Loading...
2020-06-18 Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting June 18, 2020. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of June 18, 2020, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Vice-Chairman Lisa Holland. Members Present: Commissioner Lisa Holland, Commissioner Bill Cassinelli, Commissioner Andrew Seal, Commissioner Rhonda McCarvel, Commissioner Nick Grove and Commissioner Patricia Pitzer. Members Absent: Chairman Ryan Fitzgerald. Others Present: Chris Johnson, Adrienne Weatherly, Andrea Pogue, Bill Parsons, Sonya Allen, Joe Dodson, and Alan Tiefenbach. Item 1: Roll-call Attendance __X___ Lisa Holland ___X___ Rhonda McCarvel __X___ Andrew Seal ___X___ Nick Grove __X___ Patricia Pitzer ___X___ Bill Cassinelli ________ Ryan Fitzgerald - Chairman Holland: Well, good evening everybody tuning in. At this point in time I would like to call to order the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission for the date of June 18th and before we do roll call I'm just going to run through kind of the format, since some of you may be unfamiliar with what we are doing here. But we are, obviously, hosting this meeting via Zoom and so on your screen you should see the Commissioners who are present for the evening's meeting and on the call is also staff from the city attorney and the city clerk offices and staff from our Planning and Zoning Department as well. Everybody else is online on Zoom are just attendees. You are welcome to observe the meeting and we can see that you are there. However, your ability to talk and be seen will be muted. During the public testimony portion of the meeting you will be unmuted and able to comment. If you have previously sent a presentation for the meeting the city clerk's office will help bring that up and display it on the screen for you and they can also assist with bringing up a slide from another presentation if you need them to pull something up. So, just ask if -- if -- when you are -- when you are up. And if you just want to tune in tonight to the meeting and don't really have a comment to make, we encourage you just to watch the streaming on the city's YouTube channel, which is at meridiancity.org/live. When the public testimony is open the clerk will call the names of those who have signed up to testify on our website. They will unmute you at that time and we will call on you individually. So, when you are called state your name and address for the record and you will have three minutes to address the Commission. After that we may ask you some questions for clarification, but once that's done you will be muted again and no longer have the ability to speak. Once all those who have signed up in advance are called we will invite anyone else who wishes Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 2 of 92 to testify to do so and you can do that by raising your hand in the Zoom app or if you are just listening through a cell phone or landline you can press star nine and wait for your name to be called. If you are listening on multiple devices, like a computer and a phone, make sure you mute those devices, so that we don't have feedback and everybody will be able to hear you effectively and note that we also cannot take questions until the public testimony portion of the hearing, so if you have a process question about anything, please, feel free to e-mail the city clerk, which is at cityclerk@meridiancity.org and they will try to help you out as soon as they possibly can. So, with that, Madam Clerk, would you mind taking roll for us. Item 2: Adoption of Agenda Holland: Great. Thank you. So, on tonight's agenda we have one item that has requested a continuance, but otherwise everything pretty much stands and that continuances is for the Gateway at Ten Mile application. So, we will open it up to allow the applicant to make that request to us, but, otherwise, we will not be opening it up for public testimony, unless the Commission decides we would like to hear that tonight. So, with that, the first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. Can I get a motion to adopt the agenda as presented? Seal: So moved. McCarvel: So moved. Second. Holland: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor. Any opposed? Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Item 3: Consent Agenda \[Action Item\] A. Approve Minutes of June 4, 2020 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting B. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Gracie Fighting Academy (H-2020-0054) by Ia Falo, Located at 149 S. Adkins Way Holland: And the second thing on our agenda is the Consent Agenda. And, hang on, I lost my agenda. Hold on. Can I get a motion to approve the Consent Agenda, which has the minutes from June 4th Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, as well as the Finding of Facts, Conclusions of Law for Gracie Fighting Academy. Pitzer: So moved. McCarvel: So moved. Second and third. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 3 of 92 Holland: I have got a motion and -- multiple motions and seconds. All those in favor? Any opposed? Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. Holland: So, we have already kind of gone through the public hearing process for tonight. Anybody wanting to testify will have their three minutes and the applicant will have 15 minutes to make their presentation as well at the beginning. After we have taken all the public testimony we will open it back up for the applicant to kind of make -- make their final wrap up and answering questions that were addressed to them and, then, the Commission will deliberate. Item 4: Action Items A. Public Hearing for Brody Square (H-2020-0032) by Pinnacle Land Development, LLC, Located on the Northeast and Southeast Corners of N. Black Cat Rd. and W. Daphne St. 1. Request: Annexation of 15 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district; and, 2. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 65 buildable lots, 7 common lots and 2 other lots on 13.9 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district. Holland: So, thanks for joining us tonight. We are glad to have you all here and we will start with the public hearing for Brody's Square, which is H-2020-0032, by Pinnacle Land Development, and we will start with the staff report. Tiefenbach: Good evening, Commissioners. This is Alan Tiefenbach, a planner with the City of Meridian. Everybody hear me okay? All right. So, this is an annexation, a preliminary plat, and a vacation of right of way. The site consists of about 15 acres of land. It's currently zoned RUT within the county and it's located at the northeast quadrant of North Black Cat Road and West McMillan Road. I'm trying to get my screen to work here. There we go. So, the future land use map designation for this is medium density residential. It's right -- as I said, right now it's within the unincorporated county and this is -- would be an annexation and a rezoning to R-8. It would be a preliminary plat for 65 building lots and this includes a vacation of a portion of Daphne Street. Here is the preliminary plat and I -- actually, on the east here I put the aerial just to kind of help give it a little bit of context. So, this is Black Cat Road here and McMillan is down here. Where my pointer is right now this is a through street. This is Daphne Street. So, this proposal includes vacating this portion here, which is about 275 feet. The purpose of that is because they are going to put their common open space and their amenity here. I want to clarify something in the staff report that I think isn't real clear. So, there was two pre- apps that were completed on this property. The first pre-app looked at the southern five acres, which if you can see where my pointer is down here, this area is not in the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 4 of 92 subdivision anymore, but this area down here was initially included in this plat and this area up here was not. This was going to be under a separate ownership. At the time that we did that first pre-application meeting staff made a recommendation that there would be a stub street to this up here and the reason why is because this would have otherwise been landlocked. There was later a second pre-application meeting that was done and the area that is down here was taken out and this five acres was now brought into this subdivision. So, now this five acres existed and staff made a recommendation to stub to the east, which would be here. When the staff report was completed there was an oversight on my part that there was two pre-apps that were done and I kept the recommendation for the northern stub. I talked to the applicant a bit about this. He helped me understand that there was two pre-apps that were done and I talked to ACHD about this. ACHD didn't have any issues with this proposal. They were happy with the eastern stub. So, what I'm telling you Commissioners is if the -- I believe that the applicant does not want to do the northern stub. If the Planning Commissioners are okay with that, staff would not object if you decided not to stub -- to add an additional stub to the north here. As I said, there is going to be a vacation of right of way that's being proposed. That's because there is a common open space area that they are doing and in order -- so they would be -- Daphne would now sort of curve around and, then, come back out Daphne and like that. Right now I believe it's about 24 feet of right of way and it's not all developed. This -- this part of Daphne and this part of Daphne would be developed to 33 feet and it would have rolled -- rolled curbs and sidewalks. It's important to mention that ACHD ultimately are the ones that would make the decision on this, so if ACHD decided that they did not support vacating this, then, this plat would have to be modified or changed. My understanding after talking to them and with their staff report, though, is that they do support this proposal. Though the one issue that I believe is still outstanding between staff and the applicant comes down to the open space and the amenity -- amenity package. So, the -- the applicant is proposing approximately 11 and a half percent on qualified open space and amenities. There is about 17 percent that's a total open space, but 11 percent of that is what we call the usable open space. That consists of this pond here in the middle. They have got a corridor here that can be used and areas around here. They are also counting this buffer. Fifty percent of this can be accredited towards their qualified open space. However, what staff -- what staff's issue was -- and I'm sure that the applicant is going to talk a little bit about this -- is that this pond that's in the middle is being required for their irrigation. So, it would be likely that they would have to provide this pond whether or not they wanted to do the -- whether or not they want to provide this as an amenity. Now, our -- our code allows you to use a pond as an amenity. There is there is two things that it has to do. It has to have recirculated water and it can't be a mosquito breeding area, but the applicant has -- has told us that this pond is only going to be wet maybe six or eight months out of the year. It's not going to be a pond through the whole year. The other thing that staff had some concerns about is that their amenity package includes a shade structure and some benches and seating all right down here where you see this pointer. There is also a trail that runs east-west here and there is a trail that runs north-south here. Staff believes that these trails could connect. Now that we know that this pond may or may not be a seasonable pond and may not exist, we think it's even more important now that this connects, because, otherwise, this is going to, we believe, be some sort of a no man's land or an area which is dry part of the year and it's Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 5 of 92 not particularly usable. I know that the applicant has -- has suggested maybe they just take the trails out altogether, which we don't think is a -- is probably a very good option. Again I think that the applicant has come to speak on this and I will -- I will defer this to them. But that aside, our recommendations are approval with the condition in the staff report. But, again, I need to clarify that we are no longer -- we are okay if the Planning Commission doesn't want to require the stub, but we still believe there needs to be something done with the amenity package. At the very minimum we believe those trails should -- those pathways should be connected. Perhaps the applicant has a different offer, but that is our position as it is right now. Is there any questions, Commissioners? Seal: Madam Chair? Holland: I'm unmuting myself. Go ahead, Commissioner Seal. Seal: Just a question as to which in -- in -- in the findings -- where is the finding on the -- the stub street? I'm trying to race through it and I'm not finding which one that is. Just trying to take a note here of it. Tiefenbach: Let's see. I can give you that, but I'm going to have to get out of the screen, because I have the staff report -- Seal: Okay. Tiefenbach: So -- so, I can give that to you. Seal: Okay. We -- we can come back to that. Just something I wanted to make sure we had -- Tiefenbach: Yeah. Once I close this PowerPoint I can get in there, but I can't do both at the same time. I have it for you, no problem. Seal: Okay. Thank you. Holland: Any other questions for staff? Pitzer: Yes, Madam Chair. Holland: Commissioner Pitzer. Pitzer: So, Alan, on the last screen where you had that overview -- there is -- there is a -- there is still vacant land to the north, so will they have access from another -- another subdivision or what happens when that gets sold? Tiefenbach: Yeah. That's a great question. So -- so, the -- now there is some vacant land to the north and that -- and that land is all under the same ownership, so there is one -- there -- there is an existing house that's taking access off of Black Cat Road and, then, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 6 of 92 there is all of the -- the land to the east of it and that land is owned by the same person. So, they have access to the north or towards -- to the east. The issue was that before the -- before this proposal took that northern five acres it would have gone like that parcel, because it was under a totally different access. So, everybody has access under the current arrangement. Holland: Alan, it might be helpful if you went back to your first slide to see -- to kind of point out that ownership again. Tiefenbach: So -- so, this right -- there is two parcels here. I know this is kind of blurry. You can see the existing house. This existing house is taking assets off of Black Cat -- Black Cat. Now, if this developed, obviously, we would not want to have access including onto Black -- Black Cat, but you can see that there is an access here. This is all owned by the same person. So, if it was owned by different entities we would be more concerned to make sure that one didn't landlock the other, but because this is all owned by the same entity, if and when this develops we will make sure that there is access provided to the north. Originally this was not part of the proposal tonight and this would have been cut off and that was our issue. Pitzer: Follow up? Tiefenbach: Originally this was being proposed down here. Holland: Go ahead, Commissioner Pitzer, with your follow up. Pitzer: Yes. So, is that northern that he owns the parcel to the east, so it's two separate parcels? Tiefenbach: Yes. Pitzer: What if he -- what if he only sells one parcel? Tiefenbach: If he -- if he -- if he wants to -- if they want to subdivide this parcel we are going to make sure that whoever buys that parcel provides access. That's part of the subdivision process. We are not -- we are not going to want to have this -- this development here, we are not going to -- if this develops we are not going to want to have access off of Black Cat -- Black Cat either way. So, if somebody subdivides this, sells these two pieces off and comes in to develop this, we are going to -- we are going to require them to provide access to this parcel. We can do that under our UDC. Pitzer: Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Tiefenbach: Sure. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 7 of 92 Holland: And I think the way that staff has it set up, too, is the parcel -- the stub street to the east on Avilla would potentially become another piece that could connect in with that subdivision in the future, if there was -- Tiefenbach: Correct. Holland: -- something that developed there to the north. All right. Any other follow-up questions? Commissioner Grove? Grove: Madam Chair. Alan, question for you. On Black Cat ACHD is saying that they are going to expand it to five lanes south of McMillan to Ustick, but only to extent it does three lanes between McMillan and Chinden. Do you know if that is like set in stone or if they would actually end up keeping a sizable street all the way through to Chinden? Because I'm just wondering if that impacts the right of way on the western side of this development. Tiefenbach: My understanding at this point, based on my discussions in the staff report, is that they are only planning to expand that part of Lancaster. They are not proposing to expand it to five lanes like it would be south of McMillan. Now, could that change? Sure. But based on the staff report and what ACHD gave me -- and I -- and I believe that a link to that staff report was provided with -- with my staff report. My understanding is that they are only providing three lanes. Grove: Okay. And I didn't see anything in the report -- sorry. Follow up. About the roundabout in this report, but it was in a future one. Is that my understanding at that Black Cat-McMillan intersection that a roundabout is to be put in at some point? Tiefenbach: Yes. That's correct. It was. Holland: Any other follow-up questions? All right. Thanks, Alan. With that I think we will open it up for the applicants to come and speak with us. Weatherly: Madam Chair, I have gotten Keith Nichter into the meeting and, Keith, you can unmute yourself when you are ready. If you could let me know if there is anybody else that might be an attendee that you want me to bring over I would appreciate it. Nichter: Yes. Hello. This is Keith. So, Deb is going to be joining here shortly, if she's not already attempting to. Deborah Nelson with Givens Pursley. She will be providing our presentation. She actually went down to City Hall. Had thought this one was in -- in person. So, she's racing back right now. But if no one from Givens Pursley is trying to attend right now, then, I can go ahead and kind of give a little presentation if you don't see anyone else trying to get in. Weatherly: I don't see Deb yet, but I will keep an eye out for her and as soon as she gets there I will go ahead and get her into the meeting. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 8 of 92 Nichter: Okay. Hold on one second. I think maybe they are calling me right now. Hello. Tiefenbach: If I can mention, there was a question -- this is Alan with staff. Holland: Go ahead, Alan. Tiefenbach: The plat note that you were referring to is number 4-1. If you look at the staff report it says the plat shall be revised as follows prior to the submittal -- Nichter: All right. I'm sorry. Tiefenbach: -- stub street will be provided. So, that would be -- that would be the condition that the Planning Commission would want to discuss, whether or not they would want to retain that. 4-I in the findings. Nichter: Sorry to interrupt. Jeff Bower is the -- the name that you will need to let in, if you don't mind. Weatherly: Okay. I will go ahead and get him over. I do have a phone number here, too. So, if anybody is on the phone I just need the last three of their telephone number and I can admit them, too. Holland: Oh, there is Deb Nelson. Nelson: Hi. Sorry for the delay. Nice to see all of you. I don't know how I got our wires crossed and thought that we were there in person this evening. So, we have done a little drive through town. Holland: I think this is our last Planning and Zoning Commission meeting that's fully online. So, sorry about that. Nelson: Okay. I think -- and maybe I just heard the -- the reopening plan and missed the date. So, anyway, we are ready if you are ready for the applicant and I did e-mail the presentation, if the clerk has that or if I can share a screen. Weatherly: Deb, you have permission to share the screen if you want to. Holland: And just for the record, Deb, if you wouldn't mind stating your name and address for the record that would be great. Nelson: I sure will. Let me just get this up. Is my screen -- my PowerPoint shown? Can you see that? Holland: We can see it. Yep. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 9 of 92 Nelson: Okay. Great. Well, Deborah Nelson with Givens Pursley. My address is 601 West Bannock Street in Boise here on behalf of the applicant and also here with me as part of the development team is Randy Clarno with Pinnacle Land Development and Brandon McDougald with Kimley Horn. We appreciate staff's presentation and actually got to hear most of it, so thank you, Alan. Appreciate their recommendation of support for this project and as Alan noted we did just have a couple of issues that we provided some written testimony and we can address further this evening as well. Appreciate his comments on the stub street in particular. That's very helpful. So, just want to run through a few slides here briefly. I'm not seeing what you guys are seeing, so I just want to make sure you are able to see what I'm advancing. Holland: Now you are full screen with Brody Square. Nelson: Great. That seems to be working better now. Thanks so much. Okay. Well, just briefly it's an 15 acre site just north of the northeast corner of Black Cat and McMillan and I just want to point out that this is an assemblage of three five acre parcels from an old county sub, which creates a much more efficient use of the land and creates more opportunities for open space than what otherwise exists and is consistent with your comp plan, which is shown here allows us to achieve that medium density residential goal that you have set here. With our 65 homes our density is 4.33, right in the middle of the city's proposed range here of 3.8. Looking at the site plan. These are 65 detached single family homes that we are looking for. The water and sewer service is readily available in Black Cat. The irrigation service will be provided by Settlers. As Alan mentioned, this creates the need for the irrigation pond, because the Beach Lateral that serves this property is not a constant delivery system. There is just 36 hours of service to the property and so that requires a storage facility and a pump system to circulate it, but it also provides an opportunity, because the pond is a very nice attractive feature on the property. ACHD has reviewed the report as the Commissioners have noted and we are in acceptance of all of their conditions of approval. As Alan described, Daphne will be rerouted here. It creates a more usable space within the property and also a safer traffic flow to have that routed to the south. Since Alan has already gone through a fair amount about these stub streets I don't think I need to focus on these slides. We appreciate his support for what we have proposed here, which is consistent with what we were instructed to do at our pre-app where this full property was at issue and so that northeast location that you can see here is our preferred location and also, you know, since we -- since the second pre- app on this property when this northern five acres was incorporated and at that time when the city told us to work on the eastern side, since, then, we did coordinate that with ACHD who approved it, but even more importantly, maybe for your consideration, we -- we also have been working with the property owner to the north about the treatment of the boundary between our properties and we are confident they would not want a stub street pointed up to their property. As was discussed already it's not needed for access to their property. They will be readily served. So, we do ask that you use the stub street as shown on that northeast corner. We are also providing stub streets on the south and that creates connectivity to multiple properties around us. Kind of skip through these points. Looking at our open space, we have got 2.67 acres of open space. That's 16 and a half percent total. Eleven and a half percent of your qualified open space. So, more than is Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 10 of 92 required here. Also required by your code for a property this size -- it's a relatively small property with just one amenity. We have selected from your allowed list of amenities and from your quality of life opportunities to have this picnic area that's got a shade and a bench and table and seating and that is the amenity that we think is going to make this grand central open space a great gathering space for the neighborhood. So, I think Alan was commenting that the -- the pond is allowed under your code as an amenity, but here it's really just for irrigation. We are not actually claiming the pond as the amenity that meets the requirements of your city code. We do believe it provides an additional amenity for our neighborhood and it's a very attractive feature. It's going to be surrounded by attractive landscaping. We think it will actually increase the value of the lots for these homeowners and the participants in the open space that are enjoying the picnic area will get to enjoy the view of the pond. So, we think it really does add a lot for this very small development to still have that opportunity, but we are not counting it. We are not asking you to treat it as anything more than what's required by your code here. A couple other slides I would like to show you about our open space, just so you can get a better idea of what our covered picnic area structure would look like. The other pictures give you an idea of the table that -- the tables that we would be looking at and the style of benches kind of a modern clean look here. Other pictures just to give you an illustration. There will be a wall seat that's along the picnic area and have features such as is shown here with the stone and, then, finally on the open space I want to address the last issue that we had with staff's recommendation where staff was suggesting that we add additional pathway connection between open space areas that are really to the north of the pond and this larger grand amenity area in the middle, our larger open space, and so I would like to address that briefly. We did provide some comments on this as well. And when staff requested this, the applicant team really thought hard about whether they could or should provide that opportunity. Looking at what's required under your code it certainly isn't required. The open space that's provided throughout the development meets and exceeds all of the standards. We are in excess of the qualified open space and so it's not necessary from a code standpoint, but from a connectivity standpoint we also feel like it doesn't add a lot. We are not -- we are not talking about a really large development where you have got, you know, rows and blocks of homes that are far distances away from the centralized amenity, where you don't really have direct walking paths. Here we have got streets running north, south, east, west in between each of the rows of houses here. They all have sidewalks that just give them very direct access to this centralized amenity. Also gives them a great circular walking path to make a loop, even in this small community if gives an area round to make the lap. Putting an extra path right through the middle all the way just to create connectivity from north and south it seems a bit overkill, given that you have got sidewalks just half a lot away and it's not just that it's not necessary, I think, you know, we would consider it even if it's not necessary, but it actually is problematic for us and so wanted to walk through a few of the reasons it is and one reason is that the pond feature does serve the irrigation purpose and it would need to be stretched out really to fit a pathway, even with just one pathway or two pathways along it on each side would cause it to be more of a channelized area. That limits its function for irrigation. It would require probably another pump to be added for circulation purposes. It creates more evaporation. It also limits our ability to landscape this central area and we are really excited about the lush landscaping that we can provide now when we don't Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 11 of 92 have the pond stretched out like a channel through -- further north there. We do have a walking path that stretches through the north -- the central part of the north open space here. It creates -- it's nice -- a nice quiet, distinct open space that's really separate from the area on the south. The southern area instead is more -- is intended to be a more active gathering space with a picnic area. Also has walking paths. But it's -- it's not necessary to connect them and it also would change the character of what we have got planned for the north with that more kind of serene area. It also really changes the quality of what we are able to provide behind these homes. It impacts those homes significantly. Because it's a relatively narrow area with the pond, even stretched out and narrower, it leaves a very limited opportunity to fit the path with the slope. It would really have to have -- we would really have to have a path that's right next to the open view fencing behind these lots. So, it really impacts the privacy of these homes. Rather than out on the public sidewalk, they would have folks right up against their -- their -- their fencing there. So, we would -- we would like to avoid that. We are also worried that in the areas around the pond you won't be able to fit the landscaping, which is really what creates a lot of the environment we are looking for there. So, those are a number of the reasons why we are asking to not create that additional connectivity. It's a short stretch of connectivity that we don't feel is -- is necessary and would create some -- some changes in the pattern of what we are looking for here. To give you a little -- an additional example, this is a different development in north Meridian that has a very attractive landscaped buffer, even without a path you can get a sense here of -- of how attractive just having landscaping and an open area where you have got the open view fencing creates a really -- really view home that they can look out on this. It adds to the -- the character of these homes and the quality of what they see and -- and shows that -- you know, it would be pretty impactful if you had a pathway that was immediately adjacent to that kind of open fencing. Finally I just want to end by showing you some of the quality homes here. The architectural style of the project will largely be a mix of contemporary forms and modern styles. Very elegant and plentiful blend of materials ranging from stone to stucco and board and batten siding materials with stylish natural colors. The home sizes will range from 16,000 to 3,000 square feet. Similar quality to what you see in the -- in the neighborhood here and also the same quality that you may have come to expect from this developer who has done other great successful residential development in the City of Meridian already, with Kingsbridge and Shelburne. So, with that I stand for questions and may turn questions over to my colleagues as needed. Thank you so much. Holland: Thank you, Deb. I appreciate it. You know, one question looking back at your -- if you can go back one slide to the plat again so we can look at that with you -- where the pond is. Nelson: Yes. Holland: There you go. Perfect. So, I see why staff's asking for the connection of the pathways from the north into that bigger common area, just because if you are going for a walk and you walk down that block there between the homes and, then, you kind of just have to turn around and go back out, it's a lot nicer to have that connectivity and I -- I would commend your -- you and your team's efforts here because I think it's a beautiful Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 12 of 92 layout. I like that the common space is in the middle. I think it's a smart looking development overall. I always like water features and wish there were more of them in Meridian. So, certainly some great amenities here. A couple of thoughts for you. I don't know if you considered having another maybe short pathway and sidewalk that went between a couple of lots to get out of the middle stretches. Maybe a compromise. If you put a small pathway that went between Lots 50 and 51 or something like that, so that way if somebody was walking a loop they wouldn't just get stuck and have to go back out, but that's just a thought for consideration. Wanted to see what you thought about something like that. Nelson: Commissioner Holland, thanks for those comments and questions and, no, we are -- we are not really looking to separate those further. I guess, again, just focusing on the -- the small size of this that there really is already a strong east-west connection through this grand amenity area from -- so, to get pedestrian access through there. If you look at the limited number of lots that are in that central area along this amenity, another breakpoint there doesn't add a lot for their walking around. You have got this circular path around all the sidewalks as it is. You can already do a nice lap without having another break in there and so, you know, it also would, again, change the character of this northern area where we are looking for something that's a little quieter, a spot to go take your -- your dog for a quick quiet walk, as opposed to maybe hitting the area where there is picnickers and gatherers down below. So, the -- we are not actually looking to create that -- that connectivity, but I -- I do understand your concern that at least, then, you are getting away from the pond. So, I appreciate the creative -- I understand why you are asking. Holland: One other question for you, Deb. So, on the pond itself, since it's an irrigation pond, I'm assuming it's not going to be full of water all year round, it's going to be full part of the time and empty part of the time; is that correct? Nelson: Commissioner Holland, that's correct. It will have some fluctuating surface area and levels and that's part of the reason for the treatment around it with the landscaping, with the fescue grass that will be thickly planted around the border so it creates a kind of dense vegetation along the edge and really helps that view kind of at any level. It's still an attractive feature. Holland: Thank you. I'm going to open up if the other Commissioners have some questions for Deborah or team. Commissioner Seal, I saw you unmute. Seal: Yeah, Commissioner. Yeah, I have struggled with this since the first time I looked at it. I mean to me there is -- there is several issues with -- with what's being noted as a pond. I mean it's -- it's made for -- for irrigation, so trying to incorporate it into the middle of this, you know, I mean that -- that looks tricky already, but what I'm most concerned about is where the little spear of it goes up between the houses where you're going to have the tall fescue grass planted in there at the end of the pathway. You know, I mean you are creating something in there where if somebody would -- say somebody was chased down in there, what's their exit? How are they going to get out? They can't. You Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 13 of 92 know, they either get to brave the water or turn around and face whatever is, you know, chasing them, you know, if that might be -- not that we have a lot of crime here, but it is a concern. That and I mean the -- the little finger that's going up in there is -- I mean that's -- to me is -- that is probably the definition of a mosquito breeding ground. It's a very small tract the water that's not going to be -- according to the elevations here it's not going to be very deep and it's out there between those houses, so I just -- I can't -- in my mind I just can't get my head around how this is better than allowing a pathway in there and if you tried to do the pathways in between the houses, then, you are looking at more buffers in the giving up space, so if anything maybe give up one of the lots that's closer down into the common area, expand your -- you know, expand the irrigation pond into that and get rid of that finger up there and allow the path. To me that would -- you know, that kind of sums up everything that would need to happen. I mean the way this is laid out I just -- I -- I'm having trouble with it. It looks like something that was kind of thrown in there because you have to have it in order to make it happen, instead of something that's really conducive to the neighborhood. Holland: Commissioner McCarvel, I see you are on -- unmuted as well. McCarvel: Oh. I didn't know if the applicant wanted to address that question or -- Nelson: I would be happy to. McCarvel: Okay. Holland: Go ahead, Deb. Sorry. Nelson: Thank you. Commissioner Seal, I -- I understand your comments and I think we really actually see the irrigation pond as an opportunity. It -- it really -- it is, of course, needed for function as of -- that's true of a lot of developments where you are coming into surface water, canal water, but -- but we are excited about that opportunity, because we think it really does add an attractive feature and so appreciate that it may not be everyone's desired amenity, but for us -- and, really, the -- the target market homebuyer that we are looking for, a little more of an empty nester, we think that kind of passive serene social, you know, opportunity just to enjoy the -- the view really does add a lot and even to the -- to the lots where it is behind it, you know, we think that actually will be an attractive feature where people will choose those lots, because they do want to be in front of that water feature, but if they don't, then, obviously, they have got lots of choices to make. Holland: Thanks, Deb. Commissioner McCarvel? McCarvel: Yeah. Madam Chair, Debra, was there any other thought or layout that didn't maybe include all those houses on the shared driveways? Nelson: Commissioner Holland, Commissioner McCarvel, you know -- no, the -- the -- the shared driveways -- we really did -- we tried to limit it, but it's really the most efficient Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 14 of 92 way to capture the corners. There is just three lots on them. It's a very short, shared driveway, but it -- it does provide a very efficient use of the land. When you have got such a small site as this with access provided on -- in four different locations, it's hard to meet the density that's requested by your Comprehensive Plan and not use those corners in that way. Holland: Any follow-ups, Commissioner McCarvel? McCarvel: Yeah. I know it's an efficient use. It's just livability later on. It gets a little tight in there, but -- so -- Nelson: May I follow up with that as well? Holland: Go ahead, Deb. Nelson: You know, Commissioner McCarvel, that's a great point and what we have actually found and what this developer has experienced is that when they don't arrange them in that way they are harder to sell. For example, an extended flag lot is not attractive to homebuyers, but homebuyers don't mind the shared driveway and so when -- between those choices we have actually found that this is more palatable to the market as well. So, just wanted to share that comment with you as well. Holland: Thanks, Deb. McCarvel: Thank you. Holland: Commissioner Pitzer, you're unmuted. Do you have a comment? Pitzer: Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes. Deb, how -- how deep is that finger part -- and that's going to be filled with water; correct? Nelson: Commissioner Holland, Commissioner Pitzer, yes. So, the -- the edge of the pond is actually going to have a bench that extends out several feet that will just be a foot deep. In the deepest part of the pond, including out in the larger area, it's going to get up to seven feet. Pitzer: So, that the -- so, the portion of the pond that's going up between the north there -- I mean I have an irrigation pond in my neighborhood and we love it. But this is -- I have never seen one with this and -- and I'm -- was that because it could not be narrowed at -- widened, is what -- why -- what's the purpose of that narrow -- that narrow one foot piece for the -- for the irrigation pond? Nelson: Commissioner Pitzer, my -- to follow up both on your first question and to answer your second question there, the engineer tells me that in that location will be three feet deep and so the purpose is -- is twofold. It is to create the right amount of surface area for storage, to have enough depth for storage. There will be a pump that will keep this Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 15 of 92 area circulating and fresh, so it's not a stagnant water, and it's obviously being used. I mean that's part of the -- the nature of irrigation that keeps the water fresh and so it provides that opportunity when you have got an active irrigation system, but it also was designed that way very purposefully to create those features, so that we have got the amenity that's part of this larger centralized open space, but also extending to create kind of more view lots here centralized and I think the scale maybe looking at the site plan in this way it really does look more like a finger, I -- you know, I think the -- the pond area there is going to be, you know, 20 feet wide and so it's actually going to be a nice width there and -- and features to look out on. Pitzer: A follow up. Holland: Commissioner Pitzer. Pitzer: So, how wide is that -- is that strip right there? Nelson: Let me just confirm it. Twenty -- twenty feet. Twenty to twenty-two feet is the plan there. Pitzer: And if -- if the pond were to go into those adjoining lots would you -- would you still have to have that finger? Nelson: Commissioner Pitzer, do you mean if the pond -- if -- if the pond replaced lots? Pitzer: So, if those -- the two lots that are adjoining that pond to the south -- or to the north of the pond. If those two lots were gone and the pond became bigger, would you then -- you wouldn't -- you wouldn't have any need for the finger portion. Nelson: I -- Commissioner Pitzer, I do understand your question. You know, could -- could you remove the finger that stretches up in between the lots as a -- as a style choice. I'm -- I will look to our engineer to correct or clarify, but my understanding, then, is that you would start to really limit the open space and the other amenities that we would like to enjoy. So, in addition to what I mentioned earlier about preferring it to be in that centralized landscaped area as well, but also I think you would really start to limit the picnic area and the green space that's around that pond. So, I -- I believe the answer is that it could be feasible, but it would change the -- the quality and character of the rest of the amenity package that we are trying to provide. Pitzer: So, basically, you -- you would be opposed to losing those two lots and reconfiguring? Nelson: Commissioner Pitzer, no, we -- we are not interested -- we are not -- we would like to keep our lot count. We think that this -- you know, as we have already noted we are actually meeting and exceeding the amount of qualified open space. So, we don't want to lose residential lots to increase that open space further. We think that this is a nice quality and quantity for this development. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 16 of 92 Pitzer: Okay. Thank you very much. Holland: Any other questions? Seal: Madam Chair? Holland: Go ahead, Commissioner Seal. Seal: Question for staff and it goes kind of along with what Commissioner Pitzer was saying there. If -- if -- if they lost Lot 61 is that going to hurt the -- is that going to put them under density for the zoning that they are requesting? I'm looking specifically at Lot 61. Tiefenbach: When you're saying with their density, I mean there are -- I think they are looking -- I think they are about four and a half per acre. That's within what recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan are. If they had to make the lots a little bigger they could probably make a few lots a little bit smaller -- I mean, yes, and still be within their density. I think one thing has been missed, you know, they are -- they are -- you know, I question whether it's really qualified open space if the pond is not usable. The other thing I think is important to mention, this is an annexation, so, you know, the -- certainly the Commission has the option of deciding whether they want to annex this property and what the development agreement should be if they find it acceptable. So, it's not purely just based on code, like a -- like a regular subdivision plat, they are asking to annex into the city. Seal: Understood. And that's -- that's kind of -- I mean -- I mean we have -- you know, there has been a little bit of talk about this pond and the layout and -- you know, and, again, I mean if this isn't considered -- as the applicant testified, this is not going to be something that has to be considered for an amenity. Therefore, it's not an amenity, so if it's not an amenity I don't know that it qualifies for open space, because you are trying to make it something it's not in my mind. If it's going to be a pond make it a pond. Put a feature in it, make it something that people can use. If you are not, then, either move it somewhere else so you don't have that finger up in there and you can continue the pathway down in or, you know, give up Lot 61, reconfigure the -- the pond, and allow that throughput to come down in. You know, again, I mean it's not -- it's not that the rest of the subdivision isn't beautiful or this isn't going to be a remarkable place to go, it simply has to fit. You know, it's something that has to fit into our city and not become something that people are going to fight in the future. So, everybody has an opinion and I mean my opinion is that finger that goes up in there is -- that's just a no go for me. Holland: Thanks, Commissioner Seal. Deb, did you have a comment you wanted to make back to that first? Nelson: Thank you, Commissioner Holland. Yes. I was just trying to find the reference. I couldn't immediately. But I just wanted to provide an additional comment on -- on Alan's statement there. Our understanding is under your code, while we are not claiming the -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 17 of 92 the pond as an amenity, it does count under your code for qualified open space when it is adjacent to an amenity that is qualifying, such as your -- your covered picnic area here and so that's why that was counted under your qualified open space. It was part of the area that staff counted in their calculations as well is my understanding. So, I understand everybody's got a different aesthetic preference on -- on that, but it does meet the code requirements for what you have asked for for this subdivision size. Holland: Thanks, Deb. Did I hear -- Seal: Follow up. Follow up on that. Holland: I think I heard staff making a comment, too, if you wouldn't mind hanging on, Commissioner Seal. Was that Bill that tried to make a comment earlier? Parsons: Yes, it was, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. I would like to hear from the engineer. I have worked on some projects in that area that's had -- there is some high ground water out there, so I'm curious as to how this pond is going to work when there is high surface water out there. To me in some of my experience out there there had to be slab on grade construction out there just because of the high groundwater and to me if you start digging down into that ground and they get seven feet down -- I know some of that groundwater out there is a foot from grade and so it may not be a dry well -- a pond. It may be a wet pond year around, so if -- Deb, if you have the engineer there, if you wouldn't mind allowing him to come testify as to what they have found with their -- their geo check report out there and just share that information with the Commission I think that would at least help us understand that pond feature a little bit more. Nelson: Okay. Thanks, Bill. Here is Brandon for you. Holland: And, Brandon, if you wouldn't mind stating your full name for the record that would be great. McDougald: Absolutely. Brandon McDougald with Kimley Horn and Associates. Address is 950 West Bannock Street, Suite 1100, in Boise. Yeah. So, to address the question there, the recent groundwater investigation that we did through the geotechnical investigation was five and a half feet deep, so -- and the -- the deepest portion of the pond is seven feet. So, there is a potential for a foot and a half of water to be present during -- and I think the groundwater would recede a little bit during the winter months, so -- and that groundwater depth was taken recently, so -- so -- but there is a chance for there to be standing water when the pond recedes through the groundwater. Holland: While you are there can you -- can you talk a little bit more to the -- what everyone is referring to as the finger and why that's critical as a part of the layout of the pond, instead of going another foot deeper or wider. McDougald: Yeah. So, the reason why we need that additional volume is to provide the irrigation that we need -- the irrigation volume for the development. So, that additional Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 18 of 92 finger was added to provide that. We need to store a week's worth of irrigation in the pond and that was the added area that we needed. By -- and -- and we -- we did that to avoid from -- taking away from the central area to maximize the area that we have within the central open space area. Holland: Thank you. Any other questions for Brandon from the Commission? They let you off easy. McDougald: Well, I'm here if you have any other questions. I just wanted to clarify. It was -- the groundwater was seven feet deep in the winter. So, five and a half feet recently -- so in the spring, early summer months, and seven and a half feet in the -- in the winter months. So, theoretically, that pond could be dry in the winter months. Holland: Thank you. Appreciate it. Pitzer: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner Pitzer. Pitzer: Yes. For Brandon. I know he went and sat down, but -- McDougald: Yes. Pitzer: Yes. So -- so, that -- your portion isn't absolutely really necessary if you had the same surface area say in -- in a configuration. McDougald: Yeah. Correct. Pitzer: Okay. McDougald: So -- so, we needed that area to accommodate the volume of irrigation water required. Pitzer: Okay. Thank you. Thank you for the clarification. McDougald: Yep. Holland: If there is no other comments from the Commission, we could certainly open up for public testimony and, then, come back for more deliberation with Deb and her team. Madam Clerk, is there anyone signed up to testify on this application? Weatherly: Madam Chair, we do have one person signed in wishing to testify and that is Paul Poorman. One moment. Paul, if you want to unmute yourself you should have the ability to do so and you can talk. Holland: And I think it's star nine if you are on a phone. There we go. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 19 of 92 Poorman: Okay. Can you hear -- can you hear me? Holland: We can. If you wouldn't mind stating your name and address for the record that would be great. Thanks. Poorman: Yes. This is Paul Poorman and I also have my wife Gail here and our address is 5230 North Black Cat Road. That's Meridian. And we are the property just to the north of this development. Holland: Great. Go ahead, Paul. Poorman: So, how much time do I have? Holland: We usually allow about three minutes. Poorman: Okay. So, I guess I just wanted to thank Randy for meeting with us in person a couple weeks ago and he took time out of his busy schedule and came over and just asked us what our concerns were and we had three concerns and I think he answered them quite readily, but I just for the record wanted to say what they were and what Randy had offered to do. So, three concerns that we had were -- number one was the privacy issue. Our house looks straight out to the south at this development and they are -- if they have tall houses looking over a short fence they are going to basically be looking in our bedroom windows. So, that was the first concern. The second concern was drainage and our property is a little bit higher than -- than this property and we count on -- and high rains like we had last week, that the -- the water drains off going to the -- to the south to this development. And the third one was the material that the -- any fences -- any border fences might be made of and we have had issues in the past when we -- we still irrigate and clean our irrigation ditches and usually the way we do that is by burning them and if there is a vinyl fence right next to the ditch when we are burning it can very easily melt or -- or damage or blacken the vinyl fence. So, what Randy said -- he was very gracious and he said on the -- as far as the privacy issue he would state that the -- the three lots that faced our house would have homes that were only single story. So, they wouldn't have tall -- they wouldn't be -- have second story windows looking -- looking in on us. The second thing that he committed to was either a seven or an eight foot high fence or wall in between the properties and likely we would go in together with the developer and have a concrete type wall rather than a vinyl fence and that also solves the problem with -- if he continues the -- the concrete wall out to the east between the properties, that the concrete wall would -- if we did burn those ditches -- and when we burn the ditches it wouldn't damage the -- the concrete wall. So, I just want to get that into the record and that was I think all that -- that I had to say. Holland: Uh-huh. Did they have any other comments for you about the -- the drainage? Poorman: He said that he was going to increase the height of the -- of the ground and he would accommodate the -- the drainage. He didn't really say how, but he said one way or another they will -- they will either have some kind of tile or pipe or something. He Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 20 of 92 didn't -- he wasn't specific, but he said he is aware of the issue and he doesn't know exactly what -- what he is going to do. Holland: Okay. Any questions for Paul from the Commission? Thank you, sir, for joining us tonight. We appreciate your comments and we will make sure that we have the applicant address those things while we are deliberating. Poorman: Okay. Thank you. Holland: Thank you. Madam Clerk, is there anyone else signed up to testify? Weatherly: Madam Chair, we do not have anybody else signed in to testify. Holland: Okay. If there is anybody else that would like to testify that's in the waiting room, if you want to raise your hand so that the city clerk can see you or if you want to hit star nine and unmute yourself and let them know that you would like to speak, we will wait just a second so you can do that. And we need the Jeopardy music while we are waiting. All right. Hearing none, we will go back to the applicant. If you -- if you have a few thoughts you want to wrap up with, Deb, and/or team, you are more than welcome to do so now and, then, we can continue with any other questions we have got for you. Nelson: Thank you, Commissioner Holland. We will be very brief. Appreciate the comments from Paul there. Yes, the -- the developer agrees to provide all of those features. Just a clarification on the -- on the fence or wall and the concrete materials. You know, we are -- I believe six foot probably is the max that the city will allow. We will provide whatever the max is that the city will provide -- allow us to do in height there. But as far as the materials he requested, we are happy to do that. For drainage, yes, we will do what we need to do to keep our -- our drainage and stormwater runoff on site to make sure that that's not creating any problems for him and, yes, we do accept the single story on those three lots as he mentioned. So, I appreciate his comments. And, then, finally, I just want to briefly say that in response to several Commissioners -- in particular Commissioner Pitzer and Seal, you were asking about whether the developer would be willing to lose a lot there and he has said he would. So, if that is a more favorable layout for your desires on how this pond would fit within the open space, but still allow nice features with the picnic area, then, yes, he would agree to lose that lot if that -- if that helps with your decision. So, thanks for your comments and questions on that and I would stand for any questions you have. Seal: Madam Chair? Holland: I'm talking and I'm on mute. Sorry about that. Seal: Oh, that's -- Holland: Go ahead, Commissioner Seal. I can make my comments last. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 21 of 92 Seal: Thank you for -- for -- for doing that and getting that figured out real quick on the fly here. So, I think it's going to make for an overall better project to fit in with everything. And what I was looking at is specifically that Lot 61 and still incorporating the -- the staff's requirements in here to connect the -- to have the path connectivity completed in there as part of that. Nelson: Commissioner Holland, Commissioner Seal, you drive a hard bargain, but the developer is nodding his head, so I think he is willing to do that for you. Holland: Thank you, Deb. That was my same question was to get the pathway extended down if we moved that pond a little bit. Nelson: Yeah. We appreciate your interest and questions and it's a, yes, we are willing to make those changes. Holland: All right. Any other questions for Deb or staff or her team? Grove: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner Grove. Grove: I just had a quick question, so I can clarify in my head where we are talking about with the lots the neighbor to the north mentioned. You said the single story on three of the lots; is that correct? Forty-two, forty-one and forty? Is that where -- I'm kind of guessing. Nelson: Okay. Commissioner Grove, Lots 44, 43 and 42 are the three that are right in front of their home. Grove: Okay. Nelson: So, it's not directly in that northwest corner, it's one off where it begins. Grove: And, then, the -- the ones around it would be two stories, is that the plan? Nelson: There will be a mix of one and two story throughout the development. Grove: Okay. Thank you. Holland: Thanks, Deb. Any last thoughts? Seeing no one unmuting -- Deb, thank you for your time and for having your team here. We really appreciate it and -- Nelson: Thank you. Holland: At this point in time I would be happy to take a motion to close the public hearing, so we can move to deliberation. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 22 of 92 Pitzer: Madam Chair, so moved. Holland: Do I have a second? Seal: Second. Holland: Motion and a second to close the public hearing. All those in favor? None opposed. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. Holland: The floor is ours for deliberation. I will -- I will kick it off. I think it's very generous of the applicant to work with us so quickly to make some of those modifications and being willing to lose a lot, so that they can reconfigure that pond a little bit. I think that eases a lot of my concerns if the pathway continues down and that pond can be a little bit more of -- look more like an amenity instead of that it's encroaching on a -- what could have been a pathway. So, I really appreciate them working with us and it looks like a beautiful development, lots of nice landscaping and amenities and certainly a place that will be desirable for living. I don't see an issue with -- I think the few things that we need to condition is allowing for the removal of that northern access from the staff requirement, since that was part of a preliminary conversation from before and I believe they told us that was Item 4-I. And, then, the privacy issues that we would condition there would be single story homes on the -- Lots 42 through 44. And question for staff on the fence height. Are we only allowed to condition a six foot fence? Parsons: Yeah. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, that's -- Deb is correct on that. The applicant's representative is correct. It's -- six feet is the maximum in a residential district, unless the -- the applicant's representative can convince City Council or staff that alternate compliance for a taller fence on that boundary. There is -- so, it's -- it's -- I'm not saying it was preferred to have six feet, but there is a mechanism in code to allow for a taller fence if that's something that the applicant wishes to pursue with staff at an alternative compliance process. Holland: I think if they did a six foot concrete fence there or stone wall of some sort -- especially with those three homes being single story, I don't see as much of an issue of it needing to be higher, but I am certainly open to hearing other Commissioners' thoughts on that. Seal: Madam Chair? Holland: Commission Seal. Seal: Just kind of throwing something out here. I mean you might get two birds with one stone fence here, so if -- if you put a little bit of a berm back there and you put the concrete fence on top of it, then, that's some of the great issues answered and you get a little bit taller fence out of it. Not that the fence is taller, but it has a little bit of a berm. That -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 23 of 92 that might be -- you know. And I am not an engineer, so I don't know if that would work or not, but common sense being applied seems like that might be a winner. Parsons: I will second that. Holland: I think it's a great suggestion, Commissioner Seal. You should write that down in case you are the one that makes the motion here. Commissioner Grove. Grove: I was actually about to jump in and say that exact same thing, so glad Commissioner Seal is thinking the same thing with the berm, especially with the drainage, you know, being addressed and I just want to take a second to commend both the -- the representatives for moving quickly on, you know, being able to adjust what they have put out here and also wanted to commend the neighbor Paul Poorman who spoke. His comments were very constructive and helpful and I always appreciate when someone who comes to testify is able to give us some really good information and help move the conversation along. So, I greatly appreciated both of those things. In moving the Lot 61 and being able to create that connectivity, I -- I was thinking the same thing as Commissioner Seal from a safety standpoint with the -- that walkway not connecting. So, if we can get that connected this project looks a lot better to me. Holland: I would agree and I feel the same. Commissioner McCarvel, any other thoughts? McCarvel: I will keep them short before I start coughing again. No. I'm in agreement. I think it's great that the applicant moved so quickly to make that change and I think it will be a nice arrangement for the entire area. I would be in support of this going forward with that change. Pitzer: Madam Chair? Seal: Oh-oh. I think we may have lost our Madam Chair. She's frozen in space. McCarvel: Yeah. Lisa -- she just texted. She -- her computer just automatically rebooted. She will be back in a minute. Now we really need the Jeopardy music. Pitzer: I could sing, but you wouldn't like it. Weatherly: While we are waiting, Commissioners, I just got an e-mail from Commissioner Cassinelli and he said that he is able to join now. So, I resent him the joining information. So, hopefully, he will be with us shortly. Oh, there he is. We are going to bring him in now and get him joined on with you guys. So, let the record note that Commissioner Cassinelli has joined us at 7:09 p.m. Cassinelli: Good evening, everybody. While we are waiting for Madam Chair. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 24 of 92 Grove: I have a question for staff if I could go really quick. I just -- what's the dotted -- or the X line that goes through -- like Lots 56, 57, like in that -- what does that mean? Tiefenbach: Are we looking at the landscape plan, Commissioner Grove? Grove: Yes. Tiefenbach: I'm going to say existing vegetation, like shrubs. Grove: Oh. Tiefenbach: Kind of bubbling out where it is. Grove: Okay. Tiefenbach: Look really really closely between 32 and 33 you can see little -- little shrubs and vegetation shown in that area. Grove: Thank you. McCarvel: I guess while we are waiting are we at a point -- do we want to make a motion or do we need more discussion? Seal: I was going to -- I was going to try and end the discussion and do a motion, but -- McCarvel: Yeah. If -- if we find the vote is close maybe we can redo the motion once Lisa gets on, but if we are in agreement we can -- it's up to you guys. Pitzer: I just wasn't sure if we needed to be recognized without -- with the chair or -- not sure of the protocol. Seal: New -- new territory here. I'm in agreement. Robert's Rules doesn't cover if your chairman -- if your chairman disappears into the ether. And she's actually co-chair, so if -- if it was Ryan that disappeared that would make this easier, she would just take over, so -- McCarvel: There she is. Holland: I don't know what happened. My computer decided to go rogue and restart itself and now my computer is back up, so I'm on my iPad, so my apologies everybody. That's when technology takes over for you. McCarvel: I was just about ready to pull up my old outline for the meeting. Holland: Well, my apologies. I'm back now, so I -- I'm assuming we are close to making a motion at this point. So, if somebody would like to. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 25 of 92 Seal: Madam Chair, just a couple of comments and, then, I will take a stab at a motion if -- if that's all right. But, again, I would echo Commissioner Grove's and other -- others remarks, basically, just -- you know, thank you for the quick turn -- turn around on this as far as, you know, listening to what we have to say and moving forward with it. So, I do like the subdivision. I like the pond concept and I'm glad that's going to be redone to provide that connectivity. I think it will -- it's just going to add -- it's going to add to that being a better feature for -- for the subdivision in general in -- in my opinion. So, the rest of it looks good. Thank you very much for working with the neighbor to the north and thank you to that neighbor for coming in and giving us some -- some great testimonies from very actionable stuff. So, it's -- it's rare that we -- we get testimony like that that ends up being something that we can, you know, act on immediately. So, really appreciate both of those. So, let me get back to my little scripted response here. Holland: We lost myself, but we added Commissioner Cassinelli, so that was a nice magic trick there. Seal: That's right. Cassinelli: See what I did when I came in, I bumped you out. Holland: Must have. All right. Go ahead, Commissioner Seal. Seal: Okay. Madam Chair. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number H-2020-0032 -- am I on the one? Yes. Sorry. As presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 18th, 2020, with the following modifications: That we remove condition 4-I for the northern access. Condition 5-A, we ask that they remove Lot 61 to reconfigure the pond to allow for the path connectivity from the north. We would like to add a condition that the homes facing the northern neighbor, specifically Lots 42 through 44, be limited to one story and we would like to condition that a concrete wall be built preferably upon a small berm and -- of concrete with the neighbor to the north. Holland: All right. We have a motion. Do we have a second? McCarvel: Second. Holland: Commissioner Pitzer, you were on mute. I saw you were trying to make a second. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. B. Public Hearing for Quartet Northeast (H-2020-0017) by Brighton Development, Inc., Located at 4020 & 4340 N. Black Cat Rd. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 26 of 92 1. Request: Annexation of a total of 68.73 acres of land with R- 8 48.42 acres) and C-G (20.31 acres); and, 2. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 137 buildable lots (136 residential and 1 commercial), 19 common lots, and 2 other lots on 66.52 acres of land in the R-8 and C-G zoning districts. C. Public Hearing for Quartet Southeast (H-2020-0018) by Brighton Development, Inc., Located at 4020 and 4340 N. Black Cat Rd. 1. Request: Annexation of a total of 22.26 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district; and, 2. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 50 buildable lots and 10 common lots on 19.92 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district. Holland: All right. And with that we will move on to the public hearing for Quartet Northeast by Brighton Development, located at 4020 and 4340 North Black Cat Road and we will start with the staff report. Allen: Madam Chair, if you wouldn't mind opening both Item 4-B and 4-C. Holland: My apologies. They are listed separately on the application, but they are the same -- same application, so we are going to order -- or open Quartet Northeast, as well as Quartet Southeast, which is 2020-0018 both by Brighton Development. Allen: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. The next applications before you are a request for annexation and zoning and a preliminary plat for Quartet Northeast Subdivision and, then, another annexation and preliminary plat for Quartet Southeast Subdivision. Is the presentation up? Weatherly: Sonya, trying to get it up. I'm having a -- Allen: Oh, I'm sorry. I was -- I was wondering if I was missing something, Adrienne. Thank you. Weatherly: No. It's okay. No. It's me and I'm trying -- I can't -- my -- my slides are frozen. If -- Chris, if you are listening, if there is a way that you can bring it up and share your screen. My slides are frozen and I can't -- my apologies, Sonya. Allen: No. No worries. So, let me just explain a little bit the reason we -- we have two -- two separate preliminary plat applications. They are required because the Five Mile Creek, which is owned by Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District, lies between the two Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 27 of 92 properties, because both plats are proposed to develop and be marketed as one overall project staff's analysis is based on the overall project. This is because the Ada county surveyor requires separate plats when you have right of way or like an irrigation facility that separates the property if they don't want to be part of the plat and in this case NMID did not wish to be part of the plat. So, that's why you have two plats before you and, then, there is -- thank you, Adrienne. You will notice the boundary of the property actually includes extra area. Clear down to Ustick Road, which is not actually a part -- it's part of the current parcel configuration. There is a property boundary adjustment application. It's currently in process in Ada county to adjust the boundaries of the two existing parcels south of the creek in Quartet East -- Southeast Subdivision and it is anticipated to be finalized prior to the City Council hearing for this project. So, the boundary of the proposed annexation and plat is based on the record of survey shown there on your right. So, this site consists of 86.44 acres of land. Johnson: Madam Chair, this is Chris. Holland: Go ahead, Chris. Johnson: And, Sonya, I apologize. I just wanted to tell the applicant Mr. Wardle that we are aware he is in the room and we will bring him in once your presentation is concluded, Sonya. Allen: Oh. Okay. Thank you, Chris. So, the overall site consists of 86.44 acres of land. It's currently zoned RUT in Ada county and is located at 4020 and 4340 North Black Cat Road. This property is largely surrounded by agricultural land, zoned RUT in Ada county. The city's wastewater facility, zoned I-L and some R-8 zoned property currently in the development process with single family residential homes. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation -- and I'm going to flip back a slide here -- is medium density residential, which calls for three to eight dwelling units per acre and that's approximately 50 acres of the site, and mixed use nonresidential, which is approximately 41 acres of the site. A city park is also designated on the future land use map in this general area. So, the brown area here on the first map here you are looking at is the mixed use nonresidential and, then, the yellow is the medium density residential. The applicant is proposing to annex a total of 90.99 acres of land between the two subdivisions with R-8 zoning, which consists of approximately 71 acres of land and C-G, which is approximately 20 acres, and develop 186 single family residential detached homes at a gross density of 2.8 units per acre and nonresidential commercial uses on the site. The eastern 18 acre residential portion of Quartet Northeast is located within the mixed use nonresidential designated area, which is a nonresidential designated area that provides approximately a quarter mile separation and buffer to the city's wastewater treatment facility. Because the future land use map is not parcel specific the applicant is requesting the medium density designation on the western portion of the property is extended to the collector street North Joy Way, which bisects the eastern portion of the property. The portion of the property east of the collector street is proposed to be zoned C-G and developed with nonresidential or commercial uses in accord with mixed use nonresidential designation. At the request to the city, the applicant included the .97 acre Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 28 of 92 out parcel at the southwest corner of Quartet Northeast Subdivision. I'm not sure if you can see my pointer or not, but right there where a sewer lift station is located in the annexation boundary. A conceptual development plan was not submitted for the nonresidential commercial lot proposed to be zoned C-G. The applicant states this lot will be the subject of future discussion with the city regarding a potential park site as depicted on the future land use map or consideration of other potential buffer uses determined by the results of the Public Works noise and odor study, which is planned to take place later this year. Although some residential uses are allowed in the C-G zone, per the -- per the UDC, staff recommends as a provision of the development agreement that no residential uses be developed on that lot unless a subsequent noise and odor study conducted by the city determines the residential uses are appropriate in that area. Two preliminary plats are proposed. Switch slides here. It looks like I'm ahead of myself. Let's see. There we go. Containing an overall total of 186 residential building lots, one commercial building lot, 29 common lots and two other lots. The plat is proposed to develop in three phases, with the first two phases located on North Black Cat Road and the third and final phase on the eastern portion of the site. The minimum lot size is 6,866 square feet, with an average lot size of 9,145 square feet. There are two existing homes, one within each of the preliminary plat boundaries, that are proposed to remain on lots in the proposed subdivision. These homes are required to hook up to city water and sewer service within 60 days of services becoming available. Access is proposed via one collector and one local street from Black Cat Road. The collector street is proposed to extend over the Five Mile Creek and through the site to the north boundary for future extension to McMillan Road consistent with the master street map. A 25 foot wide landscape street buffer is required along Black Cat Road and a 20 foot wide buffer is required along the collector street. A multi-use pathway is proposed off site along the north side of the Five Mile Creek and adjacent to the southern boundary of Quartet Northeast Subdivision and along the east side of the collector street north of the creek to the north boundary in accord with the pathways master plan. If Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District does not allow the pathway and associated landscaping to be located on their property, the pathway should be provided within a minimum 20 foot wide common lot along the southern boundary of Quartet Northeast Subdivision. A minimum of ten percent qualified open space is required to be provided in each subdivision. 6.65 acres is required in Quartet Northeast. A total of 7.6 acres or 11.5 percent is proposed and 1.99 acres is required in Quartet Southeast. A total of 3.4 acres or 17 percent is proposed, which exceeds UDC standards. Open space consists of half the street buffer along the arterial street, the entire street buffer along the collector street, linear open spaces and common areas exceeding 50 feet by 100 feet in area. A minimum of one qualified site amenity is required for developments over five acres in size, with an additional amenity required for each additional 20 acres of land being developed. Based on 66.52 acres a minimum of three amenities are required in Quartet Northeast and based on 19.92 acres a minimum of one amenity is required in Quartet Southeast, for a minimum of four amenities overall. A community swimming pool, a tot lot with children's play equipment, segments of the city's multi-use pathway system and one acre of qualified open space beyond the minimum required are proposed as amenities in Quartet Northeast and an additional 1.41 acres of qualified open space beyond the minimum required is proposed as an amenity in Quartet Southeast, meeting the minimum standards. The Creason Lateral runs along Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 29 of 92 the eastern portion of the north boundary and that is that green area here on the open space exhibit, within a 40 foot wide easement and a common lot and is proposed to be left open. The Five Mile Creek, which lies between the two plats is required to be protected during construction. A portion of the site is within the Five Mile Creek floodplain. A floodplain permit will be required prior to any development in that area. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the single family detached homes as shown. Homes are a mix of one and two story units with building materials consisting of a variety of siding styles, with stone and brick veneer accents. No elevations were submitted for the nonresidential commercial portion of the development, as no development is proposed at this time. Written testimony has been received from Mike Wardle of Brighton Corporation, the applicant's representative, in agreement with the staff report. Staff is recommending approval with the requirement of a development agreement per the provisions in the staff report. Staff is recommending one change to condition number B- 1-2 to modify the requirement for the water main in North Joy Way, the collector street, to continue south through Quartet Southeast to provide a second connection out to Black Cat with the second phase of development, rather than the first phase. So, staff would like Commission instruction on adding that into the recommendation to Council. Staff will stand for any questions. Holland: Thanks, Sonya. Any questions for staff? Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Sonya, the gross density figure -- I'm at -- scroll back up -- it was two point something. Is that taking into account the -- the commercial -- the C-G parcel or is that strictly based on the residential portion? Allen: Commissioner Cassinelli, Chairman Holland, Commissioners, that is a very good question. I assume it's just on the residential portion. I would clarify that with the applicant. That's what I assumed it to be. That's what it should be. Cassinelli: Okay. And I have got two more questions if I could, Commissioner -- or Madam Chair. Holland: Go ahead, Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: There is a -- Sonya, you depicted a gravel road. Is that going to -- on the -- I guess on the southwest portion of the -- of the plan where they are going into phase two in the orange, that will eventually be paved and be part of the collector? Is that correct or -- Allen: Chairman Holland, Commissioner Cassinelli, are you referencing the emergency access road for the Fire Department? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 30 of 92 Cassinelli: Yeah. Allen: Yes. That will be the collector street eventually, yes. Cassinelli: Okay. So, gravel to start with emergency access, but that ultimately will become the collector? Allen: Yes. Cassinelli: Okay. And, then, one follow on question if I may. Holland: Go ahead. Cassinelli: The -- the amenities are -- should -- do we need to be looking at -- because they have got plans for a future phase to the south -- the amenities. Because they are split up. You are looking at amenities on -- on that -- the Northeast phase and, then, the Southeast phase. Do we need to be looking at the amenities as they grow or -- does that question -- Allen: Chairman Holland, Commissioner Cassinelli, I assume you are talking about the portion that's south of Quartet Northeast down to Ustick Road. Is that what you are referencing? Cassinelli: In the future when that -- yeah. Because you have only got -- we have only got one minimum -- a minimum of one amenity of that Southeast phase and I don't know the size of that southern portion, but is it going to -- is it going to throw off -- if -- if they are doing it in small parcels are we going to get the proper amount -- Allen: Yes. Cassinelli: -- of amenities when it -- when it's complete. I guess that's my -- that's my question. Allen: Yes. It's over five acres in size. So, they will be required to have their standalone amenities. Qualified open space and site amenities. Cassinelli: Okay. That takes care of my questions. Thank you. Holland: Thanks, Sonya. Allen: Yes. Holland: Any other questions for staff? Seal: Madam Chair? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 31 of 92 Holland: Go ahead, Commissioner Seal. Seal: Just for clarity, do you have something that can overlay, essentially, where the boundary for the nonresidential is currently and where they would like that moved? Allen: Chairman Holland, Commissioner Seal, Commissioners, basically it's -- can you see my cursor? Seal: Yes. Allen: It's straight up from this parcel line right here. This is all mixed-use nonresidential. To the right of my cursor. Seal: Okay. Allen: And they are asking for the medium density residential to extend to this entire area right here. Seal: Okay. So, it -- it makes it larger, not smaller is what I wanted to ensure. Allen: It makes the medium density larger. Holland: And, Sonya, if you wouldn't mind -- yeah. Sonya, if you wouldn't mind, could you also point out where the sewer treatment plant is in relation to this development and you can kind of see the edge of the boundary of the property line, but just for everybody, so I can know where that is. Allen: Yes. Let me go back to the map here. So, it is the gray area right here on the middle zoning map. So, it's kitty corner to Quartet Northeast. Holland: And what was helpful to me is if you look at the planned development map on the right where you can see all the red, the red is what their proposed plats look like. So, there is still some space between that public treatment plant and this facility, but it would be non -- nonresidential mixed commercial in there at some point is what they are proposing? Allen: That's correct. Grove: Madam Chair? Holland: Go ahead. Sorry, Commissioner Grove. Grove: Sonya, I had a question just from this picture right here. Just to clarify in my head, the light blue line is the project location, but that seems to encompass more than what we are discussing. What does that -- or what is that I guess? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 32 of 92 Allen: Yeah. Chairman Holland and Commissioner Grove, Commissioners, that's what I mentioned at the beginning of my presentation. The applicant is -- that's the current parcel configuration. The applicant has applied for a property boundary adjustment in Ada County and that's what the parcel configuration is based on is approval of that property boundary adjustment and the record of survey being recorded. Grove: Okay. Sorry. You said that it just didn't resonate with what that meant. So, thank you. Allen: No worries. Holland: Thank you. All right. If there is no more questions for staff we, can certainly open it up for the applicant to come and speak to us for a few minutes. I think we are ready for that. If we can bring them in that would be great. Is it Mr. Wardle joining us? Weatherly: Madam Chair, yeah, I just brought him in and, Mr. Wardle, if there is anyone else I need to add in to speak, please, let me know. And you should be able to unmute yourself. Wardle: Madam Chair, Commission Members, can you hear me? Holland: We can. Thank you, Mr. Wardle. If you wouldn't mind stating your name and address for the record. Wardle: I will do so. It's Mike Wardle, Brighton Corporation, 2929 West Navigator, Suite 400 in Meridian, and with me this evening are Jon Wardle, president of Brighton Development Company, and Cody Dapper, who is our project manager. These are probably two good slides to work with, but -- now, that's -- I prefer to work with the concept plan that you see on the screen. Just a few comments, some immediate response to -- well, let me just state this, that I chose not to provide a slide presentation this evening, because Sonya always covers the details and usually anything that I add or provide is redundant, so she didn't disappoint this evening, she's given you a great overview of the project as a whole. But let me just respond to a few of the questions for clarity. With regard to that overall property going to the south of the Southeast Subdivision, down to Ustick Road, it's all -- in fact, both parcels are owned by the same property owner, the Quenzer family. The property boundary adjustment is nearing completion. The deeds to create the parcels as the configuration for the Southeast portion of this project depicted there have been recorded and so within just a matter of a week or two we should have everything completed by the county, which has already approved the property boundary adjustments subject to simply getting those recorded and parcel numbers assigned. Commissioner Cassinelli did kind of allude to the fact that the project amenities will increase as we go south, because we will be developing the remainder of that property down Ustick, there is another 65 acres, and so when we bring in that preliminary plat it, obviously, will be mirroring some of the amenities that are provided in the Northeast Sub where there will be initially a community center and some tot lot facilities. But we will be adding those to the south. Gross density question that Commissioner Cassinelli brought Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 33 of 92 up, it does -- yes. It applies only to the residential portion and that's skewed somewhat, because of that large parcel at the northwest corner, which is being retained by the property owner. They have a home there and it will be incorporated into the subdivision. But it, obviously, is an estate lot that skews the -- the gross density numbers. Commissioner Seal asked about the -- the mixed use nonresidential. When we first had meetings with staff, knowing that that east half of the northeast area was part of that mixed use nonresidential, it was concluded and the Public Works just basically agreed that cutting across the diagonal there does give the kind of buffering that they are looking for and that nonresidential parcel, if the Parks Department does want a park there in the future, which is designated in the Comprehensive Plan, it's preserved for that purpose. If the city simply determines that they want a buffer there, as I believe they have purchased some property recently to the east of this, if they want to buffer it by acquiring that property it's available for that purpose and if neither of those occurs, then, there could be some -- I'm not talking about the kind of retail uses, but some other commercial type uses that would be potentially proposed to, again, provide a use, but also a buffer. So, that's a future decision and it does relate to the study that Sonya noted earlier, a noise and odor study that the city is going to conduct this year. I will just comment a little bit about the amenities in the project. There are, in fact -- even though we noted four in the combined project -- and we look at this as one project. Yes, it's separated by the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation fee owned property, the Five Mile Creek, but it's one project to us and so the amenities that we are providing are, first, a pathway -- a regional pathway along the north side of Five Mile Creek, which is consistent with pathways that have recently been completed west of Black Cat and when you get into the residential areas east of the wastewater treatment plant, again, it continues that system. How the city connects through and around the wastewater treatment plant is an issue for the city to determine in the future. We have since the application was submitted committed to another pathway amenity and if you simply take on -- when you cross the bridge on Five Mile Creek on the east side there at the very west -- north -- or the southwesterly corner of that nonresidential parcel, there will be a pathway connection along that east boundary all the way to the north that will then tie Five Mile Creek along to the Creason Lateral and, then, eventually on up to Ustick Road. So, that second regional pathway will be provided in this project. You can see in that -- just to the south of that northeast tag there is a large common area. That will include a community pool and park, as well as a tot lot. So, Commissioner Cassinelli was correct that there is a little bit deficient in terms of amenities at the moment for the Southeast portion, but there will be additional amenities and area provided when that additional 65 acres comes into a project in the future. I don't really have anymore comments. We would certainly respond to questions, but we affirm our agreement with the recommended conditions of approval, noting the one that Sonya amended this evening with regard to a water line main -- or water main connection in the second phase, so that we loop the project Black Cat to Black Cat through that collector roadway system. We do request your affirmative recommendation to the Council for the annexation, zoning, and preliminary plat approvals as presented and with that answer your questions. Holland: Thank you, Mr. Wardle. Questions for -- for the applicant? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 34 of 92 Seal: Madam Chair? Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Holland: I will go with Commissioner Cassinelli first. I saw you unmuted first. Cassinelli: Mike, following on the density question, are all the -- all the lots sized for -- I mean you got a two point something gross density there, which is low, but you are looking at R-8 zoning. So, were all the lots basically to an R-8 sizing? Wardle: Commissioner Cassinelli, yes, they are. They are really consistent with the projects that we have done in and around the area. If you look at our Paramount and Bainbridge projects it's consistent with the types of lots. I'm not sure exactly why that number came out as low as it did, other than, again, we -- it gets skewed a little bit with that large parcel at the northwest corner. But they are -- the lot sizes are consistent with what we have been doing in that area of north Meridian. Cassinelli: And will that continue in that southern phase when that comes on -- when that eventually gets designed out? Wardle: Yes. Commissioner Cassinelli, yes, that's -- we anticipate the same character of the project. Obviously if -- when we get into the detailed planning there may be some variation, but at the moment we anticipate continuing the character of that southeast portion in particular. Cassinelli: Thank you. Holland: Commissioner Seal, I believe you had a question. Seal: Yes, Madam Chair. Just on the pathway along the Creason Lateral, is that something that's going to be -- how are you going to doll that up I guess is my question, for lack of better terminology. Or is that going to be a gravel pathway or is that going to be something that's going to be improved? Wardle: Along the Creason -- excuse me, Commissioner Seal. Clarify. The Creason on the north side? Seal: On the north side. Correct. Wardle: Obviously we don't have it here, but if you were to look at the city's pathway master plan you would see that the pathway system that we have already proposed along the Five Mile Creek on the north side is where they propose to do that. The pathway along the Creason is on the north and the easterly side and you will see the Creason actually takes the corner there at the northeast corner of that nonresidential parcel, so it makes a turn, but the city's pathway plan actually shows the pathway on the east side -- when you -- on the -- to the east of the property and, then, on the north side. So, what Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 35 of 92 we will be doing is we will be doing a wrought iron fence along the -- the back of those lots and we will be landscaping that area, but we will not be putting in a pathway on the north side of the Creason at this point, because it falls off our property. That's just the way that creek -- or that irrigation lateral runs. So, we will doll it up on our side and the city -- or the staff report has asked for some additional landscape design improvements for that area prior to Council, but the pathway really will probably fall to the property to the north. Seal: Okay. Thank you. Holland: Any other questions for applicant? Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Holland: Oh, go ahead, Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Sorry. Mike, on the phases, can you kind of give us a timeline of when you expect occupancy in phase one, phase two, and phase three? Wardle: Madam Chair and Commissioner Cassinelli, I'm going to have Jon Wardle respond to that, since he's the one that will physically develop it. Holland: Go ahead, Jon. J.Wardle: Madam Chair, for the record Jon Wardle. 2929 West Navigator, Suite 430, in Meridian, Idaho. Thank you for the opportunity to be virtually here with you tonight. Commissioner Cassinelli, your question. Phase one we intend to start development of that project later this year, so that we could start home construction next spring after we would have it paved. So, I would assume that phase one we would have some occupancies occurring probably September, October of 2021. Phase two we are going to follow on right after that. As noted in this exhibit here, we will be building a bridge across the creek and we also feel it's really important to finish that collector road out to Black Cat. So, I think early next spring we would be under development of phase two. I don't know that we would have any occupancies in phase two until probably end of 2021 or early 2022, just based on the timing and phasing of these two phases. Cassinelli: Thank you. Holland: Thank you, Jon. J.Wardle: Thank you. Holland: All right. With that I didn't see anybody else jumping up and down, so, Madam Clerk, did we have anybody sign in to testify on this one? Weatherly: Madam Chair, we did not. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 36 of 92 Holland: Okay. Is there anybody in the lobby and would like to testify now is your chance to hit the raise hand button if you would like or hit star nine and let the staff know that you would like to testify and we will hang out for just a second here. Allen: Madam Chair? Holland: Go ahead, Sonya. Allen: Thank you. While we are waiting there, I just -- I just wanted to mention I -- I neglected to mention earlier that we did have public testimony, a written letter received from Carrie Hovey and she has expressed concern on -- pertaining to traffic and safety of existing two lane roadways in this area and the amount of development occurring in this area, which is worsening the situation, and you guys should have received a letter of that in your -- in your packet as well. Thank you. Holland: I did see that. Thanks for bringing that up. Allen: And she also had concerns regarding the school population. Wardle: Madam Chair, Mike Wardle. Can I make just one comment with regard to that? Holland: You can. And, you know, I don't think we have any other public testimony, Mike, no one else has buzzed in, so I would say go ahead and just put in your wrap up thoughts. Go ahead. Wardle: Okay. Seal: Madam Chair, I had one quick question. Holland: Mr. Wardle, would you mind hanging on while he asks his question real quick. Wardle: Oh, no. That's -- that's great. Thank you. Holland: Go ahead, Commissioner Seal. Seal: Just on -- in looking at the design of this and where Black Cat will be developed in the future on the -- the southeast portion of this development, the houses that are along the road, are those going to be a mix of single story, two story homes, or are you going to try and keep most of those down to single story? J.Wardle: Madam Chair, Jon Wardle. Can I answer that? Holland: Go ahead, Jon. Thank you. J. Wardle: Commissioner Seal, thank you for the question. We -- we have always been pretty sensitive about the way the homes are up against collectors and arterials. In Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 37 of 92 particular on Black Cat Road it would be our intent to make those single story homes. We may have a few homes in there that would have a -- a bonus space up in that -- up in the rafters, but we are concerned about having two story homes up against a large arterial roadway. So, we have dealt with staff before as conditions and other projects and we have backed up arterials and we -- we will make every effort to make those single story homes and to provide articulation and modulation to those homes along Black Cat Road. Seal: Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it. Holland: Mike, go ahead if you would like to do kind of a wrap up for us. Wardle: Well, I appreciate that. And the only comment I wanted to make about the -- the public input that Sonya provided -- actually, she wrote that letter -- this was Carrie Hovey. She wrote that concerning both this project, as well as the one immediately previous, Brody Square Subdivision. So, you will find it in the public comment file on both. And, again, you know, the concern for schools and roadways -- would just note that there is a new elementary school that will be opening -- and the West Ada comment on this project noted specifically that we have a new elementary school coming on just a mile to the north on property -- part of -- a half of which came out of a Brighton development. They also noted that the middle school that will be serving this area has 308 spaces available and the high school has 439. So, yes, school population grows. We understand that. And it's just -- you know, it's the fact of life and she also raised the concern for traffic and getting improvements made to the roadways, but I would simply note that we will be paying the same impact fees per lot that the builder that built their home two years ago paid, so that all of the mitigation funds from that area -- and I'm impressed by ACHD's roadway system improvements in the last few years. We are seeing far more of the north Meridian backbone system being improved. So, yes, these are things that are out there, they are concerns, we have the same concerns, but mitigation is being provided in impact fees and the school system does note that for serving this area they do have capacity. So, again, we would simply thank you for your consideration and ask for your affirmative recommendation for approval of the annexation, zoning, and preliminary plats to the City Council. Thank you. Holland: Thank you, Mike and team. Any last questions for the applicant here? And if no questions I would certainly open for someone to make a motion to close the public hearing, so we can move to deliberation. Either one. Seal: Madam Chair? Grove: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner Seal. Okay. Commissioner Seal or Commissioner Grove, I'm not sure which one wants to go first. Go ahead, Commissioner Seal. Seal: I move we close the public comment for Quartet Northeast, 2020-0017, and Southeast, 2020-0018. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 38 of 92 McCarvel: Second. Holland: Got a motion and a second. Before we -- we take a vote on that, Commissioner Grove, did you have another comment for the applicant or were you just going to make a motion? Grove: I had a question for the applicant, but it's all good. Holland: We haven't voted yet, so -- Grove: I just had a question real quick. We had another project that had a creek that was in it a while back and there was a pedestrian bridge that was put over it. Is that something that would be applicable to this? I'm just seeing the connectivity between the Southeast and Northeast seems a little stunted for the people that are kind of in that northwest corner of the southeast project. Sorry. That was kind of a weird way to say it, but -- Wardle: Well, Madam Chair and Commissioner -- Commissioner Grove. I'm sorry. That particular -- if you look at the collector roadway crossing, that's about one quarter of a mile -- 1,320 feet. And granted there -- what will happen is you can see that common area between the cul-de-sac and that elbow of the street that abuts the -- the creek, there will be a connection from those streets to that pathway, but that pathway, then, is about 700 feet to Black Cat Road and about 500 feet or so just to the east to get to the other crossing. So, if you look at the -- the size of that facility and you kind of get an idea of the -- the challenge of providing a crossing of a creek like that, if you have been driving at all down Ten Mile Road where they are building that new roadway crossing just to the east of the wastewater treatment plant, it's a significant expense. So, even a pedestrian facility is significant. The roadway that we are going to be building across there, that bridge is going to be significant. So, we -- we acknowledge it would be really nice, but we are not talking about long distances and there certainly is connectivity from the internal portion of that north phase to that pathway and, then, not too far to get to the southeast portion as well. So, grateful for the question, but I think we will utilize the system as we have proposed it for that purpose. Holland: Thank you, Mike. If there is no more questions, we still have a motion and a second out there, so I'm going to call to take a vote. All those in favor of closing the public hearing? MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. Holland: All right. Thank you to the Brighton team. We will deliberate and we appreciate you being here tonight. All right. Team, the floor is ours. I think the -- the major consideration and the major question here is really about floating the medium density into the nonresidential future land use map and if we are okay with that. The reason that they have given that buffer was because they hadn't done the odor study yet and they hadn't done the noise testing, so they were concerned with how much of a buffer they would Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 39 of 92 need. I think that the amount of buffer that we preserved in the future land use map was more than sufficient, so I don't see a huge concern with where they are requesting this to be residential and retaining the rest of it to be nonresidential development of some sort in the future, but certainly we would like to hear everyone's thoughts on that and no problems with the staff recommendation of the change they wanted to B -- B-1-2. Overall I think it's -- Brighton builds a nice product. Seen several of their subdivisions. They do nice landscaping, nice pathways, nice sidewalks. I'm sure that their amenities will be nice where the pool and the tot lot is. I do wish that there was a little bit more in the Southeast section to start, because it's rough when -- you know, there will be another development that comes south of the Southeast project at some point, but they don't have as much green space as the Northeast. At the same time, as Mr. Wardle just said, it's not a huge block length to get to the northeast, so they still have access through that eastern crossing that they are going to be building with that collector road and also on the sidewalks on Black Cat. But that's where I will start. Who wants to go next? McCarvel: Madam Chair? Holland: Go ahead, Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I think -- didn't it -- do we have it stated correct for future motion making -- I think -- is it stated correctly in the staff report that if that odor testing comes back that they automatically come back and have to redo this; right? Or at least phase three. Holland: We can have staff clarify, but my understanding was that they wouldn't be able to do anything else with the nonresidential part. They would be able to move forward with this plat if we move for recommending approval, unless we put a condition that any lots on that -- in the future land use map section for nonresidential would be paused until the point -- we could say phase three can't develop unless that noise and abatement study comes back. McCarvel: Okay. I guess -- Holland: Other than -- Allen: Madam Chair? Holland: Go ahead, Sonya. I was going to say I probably put that -- Allen: So, just to -- I'm not sure if I caught entirely what you said. You may have been correct. But the DA provision says that no residential uses shall be developed on the nonresidential commercial C-G zone lot on the east side of the collector street, including, but not limited to, multi-family development and vertically integrated residential project and/or a nursing residential care facility, unless a subsequent noise and odor study conducted by the city determines residential uses are appropriate in that area. So, it's only the portion on the plan before that says nonresidential lot that's green on the right. That's it. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 40 of 92 Holland: Okay. Allen: Thank you. Holland: I said it right, but you said it much more eloquently. Thanks, Sonya. McCarvel: Yeah. And I guess other than that I would be, you know, in support of this. I would like -- I love seeing the layout with the very very limited use of the common driveways, with only, you know, the one or two houses on that. I think it looks like a beautiful layout and I think that crossing on the Five Mile Creek is going to be plenty. I think, you know, there is some people that don't want to be right on top of the amenities, that want just a little more privacy. Holland: Thanks, Commissioner McCarvel. Commissioner Cassinelli, you're unmuted, so I'm going to call you next. Cassinelli: Okay. I just got unmuted. I -- I share the comments, the concerns about traffic and overcrowding. It's why I asked the question about when the phases would anticipate to be occupied and looking at ACHD's upgrades I think that, you know, it's still going to overtax the system, because a lot of this is going to be coming online when it -- when ACHD will probably be breaking ground to do it, but by -- you know, by the time we get to about 2025 we are probably looking at, you know, a lot of that -- a lot of those road improvements taken care of, so it's going to be -- you know, it will be a few years of -- a couple of years of a lot of congestion and construction while these homes are going in, but eventually it will be a -- you know, I just -- we continue to sort of get in front of the -- of our infrastructure in Meridian and it would be nice to see if it goes the other way, but I know they need the -- you know, they need the impact fees to -- you know, when -- when the one goes to the other, so it's a -- it's a tough -- tough deal. And, then, schools -- AC -- or West Ada really didn't -- you know, they didn't make any negative comments I don't think, but, you know, the middle school for this, they are going to Star, which is 6.3 miles away and, then, I -- you know, but that's -- that's up to them to redo their boundaries and they seem to be redoing them every couple of years and I'm sure that will -- that will continue to happen. But I -- you know, obviously, with -- with growth comes all these issues and I do have concerns there. All in all, you know, Brighton -- you look at Paramount, you look at -- I would have to list off all their -- their subdivisions, but they are -- they are, obviously, all well -- you know, typically all well received. They do good layouts. They do real good amenity packages. They are popular subdivisions. They are -- they are done nice. So, I like that. I do have some concerns on the traffic and the growth, but over time that will -- that will take care of itself. But all in all I would be in support of it. I would prefer to see a little bit of that buffer retained kind of where the phase three is, but all in all I think it's a -- it's a good project. Holland: We could also certainly condition that they don't move forward on phase three until that noise and abatement study is done, if that's something everybody wanted to do, that they would be limited to only doing the first two phases until there was confirmation that they wouldn't be in an impact area. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 41 of 92 Pitzer: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner Pitzer. Pitzer: I'm probably only one voice here, but I think there is a lot of homes without having the infrastructure in place and we are -- we are talking about phase one in 2021 and phase two in late 2021 and it's another four years before the road goes -- I just think when they develop this, then, they are going to develop to the south and that is just going to create havoc on Black Cat -- Black Cat, which is already starting to back up a lot. I am sympathetic to the letters that -- or letter that was written regarding that. We can't stop progress, but I just wonder if this is coming on a little too soon. But I agree, I like Brighton, I like the subdivision and the fact that they are -- that this has a lot of calming and there is no straight shots through these subdivisions like we see so many of them come through for us, like low -- low hanging fruit. I know that a lot of thought went into this and I appreciate that and I appreciate the applicant's, you know, hard work on this, I -- I just -- I just think it's too soon. Holland: Thank you, Commissioner Pitzer. Seal: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner Seal. Seal: Just in -- in looking at the overall design, I like it. I like what they have done and the minimizing of the common driveways is definitely, you know, something that we talk about quite a bit and they have done a good job with that. Good amenities and everything. The one thing I will say living in this area -- I mean Black Cat already is an issue. When they repaved it that was one of the biggest ACHD fails I have seen in quite a while. There is not enough room to put your foot on the other side of the white line on Black Cat Road. It's literally not walkable, ridable, in any way, shape, or form. That said, addition of properties like this -- or subdivisions like this make an area where kids can probably at least get by this part of it as they, you know, transition from neighborhood to neighborhood or try and go place to place. So, I'm -- I'm glad to see the layout of it and the fact that it does have a lot of connectivity that's supplied within it, so that kids don't necessarily have to go somewhere else, where if they are transitioning from one place to another they can do so safely in here. And by kids I mean myself, too. We -- my son and I literally ride these ditch banks on mountain bikes, so I'm appreciative to see some of this -- some of this come in there. So, I appreciate the applicant -- the design and trying to keep the -- you know, the two story homes and higher off of the -- you know, the main road or the main road, Black Cat there, I think that's going to be important moving forward that we do as much of that as we can. And, then, just the -- you know, again, I just like the layout of it and the way that it flows and there is a lot of foot traffic and bike traffic that's possible with the subdivision. Holland: Commissioner Grove or Commissioner McCarvel, any comment? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 42 of 92 Grove: Madam Chair? Holland: Go ahead, Commissioner Grove. Grove: I will keep it short. It looks -- I like the layout. It seems well thought out and echoing a lot of what people have said with the, you know, limiting the common drives and they are a lot smaller than some of the other ones and kind of look like they give more room to that corner space. I like the use of the cul-de-sacs. I think, you know, kind of echoing Commissioner Seal with adding this development, it does give us sidewalks in this area that are not currently there along Black Cat, which, you know, is not going to solve all of it at once, but it's a piece of the puzzle to start piecing this together. You know, it's going to be hard to get everything in all -- this -- getting everything that we need up front. So, whatever we can get to make it better it's good in my books and I like the -- the connectivity with pedestrian and biking, so -- Holland: Thanks, Commissioner Grove. Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: Yeah. Madam Chair, I understand everybody's, you know, the roads catching up with the subdivisions and stuff and I just guess -- you know, I lived off Overland when it was still a two lane road and, you know, the subdivisions came in and, you know, you have a couple of years of, man, I can't wait until this gets -- you know, until they decide to widen this and it happens and you don't even really remember that -- you know, how it was a little inconvenient for a couple of years. You know, you have got a lifetime of a nice subdivision then and just a little bit of growing pains in the beginning. I agree, you know, you got to have the rooftops to get the development going -- the roads going, so I would -- I would be in support of it as is. And, then, with the odor studies coming. Holland: Commissioner McCarvel, do you want to clarify on the odor studies coming. Just for the nonresidential piece or are you talking about phase three? McCarvel: Oh. Well, I think phase three -- I mean it looks like it's far enough away. I think it's -- yeah, the nonresidential I guess. Holland: I would echo your comments. It's -- it's always tough trying to figure out chicken and egg and which comes first, but when you are looking at this piece -- I think there will be a little bit of pain, obviously, as development happens with roadways catching up, but they are paying into ACHD -- their first phase is only 72 lots. They could have put a lot more density in here than they did and I appreciate that they didn't maximize what they could do here, because I think it's a very smart, thoughtful laid out plan and the city has to work on a five year recommendation of -- they work with ACHD on the five year plan for what roadways to improve next and I think if Black Cat starts seeing more congestion it could be moved up on that timeline, too. Usually that happens when -- when there is developments that come in, but I think the biggest amenity is that you have got two new pathways that will be implemented in the city along that canal bank on that -- through the middle and also through the north and, then, you will have sidewalks on Black Cat, which Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 43 of 92 makes it a lot easier to -- to have pedestrians walking for sure. And biking. So, with that I would be open to taking a motion if somebody wants to attempt -- to attempt one. Seal: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner Seal. Seal: Just real quick. I mean I know we have talked about it a little bit, but the -- the noise and odor study, I think that that's covered pretty well on the staff report as far as phase three, so I mean I'm more than happy to make a motion, but I -- it won't have that in there. I just wanted to make sure nobody had -- was going to stand on their head about it. Holland: No. I -- I'm not too concerned about it. Phase three would be able to go forward if we make the approval tonight regardless what that noise study -- and the abatement study shows. It's just the nonresidential piece that would not be able to develop with any other residential uses. Seal: Right. Holland: Just to clarify that. But I think there is enough of a buffer I'm comfortable letting them have that designation. Seal: Okay. Madam Chair? Holland: Go ahead. Seal: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers H-2020-0017 and H-2020-0018 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 18th, 2020, with the following modifications: That condition B-1-2 be modified for the requirement for the water main in North Joy Way to continue south through Quartet Southeast to provide a second connection out to Black Cat Road with the second phase of the development instead of the first phase. Grove: Second. Holland: I have got a motion and a second. All those in favor? Any opposed? Cassinelli: I didn't get unmuted fast enough to talk about that. This is Commissioner Cassinelli. I'm a nay on that, because I was more in favor of having that noise and -- just for the record the noise and the odor done first. So, I'm a nay. Holland: We might do a roll call on that just to go back and -- and just make sure that we have that. Roll call: Seal, yea; McCarvel, yea; Pitzer, nay; Grove, yea; Cassinelli, nay; Holland, yea; Fitzgerald, absent. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 44 of 92 Holland: So, it sounds like we have got a four-two vote, so it passes. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO NAYS. ONE ABSENT. D. Public Hearing for Gateway at 10 Mile (H-2020-0046) by GFI - Meridian Investments III, LLC, Located at the Northeast Corner of N. Ten Mile Rd. and W. Franklin Rd. 1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of approximately 41.28 acres of land from RUT in Ada County to the C-G (26.54 acres) and R40 ( 14.74) zoning districts to accommodate the future construction of a mixed-use commercial and high- density residential development. Holland: All right. Thanks, everybody. And we will move on to Item D, which is a public hearing for Gateway at Ten Mile. The applicant has requested a continuance on this project and I believe they were looking for the date of August 6th and if that's -- there is two other hearings I believe is what staff told me is scheduled for that date. Or September. I don't know if staff would like to make a couple of comments or if we would like to hear from the applicant. Staff is prepared to make a presentation if we want to hear this application tonight or we can vote to continue it to allow them to work with staff on some of the challenges that they had. Staff, I will open it up to you if you want to make a couple comments here first. Dodson: Good evening, Commissioners. Thank you for having me. Yeah, I can make any comments you guys need. It's up to you guys to continue it to August 6th or any other date that you do seem -- you know, deem necessary. I will say that the August 20th meeting I am planning on not attending, because I am being married the week before, so I'm hoping I will not be here for that. Holland: I mean we throw fun parties, but -- Dodson: Thank you. Holland: Do we want to -- do we want to see if the applicant's available to make the request formally to us? Madam Clerk? Weatherly: Madam Chair, I believe Stephanie Leonard is representing the applicant tonight. I have moved her over. So, Stephanie, if you would like to speak you should be able to unmute yourself and go for it. Leonard: Can you hear me? Holland: We can. Hi, Stephanie. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 45 of 92 Leonard: Okay. Good evening. How is everyone doing? Stephanie Leonard. 9233 West State in Boise. 83714. Good evening and thank you for allowing me to attend this meeting and it's kind of fun to do it virtually. Also congratulations, Joseph. I didn't know you are getting married. That's awesome. So, the reason for our request for continuance to August 6th is that there were a few things in the staff report that contains new information and some of the recommendations for the Commission's approval were things that weren't previously discussed or maybe understood by us and we wanted to make sure that we had some time to meet with staff and kind of work through those conditions and understand fully what the expectations are and how we can continue the project. So, there were -- a couple of the conditions that were mentioned were pretty significant changes that would -- related to the zoning in particular and, then, a roadway that's required on the eastern boundaries that were not understood at the very beginning of the project, so extra time would be appreciated. Holland: Thanks, Stephanie. Does August 6th give you enough time, if that's the date we look to continue this to? Leonard: Yeah. Our clients would appreciate the August 6th date. Holland: Okay. With that, if a Commissioner would like to, certainly take a motion to continue this project to August 6th. McCarvel: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I move to continue file number H-2020-0046 to the hearing date of August 6th to allow the applicant and staff to work through the issues as stated. Cassinelli: Second. Holland: Okay. Got a motion and a second. All those in favor of moving this hearing to August 6th? Any opposed? Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. Holland: Thanks, Stephanie. Leonard: Thank you. Good night. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I need to step away for about five minutes. I don't know if we want to take a quick break or I will just join back up in -- in process. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 46 of 92 Holland: I was going to ask the same question, everyone, since we have been on for a couple hours if anyone needs a five minute power break we can certainly do that. Seal: That would be good for -- that would be good for me. Holland: Okay. We will be back at around 8:23 then. Take a five minute quick break. Cassinelli: Thank you. (Recess: 8:17 p.m. to 8:24 p.m.) E. Public Hearing for Poiema Subdivision (H-2020-0035) by Dave Evans Construction, Located at 3727 E. Lake Hazel Rd. 1. Request: Annexation of 14.87 acres of land with an R-15 zoning district; and, 2. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 44 buildable lots and 4 common lots on 14.87 acres of land in the R-15 zoning district. Holland: All right. We are ready to go then. Hopefully staff's back with us, but I would say at this point we are ready to open the public hearing for Poiema Subdivision, H-2020- 0035, by Dave Evans Construction and we can begin with the staff report. Dodson: Okay. Thank you Commissioner Holland, Commissioners. Hello again. As stated this is Poiema Subdivision in front of you tonight. The site consists of 14.87 acres of land, currently zoned RUT, located at 3727 East Lake Hazel Road. Generally located about a half a mile east of Eagle and on the south side of Lake Hazel Road, south of -- Bicentennial Farm Subdivision. The request before you tonight is for annexation of 14.87 acres of land with an R-15 zoning district and a preliminary plat consisting of 48 building lots and six common lots, of which one is a common drive serving four lots. The proposed annexation area lies at the edge of the city's area of impact on the south side of East Lake Hazel Road, approximately a half mile east of Eagle Road. There is existing city zoning directly across Lake Hazel to the north, but no other existing Meridian zoning is adjacent to the site. There is a golf course directly to the east of this property and within the city of Boise area of impact. Despite minimal existing zoning directly to the west and southwest of this site, the city is currently processing multiple projects in this area as seen on the plan development map. The proposed land use of attached single family and -- or single family residential and townhome units is consistent with the future land use map designation of medium high density residential and both are principally permitted uses in the requested R-15 zoning district. Medium high density residential requires a density of eight to 12 units per acre. The applicant has proposed a project with 7.5 DU per acre with their updated plat and the Comprehensive Plan allows -- and the Comprehensive Plan allows for rounding of densities. Because of the proposed product type being two Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 47 of 92 different product types and the difficult shape of the property to begin with, staff supports rounding the proposed density of 7.5 DU per acre to the required eight dwelling units per acre per the provisions in the comp plan. In addition to the proposed residential site -- or residential portion of this site, the applicant is reserving a large building lot for a future church site and the church itself will be a conditional use permit within the proposed R-15 zoning district. The residential portion of the site consists of approximately seven and a half acres, including the right of way, and the future church lot is approximately seven acres. The application does not include the conditional use permit application for the church lot. That use will be analyzed with the future conditional use permit application at a future date. The applicant has submitted sample elevations of the attached single family homes for this project, but not the proposed townhome units. The submitted elevations show all single story attached structures with two car garages and similar finishing materials of stucco, masonry, and wood. In addition, the elevations show both shed roof and traditional pitched roof designs. The applicant has not stated there will only be single story attached structures. The submitted elevations also appeared to meet design requirements for single family homes. Because the proposed local street running north- south is straight and relatively long, staff is recommending that future homes are built across varying setbacks to provide variation along the street and help ensure there is not a monotonous wall plain of homes along this street. Attached single family and townhome single family residential require design review approval prior to building permit submittal. This requirement gives staff the opportunity to review the site plan overall and ensure compliance with this recommendation. All proposed lots -- sorry. Shown on submitted plat appear to meet all UDC dimensional standards. This includes property sizes, street frontages, and road widths. Access to this development is proposed via a new local street into this development from East Lake Hazel Road. The applicant is also proposing a stub street to the west for future local street connectivity that is required to have a temporary turnaround constructed at its terminus until it is extended in the future. The proposed street sections, which are 33 feet wide, can accommodate parking on both sides of the street where no driveways exist and they are proposed with five foot attached sidewalks. Because the stub street to the west will likely lead to nowhere at the time of this development, the applicant is required to provide an emergency only access or -- or the development will be limited to no more than 30 homes. On their master plan the applicant is showing a 20 foot wide emergency only access from the western stub street and runs along the western property boundary and connects to East Lake Hazel, as you can see here, if you guys can see my pointer. I have no idea if you guys can see that. But right along their property boundary on their west. North is to the left here. ACHD and Meridian Fire Department have granted their approval of this emergency access. Staff is recommending the emergency access be built prior to the applicant receiving any building permit approval. A 30 foot -- 35 foot wide street buffer is required adjacent to East Lake Hazel Road because -- because it is both an arterial and an entryway corridor. The submitted landscape plan depicts only a 25 foot wide landscape buffer. So, per the UDC standards arterial roadways are required to have detached sidewalks as well. Staff is recommending a condition of approval to construct the detached sidewalk and required improvements with the residential phase of this development. A minimum of ten percent qualified open space meeting the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3B is required as normal. The proposed future church site will not be required to meet open space Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 48 of 92 standards. Therefore, the required qualified open space for this development is based upon the only -- based upon only the portion of the property where the residential use is proposed. According to the applicant the residential area is approximately six acres. Based on this size the applicant should supply at least .6 acres of qualified open space or approximately 26,000 square feet. The applicant is proposing 1.088 acres of open space, of which three quarters of an acre is proposed as qualifying open space. The largest common lot of open space is approximately 15,000 square feet and has been centrally located in the plat. It sits between the proposed residences and the future church site. It is the intention of the applicant that this open space lot serve as open space for both residential development -- I lost my place there. And for the children attending the future church site, even though the church site will not be required to meet any certain open space requirements. Staff is concerned that if this open space lot is owned by the church and not the HOA, the church could later decide to subdivide their parcel further, including this open space lot and, then, the residential development would lose much of their open space. Another area of qualified open space is located around the cul-de-sac. This 10,000 square foot area here. And includes a very nice water feature and seating area for future residences. The open space exhibit also shows an open space area between the proposed alley and the local street that is less than 5,000 square feet. This area right here. This open space does not appear to qualify per UDC standards and should be removed from the open space calculations. With this area removed the qualified open space is reduced to 2.64 acres or approximately 10.57 percent. Therefore, the overall open space still meets their minimum required open space. This area runs along the Ten Mile Creek easement, but the creek itself is not on the property. This area, as you can see along here that is labeled as nonqualified open space for some portions, creates a kind of greenway and can offer great green space for the proposed townhomes to front on. However, part of this easement also runs into the southernmost corner of the site and is not visible from a public street. I'm referring to this area here. It offers potential safety and crime issues because of its lack of visibility. Because of this staff is recommending a condition of approval to add this area as part of the buildable lot at a Lot 34, Block 1. Code dictates that this area be included in a common lot, because it is open space and resides in an easement. However, City Council can waive that requirement if they see fit. Staff is recommending that they do so. The applicant responded to the staff report and is requesting a few modifications. So that I do not misspeak for them, I will let them discuss those with you guys. No other written testimony was submitted. With the conditions listed in my staff report staff does recommend approval of the requested annexation and preliminary plat and I will stand for questions. Thank you. Holland: Thank you, Joe. One other comment. We -- so, a couple of options that they might have for the 15,000 square feet of open space, if they didn't have the HOA maintain that and the church held onto that, potentially they could just put a note on the plat that says it's undevelopable or it's a nonbuildable lot in perpetuity or that it stays within the HOA as a common lot open space, nonbuildable lot. Is there a preference from staff on which way makes more sense, whether it stays the HOA or the -- the church? You might be muted, Joe. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 49 of 92 Dodson: Sorry. Yes, I was there. I do not mind either way. If the -- the applicant did request to have my condition of it being owned and maintained by the HOA removed. So, if it's amenable to them I am amenable to just -- instead of having that condition, change it to say that it will be deed restricted and it will be a nonbuildable lot, I'm perfectly fine with that. I just want it to satisfy my fear of the church might -- potentially developing it and removing it from the residential area. Holland: Great. Thanks, Joe. Any other questions for staff before we bring the applicant in? Seeing no one jump, Madam Clerk, do we have the applicant in? It looks like they are joining us now. So, if you want to unmute and state your name and address for the record we are ready to hear from you. Thompson: All right. Madam Chair, my name is Tamara Thompson, I'm with The Land Group and I will be -- oh. My address is 462 East Shore Drive in Eagle. And I'm representing the applicant on this subdivision. I do have a slideshow for you. If -- I sent it earlier, but it might be easier if I can run it if I can just share my screen. Weatherly: Tamara, you know what, I would love to give you permission. I seem to be having PowerPoint presentation issues tonight, so you should have free rein to go ahead and get your presentation up. Thompson: Okay. I'm going to move things around a little bit. Okay. So, since this word was new to me I figured it might be new to you all, too, so I thought we would just go through what the definition is. It is pronounced Poiema and it is a Greek -- of Greek origin and it means peace, calm or work of art and since Calvary Chapel is the owner of the property and this term is -- is mentioned in the Bible, it's something that is -- it's special to them and so that is where the name came from. Here is the vicinity map. The project is 14.87 acres and it is located -- I don't -- can you guys see my pointer at all? Holland: Yep. We can see it. Thompson: Okay. Perfect. So, the -- the western corner is a third of a mile from Eagle and the eastern corner is a half mile from Eagle Road. It's on the south side. And, then, just to give a little context, the YMCA is up in this area. This is Hill Century Farm. And, then, Bicentennial Farm. Some other projects that have recently been approved that aren't final platted yet, but the -- I believe the preliminary plat is approved. This is the piece here that wraps around the -- the Latter Day Saints Church at that location and, then, we have a wonderful opportunity here with having the existing Boise Ranch Golf Course as -- as a neighbor to the east. The property currently consists of one parcel. It's vacant. It is zoned RUT in Ada county and the creek runs along the west property line and to the -- the east is Boise Ranch Golf Course and developing a triangle is always a challenge, so keep that in mind for the density and -- and the layout. Even though this Ten Mile Creek is not on the property, the easement for Ten Mile Creek is a hundred feet wide and so there are portions of that easement that encroach onto the property. The property is in the City of Meridian impact area and the path of annexation exists via Bicentennial Farm Subdivision, which is on the north side of Lake Hazel. The property Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 50 of 92 has a Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation of high -- I'm sorry -- medium high density residential, which is defined as single family attached -- detached town -- residential units, townhouses, condominiums and multi-family offered in that. Attached is our master plan and the application before you tonight is an annexation for the entire plat and a rezone to R-15 and a preliminary plat for -- to make one large lot and, then, single family homes. So, all of these are single family. They -- they are attached and detached units. Actually, all attached units now. We used to have some detached, but we made some modifications. A conditional use permit for the church will be submitted separately and the reason for that is ACHD required a distribution study for Sundays for the church operation and due to the quarantine and the shutdown we haven't been able to -- to get that traffic study, although ACHD just released us to start that and so we are hoping within the next 30 days that you will see the conditional use permit for the church. So, it's following just a little bit behind. The proposed annexation and R-15 zoning designation complies with the city's Comprehensive Plan. The preliminary plat includes 56 total lots, 48 single family residential building lots, one nonresidential lot, which is for the church here. Five open space lots. One common drive and one alley. We do have a stub street that will go to the west and ACHD issued their staff report today and we are in agreement with ACHD's conditions. I believe staff -- Joe had heads up on that and he has included the -- some of those conditions in his -- in this report. Of the residential units there are 33 patio homes, which will back to the existing golf course and, then, there is 15 townhouse units, ten of which will front on Ten Mile Creek. I think there was some confusion with that in the staff report, but it is the plan to front those units on Ten Mile as an amenity. The residential area -- for just the land area, if you take out the right of way, equals four acres. We have approximately 12 percent open space and of that we have a -- a nice plaza with a water feature, a fountain, and there is kind of a representation here of -- of what that would look like. The conceptual elevations -- again, there is 33 patio homes. Those are represented here and they do have articulation. This shading would be for the garages. One would be back and one would be forward. So, each of the units go back and forth. All of these are showing in single story, but there could be two story units or one and a half story. And, then, we did not have the townhouse units, but I am showing them here. This will be the five-plex. And we would still need to go through design review, so don't -- don't look at the colors too much, because those might change. They are just representative of the -- of the elevations. So, we have read the staff report and we agree with staff's analysis with the following modifications. And I have listed all those here. It's the same as what we gave you in an e-mail and I will go through each one of those separately. So, the first one is condition 1.D and that is the residential subdivision meets and exceeds the open space requirements without this frontage and because we are coming back with a conditional use permit for the -- for the church use in the R-15 zone, we are respectfully requesting that this landscaping be improved with the church, not knowing what the conditions of approval come out with that, and -- and the programming for that. So, we still have to go through conditional use and CZC and design review, so we are respectfully requesting that this landscaping that I have circled in red here go with the phase with the -- with the church. And, then, the second one is 1.F and that's Block 2, Lot 2, and that's this area. It is of our common -- common open space for the subdivision. However, it is planned to be shared between the church and -- as long as there is a use and maintenance agreement or a plat note it shouldn't matter who owns Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 51 of 92 the parcel. So, we would like that -- that condition of approval to be revised to allow either/or. Either a plat note or -- or the use and maintenance agreement. And, then, the last one is 3.B and this one is the open space along the side of Lot 45. So, per city code we have to put this -- this is a portion, so you can see on the side here that Ten Mile Creek is off site, but a portion of that easement is on our property. Per city code that easement needs to be in a common lot and I -- I just put where -- where this Ten Mile Creek is to the north and you can see here where it -- where it meanders through both the Bicentennial Farm and the Hill Century Farm, is that these are -- it is in the common lot with those and it has -- you know, those lots weren't extended into the center of -- of that canal or creek, so we are -- we are just doing the exact same thing here and I will add that there is a pathway that exists on the west side of Ten Mile Creek and that would continue on the west side of Ten Mile Creek with the development of the lot -- of the properties to the west of this one and they are in -- in the process of doing their traffic study right now as well in order to get that submitted to the City of Meridian. So, it will be the same situation as the properties to the north. So, we are requesting that that condition be removed. And I thought I would just bring up, since -- since you didn't have the benefit of seeing the ACHD staff report, these are some of the improvements that are in -- that are referenced in the staff report and so this -- this is ACHD's staff report and Lake Hazel Road along our frontage -- so, from Eagle Road, which is the next mile over to the east, that is to be widened to five lanes by 2024 and there is improvements on Eagle Road from Lake Hazel to Amity in 2023. Some other improvements. So, just wanted you to know this area is slated in ACHD's five year work plan. So, there is going to be considerable road infrastructure improvements. So, the timing is -- is perfect for this. And the annexation and zoning of this property provides for the orderly development of the city and the Meridian Development Code and the comp plan, we comply with both of those with this development and I will stand for questions. Holland: Thank you, Tamara. Any questions from the Commission? Cassinelli: Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli. Holland: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Tamara, were there three conditions that you were addressing or just two? Thompson: Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli, there were three. I just had two of them on one slide, so I tricked you. Cassinelli: Okay. So, one -- there was 1-D, 1-F and what was the other one then? Thompson: Let me go to that slide for you. Holland: It was 3-B. Thompson: It was 1-D -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 52 of 92 Cassinelli: 3-B? Thompson: -- 1-F and 3-B as in boy. Cassinelli: Okay. Thank you. Holland: Tamara, one question. So, staff had recommended putting that condition 3-B with the open space on the side of Lot 34, Block 1, as part of a building lot, instead of a common lot for the easement. Is there -- is there a reason you would rather have that not be part of the building lot? I mean I know you just kind of explained some of it, but could you go into that in a little more detail. Thompson: Madam Chair, the -- yeah. It -- well, I mean it's against city code currently. I guess City Council has an option to -- to modify that, but that's not something that we -- you know, we could not submit it that way and it -- and it just makes more sense. It's been that way for -- it's consistent with the other -- the development that's already happened in the area, that this area -- and it wouldn't be exactly -- you know, it's not necessarily where you could walk back in there, it's -- it's in the -- in the creek easement. But I mean we could do either one, but we would prefer to keep it consistent, because it is open space along this side. So, this is a building lot. It would need to have the lower visibility fence in that area, so -- so, it wouldn't just be blocked off from that home's view. Holland: One more follow-up question for you, too. So, if you follow that easement strip down -- and you mentioned that those townhomes will face Ten Mile Creek. Is there any sort of pathway in front of those homes that they will be opened up into from their front doors or is it just basically the grassy area and the creek? On that side. Thompson: Madam Chair, there would -- there would be a pathway that walks through here. What you are seeing is the -- the parcel lines, but there would be a pathway for -- to get to the front doors. Holland: Thank you for clarifying that. Any other questions for Tamara before we open up for public testimony? Cassinelli: Madam Mayor? Holland: Go ahead, Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Tamara, just -- with regards to that -- Condition 3-B, you -- you said that that is not accessible. I'm assuming if that's -- if you -- if it is held in a common lot it will be accessible for maintenance from the HOA, mowing and that sort of thing; is that correct? Thompson: Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli, correct. It would be -- there is not going to be a path or anything like that, someone would be invited to go back into that area, but it -- it is accessible for maintenance. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 53 of 92 Cassinelli: Thank you. Pitzer: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner Pitzer. Pitzer: Thank you. So, my question is -- of course, Lisa asked one of them, which was the pathways to the front of the home. So, these are garage loaded in the alleyway. Are there like a common area for -- for garbage or -- I mean will they have -- be enough for five-plexes? How -- how is the trash handled with that alleyway? Thompson: Yeah. Madam Chair, Commissioner Pitzer, on these alleys -- and for single family homes typically the trash is in your garage. So, these are the garages, so this is an alley that runs through here and each of the units would have their standard minimum of 20 foot pad out in front of their garage and, then, the -- the garage would be here in the building and, typically, for single family -- so, this isn't multi-family per se, that typically you have those -- the trash, you would have your receptacles that you would pull out into the alley and Republic would pick those up in the center -- in the alleyway. So, we don't have a trash enclosure. Is that what you are asking? Pitzer: Well, yeah, I was just curious. I mean if you have trash cans lining both sides of the street if -- if Republic is -- is having enough room. I'm concerned about parking with so many trash receptacles coming out down that alley. Same thing with the end where you have four homes at the end of the core -- this reflects -- Thompson: Yeah. So -- Madam Chair, Commissioner Pitzer, this is a very typical application with a common drive and with this alley and, in fact, these five-plexes are -- are constructed in Eagle -- in the Eagle River area and -- and there is a -- there is quite a bit of room. You can see how big this -- this area is in there. There really is quite a bit of room that there isn't -- there isn't any trouble picking up trash. Pitzer: Okay. Okay. Thank you. Seal: Madam Chair? I think you called on me, but you are -- you are muted. Holland: I did. Sorry. I turned it on mute. Go ahead, Commissioner Seal. Seal: That's okay. I -- I also am -- I have some concerns over the layout of this. One from the -- the townhouse -- townhome, the five plexes here. When people come over to visit folks in there where -- where are they going to park? Because they can't park in the alley. You know, I mean is it all supposed to go in the cul-de-sac or to the street? I'm not quite sure where people would park to come visit there. And, then, I have got to say this is the first time that I have seen a full cul-de-sac that incorporates a common drive. So, I'm really scratching my head on that one as to why a difference -- I understand it's a triangle and it's difficult, but that's -- that's -- that's a pretty crazy one there for me. Trying to wrap my head around that one. And, then, the -- the common area there -- I mean is Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 54 of 92 there any reason that this -- you know, it looks like this common area is going to be developed in the first part of it. Is there any reason that that wouldn't come down all the way to the -- to the street and -- I mean is there a reason that that's only going to be that big? Because -- because to me that kind of looks like it's -- we are just trying to hit a minimum here and -- and that -- this right here was carved out to hit the minimum. Thompson: Madam Chair, Commissioner Seal, I'm not sure I understand the last part of your question, but let me answer the first ones first. As far as parking their -- basically each unit has -- has area for four -- four cars to park. So, they have their garage, plus they have their garage apron. There is parking along the streets on both sides of the streets. This one will be a little difficult -- difficult because you will have the garages there and they are in their own driveways, but on both sides of the streets there are parking. And, then, those -- there is also going to be overflow parking at the church, where they have their -- on Sundays and -- and some during the days for funerals and those types of things. But, otherwise, the churches sent their overflow parking is -- is fine for -- for residents to use, so -- and -- and then -- okay. So -- and, then, let me -- help me explain what you were asking and maybe if I go to the -- Holland: Tamara, I think if you went to the -- if you went to the master plan that you have got I think that would help, too. Thompson: Oh. Okay. Perfect. There we go. Seal: Yeah, I'm just -- the -- the common area there, yeah, Lot 2, Block 2, where it's just notched out, is there any reason that wouldn't come all the way out to the -- to, essentially, you know, down to where the road is going to come in there or -- I mean to me it just looks like it's a slice that was put in there in order to meet the minimums, so why not develop that more to -- you know, as a more usable common area instead of just a big piece of grass that meets the minimum requirements. Thompson: Madam Chair -- I see -- okay. I -- I do understand now. This -- and this is the -- the first phase of build out for Calvary Chapel and with a CUP we will have an expansion plan as well, so with that expansion plan this -- the building expands into this area. Parking expands into this and so we needed that. If you saw the full expansion plan it would make more sense and, I apologize, I should have attached that one, but this -- this area does have some parking in it and this -- this park is -- is planned for some programming. You know, there will be some -- some amenities in here that will be shared. Holland: Can you give anymore description of what type of amenities, Tamara, they are looking at? Thompson: No, we haven't -- we haven't decided. We needed one amenity for the -- for the -- for the residential portion and they really wanted to do this nice walk feature as a focal point and so we spent the time on this -- on this area and we will be working with the church on what that amenity will look like, but they definitely want to leave some open Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 55 of 92 for, you know, soccer games and -- and soccer practices, that kind of thing. So, they do want it to be an open field and not just filled with -- with a tot lot or something like that. Holland: Okay. Hey, I have got one other question. So, being located next to Boise Ranch Golf Club, if you golf like I do it can be a challenge when you are next to a residential strip and especially since all of these homes are all in a row. Is there any plans for -- I don't know if there is netting or -- or something to kind of protect the back windows of some of these homes from getting hit with golf balls? I don't know if you have got any thoughts there. Thompson: Madam Chair, that's -- that's a good question. I don't have an answer for you right now. I think the way this -- I think the way the hole is the -- the green is up on the road and it would need to be something right along in this area where those trees already -- already exist. We will have to look closer into that for sure. Holland: Yeah. I know I lived near a golf course and there is -- there is a lot of times where there is -- there is big nets that help protect the homes and I think they are very appreciative of those nets, especially when someone like me goes golfing. Thompson: Yes. I am a member of Plantation and I do not tee off on the first hole, because I hit a house every time, but -- Holland: All right. Any other questions for Tamara? Grove: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner Grove, go ahead. Grove: Good call on the netting I believe, because my hook would definitely hit at least one of those. I got a question for Tamara. With lot or -- yeah, Lot 34 having such a weird configuration in there, what -- what is that? Is that planned to be a unit that's similar to all the others or is it going to be different in its build out? Because it is such a bigger lot in comparison to the other lots. Thompson: Madam Chair, Commissioner Grove, the -- the building -- the home in that could -- could be a little larger, because of the -- of the area and I want -- I wish I -- I could have given you probably 20 different layouts that we did. We tried to pull this cul-de-sac down into here and cul-de-sacs, frankly, take up a ton of room and they are very very difficult, but we -- so, we have looked at it and we have looked at flipping this thing around, we looked at all kinds of different ways and this is the most efficient for the lots. We needed to keep the lot for the -- for the comp plan and -- but this lot will probably be unique. It won't look exactly like these others, because it is a larger lot. Grove: So, follow-up question for you. Was that considered as open space? I'm just looking at it as -- in terms of you haven't -- that easement that's down there already and Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 56 of 92 now you have a large lot that's coming off of a cul-de-sac and a shared drive, it just seems like a -- an opportunity to use as an open lot. So, was that considered? Thompson: Madam Chair, Commissioner Grove, it most definitely was. In fact, that was one of our first layouts that we had a pre-app with and the Fire -- or the Police Department did not like that, because it gets back there where they can't see it very well and so we had -- we rearranged some things and had to reconfigure open space to be more visible. Holland: Tamara, did you consider losing either one of the 31, 32, or 33 and just making a couple of bigger parcels there, instead of doing four lots there? Thompson: Madam Chair, we -- you know, we have had -- you know, we have been going round and round. We had a different layout that we initially submitted and we weren't meeting the minimum or -- of the -- for the Comprehensive Plan and so these -- these center lots were more of these patio homes and we had to change those in order to get more density. So, we really -- we really can't lose lots and be consistent with -- with Meridian's Comprehensive Plan. Holland: Thanks, Tamara. Any other questions for Tamara right now? I know we will come back to her. Let's take a break here and see if there is anyone signed up for public testimony. Madam Clerk, is there anyone signed in for public testimony? Weatherly: Madam Chair, there is not. Holland: Okay. We will pause a second. If anybody would like to speak tonight raise your hand on the Zoom app or hit star nine and we will buzz you in. Weatherly: Madam Chair, it looks like there is one person that has raised their hand thus far. It is Daryl Zachman and I am getting Daryl over for permission to speak. Daryl, you are on mute, but you should be able to unmute yourself and the floor is yours, sir. Zachman: Okay. I am the pastor of the church. Holland: Hey, Daryl, I'm sorry to cut you off. If you wouldn't mind saying your name and address for the record that would be great. We would appreciate it. Zachman: I'm sorry, Madam Chair. Daryl Zachman. My address is 12596 West Macumbo Street in Boise, Idaho, which is very close to this and I'm the pastor of the church and just to speak to the concern about why that area where the -- the turnabout is -- is temporarily put on that Street B, you know, as it will stub up to the creek, eventually as we build this out. We would like to look at that being a driveway into the church. There is another access point so that the traffic -- especially with the subdivisions that are going to be west of the -- of the property, you know, it would give them access to the church as well and that's one of the reasons why, you know, we want to keep that space not a common area and not a grassy area. What we had talked about is doing probably a playground or something in that whole common area, as well as a grassy field. So, that's Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 57 of 92 -- you know, that's why that's the case. And also, you know, ACHD -- I mean the staff said that ACHD wants us to maintain an emergency access on the west side of the property for emergency vehicles and so, you know, I just -- I guess that's not so much the issue, but that was mainly the issue with -- with the -- the turnabout and that turnabout that they are requiring, that would go away when the subdivision to the west is, you know, completed. So, that's all I wanted to share. Holland: Thank you. We appreciate you joining us. Zachman: Thank you. Appreciate the opportunity. Thanks. Holland: All right. And I think if there is no one else signed up to testify we are -- we are back to Tamara. If you have a few more closing thoughts you would like to make or we can certainly just keep hammering more questions at you if you would like. Thompson: Thank you, Madam Chair. I will just wrap up real quick. We appreciate your time tonight and your consideration. We respectfully request your approval tonight and, again, with the three modifications to the staff report that I will put here on the screen, 1.D, 1.F and 3.B with the modifications that I described before. Again, the project complies with the city's Comprehensive Plan and the R-15 zone and we respectfully request your approval tonight. Thank you. Holland: Thanks, Tamara. Any other final questions for Tamara before we move to deliberate? Seal: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner Seal. Seal: Just for clarification does the church own the entire parcel or is the church -- or is the church a tenant? Thompson: Is it okay if I answer that, Madam Chair? Holland: Yeah. Go ahead. Seal: Yes. Yes, it was -- Thompson: Okay. Okay. I wasn't sure if it was -- Madam Chair, Commissioner, I didn't see who asked that. Holland: It was Commissioner Seal. Seal: Uh-huh. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 58 of 92 Thompson: The -- the Calvary Chapel of Treasure Valley owns the entire property and they are partnering with a developer to develop the residential portion and, then, they will -- and those -- those will be for sale product and, then, they will retain their -- their parcel for their church. Seal: Okay. Thank you. Holland: Any last questions? With that I would be happy to take a motion to close the public hearing for deliberation, if anyone would like to make that motion. Dodson: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner Cassinelli. Dodson: Sorry. This is Joe. Holland: Oh. Sorry, Joe. You sounded like Commissioner Cassinelli. Dodson: No worries. I just wanted to clarify a couple things before we close the public hearing regarding code and a couple of the requests by the applicant. For the provision 1.D, the -- this project is not phased and code dictates that when a project is annexed that the frontage improvements are required and because of that that is why I put in the condition to require the frontage, regardless of the church site having -- you know, coming in in a month or two months. Because this isn't a phased project overall for the parcel being annexed it -- it is going to be required by code, so it's not something that I could request differently. Secondly, open space in our code also is required to be in a common lot maintained by the HOA and 11-3G-3 -- I can't remember the specific portion, but it's towards the bottom of it, I know that. So, that is also for this 1-F. That's why I put that in there as well and to ensure that it stays with the HOA and not the church site. Just wanted to clarify those things before we close the public hearing. Holland: Thanks, Joe. Okay. Commissioners, I will wait for a -- Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: This time it's Commissioner Cassinelli. Joe, as long as you were addressing those, can you address your -- your thoughts on that 3-B-2 I guess while we are still in open? Dodson: Commissioner Cassinelli, sure. Yeah. The -- again, my thoughts on that were just kind of like what Tamara alluded to. Having that whole lot as an open space lot couldn't be any less safe than having the little piece which is going to be fenced off somewhat. So, even if it is semi-privacy fence, it's still going to be tucked away and I -- I'm just worried that it's going to make some CPTED issues and in our open space -- even Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 59 of 92 if it's not qualified, our open space code, you know, talks about it needs to be seen, it needs to be visible and maintained. I just figured it would be better to have that as part of that building lot, rather than tucked away in the corner. Yes, it will be eventually visible from the far side of the creek if that development to the west gets developed and there will be a multi-use pathway. But, again, it's -- it's -- it's all the way on the other side of the creek, so it's still not going to be something that's going to be easily visible for quite some time. Holland: Thanks, Joe. Cassinelli: Thank you. Holland: Okay. Any other final questions? I will still wait for -- if someone would like to to make a motion to close the public hearing for deliberation. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I move we closed the public hearing for file number H-2020-0035, Poiema Subdivision. McCarvel: Second. Holland: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor. Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. Holland: All right. Thanks, Tamara. We appreciate you being here. So, to kick us off, I -- you know, I think the development itself is a nice development. It's a difficult piece to design when you have got a triangle, but overall I like that the church is there, because I think it makes it -- if it was just all medium to high density residential and full of townhomes in there I think it would look a lot different and feel a lot more crowded. But I think having a church helps a little bit for me with the parking situation, because churches typically use a lot of parking on Sundays, but not as much throughout the rest of the week, so that makes me feel a little bit better about that. I think the -- the open spread -- I think Joe kind of touched on why we need to have condition 1.D and 1.F in there, because code requires it. I'm not really too concerned if -- if the church is coming closely behind the rest of the development on when they do the frontage landscaping, but if that's what code requires I think we have got to kind of stick with that. Same with the open space piece. I think we can make a motion that, you know, the HOA can work with the church on a shared use agreement and maintenance agreement, but that that needs to be allocated as a common lot that's an unbuildable open space in perpetuity. That's what I would say on that one. I would like to make a condition that they consider some sort of netting for the back of those townhomes, because I really do think that golf balls could become a challenge there. I know that's a minor thing, but something for them to consider. And I'm Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 60 of 92 going to stop there and see what else you guys have to say first. Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: Madam Chair? You were quick on that one. Yeah. I -- I think that open space is probably going to be better maintained with it being the property of the church and so whatever agreement, you know, they can come to that, I think it's actually probably going to be better maintained that way, but, yeah, I just worry about, you know, who is pastor 20 years from now and says I, you know, don't want these people on our property, you know, there has got to be some sort of agreement in there and this common driveway I guess doesn't bother me quite as much, just because there is not houses all the way around that cul-de-sac, which would -- will give a little bit more elbow room down around there and, yeah, that open space tucked back there in the corner, I think they are asking for trouble. You know, not that they are asking for trouble, but it is just harder to control what goes on back there if that's just a little sliver open to anybody. I think that's probably better suited as part of a buildable lot. Pitzer: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner Pitzer. Pitzer: I'm in favor of this subdivision. However, I think that sliver -- Cassinelli: I can't hear. Holland: Yeah. You're cutting in and out, Commissioner Pitzer. You're in favor of the subdivision, but -- Pitzer: But the sliver of land down there at 34 I think needs to go with the lot. I think that's -- it being an open space is going to create more problems as an open space with -- with having public access. But I do like the -- the -- the duet homes being there, being staggered, whatever, and -- and the elevations are nice. So, I think with those few changes I would be in favor. Holland: Well, the stagger is already in the staff report and all of the conditions that they have requested changes are in the staff report, too. So, if we don't include a motion they would be required to have that common -- that little strip to be a part of a building lot. That's what's in the staff report. Grove: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner Grove. Grove: I think anytime -- just so I'm somewhat consistent with this general area, I have some major concerns when we are starting to add more properties out here when there is not a very good solution for schools in this area with the schools being pretty overloaded. I see that, you know, they are saying what the Mary McPherson is going to Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 61 of 92 have a much higher capacity, but it still worries me. This is a relatively small project, so it's not as worrisome as some of the larger ones that have come through for this area, but it definitely gives me pause and the -- the difficulties with the open space on this project are -- it just seems very disjointed from a usability standpoint for people who move into this to be their open space as part of the church property. Basically it just feels like it's not going to function as planned for some reason and I can't really put my finger on why, but I have some -- some questions on how that's going to work down the road. So, even with agreements I -- I just have some concerns. Holland: And I don't disagree. I wish that the CUP for the church came through as the same applications to make it a lot easier to consider as a whole project, instead of just the piece that we know is coming. Seal: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner Seal. Seal: Just to kind of add on what -- what Commissioner Grove and you were just commenting on this, to me it seems like they have -- they have made room for a church that we can't see yet and kind of built stuff around it and that -- that to me is -- is worrisome. So, I -- I think if they would have went about it the opposite way, then, the housing piece of this would fit better. We probably wouldn't have some of the concerns or issues that we are running into right now. I mean the first thing I can think of is slide the whole thing over to -- to the east, the church piece of this, and, then, but the residential on the west portion of it would be a big help to the whole thing. So, as far as the sliver that's -- you know, of open space that's considered there is to be part of a Lot 34 or not, the only thing I can see about that is the Ten Mile Creek crossing, there is an actual crossing right there where you can get across that, you know, ditch, canal, and whatever it's termed there. So, when the subdivision develops to the west of this that might be an actual nice place to put in, you know, a crossing, a pathway, something that would allow for, you know, people to get from one subdivision to another. So, I mean I -- I don't like that it's back there and it's on its own, but it is open on the other side, it's not like there is buildings back there. It is -- you know, it's something that can be seen from a distance. So, it's something just to take in consideration of that. But overall the layout of it is just -- like I said, to me it seems like they decided where to put a church and they put everything else around it and tried to make the best of it, where I think the approach should be different, meaning that let's figure out how to put residences in there and, then, we can figure out where the church is best suited to go and I understand they got to sell the houses in order to build the church, which is another concern that, you know, it's going to take time to raise the money to do all that properly, so the church may not come in at the speed that they want it to come in at, so those -- those are my concerns. To me it just -- it just doesn't quite fit. Holland: One more comment back to Commissioner Grove. You made some comments about education. I think it is always a challenge, but one -- one thing to keep in mind is my experience with townhome products or -- or duplexes, they don't tend to have as many kids in them either. So, I don't think you have as much of a pressure on the school age Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 62 of 92 system there. I mean they certainly will have some kids, but they don't tend to have as many kids as a single family neighborhood would. Other Commissioner's thoughts? So, they are a little bit divided. Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: Madam Chair? Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli. Can you hear me? Holland: Everybody at once. We will start with Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: Would -- would it be easier to look at this as all in one project after the traffic study is done and we can tie it all together? Holland: That's certainly an option if that's the way the Commission would like to go. I mean we could also request that we wait to approve this project until the conditional use permit comes in for the church, so we can holistically look at it. McCarvel: Yeah. I'm just wondering if -- since it is so tied with the open space, I mean to me it's like having those homes with a park across the street, but, obviously, it's not public, so you are kind of tied into, you know, the future generations at church still agreeing that it's okay for public to use it -- or the immediate surrounding public. Holland: And I'm struggling, because I -- I like this development itself. I mean I think it's -- they have put a lot of work into it and a lot of thought into it and there are some nice features to it. I like that the church is integrated in there. So, I always hate pushing it off, because I see why they are doing it the way that they are doing it, but we are still missing a few details to the story. But I see where everybody is coming from. Commissioner Cassinelli, you had comments? You are on mute, sir. Weatherly: Madam Chair? Holland: Yes. Go ahead, Adrienne. Weatherly: Sorry. I just wanted to let you know that Tamara Thompson has raised her hand. I know that you have closed the public hearing, but I just wanted to bring that to your attention. Holland: If we decide to keep going on the conversation towards continuance we would have to reopen the public hearing, so if we do that we will make sure we can talk to Tamara first. Parsons: Madam -- Madam Chair? Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Holland: Go ahead, Bill. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 63 of 92 Parsons: Which one? Holland: Oh. Sorry. Go ahead staff Bill. Parsons: All right. Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. Certainly if you want all the pieces Tamara alluded to that she had a better master concept plan for the church property, I would probably recommend if you want to see that in its entirety that the applicant continue this out, have them provide that detail for you. This is an annexation and typically with annexations we want a conceptual plan for the portion of the property that's not been part -- not being developed at this time. She showed you a portion of the church with -- in her testimony this evening she said she had the overall build out of that church site. So, I would really put it back on the applicant and open up this public hearing and see if they are willing to provide us those additional details, bring this back a week, two weeks from now, or three weeks on the 9th, just open it up to see the revised concept plan so you can see how it's integrated with the church and, then, maybe put this one to bed in three weeks. But I will go ahead and let -- let you guys deliberate that -- my comments and, then, consider whether or not you want to continue this and get some feedback from the applicant. Holland: Thanks, Bill. Commissioner Cassinelli, go ahead. I think he's frozen. Commissioner Seal, I think you also had comments. We will go with you first. Seal: So, I -- Holland: Bill, your reception is failing you. Bill, maybe one suggestion. Try turning off your camera so your WiFi bandwidth is a little bit better and, then, maybe we can hear you better. I don't know if you -- if he left us or if he is still here, but -- Commissioner Seal, did you have something you wanted to say? Seal: Not really. I'm kind of in agreement with where -- where Bill Parsons was kind of taken us there for a continuance. I mean there is -- hopefully, there is more to this, so I would like to see more. I mean I'm in agreement with that, so I -- I mean if nobody has an issue with that, I would move that we open the public hearing back up. Holland: Is that a motion? Seal: Madam Chair, I move that we open public hearing for H-2020-0035, speak to a continuance. Pitzer: Second. Holland: Okay. We just had a motion and a second. Commissioner Seal, do you want to clarify that we are only reopening that the application -- just to speak with the applicant, not for public testimony. Seal: That's correct. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 64 of 92 Holland: Just clarifying. All those in favor. Any opposed? MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. Holland: Madam Clerk, can you, please, bring Tamara back on to speak with us. Weatherly: Madam Chair, I'm going to go ahead and let her in. One moment, please. Holland: Hi, Tamara. Welcome back. Thanks for -- for joining us and making a few more seconds to chat with us a little bit. I think you have heard our deliberation and the biggest challenge is just kind of making sure we have got a holistic picture of what's going to happen with the church and if you would be open to us continuing it, so that we can continue that conversation and see more of a -- the master plan you talked about with the full build out. Or it looks like he might have something already. Thompson: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, so as I mentioned before, we -- we have looked at this site 20 different ways and for multiple reasons access from ACHD, where that needs to take place, and deciding that the -- the patio homes being adjacent to the golf course is something that the real estate brokers have told us is very desirable, that the out -- that -- the layout that we have proposed doesn't change with -- with the full CUP and -- and, frankly, what we were going to submit for the CUP is just the phase one with some areas for expansion, because those -- those really haven't been programmed at this point. But we do have a concept plan and -- am I sharing my screen? Holland: Yeah. We can see it. Thompson: Okay. So -- so, you can see that -- and, unfortunately, these are -- maybe I can -- let me see if I can rotate this so we are looking at them in the same. Holland: I think we can get the idea of where it's at. Thompson: Okay. Yeah. Sometimes it's difficult when your brain is trying to flip back and forth. So, just -- you, know there is -- there is an expansion of the building that goes a little bit to the west here. This little -- little area -- open area stays and, then, this area gets filled in with some -- with some parking. And, then, I want to clarify that this is -- this open space here is a lot in the subdivision. It's -- it's a lot and block and if it makes you more comfortable that the homeowners association owns that, they can definitely do that. It was just something that we were hoping that it could be an either/or. If there is a perpetual use and maintenance agreement or the HOA owns it, just having that flexibility, but if that makes you more comfortable they can definitely do that. But it is a lot and block. It's not part of -- just because it's contiguous to the church lot it's not part of the church parcel. That is completely separate. We were just going to make it that it was something that could be utilized by both, because there may be some children or like a soccer team or something like that that -- that may want to -- want to utilize that. So, I hope that helps clarify some things. And we would very much appreciate your -- your recommendation for approval tonight and to send us on to City Council. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 65 of 92 Holland: Any other thoughts for Tamara that anyone would like to throw out there? Pitzer: Yes, Madam Chair. Holland: Commissioner Pitzer. Pitzer: So, the biggest difference that I see between these two is next to the -- that common lot or the lot for the open area -- open space on -- on the one to the right it has more -- more open space, yet the one on the left shows that's all parking on this. So, I -- Thompson: So, Madam Chair, Commissioner Pitzer, the -- this is the -- the initial build out, so it will have this as that open space, but they have plans that they could expand and who knows what that time frame is. Ten years down the road, 20 years down the road, and for that expansion this -- that's how it would lay out, so -- but this open space here is not part of the subdivision open space calculations. You know, we didn't count the -- the frontage improvements for this lot within the calculations for the open space, nor any of these open space, just this one common lot and it is in a common lot and not -- and not part -- I felt like maybe you guys were confused that it was part of the church parcel and it is not, it is -- it is in its own lot as a common lot. Holland: Tamara, would -- I think my biggest concern is looking at the full build out is -- and, obviously, there is -- there is plenty of parking which you need for a church, especially like Calvary Chapel Center that they bring a lot of people. One thing that might make me feel a little bit better -- and I know Commissioner Seal has suggested this, but is there -- would there be consideration or willingness to carry that common load down to -- towards Ten Mile Creek and eliminate that future parking area and just have a bigger shared common space between the two? Because I think that would give a little bit more of a -- a bigger amenity space where maybe you could have a tot lot and a soccer field or you could have a little bit more of kind of that connectivity for the green space, where ever that -- it looks like a baseball or a diamond of some sort that they have got there, but it might integrate better. Just a thought. Thompson: Madam Chair, this -- this is actually a little amphitheater -- an outdoor amphitheater, not a -- not a baseball diamond. Holland: Okay. Thompson: So, this is a -- this is a concept plan. The future plan -- you know, just to show how the church could expand in the future and that they are planning for an expansion, but the initial build out will be -- will be this area. I don't know that I can -- that I can say that -- that there won't be parking right here in the -- in the future right now, because that hasn't been programmed and I don't know the number of seats and how many parking we would have, but in the -- in the near foreseeable future that's -- this is how the -- the site will lay out. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 66 of 92 Holland: Okay. Commissioners, you are all quiet on me, but I know you have got thoughts. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Holland: Go ahead, Commission Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I think I'm back online here. Is there a -- maybe more of a question to staff, but is there a -- some sort of a development agreement or an agreement in place between the church and the residents to -- for the residents to be able to park and -- and share what green space is available at the church? Because there was a concern about that, that, you know, 15, 20 years from now with -- with, you know, change of staff at the church that that might change. Dodson: Commissioner Cassinelli, thank you for your question there. No, there is not anything in the DA, though I appreciate that comment. I think that is a good addition of something to -- you know, shared parking agreement, as well as some type of use agreement between them to ensure that this space and potentially the amphitheater and those types of things are shared, you know, for a long time between the two. Cassinelli: And is -- and is that amenable to the applicant? Thompson: Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli, what I would like to remind you of is that there is on-street parking on both sides around all of this and I guess staff said that this area right here doesn't count as an open space. So, we could add some -- some parking in that area as well. I do know that they have -- between the residential developer and the church they do have an agreement and I'm not sure right now if that covers both and I'm not where they are right now to -- to be able to ask them that question. We are all in our respective homes. So, I don't know the answer to that. But I do know that there is -- there is a lot of parking here, like you said, on -- on both sides of the street we have parking and everyone has garages -- two car garages with the -- with the pads in front of their -- of their garages as well. Holland: Tamara, I think the main question was would they be willing to have a -- just a note in the development agreement that says there could be a shared access agreement for parking -- overflow parking if needed with the church. I don't know if that's something you can speak to or if you need to get back to us on it, but I know several of the Commissioners seemed like they were leaning towards wanting to continue this to the future. I don't know where we -- where we all stand now, but, Commissioners, if you want to give a thumbs up or thumbs down to hear that, if you want to continue it or if you want to go back to close deliberation. Pitzer: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner Pitzer. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 67 of 92 Pitzer: I will say I'm -- I'm less thrilled with this now than I was before. Holland: Commissioner Grove, thoughts? Grove: I would be in favor of continuing, but I don't really know what I would be continuing, so I don't have a clear thought yet. Seal: Yeah. Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner Seal. Seal: I gave my thoughts on what I was hoping a continuance might lead to. I mean in seeing this it seems like -- you know, again, I shared my remarks on it and it seems like they, you know, made room for a church and, then, they put houses around it. So, I don't mean to say that as an insult, it's just that's what it looks like to me looking -- looking at it from the outside in and not being somebody that has to do this for a living. So, unfortunately, I don't know that we can give them enough detail or -- you know, or actionable comments to have them come back with anything different. You know, it sounds like ACHD is mandating where the ingress is going to happen into the subdivision and that's for the most part going to push them into this kind of design that they have right here. Understand wanting to put all the -- you know, everything, you know, essentially facing -- or the backyards facing out into the golf course and that would be something that would be, you know, highly desirable, but just the way that it's forced into this, you know, end of the cul-de-sac, into the -- the bottom of the triangle there just doesn't mesh up very well. So, again, it -- it just doesn't flow well, it doesn't look like it's very conducive to, you know, what we are trying to do with, you know, making things a little bit more open and accessible. Holland: Well -- and I know staff had asked them to actually increase the density from the original products, that they were going to do more townhomes throughout the whole project. So, I think they were trying to meet the density of what that medium high density should be, which -- which causes some challenges. My biggest concern is where the open space is and having it be shared between the church and the resident uses, it could be a very popular space to play. I do like that it's next to the golf course, because I think that does give a nice amenity and can see why the homes are backed up to the golf course. I think it's -- it's -- it's pretty. I don't know. It's -- it's a tough project, because I think that Commissioner Grove hit on it, they have -- they have given us kind of the view of what we would have asked for of what the master plan would look like, so if we were to continue it we would have to have some specific requests of why we would want to continue it. Is there things we could ask for that would make anyone feel better about moving this forward with a recommendation of approval? Are there is some conditions that we would like to throw out there for consideration or are you leaning towards -- Dodson: Madam Chair? Holland: Yes. Go ahead. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 68 of 92 Dodson: This is -- this is staff. Joe. Just to clarify on the access since this has come up a couple of times now. ACHD normally wouldn't allow access to this because of where it's located. However, the -- they wanted -- or if it was a perfect world they would have the access further to the west and match up with the quarter mile access that is on the north side of Lake Hazel. However, this parcel does not abut that in an appropriate manner, so they couldn't do it. So, in order to meet -- well, it doesn't -- even now this doesn't meet ACHD policy for curb cuts, so they let them go as far east as they possibly could and amended their -- their policies in order to allow this to happen. So, I will commend the applicant for that, for working with what they were given on that. ACHD did allow the emergency only access and I discussed that in my staff report as well that maybe at a future date it could be used as a right-in, right-out only for the church, so, you know, to help us on the traffic. But other than that the applicants did work with what ACHD gave them on the access. Holland: Thanks, Joe. Commissioner Cassinelli, did you have a thought? Cassinelli: Yeah. I -- you know, we look at -- at these in-fills and -- which essentially this is what this is and they are always tough. Throwing the triangular shape of it and for what they have done is it -- is it perfect? You know, from the comments I'm hearing no. As a -- if I was going to buy a home down there I would much rather back up to the golf course than back up to another -- another house or back up to the backside of the church. So, I think from that standpoint that's -- that's the best -- you know, that -- that makes that one of the better layouts. I also think that -- you know, that lot -- Lot 2, Block 2, although it seems -- you know, it's weird, it kind of puts it centrally located with all the -- all the residential properties, it's -- it's in the middle. So many times we see things come before us where, you know, all the -- all the open space is on one end and that's great for somebody that lives, you know, a block away, but when you are -- when you are clear across the subdivision from the open space it's -- it's not so great. So, at least that's in the middle. So, I like that. And, then, you know, I mean they had another design that we are not getting the opportunity to see, but they -- they had to scrap it because it was -- the density was actually too low. We don't -- you know, we don't usually get that. So, all in all trying to work with this -- to me I -- I mean I don't know -- if you go back to the drawing board, redraw this thing to try and meet the density and get the homes in there, then, you might pull them away from the golf course, which is a -- which is a bonus and that's where I'd want to -- you know, that's where I would want to be. The other comment I want to make is, you know, this is a fairly low impact footprint, if I'm saying that right. I mean there is -- you know, there is -- there is not a ton of homes there. One of the comments that -- that you made, Madam Chair, was that in these type of properties we are probably not looking -- we are looking at maybe older families, retired, empty nesters just in these -- you know, in kind of the patio homes and townhomes. So, probably fewer kids, so we are not going to have -- we may not have as much impact. There will be some kids no doubt, but it may not have as much impact on the school system and, then, traffic, this isn't going to be a -- this isn't going to be a huge impact on the local traffic, unlike, you know, some other subdivisions. So, given what they have to work with with the shape, it's -- and the fact that they are -- you know, that that ACHD has told them what they can and can't do, what -- what the city's told them what they can and can't do, I don't know if Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 69 of 92 we can get something that is going to make everybody super happy. I think it -- it works and I don't -- so, those are my comments. I would like to move forward and -- and vote on it, instead of continuing it. Holland: I think I'm in the same boat for the same comments you just made, Commissioner Cassinelli. I think they have done a pretty thorough job and, you know, it -- it's nice to be able to plan for contingencies in parking. It's not likely that they would remove all of that green space all at the same time, it would be over kind of a growth period and, hopefully, they would be able to maintain more of that green space than just eliminating it. That's -- that's the basis. But at the same time there are regional parks close by. There is a YMCA not too far away. There is the green space in the backyards of most of these homes. I think I could be -- I think I could be ready to move it forward to Council for their deliberation. It's a tough piece and I think they have -- they have tried to make a good effort here. Commissioner McCarvel I know you started to say something. Do you want to go next? McCarvel: Oh. Yeah. I was just -- I mean I don't think I have ever had an issue with the layout. I think having those homes lined up against a golf course and, then, you have got virtually all that open space in front of them and, like I said, as some -- yeah, as a common drive goes this one gives me probably the least heartburn just because, you know, they just come out of there and there is not a whole bunch of homes lined up, you know, going to the west there. I -- you know, my only thought was to see it all together just so we get those agreements in place, but I think Tamara kind of helped that along, but, you know, reiterating that that is a separate lot and block, that whole area might stay a nice soccer field or, you know, whatever. Just open space. And even if it does -- you know, the tip of it becomes parking lot years later if they expand, you know, at least that part stays, because it is a separate lot and block. Holland: Well, hearing at least three of us that are wanting to make a motion of some sort, I -- it would take a motion to reclose the public hearing if we want to deliberate and make some sort of motion. Seal: Madam Chair, I got a quick question. We have touched on it a couple times for the applicant. Holland: Sure. Go ahead, Commissioner Seal. Seal: We -- we have talked about putting up netting on the backside of the houses that run along the golf course. Is that something you are amenable to? Holland: Tamara, you are on mute. Thompson: Luckily it comes up and tells you that, too. Madam Chair, Commissioner Seal, I think those -- I don't think that whole entire run needs to be a big net. I think they could be strategically placed and I think -- I think that needs to be worked out, but -- so I don't know how you -- how you craft that language, but I think definitely having -- you Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 70 of 92 know, where most of the landing is -- could be something. The good news is is most people go to the right when they hit and this is off to the left. Holland: You haven't golfed with me, Tamara. Thompson: Oh, yeah. Are you a lefter? Holland: I go where ever the -- Thompson: Yeah, I -- yeah, I don't know how you got that one, but -- but definitely there would need to be some strategically placed panels, but I would hate to see a whole -- the whole thing just netted off. You know, there goes your view. Holland: Yeah. I think it would be fine to just put a condition that you would work to mitigate some of the golf ball concerns for houses in the backyard and you can work on whatever that plan was. I don't think we have to net the entire backyard. Any other last questions for Tamara or does someone have a motion to close the public hearing again? Pitzer: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner Pitzer. Pitzer: I move that we close the public hearing for H-2020-0035. Cassinelli: Second. Holland: I have got a motion and a second. All those in favor? Any opposed? All right. We are closed. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. Holland: So, I think we are at the point -- and thank you, Tamara, again, for jumping back on with us. We appreciate you showing us that context. I think we are at the point where, you know, the -- the conditions that were requested I think we can't really do much with 1-B. That was the frontage landscaping to be constructed with the church. That we have got to follow what code requires for us there. I think we could make the modification to 1-F that says the church and the HOA will work out a maintenance and operation use agreement, but that it will be a common lot that's an unbuildable open space in perpetuity. Something like that. And I think that we need to leave condition 3-B related to that sliver common lot to be a buildable lot. So, I would say the only modification I see from their request would be 1-F and, then, also the addition of looking at some golf ball mitigation for the backyards of homes or there is certainly the conversation of whether somebody would like to make a motion to expand the open space down towards the roadway. That's something we could ask them to consider, but I'm going to leave it open if somebody would like to make a motion or would like to keep deliberating. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 71 of 92 Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Yeah. Back when I was losing my internet previously I wanted to make a comment. I didn't get a chance. On that -- the 3-B, I would actually -- I -- I would be okay with making that a common lot for the reason of -- if the HOA maintains it and mows it and that sort of thing, whether or not it's part of the building lot or common lot, it's still a piece of land down there that -- that is -- would be somewhat visible -- or minimal visibility and I get that if it's -- if it's part of Lot 34 it's private property, people aren't going to be walking down there, but I don't think a whole lot of people are going to be walking down that far anyway. They might be if there is a crossing down there, but I don't see it as -- as a safety concern or anything and -- and on the flip side if you maintain that whole strip there along that easement where the HOA comes in there, maintains it, mows it and that sort of thing, I think it's actually -- I think it's better as a common lot and, then, when we get to all issues with the open space, I look back here and it's -- they still meet the minimums. I know I personally like to see, you know, going above the minimums, but even if you take out some of the -- the unqualified and unusable they are still at that. But, keep in mind, there will be open spaces that -- and green space in there that -- that isn't designated as usable. So, that does bump that number up even though we are -- I mean right when you see that one, you see all the green space with the church, and eventual will come to a parking lot, but that's -- that's its own separate thing and what it says in here is that the church doesn't require the open space. I think there is -- you know, they meeting the minimums on that, so that's my two cents on that. But I would be -- I would be okay with giving them that 3-B and doing it -- doing that common lot, just because it could be maintained on a regular basis by the HOA and it's not going to change that land down there and whether or not you can see it or can't see it. So, that's it. Holland: Yeah. I'm on the fence about it, but it doesn't bother me one way or another. I was just going off of what Joe's comments were. Cassinelli: But the others -- the other two I think are the -- you know, I agree with the way -- you know, phrasing it the way -- a couple ways you said, but I mean we definitely need to stick to those, because those are code. Holland: So, Commissioner Cassinelli, does that mean you would like to make the motion here or -- Cassinelli: How do you want to -- how did you want to phrase that lot -- Block 2, Lot 2, on 1-F to -- separate maintenance agreement between the two? Holland: Yeah. I think I -- I just said that we would allow a shared maintenance agreement between the church and the HOA. A maintenance and use agreement. But that it would be a common lot in the subdivision. Let's say an unbuildable open space lot for perpetuity. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 72 of 92 Cassinelli: Okay. All right. Well, in that case since you put me on the spot, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2020-0035 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 18th, 2020, with the following modifications: That we change condition 1-F -- modify condition 1-F on that common lot to -- to -- that the applicant will develop a -- an agreement between the HOA and the church for maintenance. That that common lot will be unbuildable in perpetuity. I'm going to go ahead and say strike condition 3-B, that we require that sliver of land to be part of the -- part of that building lot number 34, and also require the applicant to look at some sort of netting to prevent broken windows. Pitzer: Second. Holland: I have a motion and a second. I don't know if we need to take roll, but I will ask all in favor? Any opposed? All right. Motion passes unanimously. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. Holland: We are at the point of the evening -- at one of our last Commission meetings we had made the note that we would not go past 10:00 o'clock for a meeting. So, we still have two applications left on the agenda and I know that Penelope I'm sure has been sitting patiently for her subdivision to come forward, but I'm going to ask the Commission what you would all like to do. If you want to keep going or if you would like to hear these last two items or request a continuance for them. I know staff's Item G I think there is a fairly quick item. They -- they would like to just make some changes to their checklist because of the digital process that they are in, because they are not having as many people come in in person to submit applications, they just need to simplify some things. So, I will leave that open if we want to open both of those items, if you want to ask for us to consider continuing or what we would like to do here. Cassinelli: I would be in favor of just keep rolling here. Seal: I would agree. Cassinelli: Because it's not going to make the future date any better. Grove: I'm on board with that. Pitzer: Another long night. F. Public Hearing for Lupine Cove (H-2019-0133) by Penelope Constantikes, Riley Planning Services, Located at 4000 N. McDermott Rd. 1. Request: Annexation of 7.09 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district; and, Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 73 of 92 2. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 26 building lots and 6 common lots on 7 acres of land in the proposed R-8 zoning district. Holland: All right. With that we will open the public hearing for Lupine Cove, 2019-0133, with the staff report. Go ahead, Joe. Parsons: It's not Joe, it's going to be Bill tonight. Holland: Oh, I'm sorry, Bill. I knew that was you. Parsons: But hopefully we will get -- Holland: Get them all mixed up. There is too many on this night. You guys have to cut us off at four or five. Parsons: I will wait for the clerk's office to pull up the presentation list. I think I need to open it up. Weatherly: I'm going to ask the clerk to do this and so I'm able to access my PowerPoint. I think Chris will be faster on the draw than I can be. Parsons: All right. Thank you. Weatherly: Uh-huh. Parsons: We have been here since 6:00 o'clock, so I'm a very patient person. Holland: There is nothing like a speed review of all the plans; right? Parsons: Did you get all that? Holland: Ready to go. Parsons: Awesome. So, let's step it back and finish strong tonight, okay, guys? Thank you. I appreciate your patience tonight. Holland: Thanks, Bill. Parsons: Yes. So, Commission, thank you for the opportunity to be here again tonight. This was a project that you guys took action on back in March 19, 2020. Staff came forward with an original recommendation of a denial because of the previous layout. We felt there was not enough usable open space. There wasn't a stub street to the north. There were too many common driveways. There wasn't enough tree preservation on the site. There was just not enough lot -- transitional lots -- no transition on the south boundary to those county residents. The Commission concurred with staff's Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 74 of 92 recommendation and forwarded on a recommendation of denial to City Council. The applicant had -- after that P&Z hearing the applicant reached out to staff and had some -- wanted to pursue the option of remanding this back to you with a revised plat based on the comments that they heard during that public hearing. So, I was -- as we moved closer to the City Council hearing date staff did receive revised plans, but because this body did not have any recommendations for the applicant to revise the plans, their only option was to either move forward at City Council for denial based on your recommendation or get -- seek a remanding -- have the project remanded back based on City Council's action and so that's what has occurred here this evening. So, basically, they went to City Council on April 28th, pleaded their case, and Council actually remanded it back for staff to analyze and revise the staff report based on the revised plan and they bring forward a recommendation to you on the revised plans. So, I can let the Commission know this evening that the revised plans that we are going to be discussing tonight did take into account a lot of those concerns that you had back in the March hearing. So, just to get you oriented again. The applicant is here tonight to discuss an annexation and a preliminary plat. The site consists of seven acres of land. It's currently zoned RUT in Ada county and it has a physical address of 4000 North McDermott Road. As I spoke to you last hearing, there are approved and existing residences -- residences in the area with the zoning of R-4, R-8 and RUT in Ada county and the Comprehensive Plan designation for this particular property is medium density residential, which we can anticipate -- a dwelling density range of three to eight dwelling units to the acre. So, on the graphic before you this evening I kept in the old version of the plan and incorporated the new plan so you could see them actually side by side. So, the subject application, again, incorporates seven acres of land, with the requested R-8 zoning district, which is consistent with the medium density residential future land use map. The revised plat consists of 26 residential lots, which is two fewer from the previous version, and also includes six common lots on seven acres of land. Lot sizes range in size from 4,353 square feet upwards to 13,924 square feet and as the previous plan this is proposed to develop in one phase. All lot sizes do conform with the R-8 dimensional standards, but as I alluded to you earlier in my presentation, there still is no transitional lot sizes along the southern boundary, particularly in between the two open space lots there that you can see and so I -- basically in the staff report I have asked you to determine tonight whether or not that's an appropriate transition by this body. So, take that into your consider -- your deliberation tonight as you act on this application. One access is proposed into this development from McDermott Road. As you can see in the new plat the applicant has provided the stub street to the north, which does tie into the Aegean Subdivision, which the previous plan did not, and all of the common driveways have now been removed. There is a stub street that is proposed along the south boundary and as you can see there the applicant is still showing the temporary -- because that roadway is over 150 feet, the fire code requires a temporary turnaround and so they -- again, the applicant has elected to keep that temporary turnaround on the common lot, rather than the adjacent buildable lots across the street. One of staff's recommendations in the staff report is that the applicant switch that temporary turn around to the adjacent side of the street. We feel it's more beneficial to restrict the two buildable lots, rather than restricting and putting a burden on a future HOA to try to tear out the temporary turnaround and put back in landscaping. So, to me the bigger, better public benefit at this point is to restrict buildable Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 75 of 92 lots and maintain that open space and one thing it -- one, you prevent people from parking on it and, two, you get more usable open space in the development. The applicant has provided a revised landscape plan. Their open space has increased from the previous plan -- the previous plan. Now there are approximately over 12 percent open space. I would also make mention to the Commission that the applicant has made more of an attempt to incorporate the adjacent Five Mile Creek McFadden Lateral which runs along the north and east boundary and, basically, they have talked with the Parks Department, they have talked with Nampa-Meridian, neither one opposes a pathway along the waterway, but one is not planned, so one is not required as part of this project and so in discussions with the applicant they have agreed to try to maintain the existing trees along that waterway and, then, landscape it with some native grasses and natural dry seed mix, so that at least it could be enhanced as a natural amenity to the development, although -- and, then, it will also -- they are also within common lots, which will be owned and maintained by the HOA. In order to increase the usability of that open space staff has not required a pathway along the ditches -- along the waterways themselves, but we are recommending that the applicant construct internal pathways within the development. So, again -- if you are looking at this revised plan in front of you, you see the two large central open space lots, we are requiring that the applicant provide pathways -- a five foot wide pathway in both of those and, then, along the southern boundary, if you can see my cursor here, staff also recommended that a micro path lot go in this general vicinity here and that way if there is a pathway in this lot, the southern lot, and, then, on the southwest corner of the development, at least they could walk along the access road on that canal and have an internal looping -- internal pathway network for the development to use and it may provide -- it might be a nice amenity for those residences to use that -- the water facility as some passive open space and just watch birds and ducks and wildlife there throughout the spring and summer months. We didn't get into this last time, because there wasn't much to discuss, but here are some of the sample elevations that the applicant is proposing with the subdivision. Again, a mixture of single story and two story homes. Like most subdivisions this does backed up against the collector roadway, so staff has placed a provision in the development agreement that requires that those homes provide variation in colors, building materials and modulations in the facade. Probably the biggest -- the difference between the previous version and this version is staff is now recommending approval of this plat. We feel like the applicant's addressed a lot of the staff's concerns and a lot of the Commission's concerns, so in the revised staff report we did provide you with some recommended DA provisions and conditions of approval and I have looked at the public record to see if -- at the time that my hearing outline was done I did not have any written testimony on this project, but the clerk did assure me that someone did provide some written comments on this application. Hadn't had a chance to see who that was. But we did receive one -- one comment on it. Again, staff is recommending approval and I will stand for any questions you may have. Holland: Thank you, Bill. Any questions for Bill? Seal: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner Seal. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 76 of 92 Seal: Just the -- the emergency turnaround that they have, with that being there that -- that space is taken away from the open space; is that correct? Parsons: Yeah. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, it's -- I'm not sure. I think -- I'm hoping the applicant didn't include that in there. If you remember the previous plan had a half -- a half a basketball court on the turnaround, which wasn't going to work for staff and that's been removed. So, I will let the applicant go ahead and address that, but to me -- we can't count that. Seal: Okay. Parsons: So, I don't think they took that into account, but I'm not one hundred percent certain on that, but either way if they remove it I think we are going to get a better open space lot there. Seal: Okay. Thank you. Holland: And the staff recommendation is to flip where the bulb out is to the other side on the buildable lot side, not on the common side -- common lot side. Parsons: That's correct. On lot -- that would be Lot 13 and 14, is -- and I would let you know I had a conversation with ACHD and it doesn't violate any of their policies. It's the turnarounds on buildable lots. They actually prefer it. Holland: If there is no more questions we can certainly bring the applicant in. I don't know if Penelope is here or if there is somebody else. Weatherly: Madam Chair, it looks like Derritt Kerner has their hand raised. I'm going to go ahead and bring them in. One moment. Constantikes: I'm here. We are all congregating in Derritt's office today. Holland: Oh, great. Well, if you guys can state your name and address for the record we can hear you. Constantikes: All right. For the record Penelope Constantikes. Post Office Box 405, Boise, Idaho. 82701. Derritt Kerner is with us also. He will give you his name and address. He's going to slide in in the presentation a little ways down. Kerner: Derritt Kerner. Rock Solid Civility. 270 North 27th Street in Boise. Can you guys see us? It doesn't look like the camera is -- Holland: I don't think we can see on the camera, but we can hear you and we can see your screen. Kerner: Okay. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 77 of 92 Constantikes: Thank you, Madam Chair. So, I think given the lateness of the hour I can go straight to the -- the changes that have occurred to the plat since our previous hearing. So, all the shared driveways have been removed. There has been a reduction of the lot count and it's just 25 new lots. The (unintelligible) has been incorporated to the north and we, of course, have stub streets in the south. We have a giant amenity package at this point in time, including the micro pathway and the open space, Lot 5, connecting north to the passive open space along the water features, as well as there is (unintelligible) structures (unintelligible) from the tot lots is depicted on this illustration that you have in front of you. We will have that incorporated into a landscape plan. And we have included as a preliminary retention plan with our updated landscape plan. We included some of the existing trees and we are planning on retaining as many as possible, including that very dense evergreen buffer that runs along the south boundary line. It's very dense. So, average lot areas increased. Like was stated before with the large mature trees on common lots, which you don't often get an opportunity to see that, and we do have some substantial passive open space. So, the amenity package -- first of all, the cul-de-sac and the turnaround is not included in the open space calculation. So, we have a 50 by 100 grassy area. We have a water feature that's in the northern common lot where we have the stream. We have taken the artesian wells discharge and turned it into a stream amenity with a micro path along it. We have linear open space in both the common lots and with the micro paths we think enhanced that ability. We have a picnic area with a shade structure. And, then, we have this passive open space, which is, basically, the -- the common lot that runs along the irrigation facility. So, if you just calculate our active open space we are 12 percent or 1.83 acres. But I -- I took a dive and I took half of the common lot that's (unintelligible) from the lots and I added that in, since there has been a lot of emphasis on, you know, cultivating that as a -- as a passive open space or with the micropath connections to the -- the drain easement. It certainly will encourage people to go there. So, when we include the passive open space we are at about 19 percent open space or 1.36 acres. We did centralize our -- and expand our open space, so it's pretty substantial and it's centered in the middle of the subdivision, so everyone is within striking distance of getting to that, those amenity areas. So, we know for density -- we are in the medium density residential area and both our gross and net densities fall within that range. You know, 3.71 gross and 7.46 net, so I don't think that happens very often. That would fall -- with both densities fall within range subsidized by the -- by the land use deposition. So, for the micro path inclusion we have added the micropath (unintelligible) stubbing the micropath to the south property line for future conductivity and lifespan. We are stubbing the micropath and passive open space to the north, which is the northern open space. Now, the pathway connection across the south side of Lot 14, which is done in the corner. It is shown on the illustration that you have in front of you. We -- we did get -- we did get some -- some correspondence from the water supervisor at Nampa- Meridian Irrigation District and -- and he did speak to the fact that there is nothing in the master pathways plan that includes this area for a pathway and so we do want to be clear that connections to the easement area are connections to an area that Nampa-Meridian has indicated that they would only allow a pathway in if it was part of the master pathways plan -- a formal arrangement between the City of Meridian and the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation district. And also there are some concerns that perhaps there may not be enough visibility for that pathway down on the south from the police department's Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 78 of 92 standards with visibility and -- I was at the City Council hearing a few months ago where one of the council members had mentioned that they were concerned with the various activity where people couldn't be seen, so -- Johnson: Madam Chair, I apologize. I just muted the applicant. Our stenographer has indicated that she will need to be closer to our microphone. He cannot pick up anything she's saying. Penelope, pardon my interruption. Back to you. You will just have to unmute yourself again. Holland: No. You're still on mute, Penelope. Constantikes: How about now? Holland: I can hear you. Maybe say a couple words and we will confirm that the -- they can hear you. Constantikes: Okay. Can you hear me okay? Johnson: It's much better for me. Thank you. Constantikes: Okay. You don't want me to start again. Kerner: They just missed the last little bit. Constantikes: Okay. He just missed the last little bit. Okay. So, I was just closing out the amenity package and talking about our active and passive open space combined is about 90 percent of the gross area of the site, so that's 1.36 acres of it. So, density I was just talking about the fact that our gross density and our net density both fall within the range for medium density residential. We have 3.71 units per acre gross, 7.46 units net. Now, I'm going to talk about the micropath. I will go over that again. We are going to do an addition of a micropath in both, both Lots 5 and 10. These are the two open space lots. We are going to stub a micropath to the south property line for future conductivity. We are going to stub a micropath for the passive open space in Lot 5. That micropath runs along the side of the stream that was put in that open area and, then, I was talking about the pathway connection across the south side of Lot 14. And based on the correspondence that we have gotten from Nampa-Meridian they -- they have pointed out that there is -- there is nothing in the master pathway plan between Nampa-Meridian and the City of Meridian regarding a pathway along that drain facility. So, we are happy to provide it. Nampa-Meridian will need to sign off on it and, then, also I have had this come up in pre -- previous applications where we have had pathways in areas that were not very visible and so we ran into problems with the Police Department feeling that there was insufficient visibility and that it's just something we need to take into consideration and we would like to emphasize again we are happy to put those micropaths in, especially the ones connected to the eastern area, but the caveat, of course, is will Nampa-Meridian be okay with it. That's the only caveat that we can think of that would be a problem. So, with the tree mitigation we gave you a preliminary retention plan in the updated landscape Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 79 of 92 plan and we included a sampling of the mature trees that are already on the site and we are going to update that in between Planning and Zoning and City Council, do a fuller mitigation plan for the retention of trees. So, at this point I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Kerner and he is going to talk about the turnaround question. Kerner: And before I talk about the turnaround one more -- one more bit of information on the -- on the passive open space that is the canal bank for that drain. Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District, they really don't want us to access it, so it's a -- it's kind of a -- it's a little tricky. We are going to clean it up. We are going to put native fescue there. But we are, essentially, inviting people to go where they are not -- not wanted by the Irrigation District. They don't want people walking in their -- in their -- their easement unless it's a city pathway maintained by -- by them; right? So, that's the tricky part of it. So, we are willing to put that -- that pathway along the south side a Lot 14 and if required, but it's sticky because we are essentially sending people where Nampa-Meridian has told us they don't want. So, moving on to the temporary turnaround, the punch line is we would like to leave it where it is. We had it planned here in the beginning, but that's where we would like it to remain. It was originally in the -- in the open space calculation when we had a lot less open space and we had some laptop amenities, like a basketball court and -- and there was a hopscotch court on there. The powers that be didn't -- didn't quite like those amenities on the blacktop and with our recent updates to the pre-plat we have had a decrease in density, we have had an increase in open space. We no longer count that turnaround in the open space calculation, we are above the minimum. No matter how you look at the open space. So, we no longer are accounting for that in the open space calculation. Putting them in the other side of the road doesn't make any sense to us, because it affects three buildable lots, whereas it works where we have it designed, that that's no problem. And we are not from that -- it's not robbing from our open space calculation. When the road is extended in the future and ACHD relinquishes control of that turnaround, at that point in time the HOA could do what we maybe originally had thought was they could put a basketball court on their hopscotch court, hopscotch and, then, tetherball or something like that or they can remove it and put landscaping in and that's just a bonus additional open space over -- over the top of what we needed. And so for those reasons we wanted to leave that turnaround where it is and that would strike out -- propose to strike out 2-E and 3-C. 3-C just talking about the landscaping going -- replacing where the -- where cul-de-sac was. Constantikes: With that I can recap and close this out and we will be happy to take questions. So, get our (unintelligible) is that a road connection to the north, which will lead -- it's actually a nice advantage. It will enable people to get to the Five Mile Creek pathway system that is part of the Meridian pathway system on the other side of the Aegean Subdivision. So, people can get through Aegean and get to the Five Mile pathway system without having to go out onto McDermott Road. We have a huge amenity package. We have six amenities at this point in time. The grassy area, water feature, linear open space, micro paths, picnic area with shade structure and tot lot and children's play structure and -- and, then, of course the end of the bonus of the passive open space along the drain that at least provides a visual amenity and we will provide enough in the tree mitigation shown on the landscape plan as it will be more comprehensive and follows Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 80 of 92 the preservation of the dense tree buffer that we already have existing on the south property line. We understand that the city wants the rear and side building faces to be articulated along McDermott the road. We do meet all the R-8 national standards. We meet the density standards. We will be in compliance with the conceptual elevations when we get to that phase of the project and with all the amenities that we are offering, it's going to be an awesome place to live, so -- so -- and finally to Derritt's comments about changes to the conditions of approval, we just would ask that any comments or any conditions with regard to the micropath connection in Lot 4 and the micropath connection in Lot 14, the drain area, being contingent upon them for Meridian allowing us to connect, because Derritt is correct, when you put a path people will go there and at this time Nampa-Meridian has not authorized us to invite people to go walk on that --- that drain easement. So, we are happy to put the pathway connections in, we just need to make sure that we are not inviting people to trespass where Nampa-Meridian will not want us to go and -- and with that we would be happy to answer questions. Holland: Thanks, Penelope. I think in the interest of time, if you are all right with it, we will have time for questions, but I think I'm going to open up the public testimony really quick, so we can get all the questions together and, then, deliberate with you a little bit afterwards. Constantikes: Absolutely. Holland: So, Madam Clerk, do we have anyone signed in to testify on this one? Weatherly: Madam Chair, we do not. Holland: Bill, is there a chance you could kind of summarize or read in what the public testimony was that you received after hours, since many of us probably didn't have a chance to see that. Parsons: Okay. Let me look and see what they have. Look in at the record here for you. Weatherly: I'm also happy to chime in. I have got it pulled up if you want me to just summarize it really quick. Parsons: That -- that would be great, Adrienne. Thank you. Weatherly: Okay. It was a lot of questions. Some of the questions that the citizen had was -- were will the project impact our wells on the properties in Apple Valley Sub. Will our water pressure be affected. Will the water table be affected. Will any of the construction create increased stress on our well pumps. If the project causes problems with the wells to Apple Valley Sub -- with the wells in Apple Valley Sub, how would it be remedied? How might the project affect that artesian well and irrigation system in that subdivision. Apple Valley residents have livestock and farming that's dependent on irrigation water. And, then, the citizen goes on to talk about the concerns regarding the -- the rural and livestock setting of Apple Valley Sub. There is approximately 16 homes Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 81 of 92 over there that are approximately four acres each and they have livestock on those properties. They are concerned about construction noise, high density housing, and the effect that it would have on their quality of life in a rural setting. They are concerned that residents who purchase homes in the area may start complaining about the livestock and the rural lifestyles and want to know how those concerns would be addressed or mitigated. And apparently this e-mail with questions was sent to Penelope and just hadn't -- I think Penelope hadn't had a chance to respond. The requester's name for the information is Sue Wag. Holland: Thanks, Adrienne. And there is nobody else that's raised their hand wanting to testify? Weatherly: Madam Chair, that is correct. Holland: Okay. Then back to Penelope and Derritt. If you guys would like to do any final closing comments and maybe address some of the concerns of that Apple Valley neighborhood and their wells and their water pressure. Kerner: Yeah. Penelope didn't get a chance to thank everybody for staying late and hearing us. Holland: And same to you, but thanks for sticking it out until the end. I know it's not fun when you are the last one on the agenda. Kerner: Very good. And so we are -- we are not doing septic and our wells on this -- we got potable water, city services. So, as far as the effect to -- to their wells and that's an easy one and so the answer is no and it should not affect them really at all. Additionally, on the irrigation we are the last parcel of -- we are downhill from Apple Valley being to the south and so we are the last one to take the irrigation water. A lot if it's their wastewater and it just -- it just does dump into the mix and so, really, we can use as much as we would like, but we are -- we are after them, so there is no effect on their -- their ability to add to their irrigation water and do their large lot practices. There is also an existing -- existing tree buffer that we are going to try to respect all -- really, all along the southern -- southern border. They were kind of buffering themselves from each other pretty well before we came along and there is also a 30 foot right of way strip on their property. It will be vacated someday when those lots develop the same as we weren't required to provide right of way along our southern border, but there is that right of away chunk there that people use as their own. A lot of those homes are quite a bit -- quite a ways -- we are saying 500 feet away from -- away from our southern boundary that is densely vegetated. So, we think that there is ample room. Yeah. I think that kind of summed up -- Holland: Okay. Any questions for the applicant? Seal: Madam Chair? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 82 of 92 Holland: I would just -- before Commissioner Seal goes, but I think this has come a long way since the last time we saw this, so I really appreciate your work and your reconfiguring, because it's a significantly different project and I also appreciate you getting rid of all the shared drive aisles, because you know that we didn't like those. So, thanks for your work on that. Commissioner Seal, go ahead. Seal: Just a quick question and Bill touched on it a little bit as far as the transition. The lots that are on the southern boundary, are those going to be limited to one story to help provide with that transition? Constantikes: Madam Chair? Holland: Go ahead, Penelope. And it's hard to hear you when you are far away from the microphone. Sorry. Constantikes: No. No. That's okay. Can you hear me better now? Holland: We can. Thank you. Constantikes: Okay. So, I will harken back to this density exhibit that I gave -- I presented to you at our first hearing and so if you start from the McDermott Road boundary and move eastward, there are two residences on the first lot, so we have a five to two ratio. Moving to the east, the next Apple Valley lot we have three to one. The third Apple Valley lot we have one to one and, then, we are in the Aegean Subdivision, the southern -- the southeastern portion. At that point we have four and a half to one, three to one, four to one, four to one and four to one. So, our -- our transition to the south, to the Apple Valley lots, is really better than Aegean in terms of that. Plus we have got this incredible dense buffer and I actually measured the distance between our south property line and the -- the first two Apple Valley lots. The first house is 462 feet from our south property line. So, it's going to be 472, 475 feet of separation between their home and any houses that are built in Lupine Cove. The next house to the east there it's 487 feet, I believe, from our south property line and at that point the next lot over we are one to one ratio. So, we are pretty comfortable that 450 to 500 feet of separation is really pretty generous and -- and we just feel confident that our -- our layout is -- given the dynamics of the site, the way it's laid out currently, we have been very respectful of the separation. I mean 450 feet is a lot of distance. That's -- that's the block length, so -- but anyhow, that -- Derritt's got something to offer. Kerner: And the question directly was single story versus dual story. We have never been asked that question, so we don't know. But I don't think we are opposed to anything about that, but I would say that I think the -- the trees there are taller than 30 feet. I don't think you can see a difference from the neighbors' perspective of -- if it was a single versus two stores. Seal: Okay. Yeah. That wasn't taken into consideration the trees that were on that southern boundary, so that makes sense. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 83 of 92 Kerner: It's quite thick pine trees. Constantikes: I think there is 92 of them between McDermott Road and the cul-de-sac on Lot 10. There is about 92 mature, tall pine trees there now and I think I isolated three or four that were diseased based on the landscape architect's tree mitigation with your retired -- now retired arborist. So, there are a couple of trees that need to be replaced, but for the most part that buffer is healthy and intact and we are planning on leaving it in place. Kerner: Yeah. The surveyor didn't even locate them all. It just looks like a cloud that's the tree canopy on the -- on the plat there. It's kind of getting a little washed out, because that is the scan that you see in front of you. Holland: Thank you both. Any other final questions for these guys? Grove: Madam Chair, I have a quick question if I could -- Holland: Go ahead, Commissioner Grove. Grove: So, this is an ignorance question on my part, because I have only been a part of one HOA in the houses that I have owned. But the staff had recommended moving the cul-de-sac to the buildable lots and you're opposed to that. In lieu of doing that, is there an mechanism that you would be able to put in like reserve, basically, to be able to build that out to whatever it is that you were alluding to in terms of a blacktop set up or expanding the open area as it is when that does go through to make it so that there is a plan in place when that does happen? Constantikes: Madam Chair? Holland: Go ahead. Constantikes: Thank you. So, the temporary turn around is inside Lot 10, which is a common lot. So that will preserve it as common space. I would love to see a basketball court go back in there again, at least a half court, so, you know, some of the possible outcomes in the future are the -- they take some of the blacktop out and put in turf and whatever other landscaping would be appropriate, plus -- plus -- and, then, just leave some of it in if the HOA decides -- the HOA decides they want to do that in the future they can preserve some of the blacktop and we have six amenities now, which is four more than we are required to have and we don't mind having more than that, but that is a pretty heavy amenity package for a seven acre subdivision, but it's part of the Lot 10. It's not going to be turned into something else, it will just be converted back to open space and whatever configuration the HOA determines is in their best interest. Grove: Thank you. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 84 of 92 Holland: Go ahead, Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Yeah. And I apologize, I have been having all kinds of internet issues here during this, so if I answer something that's already been talked about, please, forgive me. Question to the applicant. Have you -- I'm counting -- looking at the old plat versus the new plat. I'm counting eight lots across the southern border to the subdivision to the south, that whole -- whatever the name of that is and that hasn't changed. Is that -- is that correct? Are there still eight lots? Constantikes: Yeah, that -- oh, yeah, we did have more down there on the original plat. Bill had that up a little while ago. Kerner: That comparison. Is it possible to bring up on screen? Cassinelli: I'm looking at the two and I'm still counting -- I'm counting eight and eight. Kerner: They are the same. Constantikes: Yes. Cassinelli: Okay. Constantikes: I was looking at -- we have three Apple Valley lots adjacent to that same distance. So -- and that's where the density that I was talking about -- the five to one, then, we dropped to three to one and, then, we are at one to one. Cassinelli: Yeah. The other question I have is did you -- have you -- did you look at anything -- you have got a common lot on the north side. Did you -- did you ever look at shifting that to the south side where -- where you can get -- you know, take out a lot and -- and flipping that -- maybe reduce the number of lots on the south side. Kerner: I can answer this one. Constantikes: Okay. Kerner: So -- so we kind of need -- we need a storm water pond and it slopes to the north and so I almost forgot until you asked, but that is why that common lot was always meant to be on the north side. We were going to have to have a stormwater pond on the downhill side of everything. Cassinelli: Okay. Okay. And then -- Madam Chair, I have got one more question for the applicant. Holland: Okay. Last one. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 85 of 92 Cassinelli: And this is -- I'm sure this is an ACHD thing, but I'm looking -- the road is going to -- is stubbing to the south there. Personally, I don't ever see that -- the southern properties changing. It would require that whole subdivision, basically, to be bought out and redeveloped. That -- I'm assuming that's an ACHD requirement, having that road stub to the south like that. Constantikes: Madam Chair? Holland: Go ahead. Constantikes: There is two reasons for that. Yes, ACHD does require connectivity and so that stub through to the south, we -- we have been aware of that requirement since the beginning. And the other thing is we have -- we have a block length issue in that the -- from the knuckle south to the south property line. We exceeded the -- the Fire Department requirement. So, we have to have a turnaround in there until such time as the southern properties develop or redevelop. Cassinelli: My question -- Constantikes: Uh-huh. Cassinelli: My question -- go ahead. I'm sorry. My question so much isn't -- isn't the turnaround -- and I get that. It's the fact that that road goes to the south that I don't see that ever connecting up to anything. Constantikes: Madam Chair? Holland: Yeah. I was going to say, Commissioner Cassinelli, I think it's an ACHD requirement that we stub streets. It's also a city requirement to stub streets in case there is ever a point in time where something redevelops. Cassinelli: Yeah. And that's what -- that's what I assumed. That's what I was assuming there, so -- Constantikes: Thank you, Madam Chair. Seal: Madam Chair, one more quick question. Holland: Okay. Last one. Seal: Okay. Sorry. I just wanted to -- so, the existing property that -- that's there, that will be completely fenced; is that correct? Constantikes: That is correct. The boundary between the residential lots and the -- the drain easement -- I don't believe we can have a six foot no vision fence. I think we have to have a four foot solid fence and they can add two more feet, but it has to be lattice and Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 86 of 92 there are some safety considerations in fencing that, because, you know, it's not -- people being out there isn't authorized by the irrigation system and the second thing is it's a deep drain and so making sure that people are aware that they are -- you know, they are leaving someplace safe and getting to someplace that's maybe not quite so safe, that fencing becomes important. Seal: Okay. I just wanted to make sure the -- the existing property there was going to be fenced. That way there wasn't an impression that that was a continuation of their front or backyard, instead of a common area. Constantikes: Correct. Pitzer: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner Pitzer. Pitzer: Yes. So, going back to Bill Cassinelli -- Commissioner Cassinelli's question about the lots, it seems to me that these new lots are definitely narrower than what she was asking for, just because of the way the new configuration is or the new -- for the new open area. Is that narrower? I mean I know Lot 9 -- I'm looking at that the last slide and that's -- Constantikes: Madam Chair? Holland: Go ahead. Constantikes: Okay. Commissioner, the first four lots are comparable in size to our originally planned layout. The eastern four lots are -- they are bigger. So, we have kind of a -- a few of the same and, then, some that are bigger. Kerner: Deeper. Constantikes: They are deeper. And that was -- in order to eliminate the shared driveways we have had to -- we had to make those longer. We couldn't have the same kind of straight drive. Pitzer: Okay. All right. Thank you. McCarvel: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I move we close the public hearing for H-2019-0133. Seal: Second. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 87 of 92 Pitzer: Second. Holland: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. Holland: All right. Thanks, Derritt, and thanks, Penelope, we appreciate you guys hanging out with us and answering questions. I will just start in quick summary. I think they have done a phenomenal job of fixing a lot of the issues that we saw before. The biggest challenge I think that's left is -- they asked for two modifications, which was one relating to letting the micropath connections be contingent to the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District allowing them to hook it in and they would also like to keep the turnaround on the common lot side and I know staff would like to see it on the buildable lot. Staff's biggest concern from what I recall was -- if it was on the common lot side it's -- there is a chance that when that right of way is vacated at some point it would just be an asphalt pit there and no one would ever do anything with it. I think they -- Bill can certainly correct me if I'm wrong there, if you had other comments, but he's nodding, so -- or he's shaking his head. I'm not really sure what he's asking now. Parsons: You have captured it right. Yeah. We just don't want it to just be asphalt to nowhere or nothing. No -- no purpose I guess is the better way to say it. Holland: Thanks, Bill. So, with that any -- any comments anyone would like to make certainly welcome to -- or if -- I mean I feel fairly comfortable with -- I'm pretty agnostic on where the -- the common lot -- or the -- the turnaround sits, but it would be nice to have some sort of measure that maintained that if it became a vacated turnaround that they would do something with it. McCarvel: Madam Chair? Holland: Go ahead, Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I -- I'm in favor of this project as is and okay -- I think it's kind of smart to have that pathway maybe not be there and especially if the irrigation district throws a fit, I think -- or not throws fit, but makes recommendation that it shouldn't be there, because that -- if that is a deep canal there it's probably not wise to have people wandering around back there. It is night and day. I mean all those shared driveways and the old plan just -- I mean this is just so much more of a livable little area now and mean with the probability of it being a long time, if ever, that that develops to the south or needs to punch that road through, you know, that turnaround may very well be there forever and I think having those lots be bigger on that southeast side is probably just as much a good thing as trying to flip that turnaround. I think that turnaround -- it would be up to the homeowners to decide five, ten, 20, 40 years from now, if ever, if they want to have that common space be like a basketball court or something else or if they want to just pull it up and make it grass. I think that could be a long time. So, I -- I'm in favor of just leaving it as is. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 88 of 92 Holland: So, you're in favor of changing the staff report and making their -- their request. McCarvel: Yeah. I -- I'm okay with the applicant's view on that one and, then, as well with that little micropath shooting out there, I don't -- that may not be the safest place to be walking. And I think we leave that up to the irrigation district. Holland: I think I agree with both your comments. Any other Commissioners? Cassinelli: Madam Chair, this is Commissioner Cassinelli. Holland: Commissioner Cassinelli, go ahead. Cassinelli: All in all I think overall it's a -- it's -- it's night and day as far as getting rid of the shared driveway, so I think they did a great job on that. I'm fine with the turnaround where it's at and preserve those buildable lots. I -- it's a requirement, but I don't ever see that road punching through. My issue with this is the -- is the transition. There is no -- especially that first lot to the south. They get one, two, three, four, five and a half lots to their one and from there it's okay. It's that first -- it's those first five lots in there that are -- that are an issue and that's -- I have a problem with that. I would like to see, you know, maybe remove one more, make those -- or make them -- you know, pull out a couple make them bigger. They got -- they got room to go down on the density to match that up. I just -- it's that transition I have a problem with. Everything else I'm in favor of. I would echo Commissioner McCarvel's comments about the -- the paths. Again, it's -- if the irrigation district is opposed to them I'm opposed to them. I know they are big on safety. It's an issue. But my -- my biggest issue and what I -- I am not in support of it with the transition the way it is. I would like to see that change a little bit. Holland: Commissioner Cassinelli, one more comment. They -- they do have a lot of trees. That was one of their comments. Cassinelli: That's right. I was breaking in and out on a lot of that. I heard issues about trees, but -- Holland: Yeah. There is something about like a hundred pine trees that are there that are really tall and lush and that would be kind of a break in the transition. Cassinelli: Okay. Holland: I don't have concern of the transition lot size because of the trees that are there. They plan to keep a lot of them. I can't remember how many they said, but there was a significant number of trees in their survey. Cassinelli: Are the trees on the -- whose -- whose trees are they? Who they belong -- are they the -- are they on the property to the south or did they belong to this -- Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 89 of 92 Holland: I believe there are some on the property in the south, but some on their property line, too. But, Bill, can you correct me if I'm wrong? Parsons: Yeah. A lot of the trees are on their property. Cassinelli: Okay. Parsons: I think that's what the applicant testified to, that you -- you can't see it very well on this new plan there, but along that whole southern boundary that's what all those little dots are. That's what the applicant was trying to tell -- tell you. That's -- that's a lot of trees. That's why I said that I think they have done a lot better job trying to integrate these existing trees, because it's a very beautiful property. If you have ever driven out there you will see a lot -- a lot of nice trees on that -- on that property. Holland: Yeah. If you zoom in it kind of just looks like a dark line and those are all trees. Cassinelli: Okay. And, again, those are on the applicant's property? Holland: That's what they said. Cassinelli: Okay. Seal: Madam Chair? Holland: Go ahead, Commissioner Seal. Seal: Just on the -- the temporary turnaround -- and I can't find it anywhere, but I'm pretty sure I read that that has to be marked no parking. Is that correct, Bill? Okay. I just wanted to make sure that was the case and putting that on buildable lots where that's part of their driveway, I -- I don't know that we would get that or even if they put it as no parking people would probably park there just because it's back there and out of the way, which might be the case anyway, but that to me, having a kid and being a kid that likes to ride wheeled things, you know, having that little temporary turnaround there where that's paved and provides access for that for, you know, scooters and skateboards and our bikes and things like that, I actually like that being there and I agree this probably isn't going to develop -- the south of this probably isn't going to develop for a very very long time, long after we are gone and I would hate to mess it up for anybody else. That said, I just -- I don't think it will. I think that that's probably going to be something as time goes on that you might get more use than even playground equipment, just because -- I mean I have got a kid that's out on a scooter or a bike every single day, so he would love to have that across the street from us. I would love for him to have that across the street from us, I will put it that way. The pathway, that's definitely something we should leave up to the irrigation district. I mean they -- they elaborated on that very well, but they may not want people back there, so I mean I live on a ditch bank, it's fenced, I can't go back there, so -- I mean I do to do some stuff, but I -- you know, I have a way to do that that's conducive to the irrigation district's knowledge, so -- the rest of it -- this looks great Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 90 of 92 compared to, you know, where we were out with it before, so I'm -- I'm fully in support in it and I would support, you know, removing the conditions that were in there, you know, modifying it. Holland: Thanks, Commissioner Seal. The floor is open for anyone else that wants to make comments or motions, always in order. Seal: Madam Chair? Holland: Commissioner Seal. Seal: I will take a stab at a motion, if everybody is done. I mean this -- this will be a two parter here for me, so -- Parsons: Yeah. Commissioner Seal, if you want to strike some of the staff's conditions that would be conditioned 2-E and 3-C for the temporary turnaround. Seal: Okay. Thank you. So, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I'm going to recommend approval of the City Council of file number H-2019-0133 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 18th, 2020, with the following -- following modifications: That item 2-B be modified to add the language to be determined by an Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District -- Holland: You might clarify the 2-E, Commissioner Seal. E as in Edward. Seal: 2-B is the micropath. Holland: Oh. Did I have it wrong? Seal: Yeah. 2-B is -- 2-B was the micropath. So, that -- that's going to be determined by Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. If they don't want anybody going back there, then, no, we don't want a micropath. And, then, 3-B to be modified to allow the applicant to keep the emergency turnaround on the open common space. McCarvel: It's 3-C. Seal: Did I get that one wrong? McCarvel: Yeah. 3-C is the temporary turnaround. Seal: Sorry. 3-C. After Bill even told me, so sorry about that. Modify 3-C so that the temporary turnaround area can stay on Common Lot 10. Grove: It's also 2-E, isn't it? McCarvel: Yeah. 2-E and 3-C. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 91 of 92 Seal: You're right. So, modify 2-E -- 2-E and 3-C. So, the term temporary turnaround can remain on Common Lot 10. It's late. Sorry. Holland: Okay. We have got a motion. McCarvel: Second. Holland: Got a motion and a second. All those in favor? Any opposed? Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. G. Planning Division Checklist Changes by City of Meridian Planning Division Holland: All right. We have one last item that's on the agenda and I don't know, staff, how fast we can go through this, because I know it's 11:00 o'clock and a lot of us are losing steam here pretty quick. I know -- I read through the memo and I have full confidence that if the Planning Department needs to make some changes to the checklists to help with the digital process, since we have gone through COVID and you guys are making some improvements, I don't see a big concern with giving you the authority to do so, but certainly would allow you to make a few comments if you would like and we could hopefully move through this one somewhat quickly. Parsons: Yeah. I don't need to go and -- I agree with you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I won't belabor the evening any farther. It -- it really is just more procedural. The code requires us to come before you if there is any substantial changes to our process. There aren't really any changes to our process, it's just that we are going all electronic now and so a lot of the items that are currently on our checklist that we require in paper form, are now being required digitally. So, again, we are still requiring the same things, they are just in a different format in a different way and that's been rolled out to the customers or applicants already, received a lot of feedback and positive comments, so all I'm doing is following the code, following the procedures, just ask for your blessing to be flexible, so that I can continue to work with the development team as we continue to improve our online submittal process. So, tonight I'm just asking for your approval. Thank you. Holland: Thanks, Bill. So, I think all we need to do is have somebody make a motion, unless there is any discussion, that just allows the Planning Department to make checklist changes as needed to meet new requirements and new standards. McCarvel: So moved. Pitzer: Second. Holland: All right. I got a motion and a second. All those in favor. Any opposed? All right. Motion passes. Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission June 18, 2020 Page 92 of 92 MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. Holland: One more motion for the evening. McCarvel: Madam Chair? Parsons: Madam Chair? Madam Chair, before we leave, just want to let the -- Holland: Go ahead, Bill. Parsons: Sorry. I just want to just put a plug in that next month we will start transitioning back to the chambers, so this is probably our last virtual meeting, but you have the ability just communicate what your desire is to the legal and the city clerk's office and how you want to attend. It's my understanding at least one representative from the Commission has to be in the Chambers and of, course staff, will be there, too, presenting the products to you. But there will be a hybrid model moving forward. So, people will be allowed to still testify via Zoom or come in person, but we still have to follow the protocols. So, just giving you an FYI. Be prepared July 9th it's kumbaya. Holland: Thank you, Bill. I was supposed to mention that and I failed to do so. Parsons: Perfect. Thank you. Now -- now we will take your motion. McCarvel: I move we adjourn. Cassinelli: Second. Holland: Okay. I have a motion and a second. All those in favor? MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:02 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED _____________________________________ _____|_____|_____ RYAN FITZGERALD - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: _____________________________________ CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK