Loading...
2020-03-05 Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting March 5, 2020. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of March 5, 2020, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Vice-Chairman Lisa Holland. Members Present: Commissioner Lisa Holland, Commissioner Rhonda McCarvel, Commissioner Nick Grove and Commissioner Patricia Pitzer. Members Absent. Commissioner Ryan Fitzgerald, Commissioner Bill Cassinelli and Commissioner Andrew Seal. Others Present: Adrienne Weatherly, Andrea Pogue, Bill Parsons, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-call Attendance __X___ Lisa Holland ___X___ Patricia Pitzer ______ Andrew Seal ___X___ Nick Grove __X___ Rhonda McCarvel _______ Bill Cassinelli ________ Ryan Fitzgerald - Chairman Holland: Good evening. At this time I would like to call to order the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for the date of March 5th, 2020, and we will start with roll call. Item 2: Adoption of Agenda Holland: Thank you, Madam Clerk. The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. The only note is that we will be opening Item A on the agenda for the purpose of a continuance. They are requesting a continuance. But, otherwise, the agenda is the same. Can I get a motion to adopt the agenda? McCarvel: So moved. Pitzer: Second. Holland: I have got a motion and a second. All those in favor? Any opposed? All right. Motion is approved. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Item 3. Consent Agenda \[ Action Item\] A. Approve Minutes of February 20, 2020 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2020 Page 2 of 50 B. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Day Wireless(H-2019- 0115) by Day Wireless, Located at 1668 E. Franklin Rd. Holland: And, then, we have also got the Consent Agenda. Can I get a motion to approve -- which has approve the minutes of the February 2020 -- February 20th, 2020, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, as well as the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Day Wireless, H-2019-0115. Can I get a motion to approve the Consent Agenda? McCarvel: So moved. Pitzer: Second. Holland: Got a motion and a second. All those in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Holland: All right. At this point in time I will explain the public hearing process for the evening. We are going to open up each item individually and start with the staff report. The staff will report their findings regarding how the application adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and our Uniform Development Code with the staff's recommendation. After the staff has made their presentation the applicant will come forward and present their case to the Commission and -- for approval of their application and respond to any staff comments. The applicant will have 15 minutes to do so. After the applicant's finished we will open up the floor for public testimony. There is a sign-up in the back on an iPad as you entered. If you wish to testify tonight, please, go ahead and sign in on that iPad as you enter the room. If any individual is here and they are speaking for a larger group, such as an HOA, we will ask for a show of hands at that time for individuals that want to testify on their behalf and those folks that raise their hands will give up their time for that representative to speak for up to ten minutes representing the larger group. After all testimonies have been heard the applicant will be given another ten minutes to have a chance to respond to public testimony and close the discussion. At that time we will close the public hearing and Commissioners will have a chance to deliberate to make a recommendation to City Council or make a decision on the application. Item 4: Action Items A. Public Hearing for Hill's Century Farm North (H-2019-0134) by Martin L. Hill, Hill & Hill Properties, Located at the Southeast Corner of S. Eagle Rd. and E. Amity Rd. – 1. Request: Rezone of a total of 39.9 acres of land from the R-8 zoning district to the C-N ( 4.9 acres), C-C ( 4.35 acres), and R-15 (30.65 acres) zoning districts; Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2020 Page 3 of 50 2. Request: Preliminary plat consisting of 137 building lots, 18 common lots and 10 other lots on 43.02 acres of land in the R-8, R-15, C-N and C-C zoning districts; 3. Request: Planned unit development for an age-restricted 55 and older gated community with deviations from certain development standards; and, 4. Request: Conditional use permit for a 73,730 square foot 443- unit self-service storage facility on 3.89 acres of land in the C- C zoning district. Holland: So, with that we are going to open tonight the public hearing for Hill Century Farm North, which is H-2019-0134, and they are requesting a continuance. So, I don't know if staff had any additional comments, but certainly would welcome the applicant to come forward and make their request. Wardle: Madam Chair, Commission Members, Mike Wardle, director of planning for Brighton Corporation, 2929 West Navigator in Meridian. Obviously, we are not here because we want to be here asking for a continuous. Bill, if you would -- yes. And let me just -- can you give me control, so that I can -- I got control? It's not advancing. I need to go to the last slide if you could -- one -- two more. There you go. Over the course of the last 15 months we have actually had several actions. You -- you approved a modification of a development agreement about a year ago, as did the City Council. We have had three neighborhood meetings and two specifically for the projects that we currently have in queue. That was in July and in November and during those three neighborhood meetings associated with this property we have an average of five people attend and so what we did was 108 days ago today we filed an application. Staffing issues and so forth kept it from getting to you in a -- in a more timely manner, but when we posted the site and the two white red outlined arrows, so the two principal posting locations, those were posted in a timely manner. They were actually initially posted on the opposite corner and I -- the first day -- well, I happened to be in Lisbon, Portugal, and opened up my e-mails after an all night flight and I saw the pictures as they were posted and I immediately contacted staff and said they are in the wrong locations, get them moved, and they got them moved in a timely manner. The circled white and black outlined arrow shows a stub street and, quite frankly, I didn't even think about the stub street. So, we had a sign placed, but, again, the sign company put it on the opposite corner. So, by the time we got that sign in that location it was nine days in advance of the hearing. So, that's the technical issue and I met with staff on Monday when I got back and indicated that we would be requesting since the technicality kept us from this hearing, we would be requesting continuance to the next agenda and staff has indicated, as does the clerk, that it looks to be a full agenda, but just as this particular situation pulls an item off an application you never know. So, we are requesting a continuance to the next meeting, which would be I believe the 19th of March and we will take our chances, knowing that we will be the last item on the agenda, but given the fact that it took us 108 days to get here we need to move as expeditiously as we can. So, with due respect we have asked Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2020 Page 4 of 50 for your continuance to the next regular meeting and we will direct our sign people to go out and re -- re-notice the dates, so that anybody in the neighborhood would be fully aware that there has been a change and at the conclusion of my comments and your decision I'm going to voluntarily meet with anybody from the neighborhood in the foyer just to bring them up to speed on what the circumstances are. But I would note that each of the neighborhood meetings that we have had we have never had any expressed opposition. There were questions that were answered for what largely is a -- an age qualified gated community. So, again, with due respect we ask for a continuance to the next regular meeting. Happy to answer any of your questions. Holland: Thank you. Madam Clerk, can you clarify for us how many items we have on the agenda for the next meeting? Weatherly: Madam Chair, for March 19th we currently have six hearings and, then, on April 2nd we currently have four hearings. Holland: Thank you. I don't have any questions. Anyone from the Commission have a question? Thank you. Wardle: Thank you. Holland: I'm going to look at my fellow Commissioners. I know the request is -- from the applicant is for March 19th. I know staff tries to do what they can not to have more than five or six applications, because, otherwise, they can be pretty lengthy meetings for us. McCarvel: Madam Chair? Holland: I will look to you all. Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I would not be opposed to the 19th. As the applicant said, things tend to drop occasionally and I don't see -- going into spring I mean we get six versus four -- I don't know. I think it's been a while since we have had a long meeting anyway. One -- one of the super long ones. I -- I personally wouldn't be opposed to it, so -- Holland: One of my thoughts -- I am certainly sympathetic to the applicant. It's always unfortunate when you have got a small little piece that got missed on where a sign is posted. I know we also are a little bit light on staff, so I worry a little bit about our staff load for getting some applications in for next -- next meeting. McCarvel: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: Yeah. That was going to be my next question though. Is -- I mean is this one ready to go anyway for staff or is this an additional load for you guys? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2020 Page 5 of 50 Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, Commissioner McCarvel, it's not an easy answer. I mean is anything ready to go these days? Everyone would like it to be ready to go as soon as it hits our desk. But we had a chance to meet with the applicant. Certainly we understand their time constraints. We have talked about it as staff. Now, certainly, our preference is -- I think our guidance to you is as meetings -- meetings get late into the evening -- we didn't know if the Commission was going to have a cutoff date at some point and want to bump things out if we start getting too late into the evening. Is 11:00 o'clock going to be your timeline and, then, eventually, they could get bumped at that point and take that chance with that, as the applicant alluded to. I can tell you that that -- the 19th hearing has two multi-family projects and the Delano is coming back before you on that agenda, which was a pretty controversial hearing and so it was remanded back to you with a redesign. So, I think if -- again the decision is yours. If you guys want to -- think you can handle that -- that many projects on that hearing we will -- staff will do what we need to do to get -- get the work done and get it prepped and get it ready to go. Yes, we have the application processed. It's in the queue. We have it scheduled for hearing. Our intent was always to keep it on this hearing. But, again, we had a technicality. But, again, it is -- it's your purview. If you guys want to go and have that many items on a hearing we will -- we will re-adjust schedules and see what we can do. But, if not, the other -- I can tell you right now what we have in the queue is -- it's ramping up, too, so we are -- you are going to start seeing more and more agendas getting fuller and fuller and so we have -- we got to be cautious on what we do moving forward and how we schedule our time. McCarvel: I guess that was going to be my next question, too, is what is on the agenda? I hadn't looked. Holland: Commissioner Pitzer, do you have a comment? Pitzer: Thank you. So, it looks like we have three that are conditional use permits and we have one, two, three -- two of them that are the subdivisions for the Comprehensive Plan, but the following were two -- we already have three that are all subdivisions. I -- I would not be opposed to doing a 3/19. Holland: One other thought, too, is if we did want to put it on March 19th you could always put a cap on the time, that we wouldn't go past a certain time if we got there. McCarvel: I think that's not a bad idea going forward. Sorry, Madam Chair. Holland: Any other thoughts? Commissioner Grove? With that I will let one of you take a stab at making a motion if you would like for when that gets moved to. McCarvel: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I move that we -- are we -- we are continuing; right? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2020 Page 6 of 50 Holland: Correct. McCarvel: -- file number H-2019-0134 to the March 19th meeting due to a signage issue. Holland: Commissioner McCarvel, did you want to mention anything about time restrictions on this one? McCarvel: I think we will just play it by ear, as long as it doesn't go past midnight. I mean I think that's something maybe we need to maybe set offline. I mean I think just in general going forward that's probably not a bad idea to have this set on the meetings. Holland: So, just to clarify, your motion is to move it to the hearing date of March 19th and we are not putting a time cap on it right now, but -- McCarvel: Yeah. Pending discussions on the time cap. Holland: Okay. Do I have a second? Grove: Second. Holland: Okay. I have got a motion and a second to continue the public hearing for Hill Century Farm North to the hearing date of March 19th. All those in favor? Any opposed? All right. Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. B. Public Hearing Continued from February 20, 2020 for Meridian Station (H-2019-0142) by Matt McAnulty, Located at the Southeast Corner of N. Main St. and E. Broadway Ave., North of the Railroad Tracks 1. Request: Conditional Use Permit for additional height exceeding the maximum height allowed of 75 feet in the O-T zoning district for two (2) 100-foot tall vertically integrated structures. Holland: Next we are going to open up the public hearing for Meridian Station, which is H-2019-0142, and I know that there is a number of you in the room that are here to see what happens with this application, so I'm going to give a little bit of a brief summary of what we discussed in our last meeting and kind of where we are at right now. We had made a motion in our last meeting that we would be opening up tonight not for public comment, but we would just be opening up for Commission deliberation and that we would be able to ask the applicant questions if we had anything. But I think we would like to start with just Commission deliberation and if we have a need to bring the applicant up forward to ask questions or ask staff any questions we can certainly do that. If we do open up the hearing for the applicant to make a presentation or present anything new, we Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2020 Page 7 of 50 would likely have to open it up for public testimony, because typically you can't have anything new without having the public be able to comment on it. So, I would just make that note of caution. But, if possible, I believe the intent of the motion last time was to just ask questions if we had anything we wanted to clarify from the applicant. So, in front of us is a request for a conditional use permit, because there is a development project that would like to construct two hundred foot tall vertically integrated buildings, which exceeds the maximum height in the OT zoning district of 75 feet. So, really, the only thing that we are here to approve is the height variance that they are requesting. They would be allowed to do their project in 75 feet. What we discussed last time is really whether or not that height made sense for this specific downtown project and we did receive 15 new pieces of written testimony, so thank you to all those who have written in. We do read all of those -- those letters and those notes and it's very helpful as we deliberate up here. So, we really appreciate your involvement and your -- your presence being here tonight means a lot to us. Just to recap, 14 out of 15 of those were in favor of the height modification. One of those was opposed. And we did certainly have some other businesses testify last time that gave some concerns about parking. But that was the main concerns that we talked about was -- was parking and whether or not a height of 75 feet was adequate or if we should be able to allow this one to have a hundred foot height. But at this point we -- we could certainly keep the hearing open if you would like to discuss, so that way we can bring the applicant up if we have any specific questions. If we need to go through the project in more depth I can certainly have staff give another overview if we would like to do that. I know, Commissioner McCarvel, you had a chance to read through the minutes from the last meeting. McCarvel: Yes. Holland: All 30 some pages of it. McCarvel: Just this -- just this one. I didn't read the whole meeting, but I did read this application. Holland: All right. I don't know if anybody would like to kick us off on that discussion or give another recap of your thoughts, but I would certainly open it up for that. Commissioner Grove? I don't have to put you on the spot yet. Grove: I don't have anything. I would like to hear from Commissioner McCarvel on -- on her thoughts of -- on what she saw in the application, since we have already had a chance to weigh in. Holland: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: Madam Chair, I -- I actually really like the project. I know it's something new and different from what we normally have been accustomed to. The only thing that tall we are used to seeing around here is grain elevators and silos. But I think the frontage is pretty. The open space -- the green space, the parking, I think would be a welcome idea. I -- I do think -- I saw some comments, you know, fearful that apartments would Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2020 Page 8 of 50 have the two and three guests and all that and while that is usually true, I think from what I have seen in other downtowns, the people that usually live downtown tend to edit their vehicles and that kind of thing. If you are going to want massive amounts of vehicles live somewhere else. I think it would be a nice change and provide a lot of things that downtown Meridian needs to make it a vibrant downtown. The walkability and having that density in the downtown is what makes I think businesses thrive. That's my two cents. Holland: Thank you. I'm just going to recap a couple of the reasons I was in favor of the project as well. When you get a project like this, the -- I think the applicant's gone above and beyond in the number of parking stalls proposed, because that's always the biggest concern we get when it comes to a big project like this, especially when there is multiple stories involved and there is lots of apartments involved. The applicant gave us a mix last time of the number of units that were going to be in there and there was primarily single family -- or one bedroom and studio apartments as kind of the main chunk of it. There were a few two bedroom apartments, but it seemed pretty reasonable for the amount of parking stalls that they were creating. But in general they only had 414 parking stalls that would be required by code and they propose 659, which is 245 stalls more than required, and in the meantime they will also have a surface lot that's kind of up in the front. So, when you look at downtowns -- I mentioned this comment last time, but I have read a lot of -- I have attended a lot of webinars on downtown development projects and what's good and bad and one of the comments made is if you have a parking problem you are doing something right in your community, because it means there is a reason for people to come to your downtown. So, this would help alleviate a challenge of having a parking problem and also give more reasons for people to come downtown to gather. But having 245 extra stalls makes me feel a lot better about the project and if -- if we were to restrict their height just back down to the 75, if I was in the developer's shoes the first thing I would get rid of is a lot of those parking stalls, because that's not where they make their money, they are doing that as a benefit to the community in my opinion. So, that was a couple of my thoughts. I -- I am in favor of a hundred foot tall building, because where you want to have the density and where you want to have the height is in your downtown core. It doesn't make sense to put it in the residential neighborhoods, it doesn't make sense to put it really anywhere else except for a few pockets like the Ten Mile development that's going up where it's -- it's planned for those office towers. But your downtown is really where you want to see the density and I would almost rather have -- if we move forward with approving this conditional use permit I would almost make a recommendation that we also ask the City Council to reconsider what the height should be in our downtown long term, because that was a question we kind of went back and forth on, too, well, if 75 was the number why don't we stick with 75, but it's been a number of years since it was set at 75 and I think there is some new design standards out there and perhaps our city would like to take a more look at that, because I remember in the Comprehensive Plan committee -- and I know the Downtown Meridian Development Corporation has put together a great plan on what they envision for downtown and there is certainly some elements of raising height so bringing it up. So, that's my summary. Commissioner Grove, do you want to add anything else? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2020 Page 9 of 50 Grove: I would echo most everything you said there. I think the opportunity for this project to be able to move forward helps the downtown create the -- some of the building bones that we just lack from previous generations to really revitalize downtown. You know, when you hear about downtown revitalization there is typically something to, you know, renovate, move into, change and we just don't have a lot of those structures in our downtown. So, we are very limited in how -- how successful downtown can be based on the limited amount of space available to make those changes and taking a blighted area like the railroad property and being able to repurpose it with something to this scale I think is -- is vitally important for not only the short term, but the long-term health of our downtown and, yes, it's -- it's painful because it's change, but it's changed that will benefit the business owners of downtown and -- and the community as a whole. I really like this project and I like the idea of approving the one hundred foot height limit on this building. Holland: Commissioner Pitzer, do you have any other comments you would like to make? Pitzer: Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, I love the concept. I was the one that was opposed to this at the last meeting, but I like the concept, I like the -- the courtyard, the open space, you know, having the additional retail space. What I was opposed to especially was asking for a 33 percent change, but I have to sit here in reflection and say is this good for Meridian. I mean that's basically what -- what -- what we are here for and that's why we make recommendations to -- to Council and I think in -- in -- in looking over everything I would have to say that, yes, this is probably in the best interest of Meridian. I don't like the height. I think it's going to eclipse everything around here, but maybe that's short term and I think that if we make -- if we set this precedent and let this go through at a hundred feet, I think we absolutely have to ask for a change in the comp plan. Holland: With that if -- if anybody wanted to ask a specific question, we certainly have the meeting open. We could -- we could ask the applicant to come forward if anyone had a specific question for them or if we feel like we are all on the same page, which it sounds like we are all heading in that same direction, I would accept a motion to close the public hearing so we could make a further motion of recommendation -- or in this case, actually, we make a -- we make a final decision on this, since it's a conditional use permit. But we would need to close the public hearing first. So, can I get a motion to close the public hearing? McCarvel: So moved. Pitzer: Second. Holland: Okay. Moved and second to close the public hearing. All those in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Holland: All right. I would accept a motion at this point as well, unless there is further discussion you would all like to have on Meridian Station. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2020 Page 10 of 50 McCarvel: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number H-2019-0142 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 5th, with no modifications. Grove: Second. Holland: I have got a motion and a second to approve the Meridian Station's request for the height variance, H-2019-0142. All those in favor? Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. C. Public Hearing Continued from February 20, 2020 for Handy Truck Line Silos (H-2019-0149) by Handy Truck Line, Located at 630 E. King St. 1. Request: Conditional Use Permit for additional height exceeding 20% of the maximum height allowed ( i.e. 50 feet) in the I-L zoning district for two (2) 80-foot tall silos. D. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Handy Truck Line Silos (H-2019-0149) by Handy Truck Line, Located at 630 E. King St. Holland: All right. With that we will move on to the next one. And thank you to all of you who showed up tonight. It's always great to see the public show up and -- and making comments on projects. So, we really appreciate that. So, next we are going to move on to Item C, which is a public hearing continued from February 20th, 2020, for Handy Truck Line Silos, which is H-2019-0149, and we are also going to open that with the Findings of Facts, Conclusions of Law. I know that's a little bit atypical for this one, but we are going to open those together and I will start with the staff report, please. Parsons: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. Next item on the agenda this evening is the Handy Truck Lines conditional use permit. As you mentioned it was continued from the 2020 -- 2020 -- Planning and Zoning -- or 2/20/20 Planning and Zoning Commission for the purpose -- for the reason being that they did not get the site posted within the parameters of the UDC. The applicant is here again to discuss a conditional use permit to increase the height of some silos that they want to construct on the site. The property is currently zoned industrial within the City of Meridian and you can see in the zoning map and the future land use map that a majority of the property around this site is also zoned industrial and there are also industrial uses that are occurring around it. So, it's -- it's kind of this -- it's an enclave of industrial around our railroad tracks in close proximity to our downtown area. Right now the applicant is currently operating a Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2020 Page 11 of 50 construction business there. These silos are primarily for the purpose of having concrete powder and housing concrete powder. The proposed silos would be located within the railroad corridor in their right of way, so there was no permission needed or the property owner doesn't own the land, but they have a lease agreement with the Union Pacific Railroad to operate and conduct their business. So, like the previous application that you just took action on, this is one of those cases where a certain height limit is allowed at an administrative level, if you are under 20 percent or up to 20 percent can be approved through the staff level, because the I-L zone has a height limit of 50 feet and they are asking me to go up to 80 feet, they exceed the 20 -- the 20 percent allowed under the administrative process. So, that's why we are really here to talk with you this evening and get your blessing of this. You can see here they provide us some elevations of what the silos would look like. Typically we have design standards that go along with all of our commercial industrial buildings, but in this particular case, if you had a chance to read the staff report, we made a finding that this is really just more of a function of the business, rather than actual habitable building and not your typical commercial building. So, the applicant's going to only have to come before staff with a certificate of zoning compliance and forego the design review process if they obtain approval of the CZC -- or this CUP application. Staff did receive written testimony from Scott Hanks, who is the applicant, and they are in agreement with all conditions in the staff report. Staff is recommending approval and I will stand for any questions. Holland: Thank you, Bill. Any questions for staff? With that would the applicant like to come forward and share a few words with us. And if you wouldn't mind, please, state your name and address for the record. Handy: Yeah. So, I am not Scott Hanks. He, unfortunately, could not make it. My name is Branson Handy. My current address is 8364 Craydon Drive in Boise. As proposed, Madam Chairman and the Commission, these two silos will be directly adjacent to the existing ones and they will be the same height. So, the original silos that were built are about 80 feet and we are asking for permission to build two adjacent silos at that height, so -- yeah. If you have any questions I will do my best to answer. Holland: Any questions for the applicant? You got off easy. Thank you. Appreciate it. Handy: Thank you very much. Holland: Is there anyone signed in to testify on this application, Madam Clerk? Weatherly: Madam Chair, we have one person signed in. That's Lindsay Anderson. Holland: Lindsay, are you here? Would you like to testify? Seeing no hands. Is there anybody else in the room that would like to testify on this application? And with that I don't think the applicant has anything else to add, so I would take a motion to close the public hearing for Handy Truck Lines, 2019-0149. McCarvel: So moved. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2020 Page 12 of 50 Pitzer: Second. Holland: Got a motion and a second. All those in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Holland: All right. We are here for deliberation and my thoughts looking at this that it seems pretty straightforward that they are just putting in two additional towers next to some existing towers that are going to be similar in height. I don't see a big concern with it being restrictive to public view. It's in an industrial area. It's next to the rail line. That's really where these kind of things fit most anyway. So, I don't know that I have any big concerns over it, but would love your thoughts. Anyone want to go next? Commissioner Grove? Grove: Madam Chair. To me it looks, like you said, pretty straightforward. It completes the -- the little block that they have of other silos, so I don't see issues with it. McCarvel: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I'm in support of this as well. I don't see an issue with it. It's adding to what's already there. Holland: Any other comments? Commissioner Pitzer? Pitzer: No. Holland: With that I would -- this is a conditional use permit and I would ask of anyone making the motion on this would also -- assuming we are not making any changes or modifications to it, that we could also include the approval of the Findings of Facts, Conclusions of Law for Handy Truck Line Silos with the approval of the CUP. McCarvel: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number H-2019-0149 as presented in the staff report for the hearing dated March 5th, 2020. In addition approving the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order for the same file number. Holland: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Grove: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2020 Page 13 of 50 Holland: Okay. Motion and a second to approve the conditional use permit. All those in favor? Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. E. Public Hearing for Bannock Ridge (H-2019-0143) by Ryan Recla, Located at 2940 S. Mesa Way 1. Request: Development Agreement modification to remove the subject 4.35-acre property from the boundary of the existing agreement Bannock Ridge - Inst. #2017-084176) for the purpose of entering into a new agreement consistent with the proposed development plan; and, 2. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 10 building lots and 5 common lots on 4.35 acres of land in the R-4 zoning district. Holland: Next we will move on to the public hearing for Bannock Ridge, H-2019-0143, and we will start with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. Next item on the agenda is the Bannock Ridge Subdivision. This is a preliminary plat and development agreement modification. If -- as you are aware, you are a recommending body on the -- on the plat and the City Council will take action on the development agreement modification. This property was annexed and zoned in 2017 and platted as part of a larger project called Bannock Ridge and now the applicant wants to come forward and bifurcate this property from the original plat and boundary of that project and enter into a new development agreement, which Council will take under consideration. The property is currently zoned R-4, which is consistent with the current land use designation of low density residential for this property, so we can anticipate densities of three units or less to the acre and this project is well below that. On the graphic on your left there you can see where -- where it was the larger portion of that Bannock Ridge in 2017 and so the applicant -- and the elevations that were tied to that development agreement, so the applicant is here tonight to discuss just doing a subdivision on 4.35 acres of land, which is being removed from the additional 13.58 acres that was approved in 2017. The preliminary plat consists of ten building lots and five common lots in the R-4 district. One of the existing homes -- one of the lots will contain the existing residents and the outbuildings that are currently on Lot 10, Block 1. Staff had made mention in the staff report that some of the dimensional standards on this particular property did not meet the R-4 standards and they will have to comply with that at the time that they submit the final plan. Because this project is below the ten acre minimum there is no required open space for the project as required in the UDC, but the applicant is required to extend the ten foot multi-use pathway that's through the site. Because the existing home meets staff preferences to have the pathway along the creek, but given the site constraints and the fact that the existing residence is remaining on Lot 10, Block 1, we worked closely with our Parks Department to ensure that we could route it through the development, have an Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2020 Page 14 of 50 on-street segment, and, then, run along the south boundary behind the proposed buildable lots with this subdivision. This is pretty consistent with the -- the previous approval as well. You can see here that there is a stub street on the west boundary that's going to be extended with this development and stubbed to the south for future connectivity with the adjacent properties and that's kind of the finding of what we try to do when we are working with the applicant. We worked -- staff -- when we initially started with this project we weren't keen on separating this piece from the larger piece of the property, we wanted to make sure that all of this came in and was a cohesive development plan and that's why the DA was in place to make sure all of it developed at one time, but because the applicant is extending the street and it's generally consistent to what's already in the DA, staff felt comfortable with the plat that you are seeing before you this evening. The applicant also provided some sample elevations for you. The majority of them are single story. The applicant hasn't determined whether or not they are going to do any -- any other additional two stories, but there is nothing prohibiting them to do that as a recommended DA provision or a condition of approval. I would also mention to you because -- at the time this came in -- or excuse me -- some of the lots will be taking access from a common driveway, so as you can see here the plat depicts this as a private street. It's not. It's actually a common driveway and the code allows up to six homes to take access from a common driveway. So, that's why you see the turnaround on -- on one -- on the two buildable lots for Fire Department requirements. Staff did receive written testimony from Dan Lardie in agreement with all the conditions in the staff report. Staff finds that this project is consistent with the development agreement and the Comprehensive Plan and we ask for your approval or recommend approval this evening and I will stand for any questions. Holland: Any questions for staff? No questions. At this time I would ask the applicant to come forward. And if you wouldn't mind, state your name and address for us. Appreciate it. Lardie: Madam Commissioner -- excuse me. Madam Chair, Commissioners, Dan Lardie. Leavitt Associates. 1324 1st Street South, Nampa, Idaho. 83687. So, Bill, thanks. I appreciate the -- the lead in here. You did a good job. The question I have -- and I did -- I did send an e-mail in and said that I agreed with the conditions. The one -- the one condition that I do have a question on is the fencing. If I do -- can I get a question for Bill on clarifying that as far as what's required there? Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, we will have a conversation here. So, Dan, what -- what in specific to the fencing question? Or what's the condition? Lardie: It's along -- it's along the entire path and then -- Parsons: Okay. Lardie: -- if it -- if it is along the entire path can it be -- can it be done at the time of home construction? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2020 Page 15 of 50 Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, if I can address you. So, essentially, as I said in the presentation, the pathway comes in through the site and, then, run along the back of the buildable lot. In our code we require -- the code requires the developer to put in the fencing at the time of the subdivision approval, because we don't want homeowners putting in incorrect fencing that violates our code. You probably -- some of you have had experience dealing with that throughout the years with the numerous projects that have come through and we have since changed. A few years ago we changed our fencing ordinance to be more flexible in the standards and the type of fencing that would allow along a common lot. So, a quick answer is, no, it can't go on with the buildable lots, it needs to happen with the subdivision improvement per the city code. But there are fencing options for that to happen. I think your concern is that's going to get destroyed when you are constructing homes on it. Lardie: That and the initial cost. Just the -- Parsons: The code requires the developer to put that in. Lardie: I will continue, Madam Chair, Commissioners. It is -- it is nine buildable lots, plus -- it's simple. It fits with the nature of what's there. At one point in time the development agreement was in place for the entire 13 acres, but since -- some homeowners aren't interested in developing just yet. So, with that it's a nice addition to the area and it follows the Comprehensive Plan land use. So, with that I could stand with any questions. Holland: So, one question I had. The way that the -- the middle drive aisle comes down the Mesa Court it looks like -- Lardie: Yeah. Holland: -- originally it was proposed to kind of come up from the south, not from the east, so I don't know if your group is the one that's still a part of the development that will happen to the south at some point in the future when those other homes want to redevelop, how would that affect the overall -- I mean it's not going to be part of the development agreement anymore, but would you envision that the rest of the plan would stay somewhat consistent with what was originally submitted for the Bannock Ridge Subdivision? Lardie: Madam Chair, Commissioners, I believe that in order to be the most -- get the most efficient use of the land, the previous -- the previous development -- or the previous layout would still hold true and still can be done. It will look a little bit different, you know, such as it does now, but we are -- the extension of the streets to the east as it extends through and it will connect into the path like it did before and still allow for development along those north lots and so allow for a stub road down to the south. So, still completes it. Holland: Okay. And, then, one of the questions, too, is Lot No. 2 that's in that Block 2 right on the elbow curve -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2020 Page 16 of 50 Lardie: Yes. Holland: -- coming down, that was I think originally proposed as an open space lot in the -- the overall concept and I know that we are -- we are taking this into consideration as a separate plat, but would that become a home site now or would that still be an open space? Lardie: Madam Chair, Commissioners, so on -- on that particular lot it is a buildable lot now. Before we were using it for storm drainage, because the whole site was running there. Now it's only this -- only four acres out of 13, so -- and that's the reason why it's a buildable lot. There is some -- there is some comments probably in your packet from ACHD and we are still discussing that particular area. ACHD has requested a full blown cul-de-sac there. Holland: Okay. Thank you. Any questions from Commissioners? McCarvel: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: Yeah. So, we are taking this out of the original -- if we do that you're not required to put any amenities and green space and all that, because of the -- you're under the acreage, but would these homes still be able to use -- are they still going to be considered part of the rest of the development and be able to use their amenities? Lardie: Madam Chair, Commissioner McCarvel, as far as I know they will -- they are probably not going to be developed by the same developer as far as I know. The middle development -- the middle homeowner is -- is -- I don't say holding out, but is -- is resistant to -- to the development. So, I don't know. Holland: One more follow-up question for you, too. So, it's -- it's hard to see green screens on here. I know you are not required to provide any because of the size. I know you have got the pathway that comes down, but are any of these lots open space lots or are they all home sites? Lardie: Madam Commissioner, they are all home sites. Except for the pathway and the land -- and it's required landscape on both sides. Holland: Okay. Lardie: There is also Ten Mile Creek that's open. It's meant to be left open. Again, it's the creek. Holland: Sure. Grove: Madam Chair? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2020 Page 17 of 50 Holland: Commissioner Grove. Grove: In the packet and with the staff report it was indicated that an agreement needs to be in place with the HOA to the west to continue that pathway. Is that something that has been done or do you see it being an issue? Lardie: Madam Chair, Commissioner Grove, the -- so, in order to connect to that path, yes, we do have to connect and get a -- get an agreement with the HOA. Has it been done? No, it hasn't. I am going to assume that the homeowners there would -- would appreciate the fact that it would extend and provide them connectivity to the east, other than they have now. Holland: Any other questions? McCarvel: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: Other than the fencing, are you in agreement with all staff recommendations? Lardie: Madam Chair, Commissioner McCarvel, yes. Holland: Commissioner Pitzer, did you have a comment? Pitzer: Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. What -- what size is the -- of the smallest lot that you have on -- Lardie: Madam Chair, Commissioner Pitzer, the smallest lot as shown on this plat is 8,001 square feet. Holland: Any follow-up questions? Okay. I think that might be it for now, but we will see in a few minutes. Lardie: Thank you. Holland: Thank you. Madam Clerk, do we have anyone signed in to testify tonight on this application? Weatherly: Madam Chair, we have three people signed in, two of which wish to testify, the first being Aneke Binford. Holland: Okay. Aneke, if you want to come forward and if you wouldn't mind stating your name and address, again, for the record we would appreciate it. Binford: Aneke Binford. 3101 Mesa Way. My husband and I own the property south of this proposed subdivision and just for the record we are not resistant to development. We Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2020 Page 18 of 50 are not opposed in any way. But we do have two concerns about this project. The first is the lack of substantial buffering between the public walking path and the full length of our entire property. The second is the impact on our ability to effectively irrigate our land. The pathways master plan states the city should be sensitive to private owners when trails are proposed adjacent to private property. The city acknowledges the pathway safety is a major concern -- and I'm quoting -- of both pathway users and those whose property is adjacent to the pathway. Of the eight safety concerns identified in the master plan, two issues impact us the most. Privacy and trespassing. According to the master plan one of the city's recommended improvements to address privacy of adjacent owners includes the use of good neighbor fencing and planting of landscape buffers. The city's recommended improvements to address trespassing is to clearly distinguish public pathways from private property with vegetative buffers and the use of good neighbor fencing. The current fencing will not discourage trespassing. Half of the fence is three pole fencing, which can easily be slipped through onto our property. Also much of it is being held up with wire and baling twine. This does not provide a high degree of maintenance that would discourage undesirable activity along the pathway. The pathways master plan acknowledges that loss of privacy and increased risk of trespassing are true concerns when public paths are adjacent to private property. We asked that the developer heed the city's recommended improvements as outlined in the master plan to provide good neighbor fencing and a more substantial vegetative buffer. We also have irrigation concerns. We recognize it's our responsibility to control our water. However, flood irrigation is not exact. Currently we are able to fully irrigate the high areas of the pasture by running the water for a longer time. Overflow from low areas simply waters that connecting pasture. But when that connecting pasture becomes a walking path and private homes, we will have to shut off water as -- as soon as the lower areas are saturated this will leave some of the areas literally high and dry. This will result in areas of unusable ground for us. We propose that the developer construct a berm to stop any overflow water from leaving our property so we may continue to irrigate sufficiently and responsibly. So, basically, to sum it up. For our two concerns we are requesting a good neighbor fence and more substantial vegetative buffer on the pathway. This will clearly distinguish the public property from our private property and also discourage trespassing and address privacy issues. We are also requesting a berm to allow us to continue to effectively irrigate our full property. We would also like to note that when Observation Point Subdivision was developed on our west border the city recommended that the developer construct a three foot landscape berm with a fence, which he did. When Cabella Creek was developed to our east the city recommended the landscaped berm to address headlights from the new road into our home and the developer provided that. In each case the city heard our concerns regarding development impact and we are hopeful for a similar response tonight. Holland: Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Binford: I had pictures I didn't get to, but my husband is up after me, so maybe he can -- can he use those pictures? Holland: Sure. That would be great. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2020 Page 19 of 50 Weatherly: Madam Chair, Matthew Binford. Holland: And, Matthew, if you wouldn't mind stating your name and address for the record we would appreciate it. M.Binford: My name is Matt Binford. I live at 3101 Mesa Way. And we are the five acres that adjoin this property. Could we go to -- a couple more slides forward? Oh, I can do it? So, this is the west facing Observation side of what was developed. My wife referenced that there is a three foot berm here, plus a fence, and, in fact, when Observation Point went in the irrigation -- they actually added tile drainage across this back, so we could continue to flood irrigate. So, you know, the city helped push us for that and we really appreciate that. What we are hoping is something similar -- let me go forward here. This is actually the fence between the developer -- the development and our property. You can see this fence is about ready to fall down. So, my wife and I are concerned that the developer is not proposing any fence here, that we would bear the burden of kind of protecting our property versus this walking path. So, I don't know that that's a fair assessment. What we are asking for is not for the irrigation so much, but to berm this up so we can continue to irrigate, but also there needs to be something that kind of protects our property from their development and the -- as my wife quoted, the issues with a walking path. So, we would like to see -- we understand that the -- it can't be a closed fence. We would love to have just a solid vinyl fence there. But the city encourages open fences for crime and that sort of thing, but we would like to see a new fence here by the developer to kind of protect our property and people from going through this, you know, broken down fence that they are not going to improve as part of this project and I think that that -- that, you know, we shouldn't bear the burden of a development coming in and if the walking path goes along here, we are going to have to maintain this fence, because my guess is those homeowners will not. So, thank you very much. Holland: Thank you. I appreciate it. Madam Clerk, anyone else signed in to testify? Weatherly: No one else signed up to testify. Holland: Is there anyone here that would like to testify on this application? It looks like we have got a couple back here. If you want to come forward and state your name and address for the record. Blackburn: Which microphone? Holland: Just talk into one of them. Blackburn: Okay. I'm Celeste Blackburn. Address is 2978 South Novara Way. I'm in the development Cabella Creek that was put in adjacent to all these beautiful pictures. I saw my home in one of these pictures. Anyway, I don't have anything formal prepared. My only concern would be our current walking path in Cabella Creek and the current walking path in Observation Point go right along the creek. I'm not sure why we need to move a walking path up a few feet and around some houses to connect it. I don't know Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2020 Page 20 of 50 why they can't just go along the creek side and keep it as it has been with both subdivisions. My other concern is that the original CC&Rs for this subdivision, which is called something estates. It starts with a K. Says that all building lots within that subdivision have to be 30 feet away from each other and I'm not sure that the plot that is proposed would met that. I know in the original proposal that was going around with just this three lots, that they did come around with a petition to lift that, but as far as I am concerned I do not know that that was lifted. Holland: Thank you. And to address those concerns real quick, I think this specific application is requesting to change the development agreement, which would take them out of whatever initial subdivision. I'm not sure what -- which subdivision you're talking about, but maybe Bill could answer that. Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, she's -- she's speaking -- and I think you are talking specifically to CC&Rs; correct? Blackburn: Correct. Parsons: Yeah. This won't change that. The developer is still going to have to work on that if they haven't and get that cleared up. But trying to think of -- trying to think of the best path for her to take forward. I mean it's in the city now. CC&Rs -- those were created through the county. So, something that's going to happen -- have to happen privately, not between the city and -- Blackburn: Okay. Parsons: -- and the applicant. Holland: Thanks for explaining, Bill. Blackburn: Thank you. Holland: Thank you. Appreciate it. And we had one other one back here that wanted to testify. State your name and address for the record for us. We would appreciate it. Clausen: Jamie Clausen. 3010 South Glacier Bay Way. So, I am -- I have never done this before. Just a couple of things. I live in -- off of the Observation Point, I'm in the Glacier Springs development, which is right behind -- or next to, however you want to view it. And this -- we had a few concerns. One of them is regarding the developer, because we did have the community meeting. They called it at a time of day when nobody could attend. They had it in a place where there was no room really. They did not provide a space for us to truly meet. They had to -- the restaurant -- the little pub restaurant had to come up with a space for us to even gather and their wording to us was, oh, we weren't expecting anybody to show up to this. They never do. Which I thought was very unprofessional. There has been just a lot of things that we heard at the meeting and I'm just kind of worried about the housing that they are intending to put in there if they do get Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2020 Page 21 of 50 this. They said that they are wanting to do it equal to what's already around. Well, Observation Point and the other development are very different. So, what do they mean similar to? Are they putting in smaller homes here? Bigger homes -- you know, it's just -- it's not -- I don't know. I just -- there is a lot of things being said that just are not -- don't seem to connect and I feel like -- you know, just like the -- the postcard that came out and had the wrong acreage and stuff. My husband and I actually came in and talked to somebody in planning and developing and asked him about some things, because we wanted to get some clarification on some of this and we pointed out that and, then, I noticed they put in a thing saying that they needed to fix that, but they didn't re-send out postcards or anything to anybody, so as far as everybody knows there is ten houses going on seven acres, you know, because nobody knows unless -- anyway. So, just a few things. I'm concerned about street being -- you know, he said he thinks that it would be -- you know, we would want it to go around. We do not. I'm concerned with water and sewer, because they are going to have to plumb it into that. Are they going to increase the pressure if there are houses there, because I don't want my water pressure to go down and things like that. Sewer, you know, same thing. I just -- I -- I'm worried about things -- and I'm worried about substandard things happening, instead of what's actually supposed to go in there and what -- you know. And it being equal to what's already there. And our property values and all that, too. That's kind of where I'm going to. Holland: Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Last call. Anybody else that would like to testify on this one? No hands. I will have the applicant come back forward. I know we have got a few questions for you from the -- the crowd. If you wouldn't mind stating your name and address again for us on the record. Lardie: Madam Chair, Stan Lardie. Leavitt Associates. 1324 1st Street South. Nampa. 83687. I wrote some notes, but I want to make sure that I hit all the points that were -- were added there. So, the walking path, it meets the city standard. So, it's on a 20 foot lot per their request and it only has to be 14 with landscaping on both sides and now per our earlier discussion fencing. So, the fencing is -- is going to be directed by the city. So, that's where I will leave that one. The next one -- sorry, my notes are really bad. Holland: That's all right. We can help you with a few questions if you need to. I wrote down a few notes as well. Lardie: So, there was one comment about -- about the Kachina Estates CC&Rs and as far as being 30 feet away from the existing lot. So, that would be on the existing lots. So, the parent lot of the four hundred -- or 4.35 acres. Thirty feet. And our -- we have held back 30 feet all the way around our property on that. There was another question about pathway and why we don't go along the canal -- along the Ten Mile Creek. The homeowner, Mr. -- Mr. Walsh -- or, excuse me, Mr. Marsh, is -- his home actually encroaches in on what the city and Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District would want for a pathway to be -- go along there for an easement. They require -- or they request 50 feet and right now his house is actually 30 feet from the center line of the canal, which leaves no room for a pathway on that side without demolishing his home and that's why we are not there. Let's see. So, as far as substandard construction, construction is held to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2020 Page 22 of 50 standards by the city. ISPWC, the Idaho Standards for Public Works Construction, and so the city does their inspections and they require us to do our inspections. Home types. We are probably closer with Glacier Bay as far as what is -- what we have presented as far as quality and types of home. That's what I have got for notes. Madam Commissioner -- Holland: Okay. Lardie: -- or Madam Chair. Can you help me? Did I miss anything? Holland: Yes. There was a question from the neighborhoods to your south, I believe -- and, Bill, if you wouldn't mind flipping back to the plat so we can look at that. There were some concerns about the pathway running along their fence line there and the fence that they have existing they are wondering if you might be willing to help replace that, so that they would have -- they were also wanting a buffer there for their irrigation. If you could speak to that situation. Lardie: So, the pathway will -- Madam Chair. The pathway will probably be sitting up just a little bit higher. So, probably create that natural berm that they are looking for. It's not going to be a three foot berm, but it will probably be -- you know, maybe -- maybe a foot berm. Just -- just if that -- if irrigation is really truly questioned and, then, provide landscaping along that -- their land and the fencing will have to meet code. Holland: Okay. Would you be open to doing a three foot berm there on the edge of the pathway and doing some landscaping on there and help them with their fence? Lardie: I would need to ask my client if he would be willing to do that. Holland: Sure. Parsons: Madam Chair, I don't mean to cut into the applicant's time, but I believe there is going to be a sewer -- sewer main running through -- underneath the pathway. And I am correct, Dan? Is that -- did you get that worked out with Public Works? Lardie: Madam -- Madam Chair, Bill, the -- the sewer main is not running that direction. It's going to be -- the sewer service is under the -- under that pathway and it -- well, actually, it's not under the pathway, it's in an easement along the backside of there -- those lots. Parsons: Okay. Okay. So, it's going to be outside of the pathway easement, so you could landscape in that area. Lardie: Yes. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2020 Page 23 of 50 Parsons: I just wanted to make sure that if it -- it had been moved onto the buildable lots that landscaping could be prohibited if there was a sewer line in there. So, I just wanted to clarify that for the record. Holland: Thank you, Bill. I think we would be open to hearing from your -- Lardie: I'm sorry. Holland: I think we would be open to hearing from your team if they were open to working with that neighbor to the south on this request. If you wouldn't mind, when you come up state your name and address for the record for us, too. Recla: Yeah. My name is Ryan Recla and my address is 4123 West Garnet in Boise. 83703. So, as far as landscaping and the berm, I don't -- so, are they thinking three foot tall or three foot wide or what -- Holland: Well, I think what they explained to us was that they -- they flood irrigate their yard right now and so they are worried if there is not a berm there -- Recla: I don't think that's an issue to be able to build a -- I mean because there is -- how much of a buffer did we leave? We had a ten -- we have a 20 foot easement with a ten foot walking path and with five foot on each side. As you are not opposed in the five foot -- I mean we -- is this berm on their property or our property? Ours? Holland: I would assume it would be on your property. Recla: And a five -- and a five foot wide -- three foot tall seems like it would be really tall. I mean like you would have a -- you know, you would have a peak. Now, is there -- I mean I don't mind at all pushing some dirt over there to try and stop it from draining over. I don't know if you necessarily would need -- three foot seems a little extreme and a little unsightly in a five foot path. But I am -- I mean if they are not opposed to having part of it on their property, too. I mean it's not like there won't be dirt to be able to be moved around. So, I don't see -- working with them on something like that would not be a problem. The fence -- so, am I getting asked to help with the fence or pay for it all? Holland: That's a great question. Recla: I mean I heard help. If -- I mean I'm more than happy to do a neighborly good neighbor thing where -- Holland: Sure. Recla: -- we each help pay for it. Holland: I believe their question was if you would be willing to pitch in and put in the fence. But certainly we could ask the applicant to -- or ask the -- that specific neighbor to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2020 Page 24 of 50 meet with you ahead of City Council so you could come up with a solution, too. That might be an option. Recla: Yeah. Because if I -- if it was a joint effort I would be happy to. There -- yeah. So -- Holland: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions from the Commission? Seeing none, I think that we have answered most of the questions of the room. Anything else you would like to add? Lardie: No. Thank you, Madam Chair. Holland: Okay. Lardie: Thank you, Commission. Holland: Thank you. Appreciate it. With that I would accept a motion to close the public hearing for Bannock Ridge, H-2019-0143. McCarvel: So moved. Pitzer: Second. Holland: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Holland: All right. We are here for deliberation. So, I -- if I could have my choice I would rather see all three of these lots come in together than have the one piece by itself, because I think it does create some consistency challenges for sure. I'm not opposed to the R-4 lot size. I think that seems like a nice fit there. I like that -- you know, I would prefer to see the -- the pathway go along the creek as well, but with the lots the way that they are laid out and the home that's there, I see the challenge and appreciate that they were willing to reroute that to the south. Kind of an interesting little in-fill piece. I'm not sure -- I might still need a few more minutes to come up with my thoughts, but I would say at a minimum I would at least request the applicant meet with the neighbor to the south to discuss the -- what berm, landscaping, and fencing they would be willing to work on together to create that transition that they would like and I -- I see and understand their concern if there is a pathway that runs right next to their property line and a fence there. I would like to see some sort of transition of some sort at least, but those are my starting thoughts. Anyone else want to go next? McCarvel: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner McCarvel. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2020 Page 25 of 50 McCarvel: Question for staff. Do you have a picture of where the -- the layout and where the -- how the path originally was in the DA agreement? Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, Commissioner McCarvel, that's it. The graphic on the left -- yeah. The green there shows you how the path would run through there on the previous version. Holland: I think one of my other concerns, too, is because of its size they are not required to do any open space and, you know, it -- certainly we can't require them to do open spaces if they are only 4.3 acres, but I worry about how the next two chunks will develop if there is not open space required here, since that's where the bulk of the open space was originally proposed was for that Block 2 and where the greenbelt pathway comes down on the north side. So, that is a concern I have about this project. Commissioner McCarvel, any other thoughts? Not yet? McCarvel: Yeah. That's -- I mean that's kind of where I was going with it. It changes -- definitely changes the landscape of everything to be built, along with what's already -- what everybody around them was expecting. Holland: Commissioner Grove? Grove: Madam Chair. I had a question for staff. In the report it mentioned something about the existing building in the south being an issue in the south -- like too close or something like that and I can't find it in the report and so, sorry, I'm kind of fumbling for -- to find exactly what I'm asking, but do you know what I'm speaking about? Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, yeah. Absolutely. You know, whenever -- whenever we keep existing structures on -- on properties as part of a subdivision they have to -- when we plat the lot the property -- when we resubdivide that property and make sure that we are creating new parcel lines around existing structures, they have to comply with the dimensional standards of the code. So, we always have a front setback, a side setback, and a rear setback and we had called that out that that building did not meet the setbacks of the district, so they are going to have to adjust the plat -- the property boundaries of that to make sure that they are complying with the R-4 setbacks and they said they can and they said they are agreed to it, so that that's -- that's addressed as a condition of approval in the staff report. So, yeah, we caught that and that's why we called it out and brought it to your attention. Holland: Thanks, Bill. Grove: Thank you. Holland: Any follow-up comments, Commissioner Grove? Not yet? Pitzer: Madam Chair? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2020 Page 26 of 50 Holland: Commissioner Pitzer. Pitzer: Yeah. I -- I'm having a lot of problems with this one. I'm thinking this is premature. I think it needs to -- that the existing structures that are on there -- this is just changing the entire face of the original DA and which now it's going to flow into the neighboring subdivision. I especially don't like what the -- how the walkway is coming through and taking out any open space where in the future, if that was an ACHD issue to have that there and now it's a buildable lot becomes another issue for it. Holland: And I agree, it's hard to see a pathway without the context of what's going to develop around it in the future, because we don't know what that timeline looks like either. Any other thoughts? Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: Well, I'm trying to look at it from both ways, if -- if we were to recommend approval on this I would definitely want to see the berm and, yes, they -- the developer needs to do the fencing. I mean I just think that's a no go. I mean that needs to be consistent and I think if they are wanting to go while the other land is still in use the way it is, then, there needs to be some berming and -- I guess just start there. If we were to approve it as is, but -- Holland: I'm in the same boat. I'm trying to look at it from two different lenses, so what it was proposed as and what it would be if it was just coming forward to us not attached to a DA, not attached to the other development. Coming to us as a stand alone piece -- I know they are not required to have any open space and they are big enough lots that they have got their own private yards, but I certainly would like to have seen a little bit more open space in there for the future of how it would connect to other subdivisions. McCarvel: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: The original open space lot was that -- Holland: That Block 2 is and -- McCarvel: Yeah. Holland: -- also up north -- McCarvel: Right. Holland: -- where the pathway comes down. McCarvel: And that was mostly to -- for drainage reasons, wasn't it? Now you want to build homes on there. I mean that opens up -- I think the person who is buying that home ten years from now is -- I mean where is all that going and, then, it puts in on the other Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2020 Page 27 of 50 two sections that has originally come into the DA agreement thinking that's where their drainage was going. Holland: We can certainly make a condition that they keep that block open as a drainage lot. McCarvel: Yeah. And I guess the -- oh, I see what -- so, the pathway was not going to exactly follow Ten Mile Creek in the first place, but it was going to be along a lot more open space. Holland: Correct. They moved the pathway down south to where that red line is -- McCarvel: Yeah. Holland: -- and, then, they added homes between the existing home site and the pathway. We will reconfigure how to -- anymore discussion or -- certainly happy to take a motion if anyone is close there. This is a tough one for sure. McCarvel: It's a tough one. Yeah. Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I just -- you know, as we talked about your discretion and the authority that you have, obviously, in my presentation I said that Council would be acting on the DA modification, but you always can add DA provisions and change DA provisions. So, if it is your pleasure that the developer construct fencing and berming along the pathway, certainly I would -- in your recommendation include it as a DA provision, rather than a plat condition, because it really needs -- if you are going to require something more than what code requires it really needs to be captured in a development agreement, not in a plat. With a plat we are just looking at conformance with the code. So, keep that in mind as you deliberate. And also know that if -- this plat is what's tied to the current development agreement, so if Council doesn't approve the DA mod, the project's a no go, so -- and the applicant was made aware of that from the very -- very early on in the process. We -- a lot of the discussions that I hear you having this evening are the same things we had with them. So, I just wanted to give you some of that context, too, as you deliberate up there. Holland: Thank you, Bill. Yeah, again -- so, we don't get to decide on the development agreement modification, we are just making recommendation, but we can certainly put some of those provisions in there we would like to see. I would say that we definitely should add a provision that, you know, perhaps the -- the applicant could meet with the property owner to the south to discuss what options are available, but I don't see it as unreasonable that they have to work on at least putting in a significant portion of the landscaping, berm, and fence. McCarvel: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner McCarvel. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2020 Page 28 of 50 McCarvel: I would agree. I mean it's their change that's going to most affect the property, so it should be I think their obligation to protect the property. Holland: Commissioner Pitzer, did you have another comment? Pitzer: Yes, Madam Chair. I also think that it should be in the provision for Lot 2 to be held as -- as an open lot, rather than as a buildable lot. Holland: Okay. I would entertain a motion if someone is close to making one. Or if there is anymore discussion we need to have on this. Right now what I have heard is that we would like to see a DA provision adding landscaping, berm and fence between the pathway and the neighboring parcel to the south and that we would recommend Block 2, Lot 2, would remain as an open lot for a future retention pond or retention space. Pitzer: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner Pitzer. Pitzer: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move that we recommend approval to the City Council of file H-2019-0143 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 5th, 2020, with the following modification to the DA approval, adding landscaping, berm, and fencing along the perimeter and retaining Block 2, Lot 2, as remaining as an open lot. Holland: Commissioner Pitzer, can I clarify your motion on the DA? Your recommendation is for a DA provision to add landscaping, berm, and a fence to the property that's to the south between the pathway and the lot to the south; is that correct? Pitzer: That's correct. Holland: Okay. Thank you. Parsons: Madam -- Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, just some more clarification. Holland: Yes, please, Bill. Parsons: It's a little vague with landscaping, berm, and fencing. Obviously, the code is going to require fencing. It's going to require a certain amount of landscaping. What -- as the applicant discussed, you are not going to get -- with a five foot landscape strip you are not going to get much of a berm. Probably the largest you are going to get is maybe 18 inches, unless the applicant and the adjacent properly owner can agree to different terms. So, if it's your desire, then, I would say -- the other thing is the code only requires one tree for every one hundred linear feet of pathway. So, you can see here what they have there -- if it's your desire for a certain tree count, I would probably come up with a number or pick something more than just landscaping. You are to have shrubs, to have Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2020 Page 29 of 50 -- and trees there. Deciduous trees. I mean how -- I will leave it up to your discussion, but just something more than just landscaping, berm, and -- and fencing. Fencing I can get. They put in the fencing on both sides of the pathway of that common lot. But what look are you going for there? A berm -- 18 inch berm, 24 inch berm -- certainly the code allows -- through alternative compliance the applicant can meander the pathway and have it wider and so he has the ability to do some nicer landscaping along the pathway. So, just throwing out ideas. Just need more than just landscaping. We have that now in the plan that we have in front of you. Holland: Thank you, Bill. Pitzer: Bill, would we be able to add the provision that they work with the property owners as part of that? Parsons: Certainly. That's within your prerogative to include that as part of the motion, that they come up with some kind of treatment for that area prior to City Council. You have that purview, too. And we can get that on the record and make sure that not only what the neighbors testified to, but the adjacent property owner gets what they are kind of -- I mentioned to you as far as the drainage issues, making sure they don't trespass onto adjacent properties and they get the privacy that they are afforded under the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Holland: The one thing we could look at -- a suggestion is we could put more specific requirements in there of what we would like to see on the landscaping and the buffering. I would agree that three foot might be significant there. It might be challenging to do on a pathway there, but perhaps we tell them to do a two foot berm there and they would work with -- they would meet with the neighbor to the south prior to the City Council meeting to see if they can come up with some sort of compromise for that, but our recommendation is if they can't come to a compromise they would at least be required to put in -- whatever we decide, whether that's one foot, two foot buffer, and X number of trees or shrubs along the pathway and fencing on both sides of the pathway. Open for discussion if anyone else has comments. Commissioner Grove. Grove: Madam Chair. I think, kind of summarizing, so if we put in language the berm no less than 18 inches with fencing consistent with the standards on both sides of the pathway and -- I don't know if -- I really don't want to start counting shrubs right now, so I don't know if I -- I want to add anything specific in that -- in that term, but I think those -- at least those conditions and kind of putting it in those terms would -- would make the most sense moving forward. McCarvel: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: The word I keep coming -- I'm with Commissioner Grove, I do not want to -- I am the world's worse landscaper, so to visualize exactly how many trees and shrubs -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2020 Page 30 of 50 the word I keep coming up with is enhanced. I don't know if that does enough for a motion though. And I think enhanced landscaping -- Holland: I think we could perhaps say enhanced landscaping, but that maybe the property owner to the south and this developer could work together on what that looks like and present that to Council. Pitzer: Madam Chair? I do like the idea of the meandering fence, other than the straight as well. I hope that they would take that into consideration as well. Holland: So, with that we either need a new motion or I think at this point, to make it clean, we need a new motion. So, I would entertain a motion from someone if they would like to and I can try to recap what we just talked about if you would like. The couple of things we talked about was for a DA provision that would create a berm of no less than 18 inches between the property to the south and this development near where the pathway intersections. That we would require fencing to be constructed on both sides of the pathway and that they would work with the neighbor to the south to come up with an enhanced landscaping solution and present that back to Council and that Lot 2 would remain an open lot, rather than a buildable lot. Those are the things I have written down. McCarvel: And now so does Commissioner Pitzer, so -- Holland: Commissioner Pitzer, did you need anything or are you good? Pitzer: Pardon? Holland: Do you need a recap on anything else. Are you okay? Pitzer: Well, we will give it a try. Holland: All right. Pitzer: All right. Let's do this. Okay. After consideration -- after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council on file number H-2019-0143, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date March 5th, 2020, with the following modification: That DA provision creating no less than an 18 inch berm along the southern property, with fencing on both sides of the walkway and work with the property owner for the southside to provide enhanced landscaping with a -- and berm. Holland: Do you want to add Lot 2 as an open space lot? Pitzer: That was the one. Yes. And have Lot 2, Block 2, remain an open lot. Holland: Okay. I have got a motion. The motion primarily is to adjust the boundary between the south property owner and the development related to where the pathway Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2020 Page 31 of 50 comes in and building a berm, building additional fencing on both sides of the pathway, an 18 inch minimum berm and enhanced landscape -- enhanced landscaping. Do I have a second? Parsons: Sorry, Madam Chair. And that's prior to City Council I take it? Holland: What was that? Parsons: Changes prior to City Council. Holland: Yes. Correct. That those recommendations would come forward to City Council and that they would meet prior to City Council. And also that Lot 2 remained open. Do I have a second? McCarvel: Second. Holland: All those in favor. Opposed? Okay. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. F. Public Hearing for Andorra Senior Living (H-2019-0127) by Sawtooth Development Group, LLC, Located at 715 & 955 S. Wells St. and 971 E. Wells Circle 1. Request: Annexation of 16.99 acres of land with TN-R zoning with a conceptual development plan for a senior ( age 55 and older) living community consisting of (76) single-family dwelling units and a 3-story apartment building with 88 dwelling units and a building footprint of 30,000 square feet; and, 2. Request: Request to Vacate existing ACHD right-of-way (un- named cul-de-sac) consisting of 0.45 of an acre of land that lies between the properties located at 715 and 955 S. Wells St. & 971 E. Wells Circle Holland: Last, but not least, we will open the public hearing for Andorra Senior Living, H- 2019-0127 and we will began with the staff report. Parsons: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. Last item on the agenda this evening is the Andorra Senior Living annexation and vacation application before you. Just like the previous application, the vacation is the responsibility of the City Council and they will be the recommend body that forwards on a recommendation to ACHD, who is the final decision making on the vacation application. The subject property consists of 16.99 acres of land. Currently it's zoned RUT and R-1 in Ada county. It's located at 715, 955 South Wells Street and 971 East Wells Circle at the southwest corner Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2020 Page 32 of 50 of East Magic View and South Wells Street. Adjacent land uses. To the north we have single family residents, zoned RUT. South we have an office park, zoned L-O. To the east we have vacant and single family residents. Vacant land and single family residents zoned L-O and RUT in Ada County. And, then, on the west we have Woodbridge and Locust View Heights Subdivisions, zoned R-4 in the city and R-1 in Ada county. It's interesting, this is the first application that I have had a chance to process since the adoption of a new Comprehensive Plan and this was from what I remember one of the areas that was pretty contentious on what the proposed land -- land uses would be moving forward. Tonight we have a unique opportunity where we have residents supporting a plan just after we adopted a new plan, so I think that's certainly an accommodation to not only the citizens that participated in that plan, but also accommodation to -- and recognition of your hard work as you sit here and volunteer sitting here every Thursday -- two Thursdays a month listening and making sure that we are providing a premier community for our citizens. The applicant is here tonight, again, to discuss developing the site with a senior living community, which consists of 76 single and duplex units along the north and west boundaries and, then, in the southeast corner you will notice that they have a three story apartment building, which will have components such as a spa, a salon, a restaurant. As we updated our Comprehensive Plan we spent quite a bit of time adjusting our mixed use standards to make sure that they were better and more understandable for not only you, staff, but also our residents and this is one of those cases where typically in an MUN designated area we anticipate smaller footprints, but there are provisions in the Comprehensive Plan to allow the applicant to increase that square footage based on the design and how well it integrates with adjacent properties. We know this is one component of a larger mixed use neighborhood area and moving forward -- so -- and when we look at these on a case-by-case basis we are going to take that under consideration. As I mentioned to you, there is already office in the area. There is hotels in the area. There is existing single family homes in the area. And this will be one integrated component of that mixed use area. Looking at the open space that they are proposing and that public amenity of the pathway coming through the central location of the site, staff felt it was prudent to allow the application that increase in -- from 20,000 square foot building -- per footprint to the 30,000 for the three story apartment complex. Also make mention that the restaurant is on the end -- the north side of that building as well and that's approximately 6,000. So, if we were looking at the aggregate of that footprint we are talking 36,000 square feet. And, again, we feel this is within the right context and meets the mixed use standards of the Comprehensive Plan. The other unique thing about this property, as you saw on that map, is there is two different land use designations. A portion of it, approximately nine acres, is medium density residential. A portion where this larger structure sits is that eight acres, approximately, mixed -- or eight acres of mixed use neighborhood. Again, looking at the overall entire development, staff finds that it is consistent with that newly adopted future land use map. Access to this site is unique as well. As you heard through the Comprehensive Plan update, there have been some access challenges with this development in this area and this particular use is -- is no different. The good thing about this -- and it's typically this type and this style of development has less trip generation, which we have all heard over the years and years how much -- how limited access is here, but we do want to preserve connectivity in the area. So, one of staff's recommended changes to the concept plan that's before you Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2020 Page 33 of 50 this evening is to actually stub at Wells Circle, which is the cul-de-sac along the south boundary. It's where you can see my cursor. You can see currently that there is a hammerhead turnaround at the terminus of that road and, then, some greenspace. Staff did not receive -- does not have ACHD's staff report on this application. I know the applicant has been working in conjunction with ACHD's staff to determine how that would -- how that road would terminate in the future with this project. He did communicate to me this evening that they are agreeable to deviating from their standards and allow this configuration that's before you this evening. I don't have written confirmation of that, nor have I received an e-mail to that effect, but in our -- as a recommended DA provision we have required the applicant extend this road in accordance with ACHD's requirements. Also as part of this application there is some right of way that's being vacated. It doesn't show up very well on this particular concept plan, but if I can step back I can show you what -- the general proximity of that. It's basically right in the middle of the project. There was some unnamed right of way that was dedicated with the subdivision back in 1983 in the county. As I alluded to it in the staff report, this is not required for access to this proposed development, so staff is supportive of the right of way being vacated and we have made that recommendation to City Council. Access for this particular property will come from the adjacent local streets and, then, for internal circulation, actually, the applicant's actually proposing gated private streets, which is consistent with the UD -- it's allowed under the UDC. What the applicant wants to do moving forward -- this is one of those unique situations with the TN-R zone that they are requesting to be annexed in with, the multi-family -- or all of these uses are principally permitted. So, once the DA is in place, the zoning is in place, the applicant would only have to go through staff approvals and that's why it's critical that the applicant worked with the neighborhood, because there won't be another chance to talk about this development once zoning is in place. In the staff report I made mention of multiple alternative compliance applications that the applicant will have to go through. Specifically there is some common drives that take access off the private streets. That's apparently prohibited, unless approved by alternative compliance. There is more than 50 units obligated access, which will require that alternate compliance through our private street standards and, then, in the narrative of the application and on this concept plan the -- the applicant had specified that they may want to provide lesser -- or smaller balconies for the residents in the apartment portion of the development. And, again, that is also eligible for alternative compliance, which are all staff level approvals. So, again, the use itself at staff level. Any deviations from those standards would only require staff level approval. The applicant also went into great detail as far as what the architecture is going to look at -- look -- look -- be as part of the development. So, giving you a representation of what the apartment complex is going to look. The restaurant component, which fronts onto that open space in the Five Mile Creek and the pathway and, then, here is some of the attached units and the single family units with, again, that cohesive design theme that we envision in a mixed use area. One of the items that I did point out to you in your staff report is this -- again, this is part of a subdivision that was recorded in the county. There are parcel boundary lines that need to be shifted to, again, a property boundary adjustment, which is a staff level approval, and there is platted easements that were created with that subdivision. Because the applicant's not subdividing the property at this time and only requesting annexation, those platted easements that were created with that subdivision in 1983 had to be vacated. So, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2020 Page 34 of 50 although we are vacating the right of way, we have a vacation application to vacate right of way tonight, that vacation is separate -- a different vacation process from vacating a right of way process. So, there is a DA provision that they need to get that completed prior to getting any approvals from the city moving forward. Because this property's been here for a while and the city has some -- it's -- what's interesting about this property is there is some existing sewer easements on some of the parcels as well and that does impact some of the site design and the applicant's been informed of that and been asked to reach out to Public Works prior to the City Council hearing, so that we can make sure that what they are proposing will work for not only you, but also the city. So, if I can just highlight -- if you can see my cursor here. So, currently there is an easement that runs east-west through the property here. It goes across one of the lots and, then, when it's in that unnamed right of way it's in right of way, so the applicant's going to have to work with the city. If the right of way is vacated he is going to have to create a separate easement document in favor of the city to maintain access to our utilities and, then, also along the west boundary of the site, a portion of it right about midway up to the site along this west boundary here, there is an existing trunk line that runs through the development that serves portions of south Meridian. So, that can't -- it's going to be difficult and expensive to move that trunk line and so that was conveyed to the applicant that we need to -- typically on those types of easements we would like a gravel road, so that the vac truck can get to the manholes. But the applicant's going to work and see if they can landscape that -- somehow enhance that as part of the development, realizing that they have to maintain that access for Public Works. You also notice in the staff report I also noted that the applicant's proposing 22.8 percent open space. Again, this is conceptual at this point. Don't have any open space exhibits to demonstrate that. But moving forward and a recommended provision in the development agreement is that the applicant comply with the UDC standards as far as open space and site amenities. Some of that -- and amenities that they called on the concept plan include a clubhouse, a fitness facility, restaurant, spa, salon, internal walking trails, a pool, open grassy areas, a community garden and also various sports courts, bocce ball, putting greens. So, you can see that they are actually gearing towards that retirement lifestyle, if you will, and trying to provide a rich amenity package for this proposed development, which staff is, again, supportive of. The applicant will have to go through that process and comply with standards and make sure -- we will verify all that with the certificate of zoning compliance process. So, one thing unique about this development is it is still classified as multi-family in our -- in our zoning code and so the one thing that I want the Commission to at least take under advisement this evening is the amenity package and the open space, because that is a very critical component of our multi-family developments that we hear over time and time again at these hearings is what's the open space, is there enough, and certainly when we get into 164 units, like this particular development, it doesn't fall on the staff to make that determination, it falls onto this body to make that determination and that's why I highlight that for you this evening, because I can tell you the open space and, then, amenities is greater than what code allows, but we want to make sure that the applicant does have some sort of commitment to what they want to do on the site, not just, well, we may want to do this, we are thinking about that. We at least want to have something -- some certainty from the developer as to what they are really going to commit to as far as open space and that amenity as we transition to staff level approvals. In the staff report I did Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2020 Page 35 of 50 note that there was some public testimony for you to take under consideration and, hopefully, you had a chance. Again, a lot of it -- most of it was in support of the project. Staff did not receive any written testimony from the applicant on -- on the application, but we are recommending approval with a development agreement and with that I conclude my presentation and stand for any questions you may have. Holland: Bill, one question. So, on the -- the slide you just flipped from with the individual units, they would be for rent, not for sale? Is that my understanding? Because, otherwise, they would have to go through a plat process? Or because it's multi-family they are exempt from doing that? Parsons: Yeah. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, the way the code defines multi-family is just the number of units on a single parcel. It doesn't speak to design. Holland: Sure. Parsons: So, in this particular case, yeah, those would be for rent. We have discussed the possibility of them coming back later and subdividing it and, then, selling off the units and the concept plan that they provided had some preliminary lot lines on there with setbacks, because they want to make sure what they are proposing here works -- Holland: Right. Parsons: -- and if they wanted to subdivide it, but at this point it's not their intent to sell these off at this time, but they will, as far as I know, rent those out to 55 and older demographic. Holland: Thank you, Bill. Any other questions for staff? Commissioner Grove. Grove: Madam Chair. Bill, during a lot of the Comprehensive -- that whole 18 months or whatever, a lot of time was spent on this section and one of the biggest pieces of conversation was about connecting Locust Grove to Eagle in some form or fashion with a -- with roadways and being able to address how that is considered over the long term. With this development it looks like it eats up a major portion of where -- where that would be possible moving forward. Did staff take a look at that concept in relation to this development? Parsons: So, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Grove, we did and that's -- and we were very upfront with the developer that our primary purpose -- one of the objectives with this development is to make sure that that stub street -- if you see the concept plan here -- this mouse isn't going down there, but that -- that is going to be a stub street. He is going to dedicate right of way to make sure that when -- if and when that adjacent subdivision redevelops in the future, consistent with our plan, and they -- they -- something else happens there other than a county development, that that road would punch through and tie back into Locust Grove. That is a critical component to this development and the applicant is going to work with ACHD. As I mentioned to you, this Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2020 Page 36 of 50 is probably the design that it's going to look like, but through a license agreement they are still going to dedicate the right of way and, then, through a license agreement they will be able to do some of these improvements and use that until such time as the road is extended is how that usually works. Grove: Thank you. Holland: So, the one follow up to that, if -- if that was the case that Wells would get extended in the future, could we make a condition that no lots would have driveways facing Wells? Parsons: Certainly. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, yeah, absolutely. We don't want anything fronting on that, because it will become essentially -- essentially a de facto collector. At that point you open that up to Eagle and Locust Grove you are going to get some traffic through there. So, yeah, I don't think -- I can see what you are saying with those one units fronting on there, they could maybe orient them differently. Something the applicant could maybe address for you this evening. Holland: Sure. Parsons: It's a good thought. Holland: Thanks, Bill. Any other questions for staff? With that I will have the applicant come forward and share with us a little bit. Is the applicant here? Trying to decide who is going to speak. You drew the short stick. If you wouldn't mind stating your name and address for us I would appreciate it. Sammis: Yeah. Madam Chair, Commissioners, my name is Clay Sammis. I live at 133 Simpson, in Ketchum -- Ketchum, Idaho. I didn't -- I apologize, I was talking to my architect. So, I'm here to answer questions. But if -- is that -- is that what your -- did you have questions? Holland: We would allow you to -- you have got up to 15 minutes if you have anything else you want to share beyond what staff shared with us. Sammis: We are going to tag team this together. Holland: Perfect. If you wouldn't mind stating your name and address for the record for us as well. Garner: Madam Chair, Commissioners, thanks for letting us be here tonight. Jeremy Garner. My address is 489 East Lockhart here in Meridian. Before I forget, though, my partner reminded me -- I want to thank the homeowners that we have been working with in both Woodbridge and Locust View Heights. They have been very supportive of us. We did go through the process of doing several neighborhood meetings and we have been the beneficiaries of becoming what we hope to be really good neighbors within -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2020 Page 37 of 50 through this project. So, obviously, the concept for this plan -- Meridian continues to be a destination for retirement with the mild climate and we feel that this project here is -- is very well suited for what we want to do and how much we feel strongly about this particular product and how well it will do here. So, obviously, the -- Bill did a good job laying out exactly what we want to try to accomplish with this -- with this product and you will notice that -- I'm glad he talked about the open space and the amenities, which I think hit on what really is needed in this -- in this valley and for this particular target market, which we feel very strongly about as well. So, stand for any other questions that you may have. Unless we are missing something, but -- Holland: Any questions for the applicant? I believe we will have some public testimony, So, we will give you guys a chance to come back up in a little bit if we have more questions for you. Garner: Sounds good. Thanks. Holland: Thank you. Appreciate it. Madam Clerk, I believe we have several sign-ins for testimony tonight. Weatherly: Madam Chair, we do. We have seven people signed up to -- that signed in, but none wish to testify. Holland: Is there anyone in here that would like to testify? I see one hand in the back. If you want to come forward. That's okay. If you didn't sign in you can still come forward and we will just have you put your name and address on the record and you have got three minutes to share with us. McKinley: Okay. Maybe it will take longer, since I don't know how to work this. I can't really see this very well, but I would like to -- I would like to try. Could somebody -- Holland: If you wouldn't mind go ahead -- if you wouldn't mind pulling the microphone down towards you and, then, saying your name and address for the record. McKinley: Monica McKinley. 1080 South Torino Avenue and I'm in Meridian. Holland: Okay. McKinley: I would like to start out by showing you where I live, but I don't know how to work this. Could somebody please tell me how to click back into the -- the bigger picture? Hopefully this won't take away from my three minutes. Nope. Nope. Right there. That one right there. Okay. This -- this piece of -- this R1 that is right here that is adjacent to here, I believe this is the subdivision that they said that they had contacted and may -- and that they were working with it. Am I correct in saying that? Okay. This is my house right here. I have lived here for 25 years. We have not been contacted by them whatsoever. He just stood up and stated that they -- they have had neighborhood meetings with us. That is not true. We have not had a single neighborhood meeting with Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2020 Page 38 of 50 them. He has not contacted anybody in -- in -- in my neighborhood. As far as I know they have contacted these four homes right here and that's it. So, we were not given any notification at all about what they were doing. Tonight is the first time that I have been -- that I have seen any of the development. This is the first -- I haven't even been contacted. The only reason that I know about this is because I was told by one of these four people that this meeting was coming. So, for them to stand up here and say that they have had meetings with our neighborhood, that's not true. For them to say that they have been working with us, that's not true. They may have had contact with -- with maybe one or two people on this back lot, but that's not -- that's not true at all. I would specifically like to talk about this stub street -- this stub right here. I am not necessarily opposed to any of this, other than the -- other than the rental part. If -- if it's rentals versus people purchasing -- seniors purchasing, that's a different story. But this stub street right here is very important to me, because in the Comprehensive Plan -- how do I go back? I don't know what I did. Holland: Bill, can you click back two slides for her. One more. McKinley: One more. Yeah. Thank you. So, in the Comprehensive Plan they have a provision to put a road right through my front yard that goes as a frontage road right through I-84 that would -- that would connect and go right here. So, if our neighborhood were to have a meeting with the developers, we would -- we would want to make sure that there would not be any stub roads out this direction, because we do not want to be annexed into the city. We do not want to be -- we want to remain R1 and this has been a big contention as -- as Mr. Parsons probably is very well aware of and as he stated -- he stated that -- you also stated that there were empty lots. Could you, please, tell me where the empty lots are? When you made your -- when you made your statement you said that there was empty lots to the west. Parsons: Sure. No, ma'am. I just to the north. I said the north had single family residents, but to the east were the vacant lots and the single family residents. McKinley: Okay. Okay. All right. All right. I misunderstood then. I thought you meant -- so, anyway. So, my public testimony is that -- is that we were not -- we weren't -- we weren't -- we were not given any kind of notification that this project was being done at all. We weren't notified and -- and if this is to be approved this evening at least some of us in here that we would like to be notified and we would like those stub -- the stub roads removed in the plans and we want to make sure that -- that the -- this -- this portion here -- oops. What -- this -- this -- why does it keep doing that? I'm trying to -- this -- this -- this portion right here remains open space and not a road, because we don't want a road here through our subdivision and we do not want these -- this stub road here. That affects our house. Holland: We are past time and I really appreciate your -- McKinley: All right. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2020 Page 39 of 50 Holland: -- your comments and -- McKinley: Do you have any questions? Holland: I will answer a couple of -- of the questions that you had. So, if you are located on the -- the west side of the Locust View Subdivision -- McKinley: I'm in Locust View Subdivision. Holland: Correct. So, they have -- whenever there is a development that comes forward they have certain noticing requirements they have to meet by code. So, they are required to post signage on their sites and they are also required to do a 300 foot radius of the proposed property -- proposed development boundaries. So, it's likely that you were outside of that 300 feet, which is probably why you didn't receive any notification. McKinley: Well, they are only -- we are all one acre parcels. So, there are 60 -- there is 63 parcels in -- in this square. Holland: Right. McKinley: There is 63. So, when they say that they have notified our subdivision, that's not true. And when he says that they were working with our subdivision that's not true either. Holland: They are required to hold a neighborhood meeting for anybody that receives a postcard within the 300 feet. McKinley: We did -- they did not have any -- they did not have that. Holland: Well -- McKinley: There was no neighborhood meeting. Holland: I appreciate your comments. McKinley: Thank you. Holland: Thanks for being here. Is there anybody else that would like to testify? Please come forward. Rennison: My name is Pat Rennison and I live at 990 Mustang Street. My backyard is adjacent to this development and I have written a letter in support of them. It is true that people on the west side were not sent the cards, only the Mustang Street, we are the only ones that received postcards for this and they have had two meetings and some of us did attend -- on Mustang Street we did attend those meetings and so that has -- also Ryan and Glenna Newby that are about three doors down from Mrs. McKinley, they sent out a Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2020 Page 40 of 50 news e-mail that this was going to happen tonight and several people have come tonight in support of this subdivision. We are happy and we do agree with Mrs. Newby, though, that -- Mrs. Newby. Oops. Mrs. McKinley that that stub street we do not wish that to go through and we don't -- eventually I know that was in the Comprehensive Plan, we have been very active for over a year now since February 12th of last year of not having a through street come through our subdivision. Because at this point we are a contained subdivision with only the one street in period and it has made it a very cohesive neighborhood. We have four families that are three generations in our neighborhood, where the children have grown up, their children have married, come back and are now raising their children in the neighborhood and that is one reason we don't want it to be a thoroughfare. So, thank you very much. Holland: Thank you. Appreciate it. Last call. Anyone else like to testify? We have got one more hand in the back. If you wouldn't mind stating your name and address for the record. Valdez: My name is Barbara Valdez. I live at 2220 East Continental. I live in Locust View Heights Subdivision. About the middle of the subdivision. I would withdraw my letter of -- of approving of the subdivision based on the fact that this sub road would, as Pat has said, destroy our subdivision. We indicated our approval for the subdivision, because Cadillac Drive would not have been extended with this development. We were unaware, either in the presentation or in our maybe failure to study the development, but a stub road was included in it. It was not emphasized and I emphasized to developers that we wanted to preserve our subdivision. No notice was made. No attention called to the stub road, which was a major feature changing our entire subdivision. So, as much as I'm able to approve of that subdivision or support it for environmental reasons, for preserving stream, for construction of buildings themselves, I cannot support it because of the effect on traffic, of quiet neighborhoods, and the fact that the diversity that's represented by their piece, Woodbridge piece and our piece is -- would be lost and it would become a victim of commercial development, which none of us really buffering one another would benefit from. Holland: Thank you. Appreciate it. Before the applicant comes back I might just take a second to answer a couple of the questions that were -- were concerned here. One note is having this development come in does not change the zoning of the neighborhood in Locust View Heights and nor does it put a road through there. The stub road is something that's typically required from ACHD and they certainly would have to -- this development would have to meet whatever standards ACHD would require, but it's -- it's simply that it would be a stub road that would end and the road would not go through unless there was another redevelopment to happen. So, if the neighbors decided they wanted to stay in their one acre lots, there would be nothing that would change that in the future, unless they were to sell and a new developer would come in to build something there. So, just wanted to put that out there. This doesn't mean -- putting a stub road there doesn't mean that it's going to be a road that goes through Locust View Heights, it just means that if it was ever to redevelop a hundred years from now, there would be the ability to have interconnectivity with the road to the east. So, I just wanted to -- to point that out there Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2020 Page 41 of 50 as a comment. And I know I talked a little bit about the public noticing process, but developments are required to do a 300 foot radius for where the postcards go to. They do have to have their neighborhood meetings. They have signs posted on the property saying that they are going to come forward for a rezone or for an annexation. So, it's always unfortunate if you live outside of that boundary and you haven't heard about it, but I'm glad you were able to be here today so you could share some of your thoughts with us, so we appreciate that. With that I will ask the applicant to come back forward if they would like to address any other further concerns, have other comments that they would like to share with us. And if you wouldn't mind stating your name and address for the record again we would appreciate it. Garner: Yes. Jeremy Garner. 489 East Lockhart, Meridian. Sammis: Clay Sammis at 133 Simpson, Ketchum, Idaho. I'm feeling horrible, actually, because our proposal is exactly kind of what the -- what the neighbors at Locust were talking about. We have a cul-de-sac currently in the southern portion -- if we could pull up the site plan. I don't know if I go back one or forward. But there is a current cul-de- sac not shown here in order to access our site. I have always represented -- we have been representing that there is an extension of the right of way for extending the cul-de- sac. We are trying to get it to be a hammerhead. ACHD -- to just elaborate on the deal points with ACHD, they have just today agreed to do a cul-de-sac with a hammerhead within it. So, the hammerhead meets the fire code, which we already worked out with the building fire marshal and -- and, then, the cul-de-sac will meet ACHD. So, I, too, believe a fence at the end and a little bit of landscaping right at the end, because of the unforeseen time that this would be extended, if it would be extended when -- 30, 40 or a hundred lots get purchased and a road gets put through all at once. Again, that's -- that's where we landed. That's what I have always represented. So, we have extended our cul-de-sac to access the houses on the west side of the property and I think, again, you have already elaborated on a couple meetings we had and I believe my last statement addresses my representation to Mrs. Valdez and, then, also for Mrs. McKinley. Do you have any -- Garner: If I could just say as well, we -- we followed all the regulatory guidelines for noticing through the whole process. So, I apologize if we -- if we weren't clear on -- on any of that, but I think we have -- we have met those standards in our application process, so -- Holland: Appreciate that. Sammis: Do you have any other questions for us while we are here or -- Holland: Any questions for the applicant? No one's jumping up and down to ask questions, so I think you guys are set. Garner: Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2020 Page 42 of 50 Holland: Thank you. Appreciate it. McCarvel: Madam Chair? Sammis: Thank you very much. And, again, thank you for staff and Bill. I didn't get a chance to -- to thank both the Commissioners and staff for working on this project with us. And the neighbors. Thank you. Holland: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: Madam Chair, I move we close the public hearing on H-2019-0127. Holland: Got a motion. Pitzer: Second. Holland: Motion and a second. All those in favor? Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Holland: Commissioner McCarvel, do you want to go first? McCarvel: Sure. I love this. I think this looks like a great addition into this area. Kind of just exactly what it needs. It is -- I know we have had some, quote, multi-family proposals in this area before, but this is night and day from what was proposed a few years ago up around the corner. Even though it's technically multi-family, I think it's beautiful. I think it's in the right location. I love the amount of green space and close to everything. I mean having senior living arrangements close to all the medical and a lot self contained as far as activities and even a restaurant limits traffic even more going from back there. I do think it is important. I -- you know, that street that is going to be a dead end street, but preparing for what may happen 20, 40, 60, 80 years in the future. I think it's important to keep those -- those ways open for potential, otherwise, you close everything off permanently. But I love it. With the -- and with the open space and especially our Chair's comments about putting in the -- that no lots face Wells, just for those exact future options. Pitzer: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner Pitzer. Pitzer: I -- I agree with Commissioner McCarvel. I love this. I mean this is a great concept plan, not only that it's -- it's close to medical. I think I want to move there myself. You know, it's -- it's beautiful. I -- I -- as far as the stub street. Don't sell your property then it won't go through. But, yeah, we need to plan for the future. But this is -- I -- I have no negative comments for this project as I see it. Holland: Thank you. Commissioner Grove. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2020 Page 43 of 50 Grove: I'm pretty interested in this. I mean, you know, sat through a lot of the Comprehensive Plan, seeing the mixed use designation used, in particular in this fashion, that fits with the dynamic around it in terms of other residential, commercial, hospital roads. I -- I think this makes sense and it's well laid out, well thought through. I really like how they have thought of the different aspects to make this function as an entire concept coming in and I like the open space as well, especially along Five Mile Creek. So, I'm definitely in favor of this project. Holland: I would echo a lot of the comments made. I always like seeing mixed use concepts and I like that there is a lot of amenities here. One thing Bill mentioned in his staff report is that he would like us to give some specifics on what amenities and open space we would like to see if this moves forward, because if they are -- the only -- it will not come back in front of us as a plat, it will just be this development. So, that might be something we want to consider. I would still stand on -- on not wanting to have any lots face Wells, just for long term planning sake, but, again, I stand by the comments I made earlier that there is no intention for that road to go through right now. There is no -- I mean I don't see that road going through in even five to ten years, unless somebody was to sell their lots and see something else come through there. It's not going to be immediate. It's just planning for future in case that ever happens at some point. So, again, same -- same comment, if, you know, those one acre lots stay in place there is not going to be a need for a road to go through there, it's only in case that there would be a development that happens at some point in the future, whether that's 50 years from now, a hundred years from now, two hundred years from now. They could stay exactly the same with no -- no changes there. So, I -- I always appreciate when we get comments from the public. I want to thank you for the letters of testimony we got. I want to thank you for the folks that have shown up here to wait it out with us until 8:00 o'clock in the evening on a Thursday night. Overall I like the concepts as well. I like that there is lots of walking paths throughout the neighborhood. It seems like an adequate transition from residential that's there. It's not going to be a -- it's targeted at 55 and older, I believe, for the entire development. So, it's not going to be a super active area with lots of kids running around. It will -- it will be a quieter subdivision and I think it's a nice transition for what's in the vicinity. So, with that -- I don't know how we quantify what amenities and open space we want to see in there, but I know in the staff report there was a list of what types of amenities are required in multi-family developments and some comments that perhaps we could give a recommendation of how many of those we wanted to see come forward. Pitzer: Madam Chair? Holland: I think Bill had a -- Parsons: Yeah. Madam Chair, Members of -- of the Commission, certainly you can do it multiple ways. One is -- and I was hoping you would ask the applicant what they would commit to, but you can open it up and ask what they are willing to commit to as part of the record and we will move forward with that or you can look at the list there and say you Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2020 Page 44 of 50 like all of them or the ones that got to be there they have to be there and we can include that in the development agreement. Holland: So, yeah, I wish I had asked that question before, too. McCarvel: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner Pitzer. I'm sorry. Commissioner Pitzer I think had a comment earlier, too. Pitzer: Thank you. Madam Chair, can I ask Bill. Is -- is keeping the balconies and the patios, is that something that we could put in as part of it? Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, certainly. I mean the way the code is written right now the multi-family units have to have a minimum square footage of private patio or open yard -- some kind of front porch patio and it's 80 square feet. So, if you want all the units to have that or comply with the -- right now the code -- the way I have the DA structured says you comply, unless you go through the alternative compliance. So, if you want to strike that from the DA provision you are welcome to do that and I can tell you what DA provision that is and what -- and what to get rid of if you don't want them to seek that. Pitzer: Okay. And for the multi-story that -- that -- that holds true for the multi-story? Parsons: Yeah. It would be for -- for -- all the units have to meet that standard. Pitzer: Okay. Parsons: The single family style and the apartment style. Let me look that up for you really quick. Pitzer: Okay. Thank you, Bill. Holland: Thanks, Bill. Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I would be open to opening the hearing again to -- some commitments from the applicant on amenities and open space. Holland: I would certainly entertain a motion if you would like to do so. McCarvel: I -- so moved. Holland: Motion to reopen the public hearing to hear just from the applicants on open space. Do I have a second? Grove: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2020 Page 45 of 50 Holland: Do I have a second. McCarvel: I will second it. Holland: You can't second. McCarvel: I know. Holland: It's seconded. All those in favor? Any opposed? Would the applicant, please, come back forward and speak with us a little bit about open space. Parsons: So, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, while the applicant comes back up for some additional testimony, it looks like it's DA provision E and it would be item number three, multi-family private usable open space standards. You would want to strike that from that DA provision if you want them to comply with the 80 square feet. Sammis: I could speak to the -- the open space, which I guess addresses -- really it's intended for -- but I like the term open space, because -- Holland: Would you mind stating your name one more time just for the recorder. I appreciate it. Sammis: Yeah. No. Thank you. Clay Sammis. Holland: Thank you. Sammis: We -- we are near double the open space. So, we have taken some areas that would normally be on balconies and created gatherings -- I'm going to speak specifically to the apartments, because I believe we can meet the 80 square feet on all the cottages. It's just the apartment, if you think of 80 square feet where you might have a four foot deck -- that's a 20 foot long deck. I think -- we can't afford 20 foot long decks per unit. We do have a deck per unit. So, we -- we can -- we can have a deck for each unit and many of them are on the ground floor that -- that may spill out to become more than 80 square feet, but -- but I think the design in my mind reads well. It's broken up well with balconies and we don't have an entire line of -- the whole frontage being balconies. So, I -- I would ask you to consider allowing us to work with staff to come up with good design and decks that work functionally for these seniors, but aren't, you know, four by 20 feet long, because typically on this type of multi-story building you don't cantilever out or go out, you know, ten -- ten feet for a deck. So, the other was on the amenities. It's probably a number, because we -- I can't -- we won't commit to, you know, doubling the amenities, but -- but just by the nature of the senior housing and our -- and our use and our 55 plus and the way we have laid out this, that's what's going to separate us from the competitors. That's what's important to us is fitness, the hiking trails for the outdoor, for just mindful awareness and good health and -- and so including -- and typically we would have a spa and salon and you can speak to -- the fitness center is its own building. So, yes, that's Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2020 Page 46 of 50 intended to be a fitness center and clubhouse for -- for the north. I know that we can meet and exceed the amenities, but specifically which ones I would love some flexibility and -- Holland: Sure. Sammis: Maybe it's a quantity that we are talking about. Garner: Madam Chair, Commissioners, Jeremy Garner. 489 East Lockhart. Meridian. Having been in the industry -- senior living industry and -- and knowing on an apartment style, multi-family style complex like this, you will have a certain number of residents who -- who don't want or would rather have the space inside per se than to have an actual outside patio. But for those folks we have on -- on particular floors we will have surveillance decks or -- or outdoor areas that they can actually go out and look over certain parts of the area north of there. So, there will be public access to places in the building where they can actually go out and look and not necessarily have one in their individual unit per se and we would like the flexibility to be able to offer that. And, then, as far as amenities go in order for us to be competitive I think we -- we go well beyond what the requirements are in the development agreement -- or what's in the code currently with what we are trying to offer here and I think the open space, obviously, is one that we really feel strongly about. It kind of goes back to what our vision mission statement is for -- for what we want Andorra to be and we really do feel very strongly about the fact that there is a therapeutic concept to having outdoor space and to being outdoors and so it really does play into what we want to utilize as our marketing strategies and having this be a place for people to really want to be a part of. Holland: And I think all of us see that you have got an interest in having really nice amenities and a really nice subdivision or concept here. What would you feel comfortable with on number of amenities that we would put in there? And I think it's just to have a safeguard moving forward that things wouldn't change after it moves out of here. Sammis: Offhand at six to eight. Garner: Yeah. I think -- I mean if you are -- if we are calling like the spa, salon, the fitness area, the, you know, outdoor pickleball, walking paths -- I think six to eight is probably -- I think we can exceed that, actually, but if you could keep it at that, then, we can really probably work with you on that. Holland: So, would you feel comfortable if we said we wanted to make sure we saw 20 percent open space and six amenities, that would be reasonable to you? Sammis: We have always represented the way we understand the code to be, to hit like 20 percent. Not having done an exhibit I guess I can look back at the architects, you know, and -- but -- but, again, they have done just the exhibit based on the site plan. So, we haven't -- you know, for all the areas that count or don't count or -- and it's back to the amenities. Like our amenities might be -- you know, might have 12, but you -- per the code you might only call those eight. So, that's kind of where I'm -- I kind of -- I kind of -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2020 Page 47 of 50 I would want to say we can do near double, but to say absolutely we have 20, I mean that's -- it's -- Holland: Sure. Sammis: -- we should have ten percent cushion from what we have calculated, but I would -- I would ask for something in between, if you could consider that, so we have a safety net and we will strive for 20. We are currently sitting at 22. If it's calculated the same way we did it, well, then, we made it, because we don't intend to peel back that open space. Holland: Great. Any other questions for the applicant? I think that's it. Thank you, gentlemen. Garner: Thank you. Sammis: Thank you very much. Holland: With that I need a motion to close the public hearing again. McCarvel: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: Move to close the public hearing on H-2019-0127. Holland: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Pitzer: Second. Holland: All those in favor? No opposed? MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Holland: I think after hearing what they -- they said, I don't know that I need -- I feel like we need to strike the DA -- E-3 requirement. I think letting them work with staff to find packages that would be appropriate or -- it seems fine to me. Because I think having an 800 foot balcony on each unit seems like a lot -- McCarvel: Eighty. Holland: That's what I meant. Eight hundred feet would be really a lot. That would be quite some engineering, so -- I would love to see what that would look like. Yeah. Eighty feet would be -- I would say let's just let them work with staff on the decking per unit, because it sounds like their intent is to have a deck on each unit and have some other viewing areas and I would much rather see larger -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2020 Page 48 of 50 Pitzer: Yeah. Madam Chair, I -- I agree. I was just concerned about another development we went through and we didn't have anything in there and it was zero. Holland: We could certainly look at putting a condition that says we would like every unit to have a deck and leave that at that. I don't know that I even want to get that close. But I would just say I would rather have them work with staff to find an appropriate solution that meets code and creates a nice product. Pitzer: I agree. I think if we follow the concept that we are looking I -- I would feel pretty good about that. Holland: Yeah. McCarvel Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I agree. I think they know their market and I think working with staff and to have some apartments -- I mean that just have -- maybe have more indoor space rather than outdoor and use of the common and I agree -- the representation of this -- I think the only reason to have to put in the number of amenities and open space is -- just to safeguard. I think they are going to do a fabulous job and just since we don't get another stab at this, then, I think that's the only reason. Holland: And I struggled on whether or not we should put a percentage on the open space. I said 20, because they have proposed 22.8, but, again, that wasn't calculated with an actual plat, so I'm not sure what would count as acceptable open space. But, Bill, if you have any thoughts there. Parsons: Yeah. Yeah. My spider sense went off, so I figured I better chime in. Difficult for 20 percent and I'm going to tell you why. It's because the calculations. There is a ratio there and don't have all of those details yet, so I don't know if they are going to come in at 18 percent, 15 percent, 22 percent -- it just -- it's -- it's up in the air right now. That's why in the DA provision I said they just need to comply with code, because we don't know what that number is. I don't know what's qualified as open space and what isn't at this point. In the multi-family standards it has to be 20 by 20 and 400 square feet to count. So, we are going to have to measure between each of the units and figure out what that is. So, I don't want to commit to a solid number. All I wanted to do is just bring it to your attention that we do have a higher quality development and -- and a very rich amenity package for this development. We are talking a clubhouse, multiple sports courts, all of those things meet the criteria of a multi-family development. I just don't want things to happen where -- for example, we have -- we have an expectation for a clubhouse and all of a sudden we are getting a plaza with a gazebo. That's not an equal life or like amenity and that's happened and we want to make sure that doesn't happen in this particular case. I -- yes, I have a -- I have worked with the developer, I understand their commitment here, but I wanted something definitive. We are going to do a fitness facility. We are Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2020 Page 49 of 50 going to do a clubhouse. We are going to do a pool. We are going to do -- and they have to do the pathway. They are going to do inter-connected walkways. I agree. They have to do that. They want to link -- that's part -- part of the mixed use standards. You have got to connect this development and make it integrated. I don't see that changing. What I get concerned with is just watering down things once they start crunching numbers and figuring the actual costs out and this -- like you said, this is a pretty -- pretty nice project and if you guys are comfortable with what -- just saying as proposed, we can do that and we can figure it out later and work with staff or work with staff -- or say even ten or 12 amenities isn't going to get it done for me. I mean I -- their concept plan calls out these amenities and so I'm not sure where the salon and spa falls into that. To me that's just more of a function of the use for -- for that. So, I don't know if I would classify those as amenities per the multi-use standards or multi-family standards and open space standards. But certainly all the other things that they are proposing I certainly would classify as that. Again, the concept plan calls out those things. If you want to tie them to that it's certainly within your purview. If you are comfortable with what I have, them just complying with code, and we can work those out, I'm happy with that as well. I have got it covered either way. Holland: Thanks, Bill. McCarvel: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: Bill, is saying some verbiage such as amenities and open space as represented by the applicant, does that get you close enough to some teeth into this or not? Parsons: I don't want to get in a situation where staff has to go back to the public record to figure out what your interpretation was. We need -- we need to have black and white on these -- this development agreement, because we don't have another bite at the apple unless it gets -- I mean, obviously, the agreement can be amended. What we can do is moving forward to City Council the applicant can bring forward a more detailed list for them to take under consideration. That may be the more flexible route to go at this point. McCarvel: Okay. Holland: And I think one thing we could do is, you know, with certain amenities that they have listed here that we think are non-negotiables, so I would say I feel comfortable saying we would like to make sure that they come back with at least six amenities, including a clubhouse, a fitness facility, walking trails, open grassy areas and if we wanted to name a couple other things, whether you want the restaurant, the pool -- I know restaurants can be tough in a development like this, so I don't know that I want to necessarily tie them to that. It could end up being that they just do a coffee shop there at some point. Or, you know, maybe they find that a neighborhood store makes more sense Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2020 Page 50 of 50 for some of the residents -- some sort of convenience location. I want to leave that up to their interpretation, too, but -- Parsons: Exactly. It could be a business center if somebody wants to run a business out of there. You just don't know at this point. There is a -- there is a lot of options here that they just don't know -- the market is going to drive that a little bit and they are going to know that better than we will. Holland: But I think if we want to be specific in including a couple of those things, I would say making sure we have a clubhouse, fitness facility listed, connected walking trails with open grassy areas, those are the ones that seem most important to me and that they would have a minimum of six to eight amenities. McCarvel: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: Do we have a thought on the amount of open space you want to tie this to? Holland: I don't think so. I think you leave it to what code requires and have them work with staff. McCarvel: Okay. Holland: Any other thoughts? I would certainly entertain a motion if someone wants to try one. McCarvel: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council file number H-2019-0127 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 5th, 2020, with the following modifications: That no lots -- with the addition of no lots facing Wells and that the open space meet minimum code and close to represented by the applicant, along with six to eight amenities, including clubhouse, fitness center, and trails with open grassy areas. To work with staff on the remainder. Holland: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Grove: Second. Holland: All right. All those in favor? Any opposed? Andorra Senior Living is moving forward to Council. Thank you. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission March 5, 2020 Page 51 of 50 MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. THREE ABSENT. Holland: With that I believe we just have one more motion of the evening. McCarvel: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I move we -- we adjourn. Grove: Second. Holland: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor? Any opposed? All right. Meeting adjourned. Thank you. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:25 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED _____________________________________ _____|_____|_____ LISA HOLLAND - VICE-CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: _____________________________________ CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK