The URL can be used to link to this page

2020-12-03 Item 1. Meridian Planning and Zoninq Meeting December 3, 2020. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of December 3, 2020, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Ryan Fitzgerald. Members Present: Chairman Ryan Fitzgerald, Commissioner Lisa Holland, Commissioner Andrew Seal, Commissioner Rhonda McCarvel, Commissioner Nick Grove and Commissioner Steven Yearsley. Members Absent: Commissioner Bill Cassinelli. Others Present: Adrienne Weatherly, Andrea Pogue, Bill Parsons, Alan Tiefenbach, Joe Dodson and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE X Lisa Holland X Rhonda McCarvel X Andrew Seal X Nick Grove _X Steven Yearsley (6:02) Bill Cassinelli X Ryan Fitzgerald - Chairman Fitzgerald: At this time I would like to call to order the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning meeting for the date of December 3rd and let's start with roll call, Madam Clerk. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Fitzgerald: Thank you, Madam Clerk. First item on our agenda is the adoption of the agenda. We have one item on our agenda that we are going to be opening for the sole reason to postpone that or to continue it. So, the public hearing for TM Center, H-2020- 0074, will be opened only for the reason for continuance and we will let Bill and Joe get into that as we go forward. So, with that being said, can I get a motion to accept the agenda as presented? Seal: So moved. McCarvel: So moved. McCarvel: Second. Seal: Second. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 3,2020 6 Page 2 of 40 Fitzgerald: Thank you, ma'am. I have a motion and a second to accept the agenda for tonight's meeting as presented. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] 1. Approve Minutes of the November 19, 2020 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Fitzgerald: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. We do have one item on the agenda, which is the minutes for the November 19th, 2020, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Any reason that we need to pull that out or talk about minutes? If not, I could entertain a motion whenever you are ready. Holland: I move to approve the Consent Agenda. Seal: Second. McCarvel: Second. Fitzgerald: Motion and second to approve the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] Weatherly: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: So, thank you all for joining us this evening. At this time we will kind of start the hearing -- the public hearing process for the -- for the meeting. As you know we are partially in -- in person, partially on Zoom, so we appreciate your patience as we continue to the city's business during this time of COVID response. So, the staff will report their findings to us on each application. We will -- we will open each application and the staff will report their findings about how that application adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and Uniform Development Code with their recommendations. After the staff has made their presentation the applicant will come forward, either online or in person, to present their case for the approval of their application and respond to any staff comments. The applicant will have 15 minutes to make their presentation and, then, after the applicant has finished their presentation we will open the floor to public testimony. Hopefully you have an opportunity to sign up either in person or if you are on Zoom we will have you raise your hand and be recognized and the clerk will pull you over, so you can present your comments. Please make sure you understand there is only three minutes you have to provide public testimony. We don't have an opportunity for you to have a second round. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 3,2020 7 Page 3 of 40 So, if you are an individual who is representing an HOA this evening, we will -- or a larger group of people, we will give you some additional time to make the case for the HOA if you are representing that larger group. But, again, we only -- we will ask you as the general public to keep your comments to three minutes and we probably try to stick close to that, just so we can make sure everybody gets heard. So, after all public testimony has been taken we will allow the applicant to come back and kind of answer questions that may have come up during testimony and make a closing statement and, then, answer any questions from the Commission that they may have. So, with that -- again, on the Zoom, folks, as you hear the -- the item come up on the agenda that you want to hear, make sure you raise your hand. The raise your hand button is down at the bottom of the screen. Or if you are in person Commissioner Seal will give me the high sign if there is people there that want to testify on a certain application and we will kind of move from there. So, we appreciate your patience as we deal with in person and online and keep moving forward. Fitzgerald: So, with that -- Weatherly: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: -- let's move into the first item on the agenda, which is Item No. 8 -- Weatherly: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Oh. Yes, ma'am. Weatherly: I apologize for the interruption. I believe that Commissioner Yearsley has joined us under the name Boise Forsgren Associates. Mr. Yearsley, will you, please, confirm that's you? Yearsley: Yes. That's me. Sorry for coming late. Had computer problems. Fitzgerald: Hi, Commissioner Yearsley. How are you doing, sir? Yearsley: I'm doing well. Fitzgerald: Good to -- good to hear your voice. Any questions about what we have already dealt with so far? Yearsley: I came in just right at the agenda, so -- ACTION ITEMS 2. Public Hearing for TM Center (H-2020-0074) by SCS Brighton, et al., Located East of S. Ten Mile Rd. and South of W. Franklin Rd. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 3,2020 $ Page 4 of 40 A. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 83 buildable lots and 2 common lots on 132.42 acres of land in the R-40, TN-C, C-C and C- G zoning districts. Fitzgerald: Awesome. Okay. So, we will move on to the first item on the agenda, which is the continuation of TM Center, the file number H-2020-0074. They are requesting continuance to the date of January 21 st, 2021. Bill or Joe, do you want to kind of touch base on what -- what the scoop is with TM Center as there is an alignment of plats and PUD, if I remember correctly. Parsons: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. You are correct. The applicant is working with city staff in order to get an additional application caught up with their preliminary plat and we have targeted a date of January 21 st. So, we just ask for the Commission's agreeiance and acceptance of the continuance request this evening. Fitzgerald: Any questions for Bill or for the team? Can I get a motion to continue the file number H-2029-0074? Holland: Mr. Chair, I move we move -- or continue the application for public hearing of TM Center, H-2020-0074, to the date of January 21 st, 2021. Seal: Second. McCarvel: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to continue H-2020-0074 to the date of January 21 st, 2021. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. 3. Public Hearing for Conner Square (H-2020-0107) by Sarah Martz with SEM Consulting, Located at 557 W. Idaho Ave. and 528 W. Broadway Ave. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for 3 four-plex units to a total of 12 units in the R-15 zoning district. Fitzgerald: The next item on our agenda is the public hearing for Conner Square, File No. H-2020-0107, and I will turn it over to Alan for the staff report. Tiefenbach: Hopefully everybody can hear you -- hear me. Give me a thumbs up if you can hear me. Fitzgerald: Got you, Allen. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 3,2020 191 Page 5 of 40 Tiefenbach: All right. Good. Can you see my screen share? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good evening, Mr. Chair and Members of the Planning Commission. Hopefully you are having a good holiday and we will move into this. So, this is a proposal for a conditional use to allow three four-plexes. So, the property is approximately a half an acre. It is zoned -- it's a -- about a half acre of land. Zoned R-15, located at two different properties, 557 West Idaho Avenue and 528 West Broadway Avenue. The property is surrounded by R-4 to the north. On the south it's zoned I-L. To the east it's zoned R-15. And to the west it's zoned R-15. This property has two different Comprehensive Plan land use recommendations. To the south it's recommended for a medium density residential, which is lower density. To the north it's recommended for higher density residential. A couple of pictures of the site. The top left corner, that is looking down Broadway and the subject property is what you see there with the porta-potty sitting there, open -- there was two existing houses that were demolished. So, now it's an open and vacant piece of property. On the -- the picture on the right there you are looking at Idaho Boulevard -- or, sorry, Idaho Avenue. That's looking at it just to kind of show you -- if you look there you can see some existing four-plexes, which are very comparable to what's being built. The same thing looking down at the bottom of the picture, that's also Idaho. This is just to give you an idea of the diversity of the housing. Triplexes. Four-plexes. Multi-family. As well as single family residential. So, this is a conditional use. This is to allow, as I said, three four-plexes on about a half acre of land. The property recently contained the two houses. Those were constructed in the 1950s and those have been removed. The subject property is one of the few properties in this area which is vacant and this would be considered an in-fill project. From the site plan you can see there there are three different building footprints that are being proposed. This area has single family attached and detached, duplex, triplex and four-plexes. So, again, the whole gamut of housing also includes large -- larger multi-family complexes. Much of the housing in this area is over 50 years old, although there has been a recent turnaround with some of these being newer triplexes and four-plexes, very similar to what the applicant is proposing. As I mentioned, the applicant proposes three buildings with four units each. Two buildings are proposed on 557 West Idaho. That's what you see there on the left. That's the longer lot. One of these buildings is proposed at 528 West Broadway. That's what you see down there I guess at about 4:00 o'clock. The parking for this project will occur into the two parking lots at the south. So, you can see those two lots. That's the access to the site. So, driving access will not occur to the north, it's only going to occur to the south from Broadway into those two lots. This project provides 24 parking spaces. Twelve of these parking spaces are in covered carports. The -- the Unified Development Code would -- would require 20 parking spaces. So, there are four parking spaces over what they would be required. Also there is on-street parking that exists along both sides of West Avenue -- West Idaho Avenue, as well as East Broadway Avenue. Ada County Highway District did review this project and in a letter dated November 24th noted that they supported this project as proposed. Give you a copy of the landscaping plan here. It does appear that the landscaping and the landscaping requirements around these building foundations would be satisfied. So, that it does meet all of the landscape requirements of the code. Also a landscape strip of -- of at least five feet is provided along West Broadway, which is down here, and there is also a landscape -- landscape strip of ten feet that's proposed along West Idaho, which is up here. It's important to note Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 3,2020 Flo] Page 6 of 40 that there is not a landscape buffer requirement in this zone district. These are local streets. However, there is a minimum density of one evergreen shrub per three linear feet of building foundation around the buildings, which is what you can see here. We are not sure that this is met. One of our -- one of our recommendations for our conditional approval is that the landscape plan would be submitted with a certificate of zoning compliance that demonstrates that the minimum landscape density along these foundations is met. The UDC requires a minimum of 80 square feet of private open space per unit and this could be like patios or porches or those kinds of things, but this would amount to 3,000 square feet. The applicant has responded that these -- this is met. Although looking at these building plans I could not really determine that. So, we are recommending that an exhibit be presented at the time of CZC that demonstrates those private open space requirements are met. The landscape plan indicates almost 5,000 square feet of qualified open space. The minimum requirement is 3,000 square feet. The central area, which is what you see here, this is the central park area. This scales to at least 2,500 square feet and there are several other open spaces, such as this one down here, that are at least 20 by 20. That's the minimum requirements in order for this to be considered qualified open space. Staff is confident that the common open space requirement is met, although I can't give you exact numbers. Two amenities are required with this project. The applicant proposes a community garden within that central open space, which, hopefully, you can see my cursor there. That is where the community garden is. They also are providing a bicycle storage. Eight by ten. I know it's a little blurry, but the -- the enclosed bicycle storage is what you see here. Building elevations that have been submitted have architecture that's similar to the surrounding four-plexes to the west and to the east. If you recall on the pictures that I gave you, just to kind of give you a comparison of what is existing in the neighborhood as it is. The elevations that -- they would meet the requirements of the architectural standard manual and they are very similar to the architectural elevations of the other surrounding four-plexes. However, one thing I want to mention is that the -- there is numerous blocks of nearby duplexes and four-plexes in this neighborhood and they all utilize this same single color with no accent color -- colors. Most of them are kind of a beige color and there is no accent colors, just blocks of these beige buildings basically. The color schemes that you see here were submitted by the applicant and they reflect -- reflect at least three different colors on each of these elevations. Staff recommends to reduce the visual monotony and provide separation between projects one of the conditions is that all building elevations display a color scheme of at least two fill materials and one accent color. That would be consistent with what you are seeing here. We would just want to make sure that as shown here that those buildings would have some kind of a more interesting color palette than what you see existing there now. There are two points of clarification that staff would like to address. The first is in the staff report it mentions that there is a hundred year floodplain crossing the northern tip of the property. That's actually a 500 year floodplain. The applicant provided that clarification to me, so thank you. The other issue is in regards to our recommendation regarding trash enclosures and let me back up to the landscape plan here. The UDC states that trash dumpster should be incorporated into the overall design of buildings and landscaping, so that the visual and acoustic impacts of these functions are fully contained and out of view from adjacent properties. There is a trash enclosure that is right here shown on Idaho, but there is another trash enclosure that is Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 3,2020 Fill Page 7 of 40 shown down here on West Broadway. Staff was trying to work with the applicant to see if these trash enclosures could be moved. We weren't super thrilled about the --the street elevation of these projects having a trash enclosure sitting directly on the street. We had a condition in our staff report that these dumpsters be relocated internally to the development. One of our recommendations -- this -- this ten foot setback here, it was actually--or sorry. This 20 foot setback here actually wasn't necessary. They didn't have to provide this. They also didn't have to provide this sidewalk, because there is already a sidewalk here. We had recommended that they push this whole thing ten feet, so that they could locate those trash enclosures internally in here to the parking lot. The -- the -- the applicant actually worked diligently towards seeing if they could design this. They came back to us and told us there was a few different issues with this. The first one is that they were going to lose quite a bit of open space over here and down in here. When they reached out to Republic Trash, Republic Trash did not actually like that idea. They thought it would be too difficult to get their trucks in there to empty the trash bins. They actually would prefer that the trash enclosures be where are being shown on the plan as it is now. We also reached out to ACHD. They had no issues with that. But with that staff agrees with the applicant that probably the design as it is right now is the best versus what they would have to do otherwise. We are recommending that the Planning Commission strike that condition. That would be condition three on the staff report. That would be the one that recommends the trash enclosures be located internally. So, again, we recommend that you strike that condition. The one thing I just wanted to mention sort of an editorial is where we started with this project was a very different design. The original project looked quite different than this. Staff told the applicant we did not recommend that design, but we had already scheduled this for hearing and we had to continue this, so that the applicant could rework this. The applicant spent a significant amount of time, design, and money to redesign this project to be closer to what staff recommended and has done everything that staff has asked and some. So, we wanted to -- so, other than the trash enclosures, which really were not a feasible solution, staff did want to point out that the applicant has been very very good with working with us to do whatever they could to meet all of our recommendations. With that staff recommends approval with conditions as listed in the staff report, again, with the addition that condition three regarding the trash enclosures be stricken. And with that I would entertain any questions, Commissioners. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Alan. We appreciate it. Are there any questions for staff at this time? Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Go right ahead, Commissioner Seal. Seal: Inside of the -- inside of the information -- the posted information there is actually a trash enclosure revision that does show that the trashing enclosures -- well, it looks like there is only one that's internal. Are we -- that's -- is that negated, basically, or were they -- Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 3,2020 F12 Page 8 of 40 Tiefenbach: Yes, sir. Yeah. Maybe I should have been a little -- you know, we forwarded those things on to the city clerk and maybe I should have been a little more clear to clarify that for you. That was the proposed -- that was their redesign trying to work on that and that's what they gave to us and gave to Republic, which Republic said, no, that's really not a good option. So, we are back -- Seal: Okay. Tiefenbach: -- -- right now is what you see right now on the -- on the screen. Seal: Okay. Thank you. Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Just to confirm, the neighboring property that's in that -- that white block there, that missing square in the L, is that a -- what type of building is that sitting there? Is that like a tri-level? Is that apartments there? Tiefenbach: Yeah. That -- let me see if I could see the actual picture. I can't remember if it's a quad or it's -- this -- this is the property here. It's either a quad or an apartment building. I'm sorry, I can't tell you exactly, but it is multi-family. Holland: Okay. Perfect. That's what I wanted to confirm. Thank you. Tiefenbach: There is a -- there is an existing fence there as well. So, yeah, it's not single family residential. I can't remember if it's a -- if it's a four-plex or an apartment building. Holland: Okay. Thanks, Alan. Fitzgerald: Any additional questions at this time? Okay. Would the applicant like to join us? Commissioner Seal, is he in person or -- is he in person or are they on Zoom? Martz: On Zoom. Seal: They are on Zoom. Fitzgerald: Oh. Hi, Sarah. How are you? Martz: I'm well. How are you? Fitzgerald: I'm good. Welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission this evening. Martz: Thank you. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 3,2020 F13 Page 9 of 40 Fitzgerald: Please state your name and your address and the floor is yours, ma'am. Martz: Sure. Sara Martz. SEM Consulting. 3117 West Smith, Boise. 83703. I'm here tonight representing the owners of the property. I first wanted to thank Planning staff, specifically Alan, for all of their hard work on this application and for tonight's presentation. The owners are in agreement with all the commenting agencies and conditions of approval proposed by staff with one exception. We would respectfully request that the trash enclosures remain as initially shown and the condition of approval requiring the central location be removed per staff's recommendation. With that I just stand for any questions. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Sarah. Are there any questions for the applicant at this point? Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal. Seal: One of the things that was discussed was extending the sidewalk up to Idaho, believe, and that's shown in the revision where you revised it to show the trash enclosures internally, but it's not on the original. Is that -- is that something that you are going to accommodate is having the -- basically having the sidewalks come up and through the development up into Idaho? Martz: Yes, sir. Yes. We will revise the -- the site plan to reflect that accordingly. Seal: Okay. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Additional questions for Ms. Martz? Sarah, hang with us for a little bit. We will let you answer any questions and close in a minute. We will see if there is any public testimony and get back to you. Madam Clerk, are there anyone who would like to testify on this application, either in person or online? Weatherly: Mr. Chair, we have several people signed in, several of which indicated a wish to testify, starting with David -- I can't read the last name. David Stem. Please come to the podium. Please state your name and address for the record. Stem: Greetings. My name is David Stem. Me and my wife live at 621 West Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. We are right across the street. We are a little bit west and on the south side of the street. We have grave concerns for the parking design and the way they have put all the parking on the south. When we were originally presented this question inside of one of the old houses, they had mentioned the fact that the parking would be in the center and now it's all on our side. As we speak right now I have grave grave concerns for where people are going to park their cars, because there is no parking on the south side on the street that I'm aware of. Everyone's got gravel out to the road. Secondly, we have had a lot of speeding. It's uncontrolled down there. As a matter of fact, a couple of years back a young lady who was driving down Broadway, she was Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 3,2020 F14] Page 10 of 40 headed west, totaled the car on a rock at the end of the road. I look at the things that this does -- a lot of it is because we added a lot of apartments at the -- at the west end of Broadway and these people come flying down and they throw things out -- trash is always a question, because I'm picking up trash in front of my house all the time. McDonald's things. A little bit of Jack-in-the-Box. You can name it what day of the week it is. Thirdly, I have grave concerns for their trash can positioning. Because in my humble opinion, if we have problems parking and they say, oh, we are going to park on the street and they are concerned about trying to get it out of there, where is that dump truck going to come and get? There is only so much room that they can empty that with and these are going to be those big trash containers, the big batch bins. There is no way to do that. I mean I could see them trying to pull in, but if he puts it on the side as they are proposing, is it going to be facing in the parking lot where the cars are or is it going to be facing south where we come over there and how do we get it out of there without damaging something else? I have had one of my cars ran into. Never heard anything of it. I'm pretty sure it was somebody that pulled up to one of the apartments across the street where there is a three-plex. Just for the record that's just west of where they are proposing to do this on the Broadway side. Never heard anything of it, just fixed the dent. But I'm just saying I could see a huge problem and a big problem with this. It's not been thought through. As much as they want to yeah yeah this through, it's not been thought through and if you don't live down there you wouldn't know what I'm talking about, but I see it all the time and I pick up the trash almost every day. Thank you for your time. Fitzgerald: Thank you, sir. We appreciate it. Weatherly: Mr. Chair, next we have Danielle Stem. Okay. Next will be -- is it Sean Pierre Buckner. Oh. Okay. Same with Chanel, then, I'm guessing? Okay. They signed up on the other form. My apologies, Mr. Chair. Is that Tennell or Terrell? Terrell. My apologies. Terrell Barrett. Jarrett. Sorry about that. Jarrett: My name is Terrell Jarrett. I live at 624 West Broadway Avenue, Meridian. I live across the street from the Stem family. We have lived in that house since '63. We were the last house on the north side of Broadway. We have a lot of issues with speeders and people throwing garbage out of their cars. They are talking 12 units. It's going to be 24 cars -- 24 additional cars, because when you think about it, you know, you got two cars per unit and, then, we have a traffic issue already and ACHD doesn't want to come down and put more 25 mile an hour speed limit signs, because there is only one and that's over here across the street at the Legion Hall by the alley. There is nothing coming up from the west side. No -- no speed limit signs. No nothing. You got Headstart down there and they got buses and you got little kids and you got parents. You got these people that are brainless dead that don't give a damn about the speed limit. They don't even take the time to stop sometimes at 3rd Street, they just blow through the intersection. What does it take to get speed bumps put in or speed control mounds. I have been home and retired and living in the house since 2015. 1 have been up to the City of Meridian. I have signed a piece of paper to get on a list to have trailer cameras put up for showing the speed limit. Nothing has ever came of it. I don't know what's going on with the City of Meridiam. But that's all I got to say. Thank you. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 3,2020 F15] Page 11 of 40 Fitzgerald: Thank you, sir. We appreciate your input this evening. Madam Clerk, is there additional folks or anyone online that would like to testify on this application? Weatherly: Mr. Chair, that's all that's signed in, but I understand there is another person that would like to testify. Go ahead and come forward. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Commissioner Seal. Mortensen: Hello. My name is Kent Mortensen. I own 511 , 521, and 607 Broadway across the street from the proposed building site and we have kind of the same dilemma. It's really high traffic speed coming through to -- to miss Pine and we had a kid out there with a speed gun one day and he was trying to clock people in, but we have got people going as high as 50, 56 miles an hour through to Pine -- or from Meridian Road to the apartment complex that's down at the other end. So, our concern is more traffic. We already produce traffic. We are a business, plus a home, and so I would like to see some sort of proposal that -- you know, divert some of the traffic towards Idaho where there is more stop signs, more traffic signs in some way. When our kids were growing up there there was no way to play out on that street. It's just way too fast. I have had two dogs hit out there as well throughout the --we have been there since 2000 and it's just more there. I'm an advocate for -- for the building. I would just like to see how they are going to approach the --the additional cars with the housing that's there. There are several people who have been there for a really long time and there is businesses as well. So, I'm just a little concerned about the increase of traffic that it's going to bring and transient traffic as well. We have quite a bit of movement on that street and there is quite a bit of police activity on that street already and so we just want to -- if there is going to be temporary people there, we just want to make sure that it's -- there is some proposal of how they are going to be monitored and I had to put in a fire extinguisher across -- or a fire hydrant across the street. I'm wondering if that's going to be included as part of theirs or how they are doing that as well, because of the fire risk. There is an elderly woman that's right next door to them that's on home health care right now and I'm just worried how the construction process -- or how she is going to be, you know, affected as well during the process if there is going to be some dust containment, if there is going to be something to kind of control in and out of there and the mud and everything that will seem to come along with -- with the construction. And so I am for it as long as it's -- because it's already an apartment area, but I would like to see at least some of the parking go to Idaho or in some way -- I'm also concerned about the trash enclosures. In some way trying to figure out that thoroughfare that goes through there is -- it's really a bypass right there through for Pine. That's all I have. Fitzgerald: Thank you, sir. We appreciate it. Commissioner Seal, is there anyone else who would like to testify on this application in the chambers? Seal: No one in chambers. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 3,2020 F16 Page 12 of 40 Fitzgerald: And if there is anyone online who would like to testify on this application, please, raise your hand on Zoom. I will wait for a second. Okay. Ms. Martz, would you like to close? Martz: Yes, sir. Thank you. So, to try to address some of the concerns that we heard this evening -- we did initially have some parking off of Idaho and some parking off of Broadway. That's initially how this site was -- was kind of laid out. However, in working with staff we weren't able to meet a majority of the conditions in the code and so we actually had redesigned this to actually put the parking all off of Broadway in order to accommodate more open space and buffer zones and things of that nature. In regards to the traffic, ACHD has commented they are projecting an additional 70 vehicle trips per day. However, that is based off the ITD's latest manual and doesn't necessarily take into consideration the -- the surrounding areas and the proximity to the city core. We do feel that a lot of these individuals would hopefully be walking or riding their bikes to downtown to get their essentials once they get homes. Nine of these units are one bedrooms, with the other three being two bedrooms. Additionally, as far as speeding we can work with Ada County Highway District and see if we can put up a speed limit sign. We are improving Broadway, putting in curb, gutter, and extending the asphalt there and so we can work with them to see if we can put a speed limit sign up as well in that general location. With that I just respectfully request approval of the project and stand for any other questions. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Sarah. Are there questions for the applicant? Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal. Seal: It's of the applicant and probably staff, too. Is there a reason that everything was pushed to Broadway instead of Idaho? As far as the traffic that is. Or the parking I should say. Tiefenbach: Would you want staff to answer that or would you like -- Seal: If it was a recommendation by staff that would be -- that would be appropriate I think. Tiefenbach: Where we see the -- the original drawing -- this is Alan Tiefenbach sitting right in. The original drawing that we saw with the pre-app had a -- one parking lot off of Idaho and two parking lots off of Broadway and the open space, if I recall, was towards the south of the proposal. We didn't tell them actually where to relocate their parking. Our concern was that we didn't think that the open space was very accessible. We recommended that they orient this so that the open space was central to the buildings. The -- what the applicant brought back to us removed the parking lot off Idaho, kept the two parking lots on Broadway, but slightly enlarged. I guess that's probably the best answer. There was -- we did not require them to cut off the access off of Idaho. That Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 3,2020 F17 Page 13 of 40 was what came with the second design. But, no, we did not have any concerns with it. But our opinion is that they are already exceeding the parking that they are needing to meet and there is -- if there needs to be guest parking, which wouldn't be counted, would be along the street. But they are actually exceeding by four the required parking. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seals, do you have follow up there, or are you good? Seal: I guess I would ask the same thing of the applicant, then, as to the -- it seems like Idaho is a little bit more improved street. I wouldn't call it better necessarily, but is there some reasoning behind why everything was pushed to Broadway instead of pushed to Idaho as far as the parking lot? Martz: Yeah. So, as Alan had kind of mentioned, they were -- we were kind of working with the site to see if we could get that open space to be larger and more centrally local -- or localized in the center. In doing that we -- we were -- the only way we could make that work was to push the parking to Broadway. We also had some setback issues with the carports from the side yard setbacks -- or the side setbacks that we weren't able to accommodate off of Idaho and so those were the main reasons that we had pushed all of the parking onto Broadway. Seal: Okay. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Any additional questions for the applicant at this time? Or staff? Yearsley: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: Just really quickly to the applicant. You know, it looks like there is a lot of mature trees on your property. Are they going to have to be removed to build this facility or are they mitigated? How is that happening? Martz: We are trying to save as many of them as possible. We will work with the arborist and mitigate if we have to remove some of them. There are some along the eastern portion. There is a large tree there that we are saving and, then, another one on the western portion. The one along Broadway will have to be removed. Yearsley: Okay. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Any final questions for the applicant? Ms. Martz, we appreciate you being here. Thank you very much. Martz: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Can I get a motion to close the public hearing? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 3,2020 F18 Page 14 of 40 Weatherly: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Madam Clerk, go right ahead. Weatherly: Pardon me. Pardon me. We have a citizen raising their hand. If you have had a chance to -- it looks like it's the same gentleman that would like to speak again. So, I will leave it to the Commission to decide. Fitzgerald: You only -- that's -- we only give one opportunity. That's the -- and that's why I talked about that early on. We give you one shot and, I apologize, but we are going to stick to that this evening. So, can I get a motion to close public hearing? Yearsley: So moved. Seal: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to close public hearing on file number H-2020- 0107. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. Fitzgerald: Anyone want to lead off? Yearsley: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: You know, the project looks good. I -- I kind of -- I like the style of the apartments. They are not the standard look. Give them a little bit more entrance off their own side. I -- I understand the plight of the neighbors, but it's hard to put those requirements to slow down traffic on the applicant when, you know, that's more of an enforcement problem I feel than a development problem, you know, because the speeding was there before and not during the design. The one gentleman that talked about the mud and tracking and stuff like that, I know that they have to meet certain requirements to -- for their site to -- for their design, so I'm not too concerned, I'm sure they will do a fairly decent job controlling their -- their waste and their site as best as possible. So, I don't quite know what to tell the public on how to fix the speeding. It sounds like it's a bigger problem than this applicant can solve, besides just trying to help voice their concerns to the City of Meridian police force and ACHD. So, with that I -- I think it's a good project. It looks good and I -- I would recommend approval. Fitzgerald: Additional comments? Commissioner Grove, go right ahead. Grove: Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, I don't live too far away and I'm down in this area a bit. This stretch -- especially on Broadway is a really interesting stretch, because it's not -- there is no cross-streets to it from anywhere and so there is a long stretch of Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 3,2020 Fig] Page 15 of 40 uninterrupted. So, I totally understand what the public has said tonight with regards to not having traffic slow down at all. But as -- as it pertains to the application, I -- I like the -- the in-fill. Downtown needs more residential options and I think this is a good way to accomplish that. That -- that area also has a lot of hidden -- almost like multi-family units in it. When I was walking down there about a year ago that I didn't really realize were multi-family. So, it's a -- a very diverse area and adding in additional character through -- through this development seems like a good use of that space. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland, go right ahead, ma'am. Holland: Thanks, Mr. Chair. I would echo some of Commissioner Yearsley's comments. It's -- it's unfortunate that there are traffic issues and there is a lot of places in the city there are traffic challenges, but it does seem more like an enforcement issue, not a development issue, because it's not this one development that's going to cause traffic issues, it's already an issue with people speeding. I did appreciate the applicant's willingness to work with ACHD and we can certainly condition that they work with ACHD to see if they could put up an additional speed limit sign or find some additional traffic calming measures that they could implement there and perhaps that's a win-win solution to try and help with some of that mitigation. As far as the way that they laid out the site, I actually like that they put the parking lot where they did, because I think if they put it up at the top it would have been narrower and so probably cause even more sight line issues getting in and out of it. I appreciate that they have got a community garden and bike racks. I think bike racks are a great amenity for this project with its proximity to downtown. Hopefully that does inspire people to come into the downtown more often. I know I used to ride my bike a lot more when I lived closer to the downtown and I wish I lived close to the downtown still. But I think overall it's a good in-fill project. I like the design. I like that they have got some variation to the way that it looks, so it's not just another cookie cutter four-plex project. So, I appreciate their flexibility in working with staff. Fitzgerald: And I -- I echo almost all of your comments. I think that -- and Commissioner Grove's comments about diverse area. I think it's -- I'm okay with the fact that we are putting the parking lot where it is, mostly because of the open space, the community garden, but also because we look at Idaho, there is a ton of multi-family that opens up onto that road specifically and so I -- it's -- and we are also putting curb and gutter and sidewalk on this property where it is not now and so we are trying to add to the amenities of that road, which will, hopefully, provide some safety for the folks that are there. I know it's not -- it's not taken all the way down, but it will hopefully be done as we go forward with other redevelopment. But there is at least some additional sidewalk along this frontage. So, I think that's a positive. But I do agree, I think there is -- it's -- it's a diverse area. I think-- and it has industrial to the south of it, which isn't conducive to other things. So, I think it -- it matches well with what's around it and with industrial use to the south. So, I -- I think it makes sense for where it is and I really appreciate the applicant and the staff working to find that open space and to put some new -- additional amenities in there. So, kudos to that. I understand the challenges of the public as well. I think to Commissioner Holland's points -- and we could ask that they work with ACHD on -- but -- or Meridian Police Department on finding some ways to -- whether it is getting a trailer Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 3,2020 F20] Page 16 of 40 out there with speed limit or discussing the idea of tabletops -- I know that's not fun on those main roads, but something that would help calm that down a little bit. Other comments? Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: Yeah. Mr. Chair. Yeah. Echo -- I don't know that I have every -- anything new to add. I think everything's been well said and very much appreciate Commissioner Grove's comments. Always like hearing from somebody who lives close and can offer a perspective. Yeah. I think the -- the appearance of what they have done and the open space and additional parking I think will be good on --for this particular project and adding this in that area. But, yeah, I would encourage maybe more to the enforcement issues of what's already there. Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal, go right ahead, sir. Seal: Nothing further to add. I think we have covered it all. Commissioner Holland's -- I agree that we should definitely provision something in here to have the applicant work with ACHD and possibly Meridian Police Department for some -- you know, at least extra speed limit signs, as well as some visibility to the issue that exists with -- down there, so there could possibly be some more enforcement coming from the Meridian Police Department. I do like the fact that they rolled back the -- the changes that were submitted as far as the trash enclosures, because they -- I agree it would be -- with the parking and everything that's in there it's going to be, you know, a nightmare to get trash trucks in and out of there and where they have got them placed currently is going to be a little bit easier to make that happen for everybody. All that said, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council a file number H-2020- 0107 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 3rd, 2020, with the following modifications: That condition three concerning trash enclosures being located internally be struck and that the applicant work with ACHD and the Meridian Police Department to install speed limit signs and possibly traffic mitigation. Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Yeah. Commissioner Holland, just -- Commissioner Seal, you are approving, you are not recommending, so -- making sure -- Holland: It's a conditional use permit. Fitzgerald: Yeah. Holland: So, if you amend your motion to approve the conditional use permit I will second. Seal: Amended. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 3,2020 F21 Page 17 of 40 Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to approve file number H-2020-0107. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Your motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. Fitzgerald: Ms. Martz, thank you. Good luck in the neighborhood. We appreciate you here and we heard your comments. Definitely we will have the applicant work with our city officials and, hopefully, with ACHD to get some -- hopefully calming down there for you all. So, thank you for being here this evening. 4. Public Hearing for Compass Pointe Subdivision (H-2020-0100) by A- Team Land Consultants, Located at the Southwest Corner of E. Victory Rd. and S. Locust Grove Rd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 7.69 acres of land with a request for the R-15 zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 48 residential building lots and 9 common lots on approximately 4.69 acres of land in the R-15 zoning district. C. Request: A Planned Unit Development for the purpose of reducing the rear setback of the R-15 zoning district for a portion of the development due to site constraints. Fitzgerald: Moving on to the last item on our agenda is a public hearing for Compass Pointe Subdivision, file number H-2020-0100, and let's start with a staff report. I will turn it over to you, Joe. Maybe. Joe is going incognito. He is putting things on the screen, but not telling us what he's doing. Dodson: Sorry. Mr. Chair, I was trying to figure out my -- I -- this is awesome. Okay. Fitzgerald: You're good. Go right ahead when you are ready. Dodson: All right. Let me -- okay. Now I know why Alan did it the way he did it. Because I can't see my outline otherwise. All right. I apologize for the not presentation view. Not sure why it's not letting me do that. But as noted this is our last item on the agenda. It is for Compass Pointe Subdivision. H-2020-0100. The applications before you are for annexation and zoning, preliminary plat, PUD, and, then, secondarily, private streets and alternative compliance, which are handled at the staff level. The site consists of 7.69 acres of land, currently zoned RUT, and -- you know what -- sorry. I just want to make sure -- can you guys see my presentation still? Fitzgerald: Yes. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 3,2020 F22 Page 18 of 40 Dodson: Okay. Just want to make sure. Seven point six nine acres of land currently zoned RUT. It's specifically located at 3247 South Locust Grove, which is the southwest corner of the Victory and Locust Grove intersection as noted on these plans here. As you can see in the aerial much of the surrounding development -- or area is already developed. All of the residential abutting the property is R-8 zoning, minus the pocket of R-4 here, which is actually a water -- not tower, but a water basin for the city. To the north is county RUT as well, but the --there is a future application for that you guys will probably hear later on this month. That will be low density residential. So, less density than this. I guess we will get into the weeds here. All right. Like I said, it is for annexation and zoning of 7.69 acres of land, with a request for the R-15 zoning district. A preliminary plat consisting of 48 residential building lots and nine common lots on approximately 4.69 acres. The planned unit development as proposed now is to reduce the rear setback of the R-15 zoning district for a portion of the -- of the development. It is proposed with private streets and there is an alternative compliance request to connect the private street directly to an arterial. The proposed use is attached single family in the form of townhomes and they are triplexes in 45 of the 48 units. The gross density of 6.24 dwelling units per acre and a net density of 13.4 dwelling units per acre. In most cases I do not mention the net density, but due to the site constraints of the property I find it appropriate to mention that tonight. The density discussion immediately leads to different discussion points without -- within the proposed project. First of all, the applicant is requesting a planned unit development for this project and there are certain purpose statements and standards that must be met. The current request incorporates the use of private streets instead of public as well -- as well as a reduction in the rear yard setback for the central units as noted. Both of these as proposed originally do not meet the PUD requirements in staff's opinion. However, as discussed in the staff report, staff finds revising a few items brings the project into compliance and removes the need for the reduced setbacks for a majority of the units that they are requesting it for. First, the entire western property boundary of the site is made up of the Ten Mile Creek. So, north is to the right for reference here. The applicant is choosing to leave his waterway in its natural state to preserve its natural beauty and also meet the city code requirements to protect this creek. It's one of those listed in our code that should be protected and remain natural. Secondly, there is a purpose statement of granting a desire to have PUDs be constructed at a density of eight dwelling units per acre or more that also involves an innovative site design and multiple housing types. The applicant has proposed 48 units as noted and 45 of them are garage dominated with one two unit attached product, which is in the south -- these two here in the south of the site. Those are tandem garages. It's not a drive through. It kind of looks odd, but those are just a duplex, basically, with tandem garages. And, then, one detached single family structure here. The site overall as currently seen and proposed here lacks innovation as proposed. To help the project meet the purpose statement two things should be done. Minimally staff finds the creek easement, which, again, is a hundred foot easement entirely on this property, it should be -- it's going to be nonbuildable no matter what and should be removed from the density calculation in regard to the PUD requirement. Once this area is removed the dense -- density is 8.6 units per acre and that, therefore, meets that requirement of eight or more. The net density overall is higher than that of the immediately surrounding neighborhoods because of the site constraints, but it will also be buffered on all three sides by the site constraints, Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 3,2020 F23 Page 19 of 40 noting the two arterial roads and the creek easement. The second part of this is that the applicant -- sorry. Staff recommends that the applicant amend their PUD request to eliminate the parking pad requirement for these internal lots. These right here, if you can see my cursor. Lots 1 through 14, Block 2, and they are part of the applicant's existing request for a setback relief. This would make the setback request only applicable to five units, these more southern ones here, instead of 17, and allow these units, essentially, to be pushed back towards the street with a rear setback of no less than five feet, which is the allowed setback in the R-15 zoning district for alley loaded units. Secondly, once these units become alley loaded they should front on the internal micro path that is already proposed between these lots. This area should, then, be platted as a common lot and function as a MEW following these changes, which for those who don't know what a MEW is -- I didn't when I started here -- is a vista or paseo, some kind of green open space with a pathway running through it. If the applicant adheres to these recommendations the MEW could be 30 feet wide and be a great vista and pathway connection through the center of the development, offering more than adequate pedestrian access to the arterial sidewalk network that will be in place following the construction of the roundabout. With an additional housing type in the development, adding alley loaded, in addition to the other proposed triplexes, the applicant meets this objective by being innovative in the PUD request and the overall site design. The applicant is proposing to construct private streets that are 24 feet wide, with five foot attached sidewalks, on one side of the street throughout the project. Staff supports the inclusion of the sidewalk on one side to ensure adequate pedestrian access in the development. For reference, private streets do not require sidewalks. So, that is something that the applicant is presenting and proposing. Staff supports the inclusion to ensure adequate pedestrian access in the development and at the north end of the main street within the development, labeled as Compass Lane on this landscape plan, which is this one here, the applicant is proposing an emergency only access road to -- no, that -- yeah, that's the main road here. I apologize. An emergency access road at the north end of the main drive through the center of the development. This emergency access is required if more than 30 homes are to be constructed. The proposed access to -- the proposed normal access I should say is proposed to South Locust Grove here and lines up with East Coastline Street on the east side of Locust Grove, which is the access to Tradewinds and, then, the recently approved Teakwood Subdivision further to the east. The access point into the -- into the development does not meet ACHD or district policy, but they are modifying their policy to accommodate this access, because it is really the only place that you could put an access and it's the furthest place from the intersection that you could have on the site, as the site is not a perfect triangle. I don't remember the term. It's been a long time. And as noted before, this is largely because of the site constraints already outlined. So, the creek and, then, the arterial streets. Like I noted, this distance along this street is shorter than this distance on Locust Grove. So, the applicant is placing the entrance as far away from the intersection as would be physically possible for the site, because the site is triangle shaped, as I said multiple times, abutted by two arterial streets and, then, the Ten Mile Creek, there is no opportunity for public road connectivity to any adjacent site and so ACHD prefers private streets within development. There is no public benefit to having public streets in this site, because there will be no future connectivity to other properties I should say. Consequently, private streets also take less right of way and the applicant Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 3,2020 F24 Page 20 of 40 agrees with ACHD, because of this and has proposed private streets throughout the development. City code requires that private streets are to be used in either a MEW or a gated development and this -- originally the applicant proposed neither. Within the PUD analysis I have already recommended that Lots 2 through 14 become alley loaded units and eliminate the parking pad requirement for those lots through the PUD request. Once the applicant does this, yeah, it's going to be pushed towards the street and the micro path already proposed can be placed in -- on a line and become a MEW. Thus, the development would include a MEW and meet the private street standards. This is how the private streets are integral to both the access and the PUD request. So, I hope I came full circle for everybody. The proposed private streets are not wide enough to accommodate any on-street parking and the applicant is proposing to construct some extra off-street parking along the main street, as seen on the proposed plat. Which are a pocket here, a pocket here, pocket here. It amounts to 12 as of right now. There are no multi-use pathways proposed or required of the development. However, the applicant is proposing a five foot wide pathway on the east side of the creek behind all of these homes. The pathway connects to the private streets at the southern end of the project and through the common open space generally mid block on the west side of the site. The pathway also continues north and connects to the sidewalk along Victory. In addition, the applicant's proposing a micro path between the center lots as discussed that connects to the sidewalk along Locust Grove. This path, with any of the revisions that I have recommended, should be kept and it should remain in the MEW to serve as the sole pedestrian connection to Locust Grove. Staff is recommending to lose these two more north and south ones on Locust Grove. There is no existing sidewalk along Victory or Locust Grove. However, both arterials are scheduled to be widened as part of the roundabout project at this intersection in 2021 and '22, according to ACHD. With the random project the applicant is required to dedicate additional right of way to the intersection and the future widening of Victory and Locust Grove. ACHD is requiring the applicant to enter into a road trust for the sidewalk improvements adjacent to the site and not to construct them, since they will be constructed by ACHD with the roundabout on widening projects. A minimum of ten percent qualified open space meeting the UDC standard is required. Per the property size of 7.69 acres, the applicant should supply at least .77 acres of qualified open space or approximately 33 and a half thousand square feet. The applicant is proposing 3.2 acres of open space, of which 2.84 is shown as qualifying on the submitted open space exhibit, which is vastly more than the minimum. However, some of the areas listed as qualifying does not meet UDC standards due to their size not being at least 5,000 square feet. So, it would be a few of these smaller areas here, this pocket here, and, then, the one surrounding the parking here. Those are all less than 5,000 and do not qualify. Once that area is removed, the qualified open space is 2.68 acres, down from 2.84 and, again, vastly more than the minimum requirement. More importantly, though, the open space for this development is largely made up of the Ten Mile Creek, which is 2.1 acres of the 2.68 and the arterial street buffers, which are almost half an acre -- 19,000 square feet. Although this area is qualifying per code, but the Ten Mile Creek will be left natural with no improvements, unless they can get a license agreement with Nampa-Meridian and it will be a buffer -- or more of a visual amenity than it will be usable open space for the development. Abutting the creek and generally mid block is -- the applicant is proposing an open space lot that Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 3,2020 F25] Page 21 of 40 is approximately 5,100 square feet. This open space lot contains one set of the amenities and a micro path that connects the private streets to the pathway along the creek. This open space lot and macro path offers a clear connection to one of the other micro paths in the development. Again, this one noted between the MEW -- between the lots that should be in a MEW. Sorry. Finding my place. This 5,100 square foot open space in the center of development is the most active and usable open space lot within the development. So, again, of the 2.68 acres, roughly 5,000 square feet of that is the active and usable open space area. The applicant submitted conceptual elevations for the proposed single family homes. The attached single family homes. The submitted elevations show all two story attached structures with two car garages and identical finishing materials of wood and stone at least originally. Since publication of the staff report the applicant has provided additional elevations, which are this material and color palette, as well as this one. The applicant has also stated that they plan to incorporate different -- you know, three to four different color palettes throughout the site to help differentiate between the units. The elevations show modern architecture designs with shed roofs, second story patios that have glass railings and stone accents that go to the full height of the proposed homes. We have not received elevations for the one detached home, nor the one duplex unit with the tandem garages. However, attached single family homes require design review approval prior to building permit and at that point that will ensure compliance with the architectural standards manual. In addition to the elevations, the applicant has also submitted some revised plans related to staff's recommendations of approval to change the plat and incorporate the MEW. The applicant has sent those plans to me as of today and this is what has come about from that. As you can see, the applicant has incorporated a 31 foot wide MEW and has pushed back the units in line with the five foot setback for these 12 units and has also done it for these three and it would be fronted on this green space here. As of 4:00 p.m. this afternoon there were 35 pieces of written testimony submitted for this application. I did not read all of them I will admit. I read most of them and there was not a single one supporting the project. Their main concerns throughout all of them regarding the density in comparison to the adjacent subdivisions. The amount of open space and, of course, school overcrowding, you know, adding additional homes and the traffic issues that already exist in this area. The neighborhood has issues with the proposed access to Locust Grove and there only being one access for the development. In relation to some of those comments I would just like to make a few comments of my own. Again, the access is as far away as it can be from the intersection. It is my understanding that ACHD would not allow another access for this development. Secondly, the density as discussed in my staff report with the Comprehensive Plan analysis, density and the housing type is -- I guess welcome in some ways, because it offers a different housing type in the area of the city that has an abundance of detached single family homes within the R-8 zoning district. With my conditions and DA provisions I do recommend approval of the subject application and as noted the private streets and alternative compliance to allow the private street to connect to the arterial has been approved at the director level. The alternative compliance was approved because, frankly, they have no other way to connect to the arterial -- to a street network, because there is no -- there is no -- there are no other public stubs to the property. And following that I will stand for questions. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 3,2020 F26] Page 22 of 40 Fitzgerald: Thanks, Joe. I cannot believe you said the Teakwood Place Subdivision. You may have to yourself and you are going to see that thing come back, whether you actually mentioned that thing. Ah. Anyway. Are there any questions for Joe at this time? Hearing none -- Yearsley: Sorry. I -- sorry. Mr. Chair, couldn't get unmuted. Fitzgerald: Go right ahead, sir. Yearsley: So, looking at these lots, what -- what are the sizes of these lots looking to be? Dodson: Great question, Commissioner Yearsley. On the current plan they all meet the R-15 zoning district, but the revised plat that I received today I noticed that some of them are underneath or below the 2,000 square foot. So, one of the requirements that the applicant is going to have to meet -- I appreciate you bringing this up -- is the Commission, if you recommend approval, then, you will have to add a condition that they also include in their amended request -- in addition to the one -- the recommendations I have made -- include that they also require -- or request a reduced building lot size. Some of them are -- really the smallest I saw were roughly 1,750 square feet. Most of them were a lot closer to 2,000, if not more, and that's only within the central area. All of the other ones meet the 2,000 square foot. These ones here -- there is a few that have dipped below that and that's to -- on the applicant's behalf to help construct a MEW that's 30 feet wide and not only 20 feet, which opens this area up a lot more. Yearsley: Okay. Fitzgerald: Any additional questions for staff or follow up? Commissioner Yearsley, are you good? Yearsley: I'm good. Fitzgerald: Additional questions for Joe? Grove: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Grove. Grove: Joe, for the entrance exit is -- when the -- when Locust Grove is built out with the -- will it still be a full access entrance or would that be like a right-in, right-out situation? Dodson: Thank you, Commissioner Grove, Members of the Commission. Great question. And I will answer your question, as well as give a little more information on the ACHD improvements. My understanding is that this will be a full access to start in in perpetuity. It is meant as that, but is also related to those -- as discussed those -- not only approved, but scheduled improvements for Victory, Locust Grove, and that intersection. As I noted, the intersection is slated to be constructed or reconstructed in Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 3,2020 F27 Page 23 of 40 2021 through 2022. That also incorporates widening Victory Road adjacent to the site and, then, more importantly, widening Locust Grove north of this intersection to five lanes from here all the way to Overland, I believe, and that is -- would be very beneficial for all of this traffic coming from the south to the north as discussed by residents, having those additional lanes of traffic flow going to the north to help alleviate some of the backup that occurs at this light currently. That's my understanding as well, that the Locust Grove Road directly adjacent to the site is scheduled to be widened as well to -- it has two lanes right now, it would be three lanes with the center lane being that suicide lane, so to speak. So, there are road improvements occurring and scheduled. I want to be clear on the roundabout, that's something that's not only a pie in the sky, that is something that they -- it's already part of the CIP. So, they already have the funding, they are already going to construct that starting next year. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Grove, do you have follow up or you are good? Okay. Any additional questions for Joe? And, Joe, that -- that road does not -- the one outlet does not line up with Coastline; right? Across the street. Dodson: Mr. Chair, it should line up with Coastline. Yes, sir, it does. It lines up with that point access in Tradewind. Fitzgerald: Okay. Dodson: That's why ACHD is allowing it. Fitzgerald: Wow. That is a tight lineup if that's the case. And, then, just to be -- my understanding is there is no ditch rider's road on either side of Ten Mile right now. There is not a plan to have one? Dodson: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, that is a great question. That is something that I do not have a hundred percent certainty on I will admit. I know that on the west side of the creek is the multi-use pathway. My understanding is that on this east side, the one abutting this site, Nampa-Meridian does use this side. However, the proposed plat as shown here -- and you can kind of see the line -- the dashed line here, that is the creek easement and they are staying out of it completely with this. So, this site plan will not encumber any of those existing accesses for the irrigation district. Fitzgerald: Okay. Appreciate it. Thank you. Dodson: You are welcome, sir. Fitzgerald: If there are no additional questions, would the applicant like to come forward or join us on Zoom. Arnold: Mr. Chairman, can you guys hear me? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 3,2020 F28 Page 24 of 40 Fitzgerald: Yep. Mr. Arnold, please, state your name and your address for the record, sir, and the floor is yours. Arnold: Appreciate that. For the record it's Steve Arnold. I'm with A-Team Land Consultants. Address 1785 Whisper Cove, Boise. 83709. First I want to start off is we have been working with staff on this probably since October of '19. We have had numerous changes and with this last one that Joe proposed, we fully agree with and, as you can see, it really added some nice benefit to the center lots. So, I want to thank Joe for working with us and being patient. Like I said, originally we started out a little over a year ago, we had about 70 cottage units and those are all alley loaded and we were going to do condos and the problem with the condos -- we are trying to make these a for sale product and the condos aren't as desirable, plus it didn't have as much parking as we thought that we needed, so we, then, turned this into triplexes and duplexes and with -- originally all of them with front garage space -- you know, two car garage and, then, two car-- additional two cars in front of the garage. At our neighborhood meetings -- our first one on this we had in October of last year -- of '19. We had about eight to ten people show up and of the eight to ten we didn't have a lot of opposition. The only opposition that we had was traffic, but most of the time the folks understood that that's not something we can fix. However, it is something that is being fixed. The second neighborhood meeting we held in September and I only had -- and it was a Zoom meeting. I only had one person show up and they were not in opposition. So, when we -- we were a little bit surprised when we got that 35 letters that were submitted to the city. I won't touch too -- as Joe did a great job explaining all of the features of the project, what I think I will do is I will dive into the -- the buildings. You have seen just a couple of examples of elevations that we are proposing, but our plan is to make these fairly attractive in a more modern theme and we are planning to do several -- at least three to four color palettes and I believe we submitted those palettes to the city as well and, like I said, all of these have got their two car garage, plus two additional parking spaces out in front of the garage, along with the 12 guest parking spaces. So, our -- our plan is to make sure that we have got plenty of parking in here, so that we do not have a parking issue. As Joe stated well, the buildings -- if you notice, each building has got upper outdoor patios and then -- which is over a hundred square feet and, then, downstairs in the -- in the -- in the back or the front of the yard we have got other patios that is over another hundred square feet. So, we have got about a little over 200 square feet of outdoor open areas that the owners will have. The townhomes -- like the reason we are platting is because we are trying to put each townhome unit on its own lot for conventional financing. That was one of the reasons we moved away from the condos. The units range from two bedroom, two and a half bath, at 1,800 square feet to three bed, two and a half bath, at 1,900 square feet. We did a similar project like this down in Kuna and it was very popular. We actually sold it out in less than a year and a half. So, we are envisioning kind of marketing that the same way that we did down there. One thing to note on this is that the developer will also be building the units. So, there is some upfront reasoning to try to make -- we have put quite a few amenities throughout the project. The reason being is because, you know, they are sticking in for the long haul. So, the nicer that we can make the project the better we believe it will sell out. And, again, this -- this product type -- there is not any in the area. We believe that this -- townhomes is going to be a demand, so -- and it actually is Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 3,2020 F29 Page 25 of 40 encouraged in your comp plan for this mixed type of use. Some site construction -- just to give you an idea, we are -- our gross density, even though it's a little over -- our gross density is 6.24 units per acre where eight is allowed here, but since we are doing the PUD additional is allowed. We have got the three pocket parks throughout and the idea, again, there was to make sure that we had parks in close proximity to the majority of the units. Those pocket parks will be provided gazebos and plaza sitting areas. We also showed some decorative climbing rocks. I'm not a big fan of tot lots, because typically they are not used, but the climbing rocks -- they are decorative and that -- they can be used by young kids. The other amenity that we are doing that is one of the most utilized amenity within a subdivision is pathways. So, we deliberately, as Joe showed you earlier, had pathways and connected them throughout. We almost have three-quarters of a mile of pathways in the subdivision. So, that was one of our big focuses. And the Ten Mile Creek there, it's -- you know, there is reeds, there is water -- a year round waterway. We have seen ducks and geese in there. So, it will be -- the idea of putting the pathway there was to encourage people to utilize it as an open space amenity and that's -- you know, like I said, the pathway will be one of the most utilized amenities within the subdivision. All of the -- and this wasn't discussed, but all of the common lots and all of the landscaping around the -- the building lots will be maintained by one HOA. So, the people moving in here they don't need a lawn mower and that was -- the driving factor on that was, you know, our experience in other subdivisions is people wanted that. So, our goal on this was -- that it's got the open concept feel to all the units, but all uniformly maintained by one HOA. The only fencing that we are going to be having is the fencing adjacent to the buffers along Victory Road and Locust Grove Road and, then, we will require -- or recommended by staff we are going to fence off that easement line and, then, to reiterate, we are keeping everything out of the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District, so we do not have to worry about license agreements or anything like that. One of the biggest things that I noticed with all the neighborhood complaints was traffic and I don't know if -- most of you don't know, but I used to work for ACHD and so ACHD on something this small it generates so few traffic they didn't make us do a traffic study. But we are currently working with the highway district as we speak -- maybe not now, but during the day to dedicate right of way for the roundabout. So, we laid this whole thing out with that roundabout in mind. We have ACHD's design, so that's kind of how we get the weird shape boundaries that we have. But we just paved it. We will have that sold to them within the next month or two. But going back to the traffic, this site generates 356 trips total per day. The trips -- the p.m. peak hour traffic trips are roughly 28 trips per day -- per hour, which is basically equivalent to one trip every two minutes. So, this site really does not generate or add much to the existing traffic that backs up during those p.m. peak hours. However, what's been noted --we are going to have an arterial improved out there that will greatly increase the amount of traffic that can travel on those lanes and the roundabout will also help, so that we don't have the backing that we currently have now. So, ACHD is going to take care of any traffic concerns that the -- the neighborhood had and it's not -- as Joe said it's not a pipe dream, it's funded. It's going in and it's been designed. So, that should alleviate most of the concerns of the neighborhood about traffic. I think that concludes my presentation. I will -- I will stand for any questions that the Commission may have. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 3,2020 F30] Page 26 of 40 Fitzgerald: Thanks, Steve. Are there any questions for Steve at this time? Yearsley: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Yearsley, go right ahead. Yearsley: So, on these homes, what size of homes are you looking at? Arnold: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Yearsley, we are looking at 1,800 to 1,900 square foot. Yearsley: Is that -- that's -- that's living space and not garage; correct? Arnold: That is correct. Yearsley: Okay. Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Any additional questions for Mr. Arnold? Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal. Seal: Question on the -- the residences that are bordering that west boundary on the creek. What -- what is the height of those? Arnold: Is that a question for me? Fitzgerald: Yes. That was for you, sir. Arnold: I'm sorry. They are -- they are two story and they -- they are in the -- the zone will allow up to 35 feet. Fitzgerald: Do you have a design size that you know how high they are going to be? Arnold: I think those elevations that we were showing were roughly 20 -- they are not -- the peaks on those aren't very high. I'm guessing less than 30 feet. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal, do you have a follow up there or are you good? Seal: I'm good. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Thank you. Holland: Mr. Chair? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 3,2020 F31 Page 27 of 40 Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Hey, Steve, so you mentioned you guys are going to fence off the easement line. Is that adjacent to that pathway that's between the creek and the units? Arnold: That's correct. Holland: So, just to confirm, the -- the creek won't be accessible by pedestrians, they could just go on the pathway that kind of used the creek, but they are not actually able to use the area that's in that creek area; is that right? Arnold: Yeah. So, the idea is the staff recommended that we -- we fence it to keep, you know, small children out of the waterway and we -- we agreed. Holland: Okay. Thanks, Steve. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Grove, go right ahead. Grove: Thanks, Mr. Chair. Mr. Arnold, question regarding the different types of housing that are in the project. The staff report had mentioned wanting to see a more variety of housing options here and you have it looks like three different ones, but two of them on the front of the south side kind of are abnormalities and the fact that they are the only ones there and has there been more discussion on adding more housing diversity to this -- to this project? Arnold: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Grove, yes, and that -- that's why we modified that center view or MEW, I'm sorry, the same, so those are going to be a different housing type alley load and, then, when we get in -- and, yeah, we are continuing discussions with staff. One of the conditions that's in this report is that we submit for design review and at the time that we submit for design review staff's going to review the housing product type then and we will -- we will probably have at least three or four different elevations. Fitzgerald: So, Steve, random question. I think down the -- at the -- I guess on this map it's the east -- southeast corner, that triangle that you kind of have those -- I don't know. It's a duplex, but it's like a -- I don't know. It looks like a drive thru on the initial plat, but as you shift into that MEW would you be -- I mean I know nobody likes to lose lots, but that seems to make sense for some more common area right there and it just seems that you are shoehorning in additional houses there. Would there be any thought about removing that chunk and making that another open space? Because I think we are limited right now. As we include -- if we take out the -- the creek, which I don't think qualifies -- anyway, I know we did some -- some additional work on a MEW and, then, the piece in the middle is connecting to the creek, but I think that -- we are trying to just -- it seems like we are adding lots to add lots and not giving folks that are living there some additional space to live. Any thoughts there? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 3,2020 F32 Page 28 of 40 Arnold: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, the -- the Ten Mile Creek as noted in the staff report is considered allowable open space and an amenity. Staff -- I will let staff further comment on that, but in their report they explain that. We have got -- I think for this small of a site I think we have got plenty of open space. I don't believe that really additional open space is needed. We -- staff recommended that we create additional open space in that MEW and, then, that 5,000 square foot park there in the center, we have -- we have been losing lots on the -- we would kind of like to not lose anymore would be our preference and the housing type that is there -- I mean we -- because we had so many changes that we have made we didn't keep up with the building elevations and those two odd shaped lots that have those -- the townhome on it, those will most likely change a little bit to accommodate a better building type. Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you. Yearsley: So Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Yeah. Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: If you are done. I want to go back to those home sizes. You -- you are telling me that they are 1,800 square feet? Arnold: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Yearsley, that's correct. Yearsley: So, help me do the math. So, your lots are 2,000 square feet and if you take out the front of the parking area and a garage, I struggle to see 1 ,800 square feet. Arnold: If you could go to frame 11 and show the building footprints. So, the garage is not in our calculation. Yearsley: Well, I realize that, but if your lot size is only 2,000 square feet, I still struggle to figure out how you are getting 1 ,800 square feet. Arnold: If you -- if you take -- you take out the garage --the upstairs is roughly a thousand plus square feet. Downstairs, as you can see the numbers, are a little under 800. Yearsley: Okay. Fitzgerald: So, Steve, just adding on to Commissioner Yearsley's comments, is this -- are these lot sizes that you shifted to with the MEW, now that you are on with the PUD, you are under that -- I mean do these -- the ones that you are showing us, these elevations, do they fit on the lot sizes where you shifted down to? Arnold: Yes. Mr. Chairman, if you go to the PUD map -- the new PUD that we sent, I have got the footprints showing on it how that looks. So, yes, to answer your question they could. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 3,2020 F33] Page 29 of 40 Fitzgerald: Thank you. Additional questions for Mr. Arnold at this time? Okay. Steve, we will get back to you and let you close after we take public testimony. Does that work for you, sir? Arnold: Perfect. It works for me. Fitzgerald: Appreciate it. We appreciate it, Steve. Thanks. Madam Clerk, I know we have probably some folks in the audience, either in person or online, that would like to testify on this application. Do you want to start rolling down the list? Weatherly: Yes, Mr. Chair. First is Rose Crandall. Crandall: My name is Richard Crandall. I live at 1319 East Observation Street. I speak for my whole family. Some of them aren't here and I think I could speak the best of what we are feeling. I think the whole proposal was -- I would highly disagree with it. Very much against it. I think it's, first and foremost, more than traffic concerns, I think the biggest concern would be the value of the homes all around it, including our own. The surrounding neighborhoods -- obviously, probably no one here would know this, but are a lot nicer than what is being pictured and what is being shown for this new neighborhood with these duplexes or triplexes or whatever they are. So, you are talking about a lot of nice neighborhoods with people -- families that work hard to put value into their homes and, actually, they are finally starting to see better value in their houses and, then, you are going to put this kind of -- what appears is very much lower level housing on the corner. That is -- I think, you know, you could say I'm wrong, but I would bet any money that over time it's going to devalue the homes in the surrounding neighborhoods. Also as far as the traffic goes, I know that you are saying that the roundabout plan is already funded and going into place, but it isn't there yet and I don't think-- if you are talking about two car garages in these things, that's potentially two cars per building -- or per people that live there, this is like -- what would that be, like at the very least 96 cars that could be leaving at the exact same time potentially. You would never know. I don't think that that roundabout is going to fully alleviate that problem -- that issue in the morning. I have driven to work in the morning, so I know. Also -- but back to my original point. You know, the value of the homes around there -- you could go right across the street, there is a neighborhood with these beautiful stuccoed homes in the Tuscany neighborhood right behind it are larger, nicer houses and a lot of these people, you know, they got a lot of value in these homes and I think that there is going to be a big problem with these duplexes, triplexes, whatever devaluing the homes in the surrounding area and I think that's going to be a big problem to a lot of the people who have lived there for a long time. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Thanks, sir. We appreciate it. Next on the list, Madam Clerk. Weatherly: Mr. Chair, next we have John Pierre Buckner. I'm going to help him with a video that he provided me on YouTube. This is a first for me, so, please, bear with me. Fitzgerald: We appreciate it. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 3,2020 F34 Page 30 of 40 Buckner: I will address that. Hello. Thank you for having me. My name is Jean Pierre Buckner. I live in Meridian off of Locust Grove, off of Monalisa Street. Please proceed. What you are seeing here is a video taken at the intersection of Victory and Locust Grove at rush hour traffic on a Tuesday. As you can see with the build up of vehicles, this is clearly not two cars per minute. This video was taken of traffic in all directions at that intersection. I speak for my wife, my family, that we are for growth and we are for development. We are for Idaho and Meridian. We are for growth that makes sense and is safe and is practical. We strongly oppose this development for primary reasons of increased traffic, increased safety risks, decreased quality of life and decreased character of our neighborhood. We would like to see a lower density of housing, a revision in this proposal for lower density to meet the current typical zoning of R-8. As to traffic, high rush hour traffic in single lane roads as you can see here, I was here during the hearing for the roundabout and it was full of people who were opposed in my neighborhood to the roundabout, who do not believe a roundabout will help the situation. You are also looking at traffic that is during a pandemic when people are at home, they are not at work, and as the pandemic ends, whenever it does, you will see even more traffic than what you are seeing now and with the addition of a roundabout and 96 vehicles at minimum as somebody else said, you are going to see a lot more traffic than this. Also as was discussed earlier, this is an issue of traffic enforcement. This is an issue of density and population. So, two cars is necessarily more traffic than one car and the 96 cars that are going to be added is going to be a lot more traffic than what you see in the video that I showed. There is also a lot of concerns about safety for -- especially for kids. There is kids running about on our streets all the time. It's a -- currently an area where there is relative safety for kids to run about, although it's not always the case. With increased traffic there will be increased risk to our children getting hurt. Also with traffic comes increased anxiety and tention that leads to poor decision making and poor alertness, which leads to more accidents. Also increased traffic means a lesser quality of life, more time on the road due to traffic means less time with your family, less time at home. Sometimes I can pull out of my street onto Locust Grove and I have to sit there for minutes waiting for cars to pass by and this isn't even rush hour traffic. I have to take the street down and try to find another route to where I want to go. I take the street -- I take Victory to work and every day it's always full. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Thank you, sir. We appreciate your time and the visual this evening. Thank you. Madam Clerk, the next person wishing to testify? Weatherly: Mr. Chair, we have others that have signed up, but no one else is present in chambers to testify. Fitzgerald: Okay. If there is anyone online that would like to testify on this application, please, raise your hand on the Zoom application or, Commissioner Seal, is there anyone else in the audience? Seal: There is not. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 3,2020 F35] Page 31 of 40 Fitzgerald: Thank you, sir. We have a couple of people that are in attendance on Zoom, but not raising their hand, so I just want to make sure to give you guys a chance. If you would like to testify, please, raise your hand. If not we will allow Mr. Arnold to close. Anyone have any questions for staff as we are waiting? Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal. Seal: Just one. Joe, do you know where the nearest R-15 -- the next nearest R-15 is to this? Or in relation to it I should say. Dodson: Commissioner Seal, Members of the Commission, let me check really quick. It -- the next closest is to the west up against Meridian Road. So, almost a mile away. Seal: Okay. Thank you. Dodson: You're welcome. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal, I had the same exact question looking at this map. So, thanks for asking. Mr. Arnold, would you like to come up and close, sir? Arnold; Yes. Can you hear me? Fitzgerald: Yep. Go right ahead. Arnold: Okay. Yeah. You know, growth is one of those things that no one likes, but it's happening. I think the biggest concern here is the -- the traffic and all I have to say to comment on that is ACHD is the traffic authority for all the streets in Ada county. We do have an approved report from them. So, they have taken into account the existing traffic, what we are going to add, and they have made their findings and it's minimal. You know, I'm not denying that traffic backs up right now at the signal. I have done that and sat there while going to a Kuna P&Z meeting and it -- it -- at the rush hour it does -- there is some backing. But with the planned improvements out there all of that goes away and, you know, it -- and, then, there is a whole bunch more capacity. The idea of this site not developing -- it's just pushing -- pushing development down somewhere else and this is pretty much in-fill. You know, this is an appropriate use for the location and the -- the density is an appropriate density for what -- what we are proposing. The -- the neighboring lots -- and I know this shouldn't be a consideration with the Commission's decision, but speaking of value, I know that was a concern that came up. I mean we are probably going to be selling these and so not just development consultant work, we also market the subdivisions and do the real estate end as well. I'm looking at -- we are probably going to be in that 225 to 230 range per square foot. So, our project is actually going to increase the value of the neighboring subdivisions. It will not decrease value. That's a misnomer. So, the -- the -- with the planned improvements out there and the value of our homes, I think the neighboring subdivisions are going to see very little impact Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 3,2020 F36] Page 32 of 40 from our development and I will stand on that and answer any questions that the Commission has. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Steve. Real quick question and I will open it up for my other Commissioners to ask. You -- in working with ACHD you fixed the design so that was -- it took into account the roundabout; correct? Arnold: That's correct. If you look at our -- how our layout is, they have got some weird curves in there and, then, we actually on the PUD map you can see exactly how the roundabout fits on -- as it relates to development. Fitzgerald: Okay. I just wanted to make sure that was the case. I wanted to make sure that we -- they do have different design things in different areas. I just want to make sure. Arnold: We have been working directly with ACHD. They actually sent me the CAD files to insert into our drawing. Fitzgerald: Okay. Appreciate that. Commissioners, do we have questions for Mr. Arnold? Anyone? Okay. Steve, we appreciate it. Thank you so much. Arnold: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Can I get a motion to close the public hearing? Seal: So moved. Grove: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to close public hearing on file number H-2020- 0100. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. Fitzgerald: The application of properly before you, team. Anything -- any thoughts want to lead off? Yearsley: Mr. Chairman, so I will step up, sir. Fitzgerald: Go right ahead. Yearsley: So -- so, I do live in this area and -- and I live off of Eagle, not off of Locust Grove, but I look at this and my personal feeling -- building on this is -- they are trying to shoehorn as many lots in this as they can and walk away with it afterwards and leave the mess to the homeowners. I think they need to lose about eight to ten homes, because I think it's way too dense. They are going to have issues with parking. You get that size of home, they are going to fill up their garage with -- with stuff and, then, park in the street Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 3,2020 F37 Page 33 of 40 and, then, when someone tries to come -- come visit they are not going to have any parking. You know, I think in certain areas these are not a bad mix of homes, but I don't think that it fits in this area. I got to go back to the homes that we approved behind the old Norco off of Eagle and Ustick and I thought that was a very appropriate area and I think it works, but I don't think it works for this rural area. I honestly feel sorry for those homes on -- in Tuscany that face this, because all they are going to see is a sea of apartments or -- or townhomes or connected homes. So, it's just going to be a massive wall of -- of homes, with very little breaks or no breaks at all. So, I -- I just can't in good conscience approve something that's this dense in this small of an area and think that it's going to work out well. Fitzgerald: Thanks, sir. Commissioner Holland, you are off of mute, I get to call on you. Holland: I unmuted so I could say yes to the motion to close the public hearing, but I can go next. I forgot to turn myself back on mute. Well, I always -- it's always good to start with the positive; right? So, I will -- a couple of things that I liked about the project. I -- I like that it's a different type of style product. I think the -- the brick facade looks nice for doing a triplex style. I'm not a big fan of the orange that's on the second rendering that was there, but that's just a personal color palette preference. Fitzgerald: Come on, orange is good. Holland: Well, some people might like it. It wasn't my favorite, but I did like the style and I agree with what Commissioner Yearsley said, I think overall townhome projects in this kind of -- of complex can be a good fit in certain spots of town. The challenge is this lot is a really weird lot. It's -- it's a corner shape, which is always really hard to design for. It's right on the corner of two pretty strong traffic roads. My concern is a little bit less about the traffic side of things, but it is a little bit more about traffic flow within the site itself. Having one access and having so many different units in there can be a challenge. I would probably agree, I'm not opposed to seeing some of these triplex types homes being in here, but I would prefer to see nine or ten units less than what's proposed here and see more open space. With the creek there, I think the creek's always a nice amenity when you can tie it into a project, but that was two point -- 2.1 acres of the site is the Ten Mile Creek and so if you eliminate that out from the 2.68 acres of qualified open space, we are just barely over a half acre of open space that's usable for the development, so that's a challenge for me, too. I always like -- I like the walking paths. I think those are nice. I use walking paths in my neighborhood all the time, because I love to go for a walk and three quarters of a mile is a great walk. But I would certainly like them to have a little bit more amenities and if you are fencing off where the Ten Mile Creek is it's not really usable open space to me, it's just kind of a nice eye window and it does provide some buffer and transition from the neighborhood that's next to it, but I -- I would agree, I think it might be a little too much density for this -- this corner the way that it's laid out currently. Fitzgerald: Additional thoughts? Commissioner Seal. Did you start? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 3,2020 F38 Page 34 of 40 Seal: Mr. Chair, yes. I agree. I appreciate the product for -- for what it is. I mean it's not my cup of tea, but I know that there is a big demand for--for a product like this, something that you can live in, not have to have a lawn mower, not have to take care of, you know, any of the amenities and stuff like that. I do like the pathways, but I do have some pretty big concerns in here. I mean I know it's in-fill, which can lead to, you know, certain concessions, but there just seems to be a lot of them happening where -- I mean the open space is, you know, technically qualified, but they are going to fence it off, so it's not even in use. The -- I mean the only streets that are going to fit in here are private streets as per ACHD. Not that they recommend private streets anywhere, it's just that's really all that's going to work in here. And with that I have concerns about, you know, obviously, parking that's in there, but I also have concerns about service vehicles, you know, the -- the trash trucks and stuff like that trying to make their way in and out of this. I think that's going to, you know, cause a lot of issues in there. You know, in the nearest R-15 being nearly a mile away, I know this lends -- I mean this is another product type in the area. Again, I do like the product type for what it is, but I just think the density is too high for this particular -- you know, this particular application. But the other thing -- there was some public feedback as far as where Ten Mile Creek crosses Locust Grove there and, basically, as soon as you come out of there on a bike or walking or anything you can't -- you can't cross that creek. There is no safe way to do it. I mean I -- I wouldn't do it and I'm a pretty avid rider. So, I mean there is some safety concerns as well as that and that just has to do with, you know, again, the strangeness of the lot that's there. Fitzgerald: So, I -- I agree with a lot of what you just said. I -- and I'm the weirdo that likes the product, because I think it's very funky and cool and I think we need more offers -- and we need more options in our community, because we have a lot of the same in a lot of places as we have grown really quickly in our city. So, I do like the product. I think it's -- it's cool. Even the orange. I like the orange. I do think there is a challenge here that you have two or three acre component is tied up in that creek easement and so you are shoving everything over and it makes that density go through the roof and so I'm kind of with Commissioner Yearsley, I think if you shrunk it down and actually gave it some space it may work a little bit better. But I still think it's -- it's tough. There is not enough open space. Much like Commissioner Seal, I totally agree, pulling trash trucks through here is going to be challenging. It is -- it is in-fill and I think it's tough. It's a tough spot to put it, but I think making it worse by shoving everything in there and not giving people places to live outside their house and eliminating pads to park on and hoping to God like that the MEW is going to help us out and there is going to be more parking isn't going to work. I think we all know that the parking spots that are all there aren't going to be enough when there is no parking pads. I think Commissioner Yearsley is spot on with regards to people are going to use their garages for storage and they are going to have no parking pads on those houses with the MEW and they are going to be trying to park on a private road that you can't park on and so that puts us in a really rough spot. So, additional thoughts, Commissioner Grove or Commissioner McCarvel? Anybody want to weigh back in? Holland: Mr. Chair, I actually have one more comment. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 3,2020 F39 Page 35 of 40 Fitzgerald: No. I'm -- all right. Holland: So, I know a couple of us served on the Comprehensive Plan committee, too, and I know a lot of the people that were from the Southern Rim Coalition and kind of the south Meridian area showed up to testify in the way that they wanted to see the -- this area kind of develop in and there was a lot of preference for lower density product and I'm not saying that I'm -- I'm not opposed to a high density product, I think it makes sense in a lot of places and it's good to have diversity and I'm like -- even though I don't like the orange, I do like the product and I think it's a good style and we need more of it, it's just a tough spot and I think 36 -- I think there were 36 pieces of written testimony in there. Most of them were saying that they weren't in favor of the project, so that's always tough, too, when the community speaks out against something. Dodson: Mr. Chair? You are muted, but I think you said my name. Fitzgerald: I couldn't push it fast enough. Go ahead, Dodson: Sorry. I just wanted to clarify something for the Commission and the public regarding the Ten Mile Creek and open space and all that, since it's come up a few times. I did recommend that it be fenced off. The reason for that is because it is one of the creeks listed in code 11-3A-6. It is supposed to be left as natural as possible and be incorporated as an amenity. Because it's a natural creek and they are not really required to beautify it and do a lot of things with it, I found that it was appropriate to fence that off for the safety of pedestrians and kids. I don't know how much water runs through there, but, regardless, I know it's got quite -- quite a lot of brush and things like that. So, where I can understand your concern regarding whether or not it's actually an amenity or not, I just wanted to reiterate why I had put that in there and requested that. It wasn't an attempt to say that this area can't count. I think that pathway along it and being a nice natural creek is one of the best amenities in the proposed development. But I just wanted to clarify that. That wasn't on the applicant, that was staff's recommendation and that was why. Fitzgerald: No. That's good context, Joe, and I appreciate it. I still think that the easement puts us in a real tough spot. Dodson: Absolutely. McCarvel: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Grove. Grove: All right. Fitzgerald: I heard your voice first. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 3,2020 F40] Page 36 of 40 Grove: Okay. I would -- I think I'm getting to the same place that everyone who has spoke so far has gotten to, though maybe in slightly different -- a slightly different path. I think that I like the density, but not in the configuration that they have it. I think that having the -- a diverse product in a sea of sameness helps create a better overall community. But I am not a fan of this layout and I -- I really want to like this project, because like you said, Mr. Chair and Commissioner Holland, I like this -- like the product itself, but there is something just really lacking and because it is so isolated from any other neighborhood, there needs to -- this project needs to create its own sense of community and its own sense of like uniqueness that it can really build on, because it doesn't have any other outlet to the rest of the community and so it just feels stilted in -- in how it's going -- gone about it. I -- I would prefer to have a little bit more options, I guess, within the development from a product standpoint. Pathways are great. I like the fact that there is a lot of connection. The open space, though, is a concern and I think it comes back to that point of creating that internal sense of community with this development and I don't see it as it's presented. I also --you know, anytime we start talking about some of this stuff looking at-- like the school project-- or projection there, like it's a concern that the citizens brought up also, you know, something that is always important to keep an eye on with these things and there was one other thing. I think -- yeah. That's probably about all I have on this. I really want to like it, because I like the design of the -- the units themselves, but it just doesn't feel quite right. Fitzgerald: So, that's funny, because I -- I always lean on my fellow Commissioners to be eloquent where I'm not, but I think you -- what you just said is exactly what -- the tough time I'm having is there is not a sense of place within it, because it's so isolated. I mean that was a really good point. So, I have your similar feeling in that regard, because I do like the product and I wanted to like it, too, when I first started looking at it, so -- Commissioner McCarvel, I apologize I cut you off earlier, so go right ahead, ma'am. McCarvel: That's okay. Yeah. When I first looked through this my immediate reaction was it was just a landlocked island and so it kind of needs to stand on its own. I do think the fence is the right call, because it is a big enough part of the waterway, but that does, obviously, limit the usefulness of what they are trying to use as open space. I like the extra patio space on these units. I like the individual ownership of the product. But I just -- I do think it's got to have some fewer lots to fit in here, because just the flow within itself -- I don't think it's a huge traffic addition, but just being that landlocked by what's around it, the canal and that major intersection -- not major, but major enough intersection, it needs to have better flow within. But I do -- I do like the product and I like the whole idea. Just a little bit fewer lots, so that they can be considered -- they don't necessarily have to be public streets, but just wide enough that they are usable streets. Fitzgerald: Agreed. So, additional thoughts? Commissioner Yearsley, if you are talking you are on mute. Yearsley: Sorry about that, Mr. Chair. Just to kind of follow up with that, I think, you know, everyone's kind of hit it right there is -- if you look at it it does look like just the sea of homes with nothing else and I think losing around ten lots you would actually create a Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 3,2020 F41 Page 37 of 40 lot more open space and more community type style look that -- that could be something that would be -- that could -- could work, you know, because you could actually break up --you know, along the pathway, along the creek you could break up some of those homes to add some breaks and definitions and a little more open space in the center -- I think would create a much better flow, a much better community, and I think it would look much better. Fitzgerald: I think you are right, Commissioner Yearsley. With the -- with the wall -- it's a wall plain. I -- looking at the amount of homes that are there, I think you are right, those houses on the other side of the creek, even though there is some natural landscaping there, it's going to be a wall plain that they are staring at. Yearsley: Yeah. And I agree the creek needs to be fenced. We walked along that creek within our subdivision and it flows fast enough and it -- there is just enough issues with it that having it fenced is a huge safety issue if it's not. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Grove? Grove: One thing that I had -- that I wanted to say was I like the -- what they have done with the parking call outs, the three spots, but -- but it does feel like that is something that they could probably expand on with -- with a site redesign. Keep some element of that. I just keep looking at this layout and it -- it calls for something like very unique and it feels like something ordinary has been placed in it with -- like the street just seems very -- I don't know. I'm looking for something -- it feels like they could do something kind of funky and really draw it out with their elevations and like play with what they were already using and I don't know how they get to that point, I don't know if it's alley load that empties into a large open space for all the homes or whatever that is, but something is just not there for me, so -- Fitzgerald: Additional comments? Motions are always an order, but want to make sure everybody gets their comments out there. Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Are we at a point where we want to try and continue it and give the applicant a chance to come back to us with some other thoughts or are we at a place where we would prefer to give a recommendation of denial or a recommendation of approval with conditions that they eliminate a certain number of lots and replace it with open space? Fitzgerald: I would be happy to open it back up and let Steve come and talk, but I think the last time we did this it was a Ustick project that never died. So, I'm -- but I'm happy to have that conversation with the applicant if we would like to. Would that be the will of the Commission? I think he has a sense of where we are going. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 3,2020 F42 Page 38 of 40 Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Yeah, Commissioner Seal. Seal: One more comment before we do that, just on the open space piece of it, just because of what the product is. I mean if this ultimately is the product that goes in there, I think we have to be careful because of what the product is. They are trying to cut down the amount of maintainable space that's in there. I mean that -- that seems to be the -- you know, somewhat of the goal and a lot of these products that are in there. So, having the Ten Mile Creek there is basically eye candy, it's something they don't have to maintain, you know, it is -- it is not a bad thing for this type of product that's there and I think if we try to get them to skin down too many lots, then, now you have a lot more space that has to be maintained. They are already -- you know, the HOA is already paying for the private roads. They are already paying to -- you know, for the maintenance of all the pads, so on and so forth. So, I think -- you know, I think it's a -- I guess what I'm getting at is my point is I think it's a really great product, I just think it's in the wrong place, just because of the constraints that are around it. So, I -- I -- honestly, I don't know if we go -- you know, put them through a continuance at this point. Fitzgerald: I understand what you are saying. Additional thoughts on that? Because I -- I -- I'm with you. I -- it may not be the right fit, but -- but I'm also not willing to give them a recommendation of denial if they are willing to do some changing and I know Joe probably doesn't need another continuance in his life, but I want to make sure we are doing the right thing. Additional thoughts? Would you like to hear from the applicant or would we like to move forward? Parsons; Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Mr. Parsons. Parsons: How are you doing this evening? Fitzgerald: Good, sir. Parsons: Well, I just -- I have been sitting back listening to the conversation and I can tell you Joe and I met with the applicant on numerous occasions and, obviously, it's your purview to open up the public hearing, but we were informed that they did not want to lose anymore lots than the 48. So, I'm not sure if -- if Steve's going to be open to that or not, but, again, if that--that's still within your purview, but that's -- that was the information and communications that we have had, because we were -- we had the same -- we have been around this numerous times, too, trying to figure out what -- the best use for this site, because it is such an unusual piece of property, given the fact that it's at a major intersection with no other connectivity. It is a -- kind of-- I'm going to quote Commissioner Grove, it needs a unique project here and that's why -- what the PUD process is for. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 3,2020 F43 Page 39 of 40 Fitzgerald: No. And I give you and Joe a huge amount of credit, because I think the MEW concept is a great one. I think bringing that into it is great. I also think it brings with it other issues on a limited space project like this. So, fellow Commissioners, what would you like to do? Seal: Mr. Chair, I will -- Yearsley: You know, I think given what Bill's comment was, is I wonder if we just recommend denial and -- and move forward. Fitzgerald: I think -- yeah. I mean I -- I'm -- I'm always willing to hear things out, but I think we got a sense that --just from the initial comment on the two lots up front that that may not be where they want to go, so -- Yearsley: Mr. Chair or -- go ahead, Lisa. Holland: I was just going to echo what you said. I think that we have the ability to recommend denial, but if they decide to go back and kind of reconfigure some things they could certainly do that and provide some alternative layouts to Council to consider. Fitzgerald: Or we get it back in remanding. Holland: Or we get it back. Fitzgerald: So -- yeah. Commissioner Yearsley, go right ahead, sir. Yearsley: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommended denial to City Council of file number H-2020-0100 as presented in the hearing for December 3rd, 2020, for the following reasons: The -- the site is -- is too dense -- or the density is too dense for the -- the area and it just doesn't fit the site. Seal: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to recommend denial of file number H-2020- 0100. Any further comments? Okay. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. Fitzgerald: Team, we have one more motion before we run away. Seal: Mr. Chair, I move we adjourn. McCarvel: Second. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 3,2020 F44 Page 40 of 40 Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. Fitzgerald: Thank you all. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:11 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED 12-17-2020 RYAN FITZGERALD - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK