 1-C, which is the color scheme requirement. A-1-D, which is the eave requirement. A- 2A and A-3-C. Those are -- those are repetitive of each other. That's the new common lot. Again, we don't believe that that's required given that the irrigation easement does not cover the entirety of that rear common lot and we can meet the landscaping requirements A-2-B and A-3-D, those were the relocation of the pathway on the -- on the far east of the project and, then, finally, with regard to the regional pathway, we would suggest a substitute condition and that would be to allow for public access for purposes of a regional pathway in the location identified on the applicant's 12/5/19 depiction. The applicant shall confer with the Parks and Recreation Department to identify final width and dimensions in connection with the hearing before City Council. So, with that that concludes my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions. Fitzgerald: Any questions for the applicant? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 19, 2019 – Page 13 of 92 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 5, 2019 Page 11 of 43 Cassinelli: Sure. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Hethe, one question on amenities. Your -- you kind of highlighted this is for empty nesters, yet your amenities are tot lots and -- and playground structures. Can you give me a reason why? Clark: Yeah. Mr. Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli, the thought process is to make it a welcoming location for anyone that we -- there are a list of approved amenities in the City of Meridian. Many of them are focused on tot lots and that sort of thing. We think it's still a worthwhile investment in the community, because a lot of times what you might see is maybe a divorced family and kids coming to visit and looking for the -- those amenities are helpful there. It may be empty nesters, grandparents and kids taking advantage of those -- of those amenities as well. So, I understand your question for sure, but we feel like it's still -- even though the -- the number of kids is generally lower than what you might see in a typical subdivision, it's still a worthwhile investment. Cassinelli: Mr. Chair, I had another question. Fitzgerald: Absolutely. Go ahead. Cassinelli: What -- given that that's your target market is -- is empty nesters, what -- what are -- what's going to be the size range of the homes? Clark: The -- so, the lot ranges are -- the frontage is between -- to answer your question from before -- between 32 and 40 feet. Square foot sizes -- Laren? Somewhere between 15 to 19 hundred square feet. Cassinelli: Okay. Thank you. Fitzgerald: That's, to make sure, a zero lot line and -- and single family; correct? Clark: That's correct. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Mr. Chair. Could you share with us a little bit about how many of the homes would be a detached product versus attached? Clark: Yeah. Do we have a specific number? Just pull up the -- okay. Mr. Chair, Commissioner Holland, I just wanted to confirm that. So, most of this single story product would be attached and that -- so, that in -- those -- those plans would be finalized as we go forward, but that's what -- that's what we anticipate. Holland: Thank you. One other question -- follow-up question, Mr. Chair. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 19, 2019 – Page 14 of 92 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 5, 2019 Page 12 of 43 Fitzgerald: Absolutely. Holland: So, one of the -- the notes that Sonya briefly touched on was -- and I know that we are -- we are not talking about what we previously looked at with the Alpina townhome project, but one challenge with the piece that's to the south of this property was that they didn't quite have enough access block length to allow for commercial on that corner very easily. Was there any thought to maybe adding a little bit of comm ercial to this component, instead of doing all single family homes? Clark: Yeah. Madam Chair -- or Mr. Chair, Commissioner Holland -- I was in front of Ada county last night and answered a lot of questions with Madam Chair. So, there has been a lot of thought put to that and the point that Sonya made kind of puts us in a tough -- a little bit of a tough spot. I know that the city is going through a Comprehensive Plan amendment process and there has been very clear direction not to be looking for Comprehensive Plan amendments while that's going on and as you know this entire -- that -- our entire property is comprehensive planned and medium residential. So , that's one issue that we have to deal with. We have been in conversation s with the owners of the property to the south and we have looked at possibilities for how to address the -- the access down there. So, let me show you. We -- we anticipate that their access would look something like this, that -- and that is something that we discussed with Bill early on, but, no, we don't feel comfortable asking for a Comprehensive -- which is what it would take, a Comprehensive Plan amendment to put commercial on the south there given where the city is and those amendment processes and we anticipate that there can be a viable commercial use down there and the -- and the neighbor to the south is indicating no objection to our project. Fitzgerald: Follow up? Holland: One more follow up. Sonya, if -- just hypothetically speaking, if this Commission wanted to see a change there to allow them to do some commercial to kind of float with that -- that commercial off to the south, could we make a recommendation that Council might consider waiving the fee for that comp plan change ? Is that something we could even talk about? Allen: Chairman, Commissioner Holland, I believe what was discussed before is possibly doing a bump in the mixed use without an amendment to the future land use map to enlarge that area to make it more feasible for more of a mixed use development. Fitzgerald: So, floating it north? Holland: So, one more follow up to that. If that was something that was allowed and they were willing to float that regional designation north a little bit, would you be open to considering alternate ideas to give more connectivity and more room for commercial development to come on that corner? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 19, 2019 – Page 15 of 92 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 5, 2019 Page 13 of 43 Clark: Commissioner Holland, I think the -- you know, obviously, what we are talking about there is a whole number of factors that are outside of our control. We don't know, you know, what the neighbor to the south has indicated it would be interested in specifically. Are they going to be doing office, combination of residential, how much space do they need. I think we are looking at this from the factors that we can control and the factors that we can control our a -- an appropriately dense residential project that transitions, as one would expect adjacent to a commercially zoned area. So, I would say, you know, we would be more comfortable remaining with the proposal as we have it right now. Holland: That's it for now. Thanks. Clark: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: You can see it in my -- Fitzgerald: I can see that you are going for -- the body language. Cassinelli: You -- Hethe, you mentioned the -- on the canal up there, the lateral on the north side and that the easement is 15 feet from center line. So , how much does that give you from the back of the Lots 7 through 22, that -- to the easement in terms of a width? Clark: Having our planner come up to give me a little assistance on that . So, Commissioner Cassinelli, it covers about half of that area. It's about 50 -- 50 to 60 feet wide, that green space that you see on this map. Cassinelli: So, I guess my -- what I am trying to understand is where -- where is the -- where would the center line be on that? Is it -- is it the -- the thick blue -- Clark: That's the blue -- it's the low. Cassinelli: That's the -- that's the edge -- that's the 15 -- that's the 15 from center line -- Clark: Right. Cassinelli: -- there? So, center line would be -- where would -- Clark: That's -- you know, center line on the blue and, then, 15 feet out. Cassinelli: So, is the -- is the lateral -- is the lateral on the -- the lateral would be on the thin blue then? Is that -- Clark: Correct. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 19, 2019 – Page 16 of 92 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 5, 2019 Page 14 of 43 Cassinelli: Okay. So, virtually -- am I wrong in that virtually all that would be the -- the easement for irrigation district? Clark: Approximately half. Fifteen from the center line. Cassinelli: Okay. Fitzgerald: Fifteen feet on both sides. Clark: Right. Sorry. I should have -- Cassinelli: Yeah. I guess I would like to see it more just -- I'm not exactly sure, but it looks like you are losing most of that. Most of that is easement really. Clark: A good chunk of it is easement. You can put sod in those easements. You can't put trees in those easements. And, again, it's not a huge number of trees that you need to put in in order to meet code and they could go on the outside of it. Cassinelli: Okay. Allen: Excuse me, Chairman. The plat that they submitted depicts a 40 foot wide easement. The Coleman Lateral. Fitzgerald: So, that was my question to Legal. I mean we have two opinions on how this rolls down, so can you give us a -- some guidance on where we go from there? Pogue: You could recommend that -- one consideration would be Option B to continue and have them work -- work through that. Staff and the applicant. Fitzgerald: The plat says 40? Allen: Their surveyor put it down as 40. Fitzgerald: Okay. Hethe, do you have a thought? Can you give us guidance on which one -- I mean if we have a survey that tells us 40 we have got to go in the direction that makes -- or -- and that's how our staff is responding. Do you have any feedback that you can give us on where the discrepancy might lie? Clark: I would have to investigate where the surveyor came up with that number. We have -- our understanding is it's 30 total -- Fitzgerald: Thirty. Clark: -- 15 from center line. So, we would have to investigate it. Fitzgerald: Okay. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 19, 2019 – Page 17 of 92 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 5, 2019 Page 15 of 43 Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Another follow up to Commissioner Holland's question about the southern property. Have you -- other than just figuring out where to put the stub street, have you looked at -- or I mean have you talked with them -- I know we have had a couple of proposals come through. Have you talked with them at all about looking at that as one -- I mean. That's -- that's what -- I think that's a lot of what we discussed in the previous times we looked at that corner piece was having this fit as one -- one larger parcel. I realize that -- that it's not that you are limited, because you don't own that, but at the same time how much conversation have you specifically had with them about trying to do something and working together to develop one large -- one large piece that -- I think that we can all be happy with? Clark: Commissioner Cassinelli, thanks for the question. So, we have had a number of conversations with them -- you know, that included asking them to tell us where they want our stub street to go to accommodate what they might want to do in the future. So , we gave them the -- you know, the two options. It could have been -- let me show you. The -- you know, the stub street could have been further in over here or it could have been here. They preferred right here. Beyond that they have no plans of moving forward in the immediate future and we can't control that process. We don't -- you know, they -- they own the property, they get to decide what's going to happen there. So , it becomes so hypothetical that it would be difficult to -- to make any commitments along those lines. Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Can I ask a question to staff. Sonya, have you -- did you guys give any thoughts, ideas as far as how they might bring that -- that entire corner together? Allen: I will defer to Bill on that. Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, not with this particular application. I think as you are aware, Josh departed the city about the time that that application came forward on Alpina. I took it over to try to get them to the finish line. As you recall, it was continued multiple times by this body to ensure that there could be something cohesive there on that -- that corner. My recollection of the -- and I don't want to get too much into the weeds on how this integrates with that piece. We are here to talk about the applicant's property this evening. We only put it in the staff report to bring it to your attention, just because we know -- I remember it being something that you guys were adamant you wanted to see all of this come in as a cohesive plan, but what you have this evening is a plan that abuts that property. Just going back to your earlier conversations , the comp plan allows you -- allows an applicant to float that. The comp plan designation is a parcel specific. So, those were the discussions that were had on Alpina, is that we would Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 19, 2019 – Page 18 of 92 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 5, 2019 Page 16 of 43 probably orient the mixed use to wards the Linder Road side, so that we could get adequate access off Linder and, then, it would feather into more residential to the north and to the east is some of the conversations we had and we also had the applicant lay out a road network, so we could see how it could all be interconnected. Again, that wasn't something that we relied heavily on when we pre-app'd with this applicant. We felt medium density -- that's what the comp plan has, but we did want them to have those conversations with that property owner as to how it would -- how they could facilitate something into this commercial piece, because we all know the challenges is -- that that -- that commercial corner is going to have. So, long story short, that's why we pose it to you whether or not -- this is annexation. This is our one chance to get it right and if you feel like this project isn't integrating appropriately with that southern boundary and you don't feel like the open space is where it needs to be or the parking requirements are meeting the standards that you are looking for, then, certainly that's within your purview this evening is say it's not the right time for this piece of property. Fitzgerald: At the same time we got to make sure we are focused on this application. Cassinelli: Exactly. Fitzgerald: So, it's one of those -- I appreciate the balance, but make sure we are cautioning ourselves to focus on the application in front of us, so -- Clark: Mr. Chair, maybe I can add something -- Fitzgerald: Absolutely. Clark: -- that as I understand it, Alpina -- one of the reasons that it went away was because of the commercial -- or, excuse me, the kind of high amount of residential and small amount of commercial that was in there. That is -- that's what I understood was one of the -- the -- the complaining items -- Fitzgerald: Well, I think the challenges -- we were trying to float it, so we could get better access to the roads, so that there could be a mixed use of three separate different types of users there. Clark: I think, Mr. Chair, your -- your point is well taken. You know, we can only control what we can control and this is the only application that's in front of you and it -- Fitzgerald: Yeah. Clark: -- is strictly in accordance with a Comprehensive Plan. Fitzgerald: Additional follow ups? Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I have a couple of separate questions. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 19, 2019 – Page 19 of 92 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 5, 2019 Page 17 of 43 Fitzgerald: Go right ahead, sir. Cassinelli: Hethe, what is -- it's -- it's been -- it's been brought up and -- and, obviously, there is some objection on your end, but as far as -- and I know in your presentation you -- you stated because it's -- it's not part of the -- it's not part of design plans, but on the colors and on the eaves, now that I'm seeing this back in front of me. What is -- what -- what's -- what's the big objection to adding in different color schemes and also the eave requirement? Clark: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli, so, substantively, you know, we -- the -- the -- the condition with regard to colors -- you know, sure, I mean, yeah, we are going to do a good job of making sure that it's an attractive product. The issue here is the principle of it. We -- the -- the duplex buildings are subject to design review and we -- we all understand that, that's all -- that's part -- that's per code. The individual single family detached product by code is not subject to design review and when we impose these color conditions, what we are saying is is that someone subjectively somewhere is saying that they are -- they have a better opinion of what the color combinations should be than the -- the actual owner and city code doesn't include that requirement. It doesn't incl ude anything like that for detached single family. With regard to the eaves, we think that we should adhere to building code and we have a variety of models that employees in different ways, they all meet building code, they have all been successful product, we don't see a reason for there to be a variance from what building code would otherwise require here and we don't think it makes sense to impose those different building code requirements in DA's that, then, have to be cross-referenced in the future. Fitzgerald: Any additional -- Cassinelli: No. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal or Commissioner McCarvel, we have kind of skipped out on you guys. Do you want to -- do you have any questions? Commissioner Seal, go right ahead. Seal: I'm -- I don't have any questions at this time. It looks like it's been pretty well covered. Fitzgerald: Okay. Allen: Mr. Chairman? Excuse me. May I respond to something? Fitzgerald: Absolutely. Allen: It actually is a code requirement for all -- design review applies to single family residential attached dwellings and it can also apply to single family residential detached if it's required as part of a development agreement. That is Section 11-5B-8B2. Staff isn't recommending that the detached units comply with all of the design standards, although Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 19, 2019 – Page 20 of 92 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 5, 2019 Page 18 of 43 we could recommend that as part of a development agreement. We are only recommending that the color scheme requirements in the design standards apply to all of the units so it's consistent. So, just for clarification. And also on the eave requirement, the reason staff included that condition in the development agreement is because the applicant submitted conceptual elevations that show eaves. So, if that's actually what they are intending on building that just solidifies that, to make sure that happens. If it's not what they intend on building, they shouldn't be showing that on their concept elevations. So, for -- if -- if that is the case, then, that's -- that's what they need to show, what they are actually going to build. So, that is in your purview. That isn't a code requirement, that is correct, but it is what they are proposing on their elevations. So, just for clarification. And -- and while I'm here, if I could just go ahead and address the other two change that the -- changes that they are asking for, the new common lot, they want that deleted and the relocation of the open space, the pathway lot. The -- per the pathways plan -- we do want to see a pathway along that waterway. T he relocation of the open space for the micro path is at the request of the Police Department and for our code requirements for CPTED reasons, we -- we don't want a pathway that's clear over hidden behind building lots for public safety. If they -- well, I will leave it at that. Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel, did you have a comment, ma'am, or a question? I'm sorry. McCarvel: Yeah. I guess there is a whole -- it seems to be a whole lot of stuff that's gone back and forth here that we are -- it looks like we are being asked to referee here tonight and I'm just wondering is -- do you feel more time is going to be beneficial or is the applicant and staff just at a stalemate here and needing us to resolve it? Clark: Mr. Chair, Commissioner McCarvel, it's a hard question. The -- there has not been much time to resolve this, because the staff report only came out a couple days ago. What I would hate to do is to have it kicked down the road and then -- and, then, not have it resolved with -- you know. Or not have more information until immediately before the next hearing and kind of have ourselves into a do loop. So , I mean we are, obviously, always willing to have additional conversations and try to resolve some of these things. This sounds like this easement thing might be something that we need to get resolved. But I -- I am -- you can probably hear the frustration in my voice that we would like to have some more time to address some of these issues from the time of the staff report until now. Fitzgerald: So, Hethe, can you bring your -- your picture on the different pathways and I just have a quick quick question on a clarification. So, the red -- those are the master pathways. Those are ten feet; correct? The existing? Clark: Correct. Fitzgerald: And, then, the connection point -- if you were going to Apple Pine Street, which is at the end of -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 19, 2019 – Page 21 of 92 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 5, 2019 Page 19 of 43 Clark: Right here. Fitzgerald: Yeah. If I'm -- if I'm correct there is a common lot at the end there that is ten feet. So, I'm just making sure I'm clear. Clark: There -- there is a narrow common lot -- I think it's a driveway -- Fitzgerald: Okay. Clark: -- if I remember correctly. It -- it allows the neighbor -- this person to take access out onto Apple Pine, if I -- if I understand it. Fitzgerald: Okay. I just want to make sure I'm understanding that area correctly. Okay. Thank you for the clarification. Clark: Uh-huh. Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal. Seal: I will just -- I will ask the applicant -- I had asked it earlier, but the report from the Meridian Fire Department basically says that you are going to be limited to 30 building lots because the project does not meet all required access roads with some turnarounds. Is there -- are you guys going -- I mean what's your plan to address that? Clark: Commissioner Seal, we are in agreement with that and we will be working on getting an access across our -- our neighbor's property to get -- in order to exceed the 30. But we are in agreement with that condition and it's part of your -- of your proposed conditions right now. Fitzgerald: Thank you. Any additional questions for the applicant at this time? Thank you very much. Clark: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Appreciate it. Madam Clerk, do we have folks who would like to testify? Weatherly: Mr. Chair, we had nine residents signed in. Four wish to testify. The first of which is Julie Ann Domingo. Fitzgerald: Ma'am, thank you for being here tonight. Please step up -- pull that microphone close to you and -- Domingo: Yeah. Forgive my height. Good evening, folks. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 19, 2019 – Page 22 of 92 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 5, 2019 Page 20 of 43 Fitzgerald: Please state your name and your address for the record. Domingo: Yeah. My name is Julie Ann Domingo and I'm a resident from 4144 E. Esperanto, Movado Greens. Fitzgerald: Thank you, ma'am. Domingo: So, I am actually a new homeowner in there and I think what -- the house that I am in right now is one of those that are going to be building in this planned community, so for the -- inside the house is really like -- the design is really good and the quality of the finishes and all it's -- I can really say that it is high quality. I don't have any problem at the moment and when I actually had like a third-party inspector to do like inspection and stuff, he didn't do -- find anything to fix, even like the material, that floorings and all. So, I don't have any interest in that one. So , interior, the design, the color, the combinations and all is really good. Functionalitywise it's also good. And, then, the community itself I think it's really well maintained and like at nighttime when you look outside of your house it's nice to see the neighborhood how -- there is -- I would say good symmetry. There is variation, but they have maintained a symmetry. It's beautiful to look and when you drive in like going back from the office it feels like I am at home. It's beautiful, the fencing and all and also the landscaping, it's really nice. Thank you. Fitzgerald: We appreciate you being here. Thank you, ma'am, very much. Weatherly: Mr. Chair, we have Serena Ormsby Alvarez. Fitzgerald: Good evening, Mrs. Alvarez. How are you? Alvarez: I'm well. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Please state your name your address for record, please, ma'am. Alvarez: Thank you. My name is Serena Ormsby Alvarez. My address will be actually 4120 East Esperanto. I'm closing in the next week or so. So, I will be part of the community very soon. But I have been eyeballing it while it 's been developing and, actually, I'm just waiting for my home to be complete. I'm relocating here -- or I have recently relocated in September with my employer for a new position in the Boise area. I'm from Arizona. I'm not sure if foreigners are -- Fitzgerald: We are happy to welcome you. Thank you for coming. Alvarez: Thank you. But I love the community. I love Boise area. And I was just trying to find something that was centrally located to my work and to the community and to resources like grocery stores and gas stations and all of that. So, the community I'm in, Movado Greens as well, and we like the price point. Me and my family -- we have a small family, one child and a spouse and my spouse works from home and the home itself seems to be well constructed from what we have observed and the same thing, I had an Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 19, 2019 – Page 23 of 92 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 5, 2019 Page 21 of 43 inspector come in and there was just really minor things that needed to be tended to and they were tended to quickly. But the price point and the upgrades on the inside of the build -- inside of the house are really what drew us there. The community, when you pull in, it's really nice to look at, like she mentioned, but I like the fact that it was low maintenance, because it has like -- like I mentioned, I have a child, she's two and a half, so she takes a lot of time, so not having to spend time taking care of the grounds and making sure that -- you know, that my neighbors' trees aren't growing into my house and having those sorts of awkward conversations that you often have when there is not rules. I'm appreciative of those at this point and I'm grateful for the -- for the low -- low involvement and having to care for my property. So, those are some of the things that brought us there and the parks and the top spaces I think is what you said, so we have a little -- there is one close by that -- that I'm grateful for, because she's got lots of energy and I can just walk over there and the community has the -- you know, the sidewalks and the walking paths and those are things we were looking for that we could keep her safe and -- and also still get her exercise and us get exercise without having to get mowed over by some automobiles. But, yeah, that's what brought us there. So, thank you. Fitzgerald: Thank you so much. And welcome to Idaho. Alvarez: Thank you. Weatherly: Mr. Chair, Stave Yapyap. Sorry if I didn't say that right. Yapyap: Good evening, Mr. Chair, Commissioners. My name is Stave Michael Yapyap. I am from 4180 East Esperanto Street. Also in Movado Greens Subdivision. So, I am a new homeowner. First time in my entire life to buy a new home here in Meridian and I'm proud of it. One thing to note about buying a house built by BlackRock Homes is that they built it with high quality. Julie and I -- Julie and I had the same experience finding a house on the same price point, so we have a comparison between a house that's like 300 K versus a house built by BlackRock 300 K. You will notice that the quality -- the specification -- the details of the house built by BlackRock is outstanding. We share the same third party to inspect the house and the findings was very minimal at -- it's just some design structures that we need to be easily fixed and shot off to Jayden, one of the BlackRock's key member who helped us building those things. I like that it's a low maintenance kind of house. In our lifestyle today time is very -- it's a collateral that we need to put emphasis on. A low maintenance housing is very important to us. We don't need to preserve anything. The -- the HOA are preserving the gardens, the trees, and all those things. The fencing and stuff like that. So, we are very -- we are very appreciative of that one. And one thing to note about -- about the BlackRock's development is that when you drive around the vicinity of our subdivision, we always see the signs that reminds all the construction workers to say live -- leave the place better than it was used to be. So, as a person living in the central area where some of the houses are still being built, it's nice to see that the place are well maintained. It's clean. There is no complaint on our side that the woods are scattered around, concrete are everywhere. No, it's very clean. It's well organized. So, development is really, really well planned. So, thank you Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 19, 2019 – Page 24 of 92 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 5, 2019 Page 22 of 43 through BlackRock for doing that as a proactive approach, as a homeowner on that end. Yeah. That's -- that will be all for my end. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Thank you, sir. We appreciate you being here. Weatherly: Mr. Chair, Peng Cheng. Fitzgerald: How are you, sir? Cheng: Good. How's it going. Fitzgerald: Good. How are you? Cheng: Good. Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, my name is Peng Cheng and I stay in 2153 East Ringneck Street. That is a house in Movado community. I just moving to my house three -- two months ago. We like this place and I spend a couple of months searching for housing here and, actually, BlackRock Homes distinguished itself from other builders. They put a lot -- a lot of thoughts into their design and layouts of rooms and houses. Can give you a very small example of their thoughts is they have a lot of -- like openings -- extra windows with privacy glasses on the walls, so that all -- give you good privacy, but in the meantime it will let a lot of sunlight into the house and have a bright inside of the house during the -- during the day. I mean the entire daytime. So, that's the -- one of the great design I like about this house. Also they -- when they pick the location they -- they also -- they always pick locations which is convenient and you can get good access to like other businesses, like, you know, restaurants, gas stations, shops and easy access to freeways. I like the locations very well. And they also build a great quality house at a great price points. My house is only like 300 K for a single family or just myself. I think it's a quite affordable. I really like that. That doesn't mean like they compromise quality. I did also hire some third-party inspector for inspections and they didn't find any major problems. Everything is -- looks perfect. I think we had a lot of discussion about the -- you know, the color of the sidings in this session. You know, they did -- I believe they did a great job in, you know, keep -- how -- I mean to have some variations within the same community, but they always -- and also in the meantime they pick the right colors for individual houses. I think looks kind of uniform with some good variations as well. Final points is I like the low maintenance of the house, because I'm a first time buyer of house. I'm -- no experience of, you know, mowing your lawns and doing all kinds of works and the HOA takes -- takes care of that and I feel like it saves me a lot of time and efforts. I don't have to purchase a lot of extra stuff I don't want to use all the time. Yeah. So, in general speaking, I think this builder will definitely provide houses of good qualities and I'm speaking in favor of this projects. Thank you. Fitzgerald: We appreciate it. Thank you, sir. Weatherly: Mr. Chair, that's all that signed up to speak tonight. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 19, 2019 – Page 25 of 92 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 5, 2019 Page 23 of 43 Fitzgerald: Thank you, Madam Clerk. Sir, if you would like to come forward. Please state your name and your address for the record. Lloyd: Steven Lloyd. We live next door to the development to the -- to the east. Fitzgerald: I think we have seen you guys lots of times on applications before. Lloyd: Just -- yeah. One of the -- I just -- I wanted to add that, you know, we are kind of stuck in the middle of this whole thing and it was nice to this development that they reached out to us and asked us what -- what our opinions were and -- and, actually, we kind of appreciate -- we appreciated that. When the development came into our east, the Corey Barton Subdivision, nobody reached out to us. Nobody asked us what our opinion was. And now when we look out -- you know, I mentioned they -- they built five or six two story houses to our east, right on our property line, and with an elevation -- they had to raise the elevation four feet before they started the project. So, we have a wall of homes that now when we look to our east that's what we see. I reached out to them, tried to get -- and call the people with -- with them, but nobody returned phone calls and now we have this. But they did build a single -- the single across the street. They built the single family -- the single level ones across the street, which would have been nice. They could have flipped them very easily. In the conversations we have had with them they agreed to put the single family homes on our property line, which is kind of nice, which will increase our view and things. So, I don't know if I'm for or what -- I'd rather it stay a pasture. It's really nice over there that way, but I know that's not going to happen. So , somebody that's coming in that's willing to work with the community and work with us and be a good neighbor, we do appreciate it. So, we are here to give that opinion. All I ask, with the ones that are happening -- whatever happens around us, we have decided -- last time we were here we were going to decide -- are we leaving or are we staying. We have decided to stay. So, whatever happens in front of us, to the side of us, behind it, when we are talking about ten foot pathways that butt up to our property, it does affect us and we would like to -- you know, to have our say in that as -- as part of the community. So, what they are doing next to us they have -- they have reached out to us and agreed to put that in the plan. So, we do appreciate that. I just wanted to leave that opinion , so -- Fitzgerald: We appreciate it. Lloyd: -- thank you. Fitzgerald: Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to testify on this application that hasn't been heard from yet? Okay. Going once. Going twice. Okay. Thank you. Would the applicant like to come back up and provide any feedback or -- if you have any comments or additional thoughts, now that you got to sit down and think through some of the questions before you? Clark: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Hethe Clark. 251 East Front Street in Boise. So, a couple of items. I -- we went back -- we pulled out the plat and -- to check that data. The plat, as Sonya mentioned, does have a 40 foot easement. So, we will concede that it's a 40 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 19, 2019 – Page 26 of 92 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 5, 2019 Page 24 of 43 foot easement, get everybody on the same page about that dimension. The plat also shows that that lot is 70 feet deep. So, outside of the 40 feet and there is another 30 feet to be able to satisfy the -- those landscaping requirements. So, there shouldn't be a concern about lack of information with regard to that easement. We will -- we will concede the 40 feet. But, again, the plat also shows an additional 30 feet. With regard to parking, one point I didn't make before is that lawn care is included with this project and so what does that mean for your garage. Your garage isn't being taken up with lawn mowing equipment, all that sort of thing. That's another reason why we think that -- that going above and beyond the parking requirements per code is just not appropriate in this case. And, finally, I went back and looked at the elevations on this eave question. Again, those are concept elevations. Thank you, Sonya. Those are not final designs. There is not a specific requirement in the conditions of approval of those designs and that's a good reason, because they are conceptual. Those -- we -- in our product we use four foot wrapped eaves. So, it appears from the front that there -- the eaves continue beyond the -- on the sides and that's what you would -- that's what you're seeing here. We are selective in the way we use them. So , for example, if there is a side street, you would see an eave all the way across that side, but we always meet code and we prefer to be able to design to this particular site. So, we stand by the request to remove the -- the eave condition. Again, we are concerned about the principle of the -- of the thing, but we did go back and as we were sitting there, you know, looked back at the color scheme requirement again -- again concerned about the principle, but, you know, we are going to meet those color scheme requirements. So, what I'm proposing is that we would concede on the color scheme condition and -- but stand by our guns, as it were, on the -- on the eave condition. So, with that, that's all I had to add after having a couple minutes to think about that and so happy to answer any further questions. Fitzgerald: Any additional questions for the applicant? Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Absolutely. Can you pull up -- Sonya, can you pull up the -- the plat there. Plat map. If you would pull up the one that's colored with the single family -- or with the single story versus two story. Had you -- Hethe, did you give any thought -- I see you got some -- it's -- one, it's mixed and maybe that would be better when it's laid out, but did you give any thought to almost running the perimeter in single and having that interior portion being two story? Clark: You know, we have looked at a number of different alternatives there and, Commissioner Cassinelli, I'm not sure if there is a specific area that you are more or less concerned about. The areas on the west are against Linder Road, so we want to make sure that that has a nice transition into the streetscape. The areas on the east, that was done in -- in consultation with our neighbor, where they had requested it, on the south, you know, we anticipate that that would be adjacent to commercial, so it would be appropriate to have the taller -- taller structures there and we do need to have a mix of product types. So, we wouldn't want to overwhelm it with all single story versus all two story. So, we felt like this was a good balance. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 19, 2019 – Page 27 of 92 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 5, 2019 Page 25 of 43 Cassinelli: I was even thinking maybe -- as far as the -- the neighbor to the east there, bringing that -- that -- that whole block there -- lots -- can't read that -- 20 -- 20 something through 30 something. There is -- you have got it four and four and maybe doing that all single -- single level if -- if that would be a little bit more neighborly and -- it was just a thought, if you had looked at some of those things. Clark: We have looked at it, but -- and, again, those -- the -- the lots that were identified on the east were identified in -- in collaboration with our neighbor. Cassinelli: Okay. All right. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Mr. Chair. A couple of comments for you, Mr. Clark and Mr. Bailey out there. Just looking at this -- this project, I know -- you know, the project that came into the south of it had a similar comment that we can't be handicapped on what the project to the north is of us, we don't know when they are going to come in and develop and it's kind of the same thing. It's the chicken and the egg, which one comes first. How do you work together. And your product type -- you know, you have got a lot of endorsement in the room. I have driven through your neighborhoods, I think you have got a nice product that fits a need in the community absolutely. No questions or concerns for me on the -- the quality of the product and, you know, we can certainly work through some of these requests you have and talk about those internally, but we do have to look at how this product fits in with what's surrounding it and so my concern is with the two acre parcel down south of it, the biggest challenge that we had in that product was connectivity to Linder Road, so that they could have more access. So, if that -- I can't remember how big that piece was itself, but it was two to three acres. It wasn't a huge piece. So, that was the project we were looking at earlier. So , if this was -- or a similar concept was to come back in that looked something like this and you had people going in, they still didn't have a great access out of Linder Road and they wanted to have that full left turn onto Linder Road, they would have to go through your subdivision to get out on Lind er Road with the full access. So, there could be some traffic concerns and there could be some limitations on how this corner develops out with the way that yours develops out there. So, just putting that comment out there, I think we need more commercial in this area. If you look at the COMPASS report it says the jobs-to-housing ratio is .2 for this area within that square mile and it should be somewhere between one and 1.5 to be the right jobs - to-housing ratio. So, part of our job is to try and make sure that we get the right blend for the Comprehensive Plan, make sure that we do the right thing and I think I would personally like to see the regional designation floated north a little bit to encompass just a little bit more of your site, even though I'm okay with the idea of having some housing in there and maybe even some multi-family in there. I struggle a little bit, because I'm trying to figure out what would be the -- the best for Meridian in the long run about how this property integrates with the ones around it. Clark: Understand your comments. What we can do is take the Comprehensive Plan as it exists and the property that we control as it exists and we -- we don't control that property Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 19, 2019 – Page 28 of 92 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 5, 2019 Page 26 of 43 to the south and, as I mentioned before, this -- this is -- the planning for this property was for medium density. So, that's about all I can add to that. I'm certainly sympathetic to your concerns, Commissioner Holland. Fitzgerald: Hethe, when you are -- in regards to the police concerns over working through a common drive into a pathway that goes into a -- whether we put a pathway there or it's natural or whatever it is, thoughts on that, feedback, because I know where -- we get a lot of feedback from the police in regards to not having things that are ended where there is no access where people just go back there and cause mayhem. So , any feedback there? Clark: Mr. Chair, so the -- I'm a little perplexed by it. If you move that -- that pathway connection up, then, you are, basically, creating a dead end in that common area. Whereas if you leave the pathway as we have proposed it you have a through path through the entire thing. So, I guess I will be honest, I don't understand why this is -- why our proposal is less safe than what the alternative is, which, again, creates a dead end. Fitzgerald: Okay. I just want to make sure we got that squared away. Thank you for the feedback. Clark: Yeah. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Mr. Chair, one more follow-up question. So, looking at where the street -- looks like it's called Woodpine -- would stub to the north. Does that connect into anything right now or that would just connect into the -- towards where that other property exists and into future development land? Clark: Commissioner Holland, that's correct, it would stub -- that's a stub street in the future development. Holland: So, virtually when we are creating this plat you are going to have one point of access until the property of the south and the property of the southeast of you would develop. Clark: Until we -- unless we can get an access ourselves across those properties, which is always an alternative. Holland: Have you had any conversations with the property to the southeast of you in how -- when their timeline would look like? Clark: I'm not aware, but I'm going to ask another member to -- Fitzgerald: I think Laren should stand up here and hang out with us. No, I'm just joking. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 19, 2019 – Page 29 of 92 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 5, 2019 Page 27 of 43 Bailey: Commissioners, Laren Bailey, business address 4824 West Fairview Avenue. We did speak with Mr. Creek to the -- to the southwest -- or southeast of us. He does intend to sell his property for development, but the price point he expects to get is astronomical to say the least and so we don't see anything happening with that near term, unless somebody decides they want to pay what -- what he's asking. But that is his goal in the end is to sell that. He doesn't live there, he lives in Eagle, and so we have had discussions with him. He didn't have any opposition to the development , but -- and he's -- he's not here tonight, but -- Fitzgerald: Thank you for that. Commissioner Cassinelli, you had a question? Cassinelli: Hethe, did -- and I don't know without seeing the boundary lines there and what -- what the irrigation district -- where they are at. Are you able to shift to the north at all and bring the open space into the interior or -- because of where -- because of where the boundary is and the easement -- it sounds like you still got 30 feet. Did you look at -- at rearranging this at all to where you could do that, push it up -- push it to the -- to the boundary to the north and bring open space in -- because, obviously, that's a -- that's an issue where there is issues about the -- multiple issues about the open space right now, pathways, and where to put that with what the police are wanting and what staff is wanting, what you want and whatnot. So, can you address that? Clark: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli, to date -- and we have looked at a lot of scenarios. If you -- if you -- it's kind of hard to see on this -- on this drawing, but if you -- where I'm pointing is where it has the -- the 40 feet that's identified and, then, over here you have a measurement of 70 feet. The -- in our view what makes sense is to leave it as is and to allow for kind of a natural area to be able to come in between those two waterways. To us that would appear to -- that would be diminishing returns, given the -- the -- the requirements that it would take to be able to relocate that , both financially and with the irrigation district. So, our proposal is for it to -- is to be able to -- to use it as it -- as it exists as, essentially, an amenity within that open space. Cassinelli: Follow up. Can you -- can you expound on that a little bit? You mentioned diminishing returns. Are you saying that if you push it to the north you are going to get fewer lots? Clark: No. The cost of relocating the -- that -- that waterway -- I believe you guys have restrictions on covering waterways at this point under your -- under your code. Those are the kinds of things that -- that I'm talking about, in addition to whether you would lose lots or not. Cassinelli: But do you understand what I'm saying? If you can push that to the -- if you could shift the northern part to the north and get those -- those -- Lots 7 through 21 -- through 20 another 30 feet north -- right to the edge of the easement and, then, bring in -- then you can in -- and if you are able to adjust everything, bring the common areas into the middle or spread -- more spread out, maybe a -- you know, a couple little -- a couple smaller pocket parks throughout, that's what I'm talking about. Is that -- are you able -- I Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 19, 2019 – Page 30 of 92 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 5, 2019 Page 28 of 43 mean you have got more room there, you can go to the north. Have you -- you know, did you look at that? Clark: Well -- and I would add that in addition there -- that we have -- to the lateral we have some -- there is some drainage -- ditch drainage facilities up there as well and so I -- you know, I expect that there would be some -- some difficulty in having those in too close of contact. You know, we are, obviously, willing to explore different alternatives. You know, at this point that doesn't appear to be a viable alternative , but we are happy to look into it. Allen: Excuse me. Commissioner Cassinelli, just for clarification, that 40 foot wide easement is -- is this line right here. It reaches from the back of these building lots to that dotted line. Fitzgerald: So, that's the current easement -- Cassinelli: So, they can't -- they are as far north as they can be. Allen: Exactly. Cassinelli: Okay. Clark: Then I misunderstood your question. I was assuming that you were intending for us to have the easement relocated and that's -- Cassinelli: No. No. No. I was wondering -- I thought there was -- I still thought you had more room -- Clark: Oh. Cassinelli: -- to go -- to -- to shift and perhaps look at bringing in that -- what you have got -- that common area up there in -- you know, inside. But if they are as far north as they can go, given the easement -- okay. Thank you. Allen: That's why staff recommended a 20 foot wide common lot outside of that easement, pulling those building lots south a little bit and, then, putting a 20 foot wide common lot there between the easement and the building. Cassinelli: And the rear -- and the rear of those homes. Okay. Thank you. Clark: And our -- and our point is that that's unnecessary given the additional 30 feet on -- that are north of the easement. Allen: If you -- if you put a pathway -- just to respond to that. If you put a pathway on the north side of the easement, as you can see right here there is no way for it to connect out Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 19, 2019 – Page 31 of 92 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 5, 2019 Page 29 of 43 to Linder Road and the school property is developed north of here and there is no pathway. So, just -- just for your information. Clark: Can I have my map back? So, again, this -- this is what we were proposing. A natural surface pathway actually could go within that easement potentially, because you are not putting in a -- an asphalt or an improvement that can't be removed or altered easily by the irrigation district and, then, beyond that what we would anticipate would -- and what we have proposed is a regional pathway in the blue location that satisfies what the -- what the master pathway maps were looking for. They would -- they would go right in these locations and, then, you would have a loop trail that goes through the area that can be in and outside of that easement that you would satisfy the landscaping on the 30 feet outside of the -- of the irrigation easement with those -- with the tree requirements. But you can certainly -- you don't have to go all the way back out to Linder through -- where -- this place where it necks off, you can have an access point here, you can have an access point here that allows people to come and do a loop trail, but still take advantage of the developed sidewalks here to get to Linder and, then, walk the, what, 150 feet up to the school. Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: One follow-up question to your proposal there. The regional pathway that you are talking about, the blue dotted line, would that be just a standard sidewalk width or would that be a larger pathway? Clark: Thank you for the question. As -- as I was coming into the hearing tonight I thought that's what we were going to talk about was the width of it. So, the regional pathway -- call it preference -- is for the ten foot pathways. But, again, just as a reminder, there are no ten foot pathways to connect to. So, you would have a ten foot pathway to nowhere. So, you know, our preference would be to have a detached sidewalk and allow -- it would be outside of the right of way, so we would allow for public access in that area. It can be on the maps as part of the regional pathway, whatever needs to happen there to make sure that the public is aware of that. There is not a ten foot path to connect to and as you can see in this picture there is very little likelihood of that ever occurring. Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal. Seal: So, the pathway that's proposed that's coming through the subdivision, that's -- I mean, essentially, that's just going to be the sidewalk system where people are putting out trash cans and all that, that's going to be part of that as well; correct? Clark: And that -- that's true and that's exactly how its functioning at Movado. There is -- there is a regional pathway that runs through there and it's working just fine. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 19, 2019 – Page 32 of 92 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 5, 2019 Page 30 of 43 Cassinelli: Okay. And, then, to follow up, I can tell you that there are -- there is nothing that connects to this, but there are ten foot pathways that are being built in different areas there, because I ride on them on a bike. They are very nice for sure , because you don't have to contend with, you know, things that people are leaving out on the curbs and, you know, dogs running out and trying to bite your leg and different things like that. So, I can definitely say that, you know, a wider pathway is something that would be more acceptable, especially if it was on a canal side and there is always the argument of, you know, there is -- there is lights facing into the subdivision, so it's more secure at night, but there is also -- you don't want to have it on the inside of a subdivision. So , I can understand both sides of that argument. But just in looking at this application, I can say that, you know, the pathway on the -- on the northern boundary is something that makes a lot more sense to me as, you know, a member of the community, where I'm going to access that and use it on more of a daily basis, especially as all of this starts to tie in together. These neighborhoods are finally starting to come together in that way. So , I'm definitely somebody that would like to see that continue and continue in a way that's more usable for things like strollers, bikes, you know, families, multiple people out on bikes at the same time. Clark: Commissioner Seal, I appreciate the comments and it certainly makes sense to me. And, again, we are pathway proponents and do it all over the place. I think one thing to keep in mind -- I don't think I -- I don't have a map that shows the width of the -- of the easement, but if -- if you have the -- the 40 foot easement north of our lots and, then, I believe the pathway landscaping requirement, Bill, is five feet on each side of the -- of the pathway? So, if you put a ten foot pathway and five feet of landscaping on either side north of the -- the 40 foot easement, you are into those drains at that point. So, not only do we think it doesn't make a lot of sense from a practical perspective, but from a -- from that perspective of being able to fit it up there a ten foot path north of these lots it presents a number of additional constraints. So, there is -- there is more capacity to be able to do a wider walk up in front along -- what is it -- Windswept Drive, then, there is behind the lots, which is why we have proposed it in that -- in front. Fitzgerald: Is there an option to make it bigger, instead of having it be a standard five foot sidewalk? Clark: And that's -- Mr. Chair, you know, one of the -- one of the things that I had proposed was that we have the opportunity before City Council to confer with Parks and Rec to come up with appropriate dimensions for that and so, you know, I think that's something that we could continue the conversations with them about and try to come up with a compromise that makes sense. Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: A couple more comments. I am full of them tonight. If you are looking back at the -- the pathway map that you showed where they connect and don't connect , I know Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 19, 2019 – Page 33 of 92 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 5, 2019 Page 31 of 43 that's certainly a challenge in Meridian where we have a lot of pathways that have starts and stops and Parks Department is trying to work really hard to get that connectivity. Looking at this map and seeing what they might do in the future -- and I can't speak for the Parks Department, but I am imagining that where that canal kind of runs to the south and edges the subdivision that's already been developed, they could reroute that yellow pathway down and, then, connect it back to Settlers Park where it should have gone in there. I don't know if that's been talked about in the Parks Department or what the long term plan would be there, Sonya, but if you have got any guidance there I would love to hear your thoughts. Allen: Yes. Chairman, Commissioner Holland, if you are talking about right here, there is a pathway that goes along there right now. I believe it's only five feet wide, but, yeah, there is a pathway and, then, there is sidewalk connections out to here. So, this -- extending this and making a multi-use pathway here would allow it to connect to the on- street pathway and, then, go to the school. Holland: Thank you. Allen: So, just -- just an additional comment. Anytime you run like a multi-use pathway, you know, to promote people to use that area along an area where there is so many vehicular conflicts, your common driveway that's for vehicular use, as well as all the -- the driveways to all those homes there, you know there is -- especially when we route kids through that area to school and stuff, there is -- there is a lot of public safety concerns. Holland: Mr. Chairman? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: My -- my other comment that I was going to make -- if you go back to the layout of the plat again, I really like the amenities that you have provided and that you are -- you are kind of going above and beyond with the five different types of amenitie s. I think, again, you guys -- you put together a nice product. My concern is maybe with its location, because where it's at you have got a sharp corner -- corner going from Windswept Drive to Woodchest just if you have got residents living in that -- you know, number two, three or four and you have got a lot of kids that would be potentially playing in that open space area and, then, if you have that pathway -- I worry about what Sonya just mentioned that there is a lot of cars and traffic and especially if this connects to the piece in the south and there ends up being commercial there, there could be challenges with people whipping through this subdivision to try and get out to a full access point. Clark: Commissioner Holland, the -- the park -- the park is fully -- is fenced. That's why -- that's why we did that and you are -- you are talking -- I think it's 400 feet to the -- to the properties to the south to be able to get to the park and by putting it in this location it makes it more prominent and makes it part of the entry. It -- you know, as people come by on the -- the -- what we hope would be the regional pathway, they -- they see it, they see that it's an inviting neighborhood. I'm a little concerned by the idea that -- that Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 19, 2019 – Page 34 of 92 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 5, 2019 Page 32 of 43 sidewalks are not a safe way for kids to get to school. That's imposing a pretty high standard that I have not seen before. Safe routes to school -- routes are always on sidewalks. So, I have a hard time with that suggestion. Fitzgerald: Additional comments, questions for the applicant? Holland: I'm good for now. Clark: Thanks. Fitzgerald: Thanks very much. We appreciate you. Clark: And I will just mention -- I -- Sonya, do you have that pdf that I sent you of the -- I have the conditions that we had suggest to be modified all in one -- all in one page, so we don't have to switch back and forth. Allen: I don't have it on the PowerPoint here. Clark: Okay. Allen: Well, actually, maybe I -- Clark: Or you could just go back and forth between those two, but -- I think Bill had saved it, but we lost Bill, so -- that's it at the top. There you go. This -- these are the proposed modifications all in one place for you, so you can use it as your -- as you are deliberating. Fitzgerald: Appreciate it. Thank you very much. Any additional questions for staff before we close the public hearing? Hearing none, could I have a motion? Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I move we close the public hearing for H-2019-0109 for Edington Commons. Seal: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on H -2019-0109. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same. Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Fitzgerald: Team, thoughts? McCarvel: Mr. Chair? Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 19, 2019 – Page 35 of 92 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 5, 2019 Page 33 of 43 Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: Now that we have closed the public hearing do we want to, first of all, entertain the thought -- are we going to continue this or do we want to battle all this out? Fitzgerald: Great question to start with. McCarvel: I mean either way there is a lot to go through and it would be nice to see it all wrapped up -- I mean in a presentation back from the applicant. Fitzgerald: So, my -- the thing I have in my mind right now is -- I don't think we have a good handle on where we landed on -- actually how much common spaces is out there. I know we have kind of talked through it. We have differing opinions on easements and different things. So, there is not a true percentage that we know right now, which makes it hard to deliberate on that piece. For sure if we are going to talk about shifting things and pathways and easements. So, I tend to agree on that point. Additional thoughts? Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal. Seal: I'm -- I'm thinking along the same lines. There is some -- I mean pretty strong wording in the report by Parks and Rec -- Parks and Rec that coincides with some of the staff recommendations. So, it would be nice to have -- give the applicant the opportunity to work with both staff and Parks and Rec and make sure that we are coming up with something that's cohesive, that's going to work for everything. I mean not having that northern boundary fit into some kind of common area and a rideable bike path to me is something that I -- you know, I'm more in favor of than having it on the inside. I mean, again, trying to ride through -- I mean not necessarily from getting kids to school safely, because a lot of them are going to walk or bike through the neighborhood one at a time and get there, but I mean when you are trying to go through with strollers and a family of bikes and things like that, trying to do that on sidewalks with mailboxes and trash cans and whatever else is out there along the way is prohibitive, to say the least. It's -- I try not to ride through subdivisions that way, so -- if at all possible. There is also -- I mean there is some other things that are going on in here. The most concerning thing to me on this, honestly, is it's from the West Ada School District. I mean we are already capping enrollment at Hunter Elementary, which is the closest elementary school. So, they are shipping them to Paramount Elementary, which is already over capacity. That to me is -- that's a huge concern. I mean the new high school opening up is going to help out a lot of people, but I think it's a reasonable expectation when you move i nto a subdivision the information that you are giving -- given on it is the nearest schools that are there. It's not going to be the school that you might end up going to. So , I don't know how many people are necessarily going to go down that rabbit hole to figure out exactly where their child's going to be bused and they will redefine the school boundaries. I know that that's something that's going to -- going to happen, but it just seems like kids -- and I mean I know -- I mean my -- my kid -- my -- you know, one of my kids and some of his friends Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 19, 2019 – Page 36 of 92 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 5, 2019 Page 34 of 43 definitely ended up having to go to different schools throughout , you know, grade school and junior high when they were growing up in Meridian. So, I just want to make sure that that's on the record, that, you know, hopefully, we are trying to cut down on that or maybe try to work with West Ada to get in front of it and as they say, if anybody wants to contribute land they are always open to that. Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: To your comment there, normally I worry about schools, too, because I know they are all overcrowded. With this specific development I'm not as worried about it, with the 92 units, because they are not targeted towards family dwellings, they are targeted more towards people who are starting out, kind of having their first kids, but usually by the time those kids are in the school system they tend to move to a bigger house, so that they can accommodate those kids. Or empty nesters, as they say, because it's a low maintenance product and I think they are going to see a lot of people that are seniors wanting to move into there or people that don't want to deal with the maintenance. So, I'm not as worried about that component of it. My biggest con cern about this application I have already kind of made known , but I really worry about the regional plan for this specific area. You have got a middle school that has no commercial amenities around it. Not that they have to have places that middle schoolers can walk to, but it's sure nice when you are able to walk -- and when I went to Meridian Middle School I walked down the street to the library after school, because I had to wait for my parents for a couple hours, where I got to, you know, walk to something that was nearby, which was nice. Or the dentist office was right down the street. Those kind of things. I'm not saying that we can handicap this specific project, because we have to look at this project, not the ones around it, but at the same time we took this piece into consideration when we looked at the piece that was to the south of it that came to us, too, because we get one shot at developing it and once it's developed it's really hard to change it. From my experience in trying to do economic development in other regions, it gets really tricky when you have a two acre piece that you are trying to do commercial on a hard corner. It's the same reason we ended up just approving a storage unit for the corner on the opposite side , because they just didn't have enough room for the access to make it work for what they needed. So, what I would hate to see is have this come back to us as another storage unit product, because no one else can find another fit for it. So, I have some concerns overall. It's not necessarily this group's fault that they have that problem sitting there, but it's -- I think it's our job also to think about it regionally and I'm a little bit worried that if this project moves forward with all housing, we are creating a bigger problem for ourselves in the future for the other landowners, because we will restrict what they can do. Fitzgerald: I went to school next to a tank farm and a hospital, so that -- no, that doesn't work. That's why I am so weird. A couple comments. I think -- I do think this product is needed in the city. I think -- and I think it's where it's located there is a definite need for it. I -- I understand that we did bring that -- bring both properties into conversation, which is -- it does pose a challenge. I think there is a lot of things that need to be worked out Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 19, 2019 – Page 37 of 92 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 5, 2019 Page 35 of 43 on this thing before we -- everything's finalized. I would like to see a -- you know. And I know it's a lot of work for staff and the applicant, but give us a clean -- like this is what we have, here is how much percentage we have. We have a pathway that's agreed upon by the -- by the police, by the Parks Department, and this is our -- but here is the application, because I think we are trying to call balls and strikes and that's -- may not be a good thing. Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Yes, ma'am. Holland: One other comment. If -- if -- I think it would be my preference to continue the project, too, and let them work out some of these details with staff. At the same time I would like to make a personal request that they would consider looking at seeing if they could add some commercial to this, because I think we can work out the -- the issues with the comp plan with staff. As I mentioned they can float that regional designation up north a little bit more, especially if we give that endorsement that , you know, we would like to request that they don't charge an extra fee for that change if they put commercial in this specific section. I just want to see that we can create a better supporting use for the properties around it. Fitzgerald: Especially with the access to the road. McCarvel: Mr. Chair, I would agree. I think that little piece on the corner is just going to be locked into no options if we let this be all residential. Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal. Seal: I agree with that and I did -- I forgot to mention, but I do like the product and I like -- I really like the fact that when I go into the public comments everything I read in there is positive. It's not -- you know, it's not negative feedback about what's trying to go in there. So, from that standpoint I really like what's laid out here and it's -- you know, it's -- it's nice to be able to read through some of the positive comments and know that , you know, somebody's putting in a product that's well received in the community and -- and needed at this point. That said, I like your analogy trying to call balls and strikes where that's -- I definitely wouldn't be able to -- with the information that's in here as far -- that's in contention, I wouldn't feel comfortable in trying to move forward with something on this. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I have a lot of questions. Fitzgerald: You have lots of questions, now you don't want to talk. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 19, 2019 – Page 38 of 92 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 5, 2019 Page 36 of 43 Cassinelli: You were waiting for my comments. I will say that -- while I was up here I was looking at -- at a couple of other products. I was looking at -- at some of the builds in Movado and, then, looking at a listing -- is it Verado -- Fitzgerald: Yep. Cassinelli: -- off of Ustick there and particularly the -- the attached -- the duplexes, the single story duplexes. I like the looks of them. It is a nice looking product and I -- it -- you know, I mean based on young families and -- and the empty nesters, I think there, obviously, is that demand there. Concerns that I have -- so, if we are -- if we are kind of giving them some guidance -- if we are going to continue this and giving them some guidance, what do they need to work on. Obviously, that common lot. They have got to come -- there is -- there has to -- has to be something there. I -- they can't do it, they are as far north as they can, but I don't like common lots, the bulk of them on the edge of the -- edge of the property. It needs to be sprinkled throughout or something that's -- that's centered. I realize, you know, with that -- you know, with the irrigation with the canal, it's a little more difficult to play with. I am -- I -- if we get into some of the things that we -- that they discussed and brought up -- colors. Colors are temporary in my mind. Homeowners can come in and they will paint it. So, that's not -- that's not as big of a deal to me and the HOA will decide eventually what the colors are going to -- color schemes are going to look like. But the colors will change. The eaves won't. And so what I would say is -- to staff is I would want to see them hold firm on that design of the -- of the eaves. Commissioner Holland brought up traffic. That is going to be a big one, especially on these narrow streets with parking on one side . Everybody in that southern -- when -- whatever that becomes, unless it's another storage unit, everybody that wants to turn left onto Linder is going to go up through that neighborhood. So , it's going to add a lot of traffic and we have got very -- we have got narrow streets up there with -- with only parking on one side, so -- and that somehow -- that's going to need to be addressed somehow some way. I don't -- I don't know what the solution is. But they have got to -- they have got to look at that. And, then, you know, I'm in support of staff, too, in trying to figure out -- trying to add more parking, because I think it's -- I think it's necessary. And, then, it's just going to -- it's really going to congest those streets, because people are going to be -- they are going to be putting cars where ever -- or squeezing them where ever they can. So, I would like to see somehow get more out of there. Those are my main concerns. Fitzgerald: So, parking -- just to get clarification, then, for giving direction to the applicant, is that -- you want wider streets or do you want additional parking , like actual parking stalls or do -- what are you looking for? Cassinelli: Yeah. I mean -- and I think regardless of what you do there you are going to -- you know, they are going to have to get up -- they are going to have to give up a lot. They are going to -- you know, something's going to have to change to -- to -- to get a little bit more parking there, but I think that -- I think more parking somewhere is -- it's -- it's -- I think it's necessary. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 19, 2019 – Page 39 of 92 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 5, 2019 Page 37 of 43 Parsons: Commission, before -- before we -- I don't mean to interrupt, but I just want to touch bases on parking. Wider streets isn't going to help the parking problem in there, because the lots are narrow. It's -- they have curb cuts that prohibit, really, the parking. You can have a wider street, but when -- if you have driven through their development you know that their -- their lots are 32 feet wide or 34 feet wide and you got curb cut, curb cut, curb cut. That's what prohibits parking on the street and that's why we have always brought this concern to you. So, I don't want you to think just by us working with the applicant and having them widen the road there are going to be this magical amount of parking on the street. In those areas where -- anyways, I will just digress and leave it at that. But that's not going to solve the problem. So, if you want more parking it's either losing lots, widening the lots, dedicated parking someplace else on the site or, you know, try to address the bigger concerns and we move on with that and try to get some consensus with the applicant. But I think you are right, I think there is a lot of issues here tonight. So, either, one, we need to get this continued out, resolve it tonight, or have a different recommendation onto City Council. I will stand for -- Fitzgerald: Thanks, Bill. Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: One more question for staff. If you are looking at open space requirements, it's -- it's, obviously, ten percent open -- qualified open space is what's required for a 13.49 acre lot. If they were to go back and consider doing some of this commercial , where are the breakdowns of what percentage changes? Is it always ten percent? If it was -- let's say five acres of residential, eight acres residential, ten acres residential, where does that shift happen? Allen: Chairman, Commissioner Holland, the ten percent is based on the residential development area. So, if there was commercial proposed, then, it would not apply to that area. Essentially it would reduce the amount that they would have to provide. Fitzgerald: Isn't there -- hit five acres, though, it goes away or something like that. Allen: Yeah. Anything between -- or anything over five acres. Fitzgerald: Yeah. So, five acres the open space is -- no. Holland: Thanks. That answered my question. Fitzgerald: Additional thoughts? Commissioner Seal? Seal: Just on -- a question on widening the streets. Would widening the streets help with the issue with the Fire Department as far as the access and emergency access and things Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 19, 2019 – Page 40 of 92 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 5, 2019 Page 38 of 43 like that? Would widening the streets actually help that to where they wouldn't have a limitation on building lots? Allen: Yes. Chairman, Commissioner Seal, yes, it -- it does allow for parking on both sides and to maintain a clear emergency access drive . Widening the streets is going to give you a few spaces, but like Bill said, it's not going to -- it's not going to amount to a lot with the narrow lots. Seal: Right. And I'm concerned about -- Commissioner Holland had brought up that -- I mean -- and others have brought up that when that site to the south develops you are going to have people coming through that subdivision. So, that's where I'm -- Allen: Right. Seal: -- more of a proponent of not necessarily making more parking, but widening the streets -- Allen: Right. Seal: -- and I think the product kind of speaks for itself as far as kind of mitigating the parking circumstances that we have in those subdivisions . They are -- they are kind of empty nesters or people that don't have a lot of cars. There is not going to be, you know, like you said, huge Super Bowl parties and things like that going on. I mean it only takes one or two of those places to ruin that idea, but for the most part I think they are -- they are in line with that. So, I'm less worried about the parking piece of it and more worried about just the -- the ability to have, you know, a thoroughfare going through there safely. Allen: Where emergency services has problems is when we have the narrow streets and, then, people don't have places to park, they park anywhere, even if there is a no parking sign. So, that's when they have problems, you know, during an emergency. Seal: Okay. Fitzgerald: Additional comments or are we ready to -- for somebody -- Commissioner Holland to make a motion? I'm just joking. Is there additional thoughts or -- Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commission -- or Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: If we are going to continue this, do we need to open it back up to bring the applicant up here to see what dates we are talking about? Fitzgerald: We can. We can get a nod from them on when they would like to do it or we can open it back up, whichever way you would like. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 19, 2019 – Page 41 of 92 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 5, 2019 Page 39 of 43 Cassinelli: Or maybe we can -- maybe even staff could direct us on a date. Fitzgerald: Bill, do you have a next date that would work for the applicant or for you -- and/or for you? Parsons: Mr. Chair -- Fitzgerald: Yeah. Cassinelli: And how long you think this might -- you guys might need. Parsons: Chairman, Members of the Commission, it's -- it's difficult. I don't think the 19th is going to give us enough time to work out these issues. The 2nd -- we will probably -- don't know. We have a couple projects for that hearing and, then, the 16th we are pretty full. We are looking at seeing what we h ave scheduled at this point in time, but I think it might be wise to maybe open up the public hearing, see what the applicant can commit to and, then, we will get a date certain. Fitzgerald: Can I get a motion to reopen the public hearing? McCarvel: So moved. Holland: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to reopen the public hearing on H-2019-0109. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Fitzgerald: Hi, Hethe. How are you doing? Clark: Hethe Clark. 251 East Front Street. My opinion is that if -- if we can't have this figured out by the 19th we won't have it figured out. So , I think we should put some -- put some pressure on everyone and get it sorted out. Go for the 19th. McCarvel: I think there is already a lot of pressure on everyone for the 19th. I remember that draft -- what we already have on the 19th. Parsons: Yeah. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission -- or Mr. Chair. Boy, I'm taking a lead from Hethe here tonight. Fitzgerald: The real chair is down there. She was there for a long time. Parsons: I think I have been used to that. Well, there is another chance for her to do that if she wants it. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 19, 2019 – Page 42 of 92 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 5, 2019 Page 40 of 43 Fitzgerald: Exactly. McCarvel: No. No. No. No. Parsons: Anyways, we are looking at the record right now. So, next week we would need to be get with the applicant and have a meeting and get it worked out. Next week is staff report week for the following hearing. I don't see where we are going to be able to find the time to do that. We have City Council hearing and P&Z. We have got four items for you coming up on the 16th -- or on the 19th hearing. The 2nd, again, we have two projects and the 16th of January we have two projects at this point in time. Fitzgerald: The 2nd? Is that doable? Try to compromise. No? Yes? Maybe? Cassinelli: Yeah. We have vacations planned for -- that's the holiday season. McCarvel: Yeah. Cassinelli: Are we likely to move the 2nd? What did -- what did you get from all that feedback? Was everybody -- Parsons: We have a quorum. Cassinelli: Do we have a quorum? Parsons: We have scheduled projects. Weatherly: Commissioner Cassinelli, at this time we do have a quorum. Cassinelli: Okay. Fitzgerald: We are going to hold it in Las Vegas, but -- McCarvel: Yeah. I think this staff has some well-earned vacation. Probably needed. Fitzgerald: The 19th of January? 16th? Thoughts? Clark: But not happy ones. Fitzgerald: I -- I understand. I think the challenge is -- we have a staff that is down to two and a half people and we are making -- trying to make sure you guys' development community is staying happy, too, and we are in it, so it's a balancing act. I want to make sure we get the right answer for everybody and I'm going to be a little bit understanding to -- to both sides then. So, if we start stuffing things through and we miss something and that puts us in a bad spot. So , I'm going to trust the staff that they can accomplish what they are trying to accomplish in a certain amount of time. So, if we are talking about -- you know, you guys were telling us where the Owyhee school is going to be online Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 19, 2019 – Page 43 of 92 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 5, 2019 Page 41 of 43 before you guys are done with this. I have less concern that it's not going to get done before. That doesn't give enough time. Clark: I wish that were the only constraint. Fitzgerald: I totally understand and I know you have to dig and make things black and other things like that, so I get that. But I have got to go a little bit with where the staff is, too, so -- thoughts? Feedback for Hethe? McCarvel: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I just -- we just have to recognize the amount of growth that's going on here and it takes time to get it right and this one just has a lot of open -- Fitzgerald: Questions. McCarvel: -- questions and concerns on it and I don't -- I think it's -- to say, well, we want to push through in just a couple of weeks because we -- I just don't think it's right and I think we as a body need to tap the brakes once in a while and this corner I think needs -- Fitzgerald: We have looked at it enough times. McCarvel: -- and I'm sorry, it doesn't -- wasn't the timeline you had anticipated, but I think it's what needs to happen. Cassinelli: Well -- and I would agree, I mean our -- our responsibility is to the -- is to the City of Meridian, the people of Meridian, and it -- I'm more in favor of -- you know. If we got to go an extra mile to whatever it is and work on it and get it done right, that's -- Fitzgerald: Additional comments or questions? We appreciate it. Deliberate a little bit more? Could I get a motion to reclose the public hearing on H-2019-0109. McCarvel: Mr. Chair -- Fitzgerald: Oh. McCarvel: I think we leave it open -- Fitzgerald: We leave it open if we are continuing. Thank you very much. Holland: If the plan is to continue. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 19, 2019 – Page 44 of 92 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 5, 2019 Page 42 of 43 Fitzgerald: Yeah. Then a motion is always in order, unless there is additional deliberation or conversation needed. Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I move that we continue file number H-2019-0109, Edington Commons to January 16th, 2020. Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: In that motion I might make a recommendation to add a specific -- a few specific items we want them to work on before they come back. Fitzgerald: We need to give them guidance on what -- Cassinelli: I thought we -- I thought we did kind of. To work with staff -- Fitzgerald: To help Sonya. Cassinelli: Okay. To work with staff on -- on the building requirements of the -- of the development agreement to include eaves and colors. Traffic flow. Pathways. Fitzgerald: Common lot. Cassinelli: Common lots. Parking. Is there anything else? Seal: Possibility of commercial. Fitzgerald: Street width. Commercial review. Or mixed use review. Adding in pathway locations. Holland: Integration with surrounding properties to accommodate the regional mixed use. Cassinelli: Are you getting all this? That motion? Fitzgerald: Thank God for Dean who is here taking verbatim notes. Okay. I have a motion. Do I have a second? Seal: I second. Fitzgerald: Is the motion maker amenable -- Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 19, 2019 – Page 45 of 92 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission December 5, 2019 Page 43 of 43 Cassinelli: Oh, absolutely. Fitzgerald: Okay. Can I have a second? Seal: Second. Fitzgerald: Okay. I have a motion and a second to continue the application for H-2019- 0109, Edington Commons, until January 16th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same. Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. B. Public Hearing Continued from November 21, 2019 for Silverstone Apartments H-2019-0104) by Dave Evans Construction, Located at 4107 E. Overland Rd. Applicant withdrew application. Request: Modification to the Conditional Use Permit (H-2016- 0060) to increase the number of dwelling units in the multi- family development from 112 to 204, increase the acreage from 5.61 to 10 acres, and update the development plan for the site. Fitzgerald: Okay. I have one more motion. Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I move we adjourn. McCarvel: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:59 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED FITZGE D -Xtt N G AIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: By Adrienne Werly, Deputy Clerk AUGUST: o� o � G�'00 i W IDEZIAN?- PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING AGENDA December 5, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 3 A Item Title: Approve Minutes of November 21, 2019 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Meeting Notes: Y", I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 3.A . Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: 0 Title of I tem - Approve M inutes of November 21, 2019 P lanning and Zoning C ommission M eeting AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate Meeting Minutes Minutes 11/22/2019 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 5, 2019 – Page 3 of 58 Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission November 21, 2019 Page 8 of 8 Fitzgerald: Was that a motion? McCarvel: Yeah. I move. Fitzgerald: I have a motion -- Seal: Second. Fitzgerald: -- that Commissioner Holland remains the vice chair -- or, no, become the vice chair. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same. Thanks, ma'am. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Fitzgerald: I need one more motion, please. Olsen: Mr. Chairman? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Olsen. Olsen: I move we adjourn the meeting. Fitzgerald: I have a motion to adjourn. Do I have a second? Seal: Second. Fitzgerald: Motion and second to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same. Yea, we are adjourned. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:15 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED .,.,�, - —d1AA–M AN DATEAPPROVED ATTEST:/ , 2114 Pdrier eG,r►�,u Gex1c. CE IDIANIZ,+-- �J PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING AGENDA December 5, 2019 Planning and Zoning Public Hearing Outline and Presentations Meeting Notes: Changes to Agenda: • Item #4B: Silverstone Apartments (H-2019-0104) – Applicant requests withdrawal of this application Item #4A: Edington Commons (H-2019-0109) Application(s): ➢ Annexation & Zoning ➢ Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 13.49 acres of land, zoned RUT in Ada County, located just north of W. Ustick Rd. on the east side of N. Linder Rd. at 3610 N. Linder Rd. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: North: School (Sawtooth Middle School), zoned R-4 South: vacant/undeveloped land conceptually approved for commercial uses, zoned C-C East: Rural residential/agricultural property with a home, zoned RUT West: Linder Rd. & rural residential/ag property with a home, zoned RUT & a future storage facility, zoned C-C History: None Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MDR (3-8 units/acre) Summary of Request: The Applicant requests annexation & zoning of 14.56 acres of land with an R-15 zoning district for the development of 92 SFR attached & detached units at a gross density of 6.83 units/acre consistent with the MDR FLUM designatio n. A preliminary plat is proposed consisting of 92 building lots, 10 common lots and 4 other lots on 13.49 acres of land in the R-15 zoning district. The plat is proposed to develop in 2 phases. Access is proposed via N. Linder Rd., an arterial street, with stub streets proposed to the east & south for future extension . Public streets are proposed for internal access, some with 27’ wide reduced street sections; 4 common driveways are proposed for access to homes off the public streets. A parking exhibit was submitted demonstrating the amount of on-street parking available within the development. Due to the 27’ wide reduced street sections proposed for Windswept Dr. & Woodpine St., which restrict parking to only one side of the street & narrow building lots with 20’ wide driveways leaving little room for on-street parking, parking is a concern. A total of 50 on-street parking spaces are available for use by residents & guests. Although the minimum parking standards for off-street parking are met, Staff is concerned the amount of on-street parking may not be adequate as historically there have been issues with residents using their garages for storage rather than parking and people parking on both sides of narrow streets where parking is restricted blocking emergency vehicle access. If the Commission feels the on-street parking is not adequate, wider street sections that would allow parking on both sides of the street, wider building lots, and/or additional parking spaces in common areas could be required. A minimum of 10% qualified open space and (1) site amenity is required to be provided for the development. The open space exhibit submitted includes area (shown as hatched) that does not qualify toward the minimum requirements – without these areas, the project does not meet the minimum open space standard. In order for the area along the northern boundary where the Coleman Lateral is located to qualify as linear open space, it would need to have an access at each end and the entire area would need to be improved & landscaped with at least one deciduous shade tree per 8,000 square feet and lawn; because this area is encompassed by an Irrigation District easement, this isn’t feasible. Because the Pathways Master Plan depicts a multi -use pathway in this general area, Staff recommends a 20’ wide common lot is provided along the rear of building lots adjacent to the canal outside of the Irrigation District’s easement with a 10’ wide pathway and 5’ of landscaping on either side with a micro-path connection to the pathway near the east side of the development. This pathway would eventually extend to the east when the abutting property redevelops to the existing pathway in Woodburn West providing a connection to the on-street pathway along Linder Rd. and safe pedestrian access to the middle school to the north. Site amenities are proposed in excess of the minimum required, as follows: a children’s play structure, swing set, seating benches, climbing rocks, climbing dome & a micro-path. City code requires irrigation laterals such as the Coleman Lateral to be piped if they’re not improved as a water amenity or linear open space. As previously mentioned, the area cannot be counted as linear open space and it’s not being improved as a water amenity. Council may waive the requirement for the ditch to be piped if it finds the public purpose requiring such will not be served & public safety can be preserved. Because fencing is proposed adjacent to the canal, Staff feels public safety can be preserved if Council wishes to approve a waiver. If a 20’ common lot is added in this area for a pathway as recommended by Staff, a fence would need to be constructed between the pathway and ditch to preserve public safety. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed attached & detached units as shown. All homes along the west perimeter boundary of the development adjacent to N. Linder Rd. are proposed to be a single-story in height. Building materials consist of a mix of siding (horizontal & vertical lap siding and board & batten) with stone veneer accents; colors are very monochromatic. The attached structures are required to comply with the design standards in the ASM, which include a requirement for a cohesive color scheme to be used featuring a minimum of 2 field colors, a trim color, and an accent color or unique material; garage door colors should coincide with this scheme or other accents – as a DA provision, Staff recommends these standards also apply to the detached units for consistency. To ensure homes are constructed with eaves consistent with the proposed concept building elevations for aesthetic as well as to keep water away from the walls & foundation, Staff recommends a DA provision requiring all homes within the development be constructed with minimum 1-foot wide fire rated eaves on all four sides. At the Commission hearing for the Alpina Townhome project previously proposed on the adjacent Mixed Use designated property to the south but later withdrawn, there was a lot of discussion by the Commission pertaining to their desire for that property & the subject property to develop uniformly to ensure a true mix & integration of uses in this area. Because only a stub street is proposed to the adjacent property and the back side of homes face that property, Staff recommends the Commission determine if the proposed development provides an adequate transition to the mixed use development as desired. Written Testimony: • Whitney Mongomery (in support of project) • copy of letter from Laren Bailey, DevCo (Applicant) to Steve & Andrea Lloyd (property owner to east) agreeing to limit the height of homes to a single-story adjacent to their property on Lots 20 and 23-26, Block 1 – Staff recommends this restriction is included as a provision in the DA per the exhibit Staff Recommendation: Approval with the requirement of a DA per the provisions in the staff report. Staff recommends the project is continued to a later hearing date in order to allow time for the Applicant to revise the plat, landscape plan and qualified open space exhibit per the conditions of approval to ensure the project complies with UDC standards prior to the Commission’s recommendation to Council. 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- 2019-0109, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 5, 2019, 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-2019- 0109, as presented during the hearing on December 5, 2019, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2019-0109 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 December 5, 2019 Zoning Map Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Staff Note: Because W. Woodpine St. (the middle east/west street) is only a 27-foot wide street section, parking is restricted to only one side of the street which reduces the parking count by 2; 3 additional spaces can be accommodated along one side of W. Woodpine St. where it stubs at the east boundary adjacent to common area, resulting in an overall total of 50 on-street spaces. Site Amenities Single-Story Two-Story CE IDIAN,IZ-- DAJ PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING AGENDA December 5, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 4 A Item Title: Public Hearing for Edington Commons (H-2019-0109) By G20, LLC. Located at 3610 N. Linder Rd. 1. Request an Annexation and Zoning of 14.56 acres of land with an R-15 zoning 2. Request a Preliminary Plat consisting of 92 building lots, 10 commons lots and 4 other lots for common driveways on Meeting Notes: 13.49 acres of land in the R-15 zoning district. I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 4.A . Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - Public Hearing for E dington C ommons (H-2019-0109) by G 20, L L C, located at 3610 N. L inder Rd. C lic k Here for Applic ation Materials C lic k Here to S ign Up to Tes tify at Hearing AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate S taff Report S taff Report 12/3/2019 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 5, 2019 – Page 12 of 58 si g n a t u r e _n a m e si g n a t u r e_ f o r si g n a t u r e _a g a i n s t si g n a t ur e _ n e ut r a l si g n a t u r e _ t e s t i f y cr e a t e d _ d a t e t i me ad d r e s s St e v e n ll o y d 0 0 1 1 1 2 / 5 / 2 0 1 9 1 3 7 0 w u s t i c k Wi l l Di l m o r e 1 0 0 0 1 2 / 5 / 2 0 1 9 5 8 5 4 N R o s e p o i n t P l An g i e Di l m o r e 1 0 0 0 1 2 / 5 / 2 0 1 9 Bu d d y Vo g e l 1 0 0 0 1 2 / 5 / 2 0 1 9 1 1 0 4 Q u a i l R u n . B u r k b u r n e t t T e x a s Pe n g Ch e n g 1 0 0 1 1 2 / 5 / 2 0 1 9 Ci n d y Fr i t z 1 0 0 0 1 2 / 5 / 2 0 1 9 4 4 0 0 w p a s a d e n a d r a p t 4 5 b o i s e , i d 8 3 705 St a v e Ya p y a p 1 0 0 1 1 2 / 5 / 2 0 1 9 4 1 8 0 E E s p e r a n t o S t Se r e n a or m s b y - al v a r e z 1 0 0 1 1 2 / 5 / 2 0 1 9 Ju l i e An n do m i n g o 0 0 0 1 1 2 / 5 / 2 0 1 9 4 1 4 4 e e s p e r a n t o s t Page 1 HEARING DATE: December 3, 2019 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Sonya Allen, Associate Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: H-2019-0109 Edington Commons LOCATION: 3610 N. Linder Rd. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Annexation & zoning of 14.56 acres of land with an R-15 zoning district; and Preliminary plat consisting of 92 building lots, 10 common lots and 4 other lots on 13.49 acres of land in the R-15 zoning district. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Description Details Page Acreage 13.49 Future Land Use Designation MDR (3-8 units/acre) Existing Land Use Rural residential/agricultural Proposed Land Use(s) Single-family residential Current Zoning RUT in Ada County Proposed Zoning R-15 Lots (# and type; bldg/common) 92 building/10 common/4 other Phasing plan (# of phases) 2 phases Number of Residential Units (type of units) Single-family attached and detached Density (gross & net) 6.83 units/acre (gross) & 11.64 units/acre (net) Open Space (acres, total [%] / buffer / qualified) See Analysis, Section V.3 Amenities Children’s play structure, climbing dome, swings, climbing rocks & seating area Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 5, 2019 – Page 13 of 58 Page 2 B. Community Metrics Physical Features (waterways, hazards, flood plain, hillside) Coleman Lateral runs across the northern boundary of this site Neighborhood meeting date; # of attendees: July 9, 2019; no attendees except Applicant History (previous approvals) None Description Details Page Ada County Highway District  Staff report (yes/no) Yes  Requires ACHD Commission Action (yes/no) No Fire Service  Distance to Fire Station 2.4 miles from Fire Station #3 (can meet the response time requirements)  Fire Response Time 4 minutes (under ideal conditions)  Resource Reliability 82% from Fire Station #3 – meets the target goal of 80% or greater  Risk Identification 1 (residential) (current resources are adequate to supply service)  Accessibility Does not meet all required access, road widths & turnarounds; development is limited to 30 building lots for both phases until a secondary access that meets IFC is built & approved by MFD. See additional comments in Section VIII.C.  Special/resource needs Doesn’t require an aerial device  Water Supply Requires 1,000 gallons per minute for 1 hour (may be less if building is fully sprinklered)  Other Resources NA Police Service  Distance to Police Station 4.5 miles  Police Response Time 4:01 minutes (priority 3)  Calls for Service See comments in Section VIII.D  Accessibility See comments in Section VIII.D  Specialty/resourc e needs See comments in Section VIII.D  Crimes See comments in Section VIII.D  Crashes See comments in Section VIII.D West Ada School District Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 5, 2019 – Page 14 of 58 Page 3  Distance (elem, ms, hs) Paramount Elementary – 1.2 miles (enrollment at Hunter Elementary is currently capped); Sawtooth Middle School – 0.3 mile; Rocky Mountain High School – 1.4 miles  Capacity of Schools Paramount Elementary 650; Sawtooth Middle School 1,000; Rocky Mountain High School 1,800  # of Students Enrolled Paramount Elementary 701; Sawtooth Middle School 1,042; Rocky Mountain High School 2,475  Anticipated school aged children generated by this development 74 Wastewater  Distance to Sewer Services 0-feet  Sewer Shed White Drain Trunkshed  Estimated Project Sewer ERU’s 92  WRRF Declining Balance 13.78 MGD  Project Consistent with WW Master Plan/Facility Plan Yes  Impacts & Concerns None Water  Distance to Water Services 0-feet  Pressure Zone 2  Estimated Project Water ERU’s 92  Water Quality None  Project Consistent with Water Master Plan Yes  Impacts & Concerns Provide water easement in shared drive (Block 1, Lot 21) for potential connection of parcel to the east. A second water connection for redundancy shall be required to the water main in Linder Road through the walking path between lots 13 & 14 (Block 2). Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 5, 2019 – Page 15 of 58 Page 4 C. Exhibit Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Zoning Map Planned Development Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 5, 2019 – Page 16 of 58 Page 5 III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: G20, LLC – 4824 E. Fairview Ave., Boise, ID 83706 B. Owner: Lester & Betty Vogel Trust – 3610 N. Linder Rd., Meridian, ID 83646 C. Representative: Laren Bailey, Devco Development, LLC – 4824 E. Fairview Ave., Boise, ID 83706 IV. NOTICING Planning & Zoning Posting Date City Council Posting Date Newspaper Notification 11/15/2019 Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet 11/12/2019 Public hearing notice sign posted on site 11/22/2019 Nextdoor posting 11/12/2019 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. ANNEXATION & ZONING Comprehensive Plan (https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan): This property is designated Medium Density Residential (MDR) on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) contained in the Comprehensive Plan. The MDR designation allows smaller lots for residential purposes within City limits. Uses may include single-family homes at gross densities of 3 to 8 dwelling units per acre. The proposed single-family homes and gross density of 6.83 units per acre is consistent with the MDR FLUM designation. Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this application and apply to the proposed use and development of this property (staff analysis in italics):  “Provide for a wide diversity of housing types (single-family, modular, mobile homes and multi-family arrangements) and choices between ownership and rental dwelling units for all income groups in a variety of locations suitable for residential development.” (3.07.03B) The proposed mix of attached and detached units will contribute to the diversity in housing types in the northwest portion of the City. Staff is unaware if the proposed units will be owner occupied or rental units.  “Provide housing options close to employment and shopping centers.” (3.07.02D) The proposed development will provide housing options in close proximity to the existing and future employment and shopping centers along the Chinden Blvd. and Ten Mile corridors.  “Require open space areas within all development.” (6.01.01A) Qualified open space is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3. As proposed, the development does not meet the minimum qualified open space requirement. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 5, 2019 – Page 17 of 58 Page 6  “Permit new development only where urban services can be reasonably provided at the time of final approval and development is contiguous to the City.” (3.01.01F) Urban services can be provided and this development is contiguous to the City.  “Restrict private curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets.” (3.06.02D); Access is proposed via the adjacent arterial street; there are no stub streets to this property and access is not available via a local street.  “Require pedestrian access connectors in all new development to link subdivisions together to promote neighborhood connectivity as part of a community pathway system.” (3.03.03B) There are no pedestrian connections proposed to adjacent properties other than sidewalks along stub streets; Staff recommends a segment of the City’s multi-use pathway is constructed along the northern boundary of this site adjacent to the Coleman Lateral in accord with the Pathways Master Plan as noted below.  “Require pedestrian access connectors in all new development to link subdivisions together to promote neighborhood connectivity as part of a community pathway system.” (3.03.03B) Other than sidewalks along public stub streets, no pedestrian connections are proposed to adjacent properties. Below staff recommends that the applicant construct a 10-foot multi-use pathway along the south side of the Coleman Lateral to promote neighborhood connectivity and safe pedestrian access to the school to the north. One of the many goals of the Comprehensive Plan is to proactively address conflicts between incompatible uses. This property currently abuts C-C zoned property on the south boundary. The applicant is providing a stub street for vehicular connectivity but the neighborhood as designed doesn’t integrate with the mix of commercial uses currently approved for the commercial property (Sugarman). With a previous development application on the subject property (Alpina Townhomes), it was the desire of the Commission to have the two properties develop uniformly to ensure a true mix and integration of uses in this area. Staff recommends that the Commission determine if the proposed single family development provides an adequate transition to the mixed use development. Zoning: Based on the analysis above, Staff is of the opinion the requested annexation with the R- 15 zoning district and proposed development is generally consistent with the MDR FLUM designation and is appropriate for this site. The proposed annexation area is contiguous to City annexed property to the north and south and across the street to the west; and is within the Area of City Impact Boundary (AOCI). A legal description for the annexation area is included in Section VII.A. The City may require a development agreement (DA) in conjunction with an annexation pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A. In order to ensure the site develops as proposed with this application, staff recommends a DA as a provision of annexation with the provisions included in Section VIII. B. PRELIMINARY PLAT Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There is an existing home and several accessory structures on this site. These structures are required to be removed prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer for the phase in which they are located. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 5, 2019 – Page 18 of 58 Page 7 Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): The proposed plat and subsequent development is required to comply with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Tables 11-2A-7 for the R-15 zoning district. The proposed plat complies with these standards. Subdivision Design & Improvement Standards (UDC 11-6C-3): The proposed subdivision is required to be designed and improved per the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3 which include but are not limited to streets, driveways, common driveways, easements, and block face. The proposed plan complies with these standards. Phasing Plan: The subdivision is proposed to develop in two (2) phases. The first phase will include 44 building lots. Access (UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4)/Streets: One (1) access is proposed via N. Linder Rd., an arterial street, at the northwest portion of the site; two (2) stub streets are proposed for future extension to the south and east. Development is limited to 30 building lots until such time as a secondary access that meets International Fire Code (IFC) is built and approved by the Fire Dept. Traffic: A Traffic Impact Study was not required by ACHD for the proposed development. Common Driveways (UDC 11-6C-3): All common driveways are required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3D. Four (4) common driveways are proposed that comply with UDC standards. Common driveways should be a maximum of 150’ in length or less, unless otherwise approved by the Fire Dept. An exhibit is required to be submitted with the final plat application that depicts the setbacks, fencing, building envelope and orientation of the lots and structures. Driveways for abutting properties that aren’t taking access from the common driveway(s) should be depicted on the opposite side of the shared property line away from the common driveway. Solid fencing adjacent to common driveways is prohibited unless separated by a minimum 5-foot wide landscaped buffer. A perpetual ingress/egress easement for the common driveway(s) is required to be filed with the Ada County Recorder, which shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment. A copy of the easement should be submitted to the Planning Division prior to signature on the final plat. Signage should be provided at the ends of the common driveways on Lots 6 and 22, Block 1; Lot 7, Block 2; and Lot 15, Block 5 for emergency wayfinding purposes as requested by the Fire Department. Parking (UDC 11-3C): Parking for single-family dwellings is required based on the number of bedrooms per unit. For 1- and 2-bedroom units, a minimum of 2 spaces are required with at least one of those spaces in an enclosed garage, other space may be enclosed or a minimum 10’ x 20’ parking pad. For 3- and 4- bedroom units, a minimum of 4 spaces are required with at least 2 of those spaces in an enclosed garage, other spaces may be enclosed or a minimum 10’ x 20’ parking pads. For 5+ bedroom units, a minimum of 6 spaces are required with at least 3 in an enclosed garage, other spaces may be enclosed or a minimum 10’ x 20’ parking pad. Because of the proposed reduced 27-foot wide street sections (W. Windswept Dr. and W. Woodpine St.), parking is restricted to one side of the street only; and narrow building lots (i.e. 32’+/-) with 20’ wide driveways, the amount of available on-street parking is limited. This has historically created issues with not enough on-street parking available for guests Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 5, 2019 – Page 19 of 58 Page 8 and residents due to residents using their garages for storage rather than parking; and people parking on both sides of the street where parking is restricted to only one side blocking access for emergency vehicles. To address this issue, the Applicant has submitted a parking exhibit included in Section VII.F that depicts a total of 50 available on-street parking spaces. Staff is concerned this is sufficient; if the Commission and/or City Council does not feel it’s sufficient, they should require the provision of wider street sections to accommodate parking on both sides of the streets, wider building lots, and/or additional parking spaces in common areas. Because more parking will be able to be provided on the south side of W. Windswept Dr. vs. the north side where building lots are proposed, Staff recommends parking is solely provided on the south side of the street and parking is prohibited on the north side as proposed. One side of the street where 27-foot wide street sections are proposed should be signed “No Parking”. Pathways (UDC 11-3A-8): Pathways are required to be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-8 with landscaping on either side of the pathway(s) per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C. The Pathways Master Plan depicts a segment of the City’s multi-use pathway in the general area near the northern boundary of the site for pedestrian access from the development to the east (Woodburn West) to the on-street pathway along Linder Rd. and the school to the north. Therefore, the Park’s Dept. recommends as a DA provision that a pathway is provided on the south side of the Coleman Lateral on this site. Inclusion of a pathway will also allow this area (i.e. Lot 1, Block 1) to count toward the qualified open space requirement which does not meet the minimum standards as proposed. This pathway would eventually extend to the east to the existing pathway in Woodburn West development when the abutting property to the east redevelops for interconnectivity and safe pedestrian access to the school to the north. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): Sidewalks are required to be constructed adjacent to public streets as set forth in UDC 11-3A-17. A 5-foot wide detached sidewalk was recently constructed with the road widening along Linder Rd., an arterial street; minimum 5-foot wide attached (or detached) sidewalks are required along internal local streets as proposed. Parkways (UDC 11-3A-17): Parkways are required to be constructed and landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11 -3A- 17E, 11-3B-7C and 11-3G-3B.5. Eight-foot wide parkways are proposed along the entry street and within common area “end caps”. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): Landscaping is required to be provided in accord with UDC standards as follows:  A 25-foot wide street buffer is required along N. Linder Rd., an arterial street, in a common lot(s) and landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C;  Landscaping is required on either side of pathways in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C;  Landscaping is required within parkways as set forth in UDC 11-3A-17E, 11-3B-7C and 11-3G-3B.5; and,  Common open space is required to be landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3E. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 5, 2019 – Page 20 of 58 Page 9 Landscaping is proposed within the street buffer along Linder Rd. and within most common open space areas in excess of UDC standards. No trees are depicted along the micropath between Lots 13 and 14, Block 2; landscaping should be provided in accord with UDC standards (or apply for alternative compliance if an easement exists). The total linear feet of parkways and required & provided number of trees should be included in the calculations table on Sheet L2 of the landscape plan in accord with the minimum standards in UDC 11-3B-7C. Qualified Open Space (UDC 11-3G): Based on the overall development area which consists of 13.49 acres of land, a minimum of 10% (1.35 acres) qualified open space is required to be provided within the development per the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3B. An open space exhibit was submitted as shown in Section VII.D that depicts 2.02 acres (or 15%) of open space for the development consisting of a half-acre park exceeding 50’ x 100’, common areas with parkways along the entry street and parkways within “end cap” common areas adjacent to streets, a micro-path lot, half of the arterial street buffer along Linder Rd. and the common lot where the Coleman Lateral is located at the north boundary of the site. Some of the open space depicted on the exhibit does not count toward the “qualified” open space standards set forth in UDC 11-3G-3 as shown in the second exhibit in Section VII.D (see hatched areas), primarily consisting of the area along the north boundary where the Coleman Lateral is located. Without this area, the development does not meet the minimum standards. Therefore, Staff recommends a 20-foot wide common lot is added along the north side of the building lots in Block 1 adjacent to the lateral outside of the irrigation easement containing a 10-foot wide multi-use pathway with 5 feet of landscaping on either side of the pathway in order for this area to qualify and comply with the minimum open space standards. In order for open space to qualify toward the minimum requirements it must improve the livability of residential neighborhoods, protect natural amenities, be accessible by all residents of the development and be located in areas of high visibility to avoid hidden areas and corners, dark areas, unusable space and reduce the opportunity for crime as set forth in UDC 11- 3G-1, 11-3G-3 and 11-3G-3D. Qualified Site Amenities (UDC 11-3G): A minimum of one (1) qualified site amenity is required to be provided for this development based on the size of the development (i.e. 13.49 acres). The Applicant proposes the following amenities in excess of UDC standards: a children’s play structure, a swing set, seating benches, climbing rocks, climbing dome and a micro-path (see Section VII.D). Existing Trees: There are several (i.e. 6+/-) existing trees on this site that are proposed to be removed with development. Mitigation information is included on the landscape plan; (151) 2- inch caliper trees are proposed for mitigation in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B- 10C.5. Waterways (UDC 11-3A-6): The Coleman Lateral runs along the northern boundary of this site within a 40-foot wide easement and is proposed to be left open as linear open space. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): All fencing constructed on the site is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A- 7. Fencing is proposed as follows: a 6-foot tall solid vinyl privacy fence is proposed along the west, south and east boundaries of the development; a 5-foot tall black wrought iron fence is proposed Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 5, 2019 – Page 21 of 58 Page 10 along the rear of building lots adjacent to the canal along the north boundary of the development; and a 4-foot tall black wrought iron fence is proposed around the common area where children’s play equipment is proposed near the entry of the development in accord with UDC standards. Utilities (UDC 11-3A-21): Connection to City water and sewer services is proposed. Street lighting is required to be installed in accord with the City’s adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. See Section VIII-B below for Public Works comments/conditions. Pressurized Irrigation System (UDC 11-3A-15): An underground pressurized irrigation system is required to be provided for each lot within the development. Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18): An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments in accord with the City’s adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Design and construction shall follow best management practice as adopted by the City as set forth in UDC 11-3A-18. Building Elevations (UDC 11-3A-19 | Architectural Standards Manual): Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed single-family attached and detached units as shown in Section VII.E. Building materials consist of a mix of siding (horizontal and vertical lap siding and board & batten) with stone veneer accents; colors are very monochromatic. The single-family attached structures are required to comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual; single-family detached structures are exempt from this requirement. All SFR homes along the west perimeter boundary of the development adjacent to N. Linder Rd. are proposed to be a single-story in height. To ensure eaves are constructed on homes for aesthetic as well as drainage (i.e. keeping water away from the foundation) reasons, Staff recommends a DA provision requiring all homes within the development be constructed with minimum 1-foot wide fire rated eaves on all four sides. For variety in appearance of the structures, Staff recommends a cohesive color scheme is used for the overall development featuring a minimum of two field colors, a trim color, and an accent color or unique material. Garage door colors should coincide with this scheme or other accents. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed Annexation & Zoning and Preliminary Plat applications with the conditions included in Section VIII per the Findings in Section IX. Further, Staff recommends the plat, landscape plan and qualified open space exhibit is revised per the conditions in Section VIII prior to the Commission’s recommendation to Council on this application. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 5, 2019 – Page 22 of 58 Page 11 VII. EXHIBITS A. Annexation & Zoning Legal Description and Exhibit Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 5, 2019 – Page 23 of 58 Page 12 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 5, 2019 – Page 24 of 58 Page 13 B. Preliminary Plat (date: 12/3/2019) & Phasing Plan Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 5, 2019 – Page 25 of 58 Page 14 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 5, 2019 – Page 26 of 58 Page 15 C. Landscape Plan (date: 11/18/2019) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 5, 2019 – Page 27 of 58 Page 16 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 5, 2019 – Page 28 of 58 Page 17 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 5, 2019 – Page 29 of 58 Page 18 D. Qualified Open Space Exhibit (NOT Approved) & Site Amenities Note: The hatched areas noted on the exhibit above do not qualify toward the minimum open space requirement per UDC 11-3G-3B. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 5, 2019 – Page 30 of 58 Page 19 E. Conceptual Building Elevations (Single-Family Attached/Detached) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 5, 2019 – Page 31 of 58 Page 20 F. On-Street Parking Exhibit Staff Note: Because W. Woodpine St. (the middle east/west street) is only a 27-foot wide street section, parking is restricted to only one side of the street which reduces the parking count by 2; 3 additional spaces can be accomodated along one side of W. Woodpine St. where it stubs at the east boundary adjacent to common area, resulting in an overall total of 50 on-street spaces. Add 3 spaces Remove 2 spaces Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 5, 2019 – Page 32 of 58 Page 21 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. A Development Agreement (DA) is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance, a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian, the property owner(s) at the time of annexation ordinance adoption, and the developer. Currently, a fee of $303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six (6) months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions: a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the preliminary plat, phasing plan, landscape plan and conceptual building elevations included in Section VII and the provisions contained herein. b. All single-family attached structures shall comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. An application for Design Review shall be submitted and approved for all attached dwellings prior to submittal of building permit applications. c. For variety in appearance of the structures, a cohesive color scheme shall be used for the overall development featuring a minimum of two field colors, a trim color, and an accent color or unique material. Garage door colors shall coincide with this scheme or other accents. d. All homes within the development shall be constructed with minimum 1-foot wide fire rated eaves on all four sides. e. All homes along the west perimeter boundary of the development adjacent to N. Linder Rd. shall be restricted to a single-story in height as proposed by the Developer. d. A minimum 10% (1.35 acres) qualified open space shall be provided with development of this site as set forth in UDC 11-3G-3 in accord with the conditions of approval of the preliminary plat. e. A 10-foot wide multi-use pathway within a 14-foot wide public use easement and 20-foot wide common lot shall be provided along the south side of the Coleman Lateral outside of the Irrigation District’s easement. Five-foot wide landscape strips shall be provided on either side of the pathway that comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C. 2. The preliminary plat included in Section VII.B, dated 12/3/19, shall be revised as follows: a. Depict a minimum 20-foot wide common lot at the rear of building lots in Block 1 adjacent to the Coleman Lateral for a multi-use pathway and associated landscaping. b. Relocate Lot 21, Block 1 to between Lots 17 and 18 or Lots 18 and 19, Block 1 in order to provide an access near the east end of the linear open space to the north as required by UDC 11-3G-3B.1e; the common lot shall be a minimum of 15-feet wide. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 5, 2019 – Page 33 of 58 Page 22 3. The landscape plan included in Section VII.C, dated 11/18/19, shall be revised as follows: a. Depict trees and landscaping along the micropath between Lots 13 and 14, Block 2 in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C. b. Include the linear feet of parkways and required & provided trees in the calculations table on Sheet L2 of the landscape plan in accord with the minimum UDC standards. c. Depict a minimum 20-foot wide common lot at the rear of building lots in Block 1 south of the Coleman Lateral containing a 10-foot wide multi-use pathway and 5-foot wide landscape strips on either side of the pathway landscaped per the standards in UDC 11- 3B-12C. d. Relocate the common lot (Lot 21, Block 1) with pathway and landscaping to between Lots 17 and 18 or Lots 18 and 19, Block 1 so that the multi-use pathway required to the north along the waterway is accessible at each end as required by UDC 11-3G-3B.1e; landscaping is required along either side of the pathway as set forth in UDC 11-3B-12C. e. Depict a 6-foot tall wrought iron fence between the multi-use pathway and the adjacent waterway for public safety. 4. For lots accessed by common driveways, an exhibit shall be submitted with the final plat application that depicts the setbacks, fencing, building envelope and orientation of the lots and structures. Driveways for abutting properties that aren’t taking access from the common driveway(s) shall be depicted on the opposite side of the shared property line away from the common driveway. Solid fencing adjacent to common driveways is prohibited unless separated by a minimum 5-foot wide landscaped buffer. 5. Provide address signage for homes accessed by the common driveways on Lots 6 and 22, Block 1; Lot 7, Block 2; and Lot 15, Block 5 for emergency wayfinding purposes. 6. A perpetual ingress/egress easement is required to be filed with the Ada County Recorder for all common driveways, which shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment. A copy of the recorded easement should be submitted to the Planning Division prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. 7. Development shall be limited to 30 building lots until such time as a secondary access that meets International Fire Code (IFC) is built and approved by the Fire Dept. 8. All existing structures on the site shall be removed prior to City Engineer signature on the final plat phase in which they are located. 9. Parking is restricted to only the south side of the 27-foot wide street section (i.e. W. Windswept Dr.); signage shall be installed prohibiting parking on the north side of the street to ensure emergency access can be provided. B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 A street light plan will need to be included in the final plat application. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-7 of the City's Design Standards. A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 5, 2019 – Page 34 of 58 Page 23 1.2 Provide water easement in shared drive (Block 1, Lot 22) for potential connection of parcel to the east. A second water connection for redundancy shall be required to the water main in Linder Road through the walking path between lots 13 & 14 (Block 2). 2. General Conditions of Approval 2.1 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 Per Meridian City Code (MCC), the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 2.3 The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way (include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat, but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian’s standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement (on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor, which must include the area of the easement (marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2” x 11” map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted, reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. 2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year- round source of water (MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 2.5 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 2.6 All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work, the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 2.7 Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8 contact the City of Meridian Engineering Department at (208)898-5500 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources Contact Robert B. Whitney at (208)334-2190. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 5, 2019 – Page 35 of 58 Page 24 2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections (208)375-5211. 2.9 Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated, road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded, prior to applying for building permits. 2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, etc., prior to signature on the final plat. 2.11 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 2.12 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 2.13 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.16 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 2.17 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. 2.18 The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 2.19 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 2.20 At the completion of the project, the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 2.21 A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272. 2.22 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of 125% of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer, water and reuse infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 5, 2019 – Page 36 of 58 Page 25 surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 2.23 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20% of the total construction cost for all completed sewer, water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=178616&dbid=0 D. POLICE DEPARTMENT http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/0/doc/179502/Page1.aspx E. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO (COMPASS) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/0/doc/178893/Page1.aspx F. NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/0/doc/178820/Page1.aspx G. ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=178813&dbid=0 H. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/0/doc/178990/Page1.aspx I. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (DEQ) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/0/doc/178990/Page1.aspx J. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT (WASD) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/0/doc/179106/Page1.aspx K. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT (ACHD) http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/0/doc/179666/Page1.aspx IX. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone (UDC 11-5B-3E) Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the Commission, the Council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing, review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone, the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Staff finds the Applicant is proposing to annex and develop the subject property with 92 single- family residential units in the R-15 zoning consistent with the MDR FLUM designation. (See Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 5, 2019 – Page 37 of 58 Page 26 section V above for more information.) 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Staff finds the proposed map amendment and development complies with the purpose statement of the residential districts in that it will contribute toward the range of housing opportunities available within the City consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Staff finds the proposed map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare as the proposed medium density residential uses should be compatible with adjacent existing and future residential. Staff recommends the Commission and Council determine if the proposed use and design of the development is compatible with the adjacent future commercial uses abutting the south boundary. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including, but not limited to, school districts; and Staff finds City services are available to be provided to this development. The School District has submitted comments, included in Section VIII.J that currently show student enrollment is above capacity for the elementary, middle and high school – the School District is of the opinion it would be best to delay the approval of this development until they are within a year of opening Owyhee High School. 5. The annexation (as applicable) is in the best interest of city. Staff finds the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the City if the Applicant complies with the conditions in Section VIII. B. Preliminary Plat (UDC 11-6B-6) 1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified development code; (Ord. 08-1372, 7-8-2008, eff. 7-8-2008) Staff finds the proposed plat is generally in conformance with the UDC if the Applicant complies with the conditions of approval in Section VIII. 2. Public services are available or can be made available ad are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Staff finds public services can be made available to the subject property and will be adequate to accommodate the proposed development. 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the city's capital improvement program; Staff finds the proposed plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City’s CIP. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Staff finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 5, 2019 – Page 38 of 58 Page 27 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and Staff finds the proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. (Ord. 05-1170, 8- 30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) Staff is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that need to be preserved with this development. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 5, 2019 – Page 39 of 58 I TEM SHEET C ouncil Agenda I tem - 4.B . Presenter: Estimated Time f or P resentation: Title of I tem - Public Hearing Continued from November 21, 2019 for S ilverstone Apartments (H-2019-0104) by Dave Evans Construction, L ocated at 4107 E . Overland Rd. C lic k Here for Applic ation Materials C lic k Here for P revious C UP Applic ation C lic k Here for P revious AC HD R ep o rt (H-2016-0112) C lic k Here for P revious AC HD R ep o rt (H-2017-0104) C lic k Here to S ign Up to Tes tify at Hearing AT TAC HM E NT S: Description Type Upload D ate S taff Report S taff Report 10/22/2019 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 5, 2019 – Page 40 of 58 Page 1 STAFF REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: 10/24/2019 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Kevin Holmes, Associate Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: H-2019-0104 Silverstone Apartments MCU PROPERTY LOCATION: 4107 E. Overland Rd., in the NW ¼ of the NE ¼ of Section 21, Township 3N., Range 1E. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Modification to the Conditional Use Permit (H-2016-0060) to increase the number of dwelling units in the multi-family development from 112 to 204, increase the acreage from 5.61 acres to 10 acres, and update the development plan for the site. NOTE: The applicant is currently processing a Development Agreement Modification application for the subject property (H-2019-0099) which is scheduled for the October 22, 2019 City Council meeting. Any approvals related to this Conditional Use Modification shall be dependent upon the MDA being approved by Council. As part of that application submittal, staff recommended changes to the development plan, specifically the loss of MF units and increase in open space. The requested changes are also reflected in this report. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 10 Future Land Use Designation MU-RG Existing Land Use Multi-Family Residential, Commercial Proposed Land Use(s) Multi-Family Residential Current Zoning C-G Proposed Zoning N/A Neighborhood meeting date; # of attendees: 8/15/2019; 9 attendees Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 5, 2019 – Page 41 of 58 Page 2 Description Details Page History (previous approvals) H-2016-0060 (AZ, CPAM, CUP); H-2017-0104 (RZ, PP, MDA, MCU); DA Instrument #2017-076698, 2017-024757 & Addendum Instrument #2018-012457; H-2019-0054 (FP) A CZC and DES (A-2019-0307) has been approved for the construction of the first phase (112 units). B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District  Staff report (yes/no) No  Requires ACHD Commission Action (yes/no) No Access (Arterial/Collectors/State Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) Access with the first phase was granted to Overland Road; Phase 2 accesses from S. Movado Way, a collector roadway C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 5, 2019 – Page 42 of 58 Page 3 Zoning Map Planned Development Map III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Silverstone Apartments, LLC 7761 W. Riverside Dr., Suite 100 Boise, ID 83714 B. Owner(s): Bienapel Family Limited Partnership 2674 S. Andros Way Meridian, ID 83642 Silverstone Apartments, LLC 7761 W. Riverside Dr., Suite 100 Boise, ID 83714 C. Representative: Evans Construction 7761 W. Riverside Dr., Suite 100 Boise, ID 83714 IV. NOTICING A. Newspaper notification published on: 10/4/2019 B. Radius notice mailed to properties within 300 feet on: 10/1/2019 C. Applicant posted notice on site on: 10/10/2018 D. Nextdoor posting: 10/1/2019 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 5, 2019 – Page 43 of 58 Page 4 V. STAFF ANALYSIS This site consists of 10 acres, zoned C-G with a Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designation of MU-RG. The western portion of the site (approximately 5.61 acres) is currently being developed with 112 units consistent with previous approvals. Phase 2 consists of the eastern 4.39 acres is proposed to develop with the additional 92 units. The requested modifications to the development includes an increase in the number of approved multi-family units from 112 to 204, increase the acreage from 5.61 acres to 10 acres, and update the development plan for the site. With the increase in the number of units, the applicant is also proposing to increase the amenity package to include the following: 1) clubhouse with fitness facility, 2) children’s play structure, 3) sports court, 4) pool, 5) dog walk, and 6) an open grassy area measuring 50’ x 100’. The clubhouse will contain the leasing office and mail center. The units will be distributed among five (5) three-story 24-plexes, five (5) three-story 12-plexes, and three (3) two-story 8-plexes. The bedroom count consists of 66 one-bedroom units and 138 two- bedroom units. NOTE: The site plan approved with the first phase depicts two multi-family structures in the northeast corner. In the new plan, these two buildings have been consolidated into one single structure. The CZC approved with the first phase may need to be revised to incorporate the single structure or the site plan submitted with phase 2 can reflect the change to the layout of the buildings as currently proposed. A. Comprehensive Plan Policies This site is designated Mixed Use – Regional (MU-RG) on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The purpose of this designation is to provide a mix of employment, retail, and residential dwellings and public uses near major arterial intersections. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses together, including residential, and to avoid predominantly single use developments such as a regional retail center with only restaurants and other commercial uses. Developments should be anchored by uses that have a regional draw with the appropriate supporting uses. Fox example, an employment center should have support retail uses; a retail center should have supporting residential uses as well as support retail uses; a retail center should have supporting residential uses as well as supportive neighborhood and community services. The standards for the MU-RG designation provide an incentive for larger public and quasi-public uses where they provide a meaningful and appropriate mix to the developments. This site is proposed to develop with 204 multi-family residential units at a gross density of 20 dwelling units per acre (d.u./acre) in accord with the desired density of the MU-RG designation of 6 to 40 dwelling units to the acre. Further, the high-density development should contribute to the mix of residential uses in this area adjacent to retail, employment and restaurant uses near major intersections (Eagle & Overland Roads and Eagle & Cloverdale Roads). Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to the proposed use (staff analysis in italics): Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 5, 2019 – Page 44 of 58 Page 5  “Provide for a wide diversity of housing types (single-family, modular, mobile homes and multi-family arrangements) and choices between ownership and rental dwelling units for all income groups in a variety of locations suitable for residential development.” (3.07.03B, pg. 56) The proposed multi-family units will contribute to the variety of rental options available within the City.  “Permit new development only where urban services can be reasonably provided at the time of final approval and development is contiguous to the City.” (3.01.01F, pg. 45) City services will be provided and extended with development of this site.  “Require new residential development to meet development standards regarding landscaping, signage, fences and walls, etc.” (3.04.01H) Street buffer landscaping is required adjacent to E. Overland Rd. and S. Movado Way in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. Separate permits shall be obtained for signage in compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3D-5.  “Provide housing options close to employment and shopping centers.” (3.07.02D) Because of its location close to the Silverstone Business Park, the El Dorado Business Park, Gramercy commercial developments, and the future development of Eagle View Landing, this property is ideal for providing higher density housing options.  “Require screening and landscape buffers on all development requests that are more intense than adjacent residential properties.” (3.06.01G) The proposed development abuts less intense single-family development at the south boundary. With phase 1, the applicant received approval to construct a 10-foot wide landscape buffer. Fencing has been constructed with the single family development along the south boundary however, staff believes a 25-foot landscape buffer and trees that touch at maturity should be installed along the west and southern portion of the phase 2. B. 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: A minimum of 80 square feet of private useable open space is required to be provided for each unit. Private balconies or patios are proposed for each unit but floorplans have not been provided to confirm they meet this requirement. The floor plans approved with the first phase depicted patios and balconies that meet this requirement. At the time of Certificate of Zoning Compliance submittal, the applicant shall provide floorplans to confirm the balconies/patios meet this requirement. Development with 20 units or more are required to provide a property management office, maintenance storage area, central mailbox location (including provisions for parcel mail) that provides safe pedestrian and/or vehicular access, and a directory and map of the development at an entrance or convenient location for those entering the development. The property management, leasing office, and mailboxes are located in Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 5, 2019 – Page 45 of 58 Page 6 clubhouse, centrally located on the site. The site plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application shall depict the location(s) of the directory map of the development and the maintenance storage area. At a minimum, 250 square feet (s.f.) of outdoor common open space is required for each unit containing more than 500 and up to 1,200 s.f. of living area. All of the 204 proposed units are within this range. Therefore, a minimum of 51,000 s.f. (or 1.17 acres) of common open space is required in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27C. The applicant has not provided an open space exhibit demonstrating compliance with the above requirement. Further, staff has recommended the applicant reduce the number of units by twelve to increase the open space within the development. Prior to the Commission hearing, the applicant shall provide such an exhibit showing calculations for open space meeting the following requirements: 1. A minimum area of outdoor common open space shall be provided as follows: a. Two hundred fifty (250) square feet for each unit containing more than five hundred (500) square feet and up to one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet of living area. 2. Common open space shall be not less than four hundred (400) square feet in area, and shall have a minimum length and width dimension of twenty feet (20'). For multi-family developments with more than 100 units, the decision making body shall require amenities commensurate to the size of the development. A total of 204 units are proposed. Six (6) amenities proposed: 1) clubhouse with fitness facility, 2) children’s play structure, 3) sports court, 4) pool, 5) dog walk, and 6) open grassy area measuring 50’ x 100’. Staff recommends that the 24-plex “Building J” shown on the proposed site plan be replaced with a three-story 12-plex, located on the southern half of the current building’s footprint. The northern half of the footprint should be revised to show an open lawn area with landscaping along the eastern edge to provide additional open space with the development. This is consistent with staff’s recommendation of the development agreement modification. Landscaping is required to comply with UDC 11-4-3-27E. All street facing elevations shall have landscaping along their foundations as follows: the landscaped area shall be at least three-feet wide and have an evergreen shrub with a minimum mature height of 24- inches for every three linear feet of foundation. The remainder of the area shall be landscaped with ground cover plans. The landscape plan submitted with this application meets this requirement. 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 shall submit documentation of compliance with this requirement with submittal of the Certificate of Zoning Compliance. C. Dimensional Standards The proposed development is required to comply with the dimensional standards of the C-G zoning district listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3 and for multi-family developments listed in 11-4-3-27. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 5, 2019 – Page 46 of 58 Page 7 The setbacks in the C-G district are 0 feet, except for the 20-foot required street buffer along S. Movado Way, 35-foot entryway corridor landscape buffer along E. Overland Rd. and a 25-foot wide landscape buffer along a portion of the west and southern boundary of phase 2 in accord with UDC Table 11-2B-3. In addition, the multi-family specific use standards requires a 10-foot building setback along the perimeter unless a greater setback is required by title 10 (International Building Code). D. Access Access is depicted on the site plan via: E. Overland Rd.(approved with Phase 1), an arterial roadway; S. Movado Way, a collector street; emergency access only is proposed via a connection to E Esperanto St. to the south. Meridian Fire Department has commented on the access to the development and supports the applicant’s proposal. Staff finds the access is sufficient to serve the proposed development. E. Parking: The UDC requires off-street vehicle parking to be provided on the site in accord with the standards listed in Table 11-3C-6 for multi-family developments. Based on 66 one- bedroom, 138 two-bedroom units, and the1,834 square foot clubhouse a minimum of 379 spaces are required. The applicant has provided 325 covered stalls and 52 uncovered stalls for a total of 375, two short of the requirement. Staff is recommending that 12 units be removed from “Building J”. With this reduction, the site will meet the requirements of code, 355 required and 377 provided. Table 11-3C-5 lists the required parking stall and drive aisle dimensional standards. Per this table, two-way drive aisles with 90 degree parking are to be 25-feet wide. In addition, the Fire Department requires drive aisles to be 26’ around buildings over 30-feet in height. At the time of Certificate of Zoning Compliance submittal, the applicant shall provide a revised site plan demonstrating conformance with both of the above requirements. One bicycle parking space is required to be provided for every 25 proposed vehicle spaces or portion thereof, per UDC 11-3C-6G. Based on a total of 377 proposed parking spaces, a minimum of 15 bicycle parking spaces should be provided for the development. The site plan depicts 70 bicycle parking spaces dispersed throughout the development, far exceeding the City’s requirements. F. Sidewalks/Parkways: A five-foot wide detached sidewalk exists on this site along S. Movado Way and E. Overland Rd. in accord with UDC 11-3A-17. Any existing curb cuts not being used should be removed and reconstructed with landscaping and required sidewalk per ACHD standards. G. Landscaping: A minimum 20-foot wide landscaped street buffer is already constructed along S. Movado Way, a collector street, and a minimum 35-foot landscape buffer is required Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 5, 2019 – Page 47 of 58 Page 8 along E. Overland Rd., an entryway corridor, landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. In addition to the required street buffer landscaping, the applicant is required to construct a 25-foot wide landscape buffer along a portion of the west and south boundary of phase 2. To ensure adequate buffering from the more intense multi- family project to the abutting single family residences, staff recommends that the applicant construct the full 25-foot wide buffer width comprised of trees that touch at maturity, unless waived by Council during the hearing of the MDA application. H. Fencing: All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. Fencing shall only be permitted on the interior edge of the street buffer, not within it, in accord with UDC 11-3B-7C.2(c). I. Utilities and drainage: All utilities and drainage facilities are required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-18 and UDC 11-3A-21. J. Lighting: All outdoor lighting shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-11. K. Building Elevations: Building elevations were submitted for the multi-family structures and clubhouse. Building materials for the multi-family structures and the clubhouse consist of fiber cement horizontal lapped and board batten siding and stucco with architectural laminated fiberglass roof shingles. 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. Note: the elevations approved with phase 1 and identical with the ones proposed for expansion. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed conditional use permit modification application in accord with the Findings in Section IX per the provisions in Section VIII. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 5, 2019 – Page 48 of 58 Page 9 VII. EXHIBITS A. Approved Site Plan (H-2017-0104) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 5, 2019 – Page 49 of 58 Page 10 B. Proposed Site Plan Remove twelve units to include more open space. Construct 25’ landscape buffer along a portion of the west and south boundary. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 5, 2019 – Page 50 of 58 Page 11 C. Proposed Landscape Plan Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 5, 2019 – Page 51 of 58 Page 12 D. Proposed Elevations (no change since previous approvals) Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 5, 2019 – Page 52 of 58 Page 13 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 5, 2019 – Page 53 of 58 Page 14 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Planning Division 1. Development of the site shall substantially comply with the site plan, landscape plan, and conceptual building elevations included in Exhibit A, with the conditions of approval listed herein, and the provisions of the development agreement and any modifications thereof. 2. The submitted site and landscape plan, included in Section VII, Exhibits C & D of the shall be revised as follows: a. Replace “Building J” with a three-story 12-plex to be located on the southern end of the current buildings footprint. The northern half of the footprint shall be revised to show an open lawn area with landscaping along the eastern edge. a. The applicant shall construct a 25-foot wide landscape buffer to the residential uses to the west and south boundary of phase 2 constructed to the standards of UDC 11-3B-9 with trees touching at maturity, unless waived by City Council. 3. The architectural character of the proposed structures shall comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. 4. Prior to the Commission hearing, the applicant shall provide an exhibit showing calculations for open space meeting the requirements of UDC 11-4-3-27C. 5. At the time of Certificate of Zoning Compliance submittal, the applicant shall provide floorplans to confirm the balconies/patios are a minimum of 80 square feet. 6. At the time of Certificate of Zoning Compliance submittal, the applicant shall provide a revised site plan depicting the locations of the directory & map of the development and the maintenance storage shed. 7. The developer shall comply with the specific use standards for multi-family developments listed in UDC 11-4-3-27, including but not limited to the following: a. All on-site service areas, outdoor storage areas, waste storage, disposal facilities, and transformer and utility vaults shall be located in an area not visible from a public street, or shall be fully screened from view from a public street. b. 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 shall submit documentation of compliance with this requirement with submittal of the Certificate of Zoning Compliance. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 5, 2019 – Page 54 of 58 Page 15 8. The applicant shall provide amenities as proposed, in accord with UDC 11-4-3-27D. 9. Any fencing constructed on the site shall be consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-7. Any fencing proposed along Overland Road and S. Movado Way shall be installed along the interior edge of the 35-foot and 20-foot wide landscape buffers. 10. The interior parking area shall comply with the required stall and drive aisle dimensions listed in UDC Table 11-3C-5. These dimensions shall be depicted on the site plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. 11. The applicant is required to submit a Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review applications for approval from the Planning Division prior to submittal of a building permit application. NOTE: The site plan approved with the first phase depicts two multi-family structures in the northeast corner. In the new plan, these two buildings have been consolidated into one single structure. The CZC approved with the first phase may need to be revised to incorporate the single structure or the site plan submitted with phase 2 can reflect the change to the layout of the buildings as currently proposed. 12. The applicant shall submit a drainage plan to Meridian Land Development for review and approval to ensure adequate drainage can be maintained on site in accord with UDC 11-3A-18. 13. Staff’s failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or terms of the approved conditional use does not relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance. 14. The Applicant shall have a maximum of two (2) years to commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval listed above. If the use has not begun within two (2) years of approval, a new conditional use permit must be obtained prior to operation or a time extension must be requested in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F. 15. The applicant shall complete all required improvements prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. It is unlawful to use or occupy any building or structure until the Building Official has issued a Certificate of Occupancy. 16. Prior to development commencing with the development of phase 2 (4.39 acres), the applicant shall record the development agreement that contains the provisions approved with file #H-2019-0099. 17. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of approval approved with H-2016- 0060, H-2017-0104, H-2019-0054 and A-2018-0307. 18. The applicant shall record a final plat prior to obtaining occupancy of the first structure. NOTE: City Council has approved a final plat for the boundary of the first phase. The applicant can either submit a new final plat application for review and approval or modify the boundary of the first phase to incorporate the additional land area with a final plat modification application. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 5, 2019 – Page 55 of 58 Page 16 B. Public Works Division 1. A streetlight plan is required for this development. Type 1 streetlights are required every 200' on Overland Road. Davit poles may be used to avoid overhead power conflicts. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272). All street lights shall be installed at developer’s expense. Final design shall be submitted as part of the development plan set for approval, which must include the location of any existing street lights. The contractor’s work and materials shall conform to the ISPWC and the City of Meridian Supplemental Specifications to the ISPWC. Contact the City of Meridian Transportation and Utility Coordinator at 898-5500 for information on the locations of existing street lighting. For all other agency comments (CDHD, WASD, NMID, DEQ, ITD) click on the following link: http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/Browse.aspx?dbid=0 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 5, 2019 – Page 56 of 58 Page 17 IX. FINDINGS Conditional Use Permit (UDC 11-5B-6E): The commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the following: A. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. Staff finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and the dimensional and development regulations of the C-G district as required by the UDC (see Analysis Section V for more information). B. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. Staff finds that the proposed use is consistent and harmonious with the UDC and Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designation for this site. C. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Staff finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions listed in this report, the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area (see Analysis Section V for more information). D. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Staff finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed use will not adversely affect other property in the area. E. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer. Staff finds that the proposed use will be served adequately by all of the public facilities and services listed above. F. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Staff finds there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the community’s economic welfare. G. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. Staff finds the proposed use will not involve excessive traffic, noise, or odors that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare. H. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30- 2005, eff. 9-15-2005). Staff finds that the proposed use will not result in the destruction, Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 5, 2019 – Page 57 of 58 Page 18 loss or damage of any natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance in this area. Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda December 5, 2019 – Page 58 of 58 E dington C om m ons 1 EDINGTON COMMONS SUBDIVISION December 4, 2019 2 Site Plan •Medium density development near major traffic corridors (Ustick and Linder) •92 building lots •High-quality, low- maintenance product for “empty nesters” and small families 3 Neighborhood Amenities •Large, Half-Acre Park •Five Amenities (One Required): •Children’s play structure •Climbing dome •Swings •Climbing Rocks •Seating Area •Pathways & Sidewalks •15% open space 4 Height Restrictions •Voluntary restrictions to single-level for lots in pink •Better transitions and streetscape at Linder Road 5 No Code Modifications •Satisfies comprehensive plan policies, including: •Diversity of housing types •Housing close to employment & shopping centers •Walking distance of Settlers Regional City Park, school, shopping, and employment •Infill project contiguous to the City and urban services •Proposed R-15 zoning complies with Medium Density Residential designation •Project complies with all R-15 zone dimensional standards •No “step-up” requested 6 Points of Discussion from Staff Report •Parking •Proposed parking exceeds code with four parking spots per residence •In addition, 50 on-street parking spots provided 7 Points of Discussion from Staff Report •Relocation of Lot 21 Access •No block length issue •Creates a 150’ dead end •Provides additional buffer to neighbor to the east •Neighbor has requested that it remain in this location 8 Points of Discussion from Staff Report •Open Space Requirements •Area south of Coleman Lateral meets City open space requirements: “Linear open space area that is at least twenty feet (20') and up to fifty feet (50'), has an access at each end, and is improved and landscaped as set forth in subsection E of this section.” •Area will be landscaped per UDC 11-3G-3.E and 11-3B-3.B.12 9 10 11 Points of Discussion from Staff Report •Regional Pathway •Propose exactly what was done at Movado Estates Subdivision and place the regional pathway on the front of the lots 12 Points of Discussion from Staff Report •Design Conditions •Design review is required for duplex dwellings •No design review in code for detached SF dwellings •No UDC Basis for Requiring Certain Colors •No UDC Basis for Structural Requirements Beyond Building Code 13 West Ada Schools •Enrollment (Latest Figures): 38,014 •Capacity (Latest Figures): 39,709 •Owyhee High School will be on-line before project will be occupied •Over-enrollment to be addressed through boundary modifications •Low impact to schools due to low numbers of school-age children in these projects 14 Requested Modifications to Conditions of Approval •Delete A.1.c (color scheme requirement) •Delete A.1.d (eave requirement) •Delete A.2.a, A.3.c (new common lot) •Delete A.2.b, A.3.d (re-location of open space access) 15 Requested Modifications to Conditions of Approval •Modify A.1.e (regional pathway), as follows: “Allow for public access for purposes of a regional pathway in the location identified on the Applicant’s 12-5-19 depiction. The Applicant shall confer with the Parks & Recreation Department to identify final width and dimensions in connection with the hearing before City Council.” 16 17 Transition and Connectivity to Southern Neighbor 18 Verado Phase 2 Verado Phase 1: EDINGTON COMMONS SUBDIVISION (H-2019-0109) Proposed Modifications to Conditions of Approval:  Delete Condition A.1.c (color scheme requirement)  Delete Condition A.1.d (eave requirement)  Delete Conditions A.2.a, A.3.c (new common lot)  Delete Conditions A.2.b, A.3.d (re-location of open space access)  Modify Condition A.1.e (regional pathway), as follows: “Allow for public access for purposes of a regional pathway in the location identified on the Applicant’s 12-5-19 depiction. The Applicant shall confer with the Parks & Recreation Department to identify final width and dimensions in connection with the hearing before City Council.” CDAHOIDIAN*,----- ,W,fZ, PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING AGENDA December 5, 2019 Agenda Item Number: 4 B Item Title: Public Hearing Continued from November 21, 2019 for Silverstone Apartments (H-2019-0104) By Dave Evans Construction. Located at 4107 E. Overland Rd. 1. Request a Modification to the Conditional Use Permit Meeting Notes: (H-2016-0060) to increase the number of dwelling units in the multi -family development from 112 to 204, increase the acreage from 5.61 to 10 acres and update the development plan for the site. City of Meridian - Public Hearing Sign In Form Tools Details and Signatures For Public Hearing Hearing Date: 12/5/2019 Hearing Type: PZ Item Number: 4-B Project Name: Silverstone Apartments MCU Project No.: H-2019-0104 Active: ❑ Page 1 of 1 Go Back To List Export To Excel © 2019 - City of Meridian, Idaho http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignInFormDetails?id=374 12/6/2019 I WishSign Signature HOA HOA In Address For Neutral Against To Name Name Represent Date/Time Testify 2703 E Patty 12/5/2019 Wainwright X Pitzer 5:49:57 PM Dr Go Back To List Export To Excel © 2019 - City of Meridian, Idaho http://internalapps/SIGNINFORMTOOLS/SignInFormDetails?id=374 12/6/2019