Loading...
2020-12-17 Item 1. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting December 17, 2020. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of December 17, 2020, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Ryan Fitzgerald. Members Present: Chairman Ryan Fitzgerald, Commissioner Lisa Holland, Commissioner Bill Cassinelli, Commissioner Andrew Seal, Commissioner Rhonda McCarvel, Commissioner Nick Grove and Commissioner Steven Yearsley. Others Present: Adrienne Weatherly, Andrea Pogue, Bill Parsons, Sonya Allen, Joe Dodson, Alan Tiefenbach and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE X Lisa Holland X Rhonda McCarvel X Andrew Seal X Nick Grove _X Steven Yearsley X Bill Cassinelli X Ryan Fitzgerald - Chairman Fitzgerald: Okay. 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 17th and let's start with roll call. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Fitzgerald: Thanks, Madam Clerk. The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. I have -- the only item that we will be -- for those in the audience or on Zoom that -- we will be opening Vicenza North Subdivision, H-2020-0108, to continue that only. We will not be hearing that tonight. So, with that notification, can I get a motion to adopt the agenda? Seal: So moved. McCarvel: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Cassinelli: Hi. I'm here. Fitzgerald: Hi, Commissioner Cassinelli. How are you, sir? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 5 Page 2 of 110 Cassinelli: Great. How are you guys doing? Fitzgerald: I don't see your head. You are floating in -- Cassinelli: Yeah. I know. My -- Fitzgerald: We kind of see you. Madam Clerk, let the record show that Commissioner Cassinelli joined us about 6:02. Weatherly: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Fitzgerald: Yes, ma'am. Weatherly: Just a thanks for letting me know. CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] 1. Approve Minutes of the December 3, 2020 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 2. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Conner Square (H-2020-0107) by Sarah Martz with SEM Consulting, Located at 557 W. Idaho Ave. and 528 W. Broadway Ave. Fitzgerald: Sounds good. Thank you. Next on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. We have two items on the Consent Agenda. The approval of the minutes of December 3rd, 2020, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Conner Square, file number H-2020-0107. Is there anything on the Consent Agenda that needs to be pulled out -- or not? If not I would entertain a motion to accept the Consent Agenda. Holland: Mr. Chair, I move we approve the Consent Agenda. McCarvel: Second. Seal: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thanks so much. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 6 Page 3 of 110 Fitzgerald: At this time let me explain the -- the -- kind of the public hearing process for this evening. We will open each item individually and, then, start with the staff report for that application. The staff will report on the findings and -- regarding how the application adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and Uniform Development Code, with the staff's recommendations. After the staff has made their presentation the applicant -- applicant will come forward, either in person or on Zoom, and they will have 15 minutes to provide their presentation on why the application should be approved or recommended for approval and, then, respond to any comments from the Commission. After that we will allow the public testimony. So, we have folks possibly in person, in chambers, and, then, also, obviously, on Zoom as well. We appreciate you guys being flexible as we continue to do the work of the city by having this kind of dual platform world we are in as we deal with response to the pandemic. So, as you have your time in front of the Commission we ask that you -- a couple things. You have three minutes to make your presentation to the Commission. Please don't go over issues that we have already heard. Focus on issues that are important to you, but if we have heard it a number of times focus on issues that might be new to you. We don't allow a second set of testimony from the same person. So, take that three minutes you have and use it wisely. If there is an individual that is here speaking on behalf of an HOA, we will give you some additional time to speak on behalf of that HOA, because you are representing additional people, but we would ask that those additional people don't speak as well, if you are covering their HOA, they don't have the same issues that they bring up, so we would ask you to limit that. If there is people you are speaking on behalf they don't speak as well on the same issues. After all testimony from the public has been heard, the applicant will be given another ten minutes to come up and respond to public testimony and answer any questions that we might have and, then, we will close the discussion. At that time we will close the public hearing and the Commissioners will have a chance to deliberate and, hopefully, either make an approval or -- move for an approval or make a recommendation to City Council on a decision on the application. So, with that as we deal with the public on -- public testimony on Zoom, obviously, if you are in person we ask you to sign up for the hearing you want to -- or the application you want to be heard on back in the back on -- on the iPads that are back there. If you are on Zoom when the application comes up that you want to be heard on, we would ask you to raise your hand via the Zoom application and we will get you plugged in and so you can be part of the testimony. ACTION ITEMS 3. Public Hearing for Vicenza North Subdivision (H-2020-0108) by Bridgetower, LLC, Located in the Northwest Corner of N. Black Cat Rd. and W. McMillan Rd. A. Request: Rezone a total of 63.56 acres of land for the purpose of rezoning 41.58 acres to the R-8 zoning district and subsequently reducing the C-C zone from approximately 37 acres to 3.67 acres, reducing the L-O zone from approximately 10.6 acres to 1.56 acres, and increasing the C-G zone from approximately 13.2 acres to 16.76 acres. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 7❑ Page 4 of 110 B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 169 single-family residential building lots, 6 commercial building lots, and 8 common lots on 56.99 acres of land. C. Request: A Modification to the Existing Development Agreement (Inst. #:2019-055407) for the purpose of removing 76.58 acres of land north of W. McMillan Road and west of N. Ten Mile Road from the boundaries and terms of said agreement and enter into a new one, consistent with the proposed development plan. Fitzgerald: So, with that we would like to open the public hearing for Vicenza North Subdivision, that's file number H-2020-0108, and Bill or Joe, can you give us an idea of what -- what's the scoop with Vicenza and their request that it continue to January 7th. Dodson: Mr. Chair, this is Joe. Fitzgerald: Go ahead, sir. Dodson: Absolutely. Yeah. The applicant's wanting to continue -- or really as a -- they are requesting continuance per staff's recommendation. There was some public testimony and phone calls that the neighborhood meeting did not occur in accord with the UDC requirements. So, I have recommended that they hold another meeting and bump them out a couple weeks to help alleviate any concern that they are -- that that did not occur. They held their meeting on the 8th. So, they are in that ten day window right now per city code for the formal application, which, obviously, is already in, but just to give them enough time to respond to any questions and have the public have enough time to participate in the process we are just requesting to continue them out two weeks -- three weeks. Fitzgerald: That's perfect. Makes total sense. With that background, any questions for the staff? Could I get a motion to continue with Vicenza North Subdivision to January 7th, 2021, where we only have one other item on the agenda currently. McCarvel: So moved. Seal: So moved. McCarvel: Second. Seal: Second. Fitzgerald: I have multiple motions and multiple seconds to continue Vicenza Subdivision, file number H-2020-0108, to the date of January 7th, 2021. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Okay. Motion passes. Thank you so much. We will see them on the 7th. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 $ Page 5 of 110 4. Public Hearing Continued from November 19, 2020 for Poiema Calvary Chapel (H-2020-0095) by The Land Group, Inc., Located at 3727 E. Lake Hazel Rd. A. Request: A Conditional Use Permit to construct a new church facility built in two phases to total 52,000 square feet and 320 parking spaces at total build-out on approximately 7 acres of land on Lot 1 , Block 2 of Poiema Subdivision in the R-15 zoning district; and waive the outdoor speaker system standards (UDC 11- 3A-13) to allow in a residential district. Fitzgerald: Moving on on the fourth item on our agenda is the continued public hearing for Poiema Calvary Chapel, file number H-2020-0095, and I will turn it over to Joe for the presentation. The staff report. Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. Good evening. So, this got continued from a month ago, from November 19th, in order to amend the CUP request. My explanation of everything will be fairly quick and concise, because it's a fairly simple application. The site is a lot and block within the Poiema Subdivision that was approved earlier this year under H-2020-0035. The specific area for the CUP application is for a new church facility and it can -- it's on approximately seven acres of land, which is now zoned R-15. It directly abuts Lake Hazel. The conditional use permit request is to construct a new church facility built in two phases to total 52,000 square feet and 320 parking spaces at total build out and the change, which is why we had to continue it, was to include a request to waive the outdoor speaker system standards to allow them within a residential district. Without getting too much in the weeds, the UDC restricts outdoor speaker systems to be used within any residential district. Well, this use is being proposed within a residential district and in that code section that allows Commission to waive the requirement in order to allow the speaker systems. The applicant is not requesting a blanket dismissal of the requirements, they are open to keep with the spirit of the code and comply with the hundred foot requirement, but to any residential use and that would only be occurring within the amphitheater here. So, they are going to be able to easily maintain the hundred foot buffer. They just can't maintain it within the residential district, because the whole property is reserved. So, I just want to make that clear. Phase one of the site as seen here, is proposed with a sanctuary and the associated offices and rooms to the east, some shared outdoor space and the outdoor amphitheater. It also includes 155 parking spaces. Phase two includes a larger sanctuary, a few more of the offices, and additional parking to total 320 spaces. The proposed parking, just for note here, is three times the minimum required, which is 104 spaces based on the first floor area of the proposed church. Code does not differentiate the different nonresidential uses, so the minimum is one per 500. So, again, they are proposing about three times what the minimum is. Access for the church site is via driveway connection to the new local street proposed within the Poiema Subdivision. There is no direct lot access to Lake Hazel, other than the emergency only access, which is required for both this application and the subdivision, which is this here. The applicant is showing emergency access to become a parking drive at full build out, which both planning and fire staff have approved. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission 191 Item 1. December 17,2020 Page 6 of 110 Because the proposed use is nonresidential, a minimum five foot wide sidewalk is required adjacent to all buildings. The applicant is showing compliance with this requirement. The staff has recommended an additional segment of sidewalk be added in the second phase of development to be located around the western side of the outdoor amphitheater. Basically add a sidewalk here along this parking and come back and connect to the sidewalk here. Staff made a mistake in how the original condition was written and has agreed with the applicant that it can be modified to be more clear. The applicant will have that requested language for the Commission tonight. Again, the proposed use is nonresidential. So, there are no amenity and open space requirements. However, as discussed with the Poiema Subdivision, the 15,000 square foot open space lot here is to be shared between the church and the residents. Its maintenance and use have already been conditioned through that subdivision application and, therefore, there is no need for Commission to act on that aspect, just to note to the Commission. The applicant has submitted sample elevations of the proposed church and concept renderings for phase one only. All nonresidential structures require administrative design review and prior to obtaining building permits. The submitted elevations show a single story structure with a maximum height of 35 feet -- or, sorry, 30 feet for any area to be occupied and, then, architectural features up to approximately 35 feet, which are just these few places. The overall site design appears to include stucco, some high end siding, and stone. In addition, the elevations show both shin roof and more traditional flat roof design, adding the architectural elements of the site. There appears to be adequate modulation in wall planes as well, especially on the north elevation that faces Lake Hazel. With all of these things noted, staff does recommend approval of the subject conditional use permit application for this proposed church and the waiving of the UDC requirement with the recommended condition of approvals. After that I will stand for questions. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Joe. Are there any questions for the staff at this time? Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal, go right ahead. Seal: Joe -- and I don't know if you are going to know this one off the top of your head, but between phase one and phase two what's the difference in parking spots? Dodson: It goes from 155 to 320. So, it's about 100 and -- what is it, a 125 more? Or 155 more? Seal: Okay. Dodson: About 165 more. Seal: That's okay. It's late. I'm having trouble mathing as well. Dodson: I hear you. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 Flo] Page 7 of 110 Seal: Okay. And that -- the -- in phase one, the amount of parking spots that they have is going to be an acceptable amount? Dodson: That is correct. Yes. Seal: Yeah. What -- what I'm getting at is just in case phase two just doesn't happen. Dodson: Understood. Yes. Yes, sir. The -- phase one requires about half, because it's about half the square footage. Seal: Okay. Dodson: So, phase one is proposing 155, but I believe the minimum required is like only 52, give or take, and, then, phase three -- or phase two, sorry, at full build out is 104 required and, then, they are proposing 320. Seal: Okay. And, then, a follow-up question on that. The road that's going to be there before the parking lot is put in, is that a paved road, a gravel road, how -- what kind of road is it? Dodson: Commissioner Seal, are you referring to the emergency access? Seal: Correct. Dodson: Okay. Yes. That's going to be a paved access and be constructed with the Poiema Subdivision. It will be in there before the church site is even constructed. So, they have to construct all these roads first, including the emergency access and it will be paved per Fire Department standards. Seal: Okay. One more question and I promise I will be done. The amphitheater looks like it is actually facing out into the residential area; is that correct? Dodson: It -- to be honest, I -- I don't -- it's this portion here. I think it's -- I think the stage is in the wider portion, but I could be wrong. Yearsley: The residential lots are to the west, Commissioner Seal. Dodson: To the south and east here. Yearsley: Or east. I'm sorry. The east and the south. Dodson: They show landscaping along the edge here. I believe the applicant will be able to better answer that, including the pastor of the church who is -- who is with us tonight. Seal: Okay. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 Fill Page 8 of 110 Dodson: I wish I had an answer. I'm sorry, sir. Seal: No problem. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Any additional questions for Joe at this time? Hearing none, thanks, Joe. Do we have the applicant with us at this point? Tamara, are you taking this one? Thompson: Mr. Chair, Tamara Thompson. Yes, I am. But my client wanted to say a few words at the beginning. I don't know if -- Fitzgerald: Okay. Thompson: -- he's on. We are not together. So, if he's available to start, otherwise, can -- I can jump in if he's not. Zachman: I'm here. Thompson: Oh, excellent. Go ahead, Daryl. Zachman: Well, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, good evening. I'm Daryl Zachman, pastor of Calvary Chapel Treasure Valley, at 9226 West Barnes Drive in Boise. I just want to thank you for considering our conditional use permit tonight. As you would recall from the hearing in August, the church building site is part of the Poiema Subdivision as has been stated already. Poiema -- we got that word -- it's a Greek word for workmanship or masterpiece. It comes from Ephesians 2:10 that says we are His workmanship, Poiema, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them. So, we are sort of happy about that. We think it's cool. We also get our English word poem from that. But I just want to let you know that from the outset our vision has been that the residential properties and the church would exist side by side in an integrated community. That's reflected in the -- in the common lot, as has been pointed out, and also the -- the adequate parking along the streets that will be able to be shared with the subdivision and I know you see many development plans, but you may not be aware of our background. We purchased this land in 2003 and have been waiting. At the time we were meeting at a shopping center for church, but in 2010 we lost that property because of the remodeling the landlord was doing, so we have been a mobile church for ten years and have been using either different church facilities or -- or now three different schools, so -- so with the increased development of south Meridian that enabled us to get the city services out there, which has made this project feasible. So, we are very excited to begin the construction and blessed to cooperate with Zack Evans in planning this desirable community for seniors and others who will be purchasing the townhomes. We see ourselves ministering to the many residents of south Meridian in the area, of which there is a huge bedroom community, obviously, and we are pleased that the staff has recommended approval of our conditional use permit. So, I just want to thank you very much. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Daryl. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F12 Page 9 of 110 Thompson: Thanks, Daryl. If I can share my screen, I have just a really quick PowerPoint to go through. Joe did a great job and stole a lot of my slides, so -- Dodson: You are welcome, Tamara. Thompson: I can't share yet. Dodson: There, you should be able to share now. I apologize. I was hogging it. Thompson: Okay. Let's see here. Totally changed my window. Fitzgerald: Try to keep you on your toes. Thompson: Yeah. All right. Are you seeing that? Fitzgerald: Yes, ma'am. Thompson: Okay. Excellent. Okay. Fitzgerald: Tamara, you want to introduce yourself again real quick. Thompson: Yes. Yes. Tamara Thompson. I'm with The Land Group and we are located at 462 East Shore Drive in Eagle. Tonight before you is the conditional use permit for a church facility in the R-15 zone. The site is currently one parcel and the Poiema Subdivision was recently approved and this -- and so what I have shown here is the overall subdivision boundary and, then, this lot within it, just so you can get a context of where it -- where it sits on the property as a whole. Now north is now to the left. The -- again, the property is this location and with the subdivision as -- as Joe mentioned, the emergency access gets constructed with the subdivision. The access for the property for this parcel is off of the residential streets and not direct from Lake Hazel and Joe gave you this one, just phase one is the amphitheater. This is the stage here closer to the building and the location of this is -- excuse me -- close to 300 feet away from the residences -- residential properties. So, it's well over the hundred feet that is in code. And, then, with these two side by side. So, phase one and, then, phase two has an area for expansion, which basically doubles the site, it doubles the parking counts and doubles the -- the size of the -- of the sanctuary. And just the elevations again quickly and we have read the staff report and agree with staff's analysis and the recommended conditions of approval and we respectfully request your approval tonight. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Tamara. And thanks, Daryl, we appreciate information from both of you. Any questions for Daryl or for Tamara? Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F13] Page 10 of 110 Seal: Just the question on the amphitheater as far as which direction -- which direction it faces. Is that -- is it going to be facing essentially southwest is what I'm -- that's how I'm reading it or am I looking at it backwards? And my question pertains to the sound projection. Thompson: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Seal, the -- the stage is closer to the building and so the -- it would face to the west southwest. Seal: Okay. Thank you. Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Additional question on the amphitheater. What if-- could we get some I guess ideas of-- of usage of that and, you know, what they see -- I'm guessing there will never be anything too late in the day, probably, you know -- but if they could give us a little indication on that would be great. Zachman: I could take that if that's all right. Thompson: Go ahead. Zachman: So, the usage is primarily on Sunday mornings during the summer and it wouldn't -- it's not going to be like loud concert volumes, you know, but we are also working with Zack Evans to make this part of the CC&Rs that they are doing in the subdivision to just let people know about that, just an understanding before they are buying, so that they know that it's there. So, that's -- that's really how we see it. There may be some times in the summer, you know, we might do something in the evening, but not very often. It mainly is just going to be like a Sunday morning worship thing. Thompson: And, Mr. Chair, if I could add onto that. Fitzgerald: Go ahead. Thompson: Daryl, correct me if I'm wrong, but from my understanding is it's not a permanent system. There will be temporary or portable microphone and speaker that are brought out at that time. So, it's not like a big sound system that's -- that's permanent in that location. It's -- it's a portable system. Zachman: That's correct. Yeah. Because there is nothing really to shelter any of that from the weather or anything like that. So, yeah, that would be the way it would be. Cassinelli: Follow up if I could, Mr. Chair. Fitzgerald: Absolutely. Go right ahead. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F14 Page 11 of 110 Cassinelli: It looks like on the landscape plans that there are some trees or shrubs on the -- that would help to buffer any possible noise, because I know there is a -- there is also the subdivision going into the -- to the west of the property, so there will be homes right there. So, is that -- is there landscaping in there that I'm seeing that will serve to buffer some of that and -- and I -- sight and -- you know, sight as well as sound I guess. Fitzgerald: Tamara, can you take that? Thompson: Yeah. Mr. Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli, there -- there will be landscaping and there is also the Ten Mile Canal in between the two properties. The Ten Mile Canal is actually on the neighboring property, but my understanding is is that the -- the existing trees that are there that are fairly large will remain as well. So, those will help with the buffer. Zachman: Can I say something, too, on that? Fitzgerald: Yes, sir. Zachman: It's -- it's sloped upward. It's very similar to the amphitheater at Kleiner Park, so -- so, you are going to have a natural huge amount of dirt that's going to be helping to buffer the sound that's directly aiming at it and sloping it upward. Fitzgerald: Thank you for that. Cassinelli: Okay. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Any additional follow up, Commissioner Cassinelli? Cassinelli: No. That's -- that covers it. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Perfect. Commissioner Grove, did you have a question? I -- okay. Any additional questions for the applicant? Perfect. Tamara and Daryl, thank you so much. We will see if there is public testimony and, then, we will let you close real quick. So, we will get back to you. Hold on for a few minutes and we will be back. Madam Clerk, do we have anyone in the audience or online that would like to testify on this application? Weatherly: Mr. Chair, we did not. Fitzgerald: Okay. If there is anyone online on Zoom with us that would like to testify on this application, please, hit the raise your hand button and we will get you over as a panelist, so we can hear from you. Commissioner Grove, anybody in -- in chambers? Grove: No one is indicating that they wish to speak. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F15] Page 12 of 110 Fitzgerald: Okay. Not seeing anyone raise their hands on our attendee side either -- Mr. Zachman -- or Pastor Zachman or Tamara, do you guys have any final words for us as we close? Thompson: Mr. Chair, nothing to add. We are just excited to get this project moving forward and we request your approval tonight. Fitzgerald: Thank you. Perfect. Well, is there any further final questions before we close the public hearing? Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I move we close the public hearing and move to deliberation. Cassinelli: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Fitzgerald: Who wants to lead off? Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Go right ahead, Commissioner Seal. Seal: Just -- I mean this looks pretty straightforward. I don't have any big concerns on it. I mean the only thing that I am a little concerned about that we have touched on is just the position of the amphitheater and the sound that carries in there. That comes from my previous life where I was a drummer and I know without amplifiers or anything that carries a really really long ways. So, just, you know, hoping that whatever is discussed, decided and ruled upon as far as the -- them being able to use amplification equipment out there, that they are aware of that and, you know, keep it to a minimum with their neighbors. I'm sure they are far enough away and with the buffering that's in there and the trees and the slope that it will be kept to a minimum, but it still can get fairly loud. Fitzgerald: Appreciate that. Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F16] Page 13 of 110 Holland: As I say, I don't have any big concerns about this application. I think they have -- they have tried to address with the slope and with trying to buffer it and I appreciated them adding it to the CC&Rs of the subdivision to give them kind of a heads up when they move in. I think it will be a nice amenity and I don't imagine that they are going to be having a lot of late night ragers and problems with -- with anything like that. So, I -- I'm in support of it. I think it looks like a nice project. Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Yeah. I like the -- I like the design, what we are seeing. I like the -- the layout or the -- you know, they thought about the parking and everything and -- and I think from the church's standpoint they are -- you know, they are -- they are going to want to -- they are going to want to be good neighbors. I mean it's part of -- part of being in there. So, I don't -- I don't see that as a problem and -- and, you know, I think it might be a little community draw there as well. So, I'm in support. Fitzgerald: Thank you, sir. Commissioner McCarvel, go right ahead, ma'am. McCarvel: Yeah. I'm in support of this as well. I think, you know, we got a little bit of a glimpse of this when we had the subdivision in front of us, the residential part of it, and the connections and everything. So, I think it's been pretty well thought out and I appreciate you telling us about the trees and stuff along the creek, because I think that will help add as a buffer to the subdivision to the west then. Fitzgerald: Thank you, ma'am. I -- I agree with all of the comments that have been made so far. I think it's well laid out. I think the inner -- inner working with Zack Evans -- he always builds nice product and I know putting it in the CC&Rs will give everybody a heads up of what's coming. So, I think that's great. I think it looks nice. I think that -- I guess like Commissioner Cassinelli I think the amphitheater may be a benefit, so I think it will be a nice thing to add to that community, especially when everybody has a heads up of what's going in, so I'm in favor of it as well. Commissioner Grove, did you -- Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Oh, Commissioner Holland, go right ahead. Holland: If -- if there was more comments I'm more than happy to let people talk, but I'm happy to make a motion, too, if we are there. Fitzgerald: Motions are always in order, even if someone wants to make more comments. Holland: All right. All right. After hearing all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve the conditional use permit request for a church facility and waive the outdoor speaker system standards to allow them within a residential district. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F17] Page 14 of 110 McCarvel: Second. Cassinelli: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second -- oh, was there -- Holland: I will amend the motion just to include the file number H-2020-0035. Cassinelli: My second still stands. Fitzgerald: Perfect. Dodson: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Joe, go right ahead. Dodson: Sorry. Nine five was the subdivision. Just to let you know. Holland: Oh. Sorry. I was going off of the staff memo and I -- or the staff hearing outline. It was written on their wrong. Fitzgerald: So, nine five. Dodson: Nine five. Holland: Zero nine five. Fitzgerald: And, Commissioner Cassinelli, your second -- Cassinelli: Still stands. Fitzgerald: Okay. Perfect. I have a motion and a second to approve Poiema Calvary Chapel, H-2020-0095. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Fitzgerald: Good luck, Tamara. Thanks, Daryl. Good luck. Look forward to seeing you. Thank you for being here tonight. Dodson: Thank you, everybody. 5. Public Hearing for Mile High Pines Subdivision (H-2020-0099) by Baron Black Cat, LLC, Located in the Southwest Corner of N. Ten Mile Rd. and W. Pine Ave. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F18 Page 15 of 110 A. Request: Annexation of 17.46 acres of land with a request for C-C (6.04 acres) and R-15 (11.42 acres) zoning districts. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 3 building lots and 1 common lot on 15.95 acres of land in the proposed C-C and R-15 zoning districts. C. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of a total of 135 residential units on 11.42 acres in the proposed R-15 zoning district. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Joe. Moving on to the next item on our agenda is the public hearing for Mile High Pines Subdivision, H-2020-0099, and I will turn it back over to Joe for the staff report. Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Before we get started I just want to note, Commissioner Grove, when you speak I can barely hear you. I don't know if other people online are having trouble. You might have to eat the microphone. So, just letting you know. All right. So, Commissioners, bear with me on my presentation for this. It is a vastly more complex project than the previous one, so bear with me while I get through everything that I analyzed in the staff report. As noted this is for Mile High Pines, which is specifically located at the southwest corner of the Pine extension -- a future Pine extension and Ten Mile. It is a request for annexation of 17.46 acres of land with a request for C-C and R- 15 zoning district. A preliminary plat consisting of three building lots and one common lot on approximately 16 acres and a conditional use permit for a multi-family development, consisting of a total of 135 residential units on 11.4 acres in the proposed R-15 zoning district. The application -- sorry. The proposed land uses are multi-family residential and commercial. The residential is in the form of detached cottages, townhomes, and two vertically integrated buildings. Both -- or I should say the residential and the commercial uses are consistent with the land use types noted in the future land use map designation definitions and preferred uses for mixed use community. Of the 135 residential units, 87 are the detached single story cottages, 42 are townhome units, and there are six units within the two vertically integrated structures. The proposed product type is by definition multi-family, which means more than two units on a single building lot. So, the applicant has designed units to emulate single family attached and detached structures that share pathways and open space rather than public streets. For reference this is the sister project to the Modern Craftsman at Black Cat that was recently approved. The proposed project has -- as shown is approximately eight dwelling units per acre, meeting the six to 15 dwelling unit per acre range for the mixed use community designation. All proposed lots appear to meet the UDC dimensional standards per the submitted plat. However, there are some concerns over the applicant meeting the required utility separation and easement requirements, while not having any permanent structure encroachments or overhangs within the easement. It is staff's understanding that the applicant has been continuing working with Public Works to correct this, which is greatly appreciated. If revisions to the site design are required to comply with those requirements, the applicant -- or the applicable plans -- all of the applicable plans should be revised and resubmitted. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F19 Page 16 of 110 For reference, this preliminary plat here is not entirely accurate, as some of the easements have changed since this was originally approved. By that I mean just the easement widths in some of the areas. The overall site design has not changed. The applicant submitted conceptual elevations for the residential portion of the site. Overall they comply with the ASM. However, the ASM, architectural standards manual, does note that no two multi-family buildings should look the same. To ensure compliance with at least the intent of this, the applicant should create more differentiation between the units by providing different colors beyond the same earth tones. I do understand the applicant's perspective that they are offering three different color variants as you can see in the center here with different ones, but it is staff's opinion that they should incorporate two more color variants, again, that just aren't the same kind of earth tones. It reminds me of being at West Point again. The -- in addition adding more of the active materials, which would be lap siding and stone, rather than stucco, would help make -- to make more of the detached units unique from one another. Staff is recommending a condition of approval to mitigate this. Despite the fact that a separate design review is required for the future commercial, staff wants to ensure the future commercial buildings integrate with the proposed residential. Therefore, the applicant should provide at least conceptual elevations for these buildings. They did not upon the initial submittal. And, again, staff is providing a condition of approval to submit those elevations prior to the City Council hearing. Just to recap really quick with these, the elevations shown on the top left are the clubhouse. The ones on the right are the one bedroom. These are the three bedroom in the bottom left. The top right are one of the two bedroom variants. And, then, the other two bedroom variant is on the left here and, then, on the right are the townhome units, which they also have the same color variance -- I believe the same three colors. And, then, these are the proposed vertically integrated buildings, just to be clear. I used the landscape rendering plan for the site plan in this, just because I think it kind of shows all of the areas better. The subject development offers approximately six acres of commercial zoning, according to the proposed rezone exhibit. However, the proposed C-C zoning does not truly reflect the commercial area, because it does not match the plat boundary. Staff cannot support split zoning on the residential lot and so the applicant should revise the rezone exhibit or the plat boundary to reflect the correct zoning. Or I should say to correct -- to reflect the correct zoning boundaries. With other revisions requested by staff within my staff report, the applicant will likely have to make other adjustments to these documents as well. All of these changes should occur prior to City Council to ensure transparency on the true amount of commercial zoning being proposed. The commercial acreage of this property is proposed as two commercial lots, one in the northeast corner of the sight and, then, the other one being the remaining area with two more buildings. The submitted plat shows two of the three commercial buildings as containing drive-thrus, which staff does not support. Despite this opinion, staff is not willing to specifically limit the number of drive-thrus --or drive-thru establishments I should say with this application, because each drive-thru will require a conditional use permit to implement that use. The proposed residential area of the site incorporates MEWs, private streets, common open space and different housing designs within the same parcel, as seen on the image here. Furthermore, the applicant is proposing two story townhomes along the southwestern boundary and on the part of the eastern boundary along Ten Mile, with the rest of the site being a majority of single story structures. So, again, the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F20 Page 17 of 110 townhomes are along the western boundary here and, then, the two along here. Staff believes placing the commercial along Ten Mile with the -- is an appropriate buffer between the busy arterial, which is Ten Mile right here, and the single story structure that make up the center of the development. However, staff does have specific recommendations regarding the overall site design to better transition from Ten Mile and Pine and also spread out some of the units within the development for better utility delivery. By that I mean water and sewer. Staff notes that all of the recommendations that were made are with the overarching recommendation that additional units do not be added, even if there is room available. To be specific, staff is recommending the following changes. Remove the singular unit in the southwest -- I have another here. This just here. Remove this singular unit here, so that this area can be opened up and help limit any possible CPTED issues with having a unit back here. Secondly, replace the townhome units shown on Ten Mile with the vertically integrated structure. So, move these two units. Replace those two with this here and, then, have the additional parking south of that to be better both from the railroad tracks and Ten Mile to help activate the commercial and to vertically integrate it, which can also be accessed via the sidewalk along here and integrate with this commercial. Staff believes, again, that fronting this building onto Ten Mile will help activate the commercial. The secondary portion of this, once the vertically integrated is moved here, move these four units here -- or all of them for that matter further east and help spread them out. The point of this is to have the utility lines to be able to have them -- allow them to have more room between the units. This concern was presented by Public Works because of the proximity of the buildings. In addition, this recommendation could add -- could, depending on how they redesign it, additional open space in the center of this development. Finally, once this goes -- the vertically integrated goes here, these get spread out, as you can find my -- one of the arrows, these two townhomes could be moved up here. So, the secondary -- or the final portion is to remove all of the detached units here, which are 14 units, and put the townhomes here. I did preliminary measuring and I believe three, instead of the two, can fit here, which staff is certainly fond of. If they do six-plexes, as they can do a four-plex, et cetera. They can fill this area, in staff's opinion, with the townhomes and meet the intent of what I'm discussing. The townhomes which front on the large open space that is being proposed along Pine and have the garages face internally to the site. This removes the single family style product for being adjacent to a major street extension and removes the need for on-street parking -- I should say backup parking along the north side of this road. With this recommendation the entire northern area of the site could be pushed further north, depending on how the measurements work out. That would be advantageous to open up the site and allow for more room within the street to accommodate the required utility easements and possibly additional traffic calming. The applicant for this project and the project proposed further north -- I should say directly to the north and the west have entered into a legally binding dedication and development agreement that outlines the potential options where how Pine Avenue will be extended and constructed. In addition, ACHD has outlined different options for how this extension or road improvements can occur. At a minimum this applicant will construct the intersection improvements as a half -- as half of a three lane street section with one westbound receiving lane and eastbound left turn lane and an eastbound through lane or right turn lane with -- including vertical curb, gutter and sidewalk abutting the site. In Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F21 Page 18 of 110 addition, the applicant is at a minimum required to extend and construct Pine Avenue outside of the intersection influence area as half of a 36 foot wide section, with their half plus 12 to total 30 feet of payment and it also has vertical curb and gutter and, then, five foot detached sidewalk along Pine. The applicant's agreement discusses that whoever obtains city approval second is required to dedicate the required amount of right of way to ensure that Pine Avenue is constructed -- centered on the section line dividing the two properties. In addition, the applicant is required to enter into a signal agreement for the required signal improvements at this intersection of Pine and Ten Mile. Staff appreciates the forethought of this agreement by the applicant to ensure correct construction of the Pine Avenue extension. Therefore, staff has recommended a condition of approval in line with this agreement. Access is proposed to be a one private street access off of Pine Avenue, which is here, and one driveway access to Ten Mile. So, again, this is a driveway access, not a private street access. This is a private street access. The Ten Mile access is proposed as a full access at this time and is approximately 400 feet, give or take, from the railroad tracks -- northern railroad tracks. ACHD is requiring that the applicant construct a southbound right turn lane onto Ten Mile Road, located 580 feet south of the intersection for safe access into the site on this Ten Mile access. The applicant is also proposing an emergency access through one of the private drives that abuts this cul-de- sac here. The two proposed access points have been approved by ACHD. In addition the applicant is proposing an additional private street access to the property to the west here to add additional fenesterating and vehicular connectivity and help with the mixed use policy. In general multi-family projects do not typically have private streets, but instead have drive aisles. However, because of the nature of this development private streets are being used for the purpose of having better addressing for the site. Drive aisles cannot be named and addressed, which does not lend itself to a development of this kind. Therefore, the private streets will function as drive aisles, but incorporate the ability to have street names and better addressing for first responders. No gates are proposed with development in order to improve integration and connectivity in line with the mixed use policy's goals. The private streets are proposed at least 25 feet wide, with attached sidewalks of varying widths on both sides of the street throughout the site. Both open and covered parking is also proposed along the private streets. Staff does have concern with the street layout at the main entrance off of Pine Avenue where a very uncommon three-way intersection is shown. You guys can see that here. Let me go to this plan. You guys can see that better. Albeit the intersection is internal to the private streets, all three roadways that converge on this point allow traffic in both directions, two way traffic on all three sides of this. We -- staff, including the, you know, Police Department, have concerns over how traffic will flow and navigate this intersection, especially in inclement weather. For example, when our lovely snow decides to cover all the road striping and I'm impatient enough that I would be one of the people to go the wrong direction. So, it's a safety concern and thought of staff to recommend that this be revised. Staff believes that this intersection should be redesigned in such a way that traffic can safely and efficiently navigate between the residential and the commercial areas of this site. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in the UDC for multi-family dwellings, based on the number of bedrooms per unit. The submitted plan shows a total of 442 total spaces for the entire development. Three hundred and nineteen are for the residents, 12 are for the clubhouse, 30 are shown Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F22 Page 19 of 110 for the vertically integrated units and the remaining 81 are for the proposed commercial. Of the 319 residential units, a certain number are required to be covered. The numbers on the proposed plan that I have analyzed do not seem to add up correctly. However, I counted the proposed covered spaces and there appear to be 218, which exceeds the minimum required amount of 122. Overall the proposed parking appears to exceed the minimum UDC requirements. A ten foot multi-use pathway is required along the property's boundary -- southern boundary abutting the railroad easement as seen here. This is the proposed ten foot pathway. As shown on the master pathways plan. The proposed pathway will be approximately a hundred feet from the existing railroad tracks due to the easement width and will be a segment of about 480 feet long. It connects to the existing arterial sidewalk along Ten Mile and it also will connect to the proposed micro path, which is all along the western boundary of the site. So, again, this is a ten foot pathway here that, then, gets a five foot pathway along here. The adjacent applications to the west and north will continue the multi-use pathway onto the west, which, then, eventually connects up to Fuller Park. Sorry. The micro path also continues and connects to other sidewalks that can go all the way to Pine Avenue. The proposed sidewalks in this development internally are also essentially micro pathways. These pathways connect through -- these pathways connect throughout the entire development and traverse through every MEW as well. They offer fenestration connection and give these residents the opportunity to walk, rather than drive within the project site, especially to the adjacent commercial, and also the nearby commercial on the east side of Ten Mile Road. The proposed landscaping for the required street buffers and common open space meet the UDC requirements as proposed. However, there do not appear to be landscape strips on both sides of the proposed pathways. Now, that's -- you know, that's multi-use and the macro pathway just explained. Staff has recommended conditions of approval to correct this. In addition, the proposed C-C zoning district, according to the UDC, requires a 25 foot landscape buffer to any residential district, which this would abut. The submitted plans do not show compliance with this requirement. Because this is a mixed use development and there is presence of some landscaping, a sidewalk and the street between the residential uses and the commercial, staff does not have particular concern over this discrepancy. However, in order to comply with the UDC, the applicant will have to request a waiver from City Council to reduce this buffer to a specific width or to reduce it to the buffer shown on the landscape plan. A minimum of ten percent qualified open space is required. Based on the proposed plat of 16.46 acres, a minimum of 1 .65 acres of qualified open space should be provided. In addition, the common open space standards listed within the specific use standards for multi-family developments also apply. Combined, the required amount of minimum qualifying open space that should be provided is 2.5 acres. According to the open space exhibit, the applicant is proposing a total of 3.62 acres of qualified open space. Of this area 2.47 is proposed to meet the overall minimum ten percent and that 2.47 equates to approximately 15 percent. This qualified open space consists of the ten foot multi-use pathway segment, the required street buffers and two large common open space areas. Specifically for this map, the darker green is what is being meant to qualify for the overall open space. The -- the 11- 3-G standard. The lighter green is meant to qualify for the multi-family specific use standards. The qualified -- sorry. As noted this area does exceed the minimum UDC requirements. They remaining 1.15 acres is proposed to meet the specific use standards. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F23 Page 20 of 110 These areas consist of the MEWs between the attached units, areas of open space that meet the minimum 20 by 20 multi-family open space dimensions, and the two shared plazas. This area also exceeds the minimum requirements. Based on the area of the plat a minimum of one qualified site amenity is to be provided. The applicant proposes a ten foot multi-use pathway along the southern boundary to satisfy the UDC requirement. That is in reference again to the 11-3-G requirements. The rest of the amenities are proposed to meet the specific use standards. A minimum of four amenities are required per the standards, but the decision making body is authorized to consider additional amenities for developments that contain over one hundred units, as this subject application. The following amenities are proposed to meet these standards. A clubhouse with offices, a fitness facility enclosed by storage and a pool. A tot lot. Two shared plazas and pedestrian bicycle circulation. Therefore, the applicant is proposing seven qualifying site amenities. In addition to these amenities, the applicant is proposing self storage lockers each about 12 square feet spread throughout each of the garage buildings, just like the other Modern Craftsman. Despite this not being a qualifying amenity, I do find it appropriate to mention, as they will likely be very much used. To be more frank about the recommended changes that staff has made, they are in reference to helping the site open up and also maintain the integration. It is not staff's point to do complete redesigns, but staff has had a lot of these discussions with the applicant before, we have worked through a lot of these issues--or tried to at least and presented some of these changes at previous meetings. It is my understanding that the applicant is not in agreement with the staff report and they are proposing to keep the site design as such. Again, one of the main issues that we had been presented with is the Public Works issues about the easement within the street and also the service lines between the units. Staff just wants to ensure that these things can be taken care of and be taken care of up front, rather than get to a point where at final plat they don't work and now we have a major redesign and potentially have to start over. That is not what any of us want. So, that is -- that is where staff's at with that. This includes the intersection -- three way intersection here and, then, just offering some recommendations about how to better layout this site with some of the vertically integrated and the townhomes. Understand that there can be differences of opinion, but it's just recommendations by staff to help with the utility and overall site design issue. With those revisions and the subsequent conditions of approval and the DA provisions, staff does recommend approval of the subject application. And after that I will stand for questions. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Joe. So, just to quickly clarify. If your revisions are accepted, you have -- you feel comfortable they are covered in your-- in all those pieces, you know, that you have outlined. It was pretty extensive. Are outlined in your -- in your staff report in your requirements. Dodson: Mr. Chair, yes, sir. I -- the way that I kind of laid it out, I laid that out in the conditions of approval as well. Fitzgerald: Yeah. I was making sure you feel comfortable that they are all in there. So, that was extensive. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F24] Page 21 of 110 Dodson: Yes, sir. Yeah. Fitzgerald: We can get the applicant on their thoughts, but I just want to make sure you feel covered if there -- because my concern is we are redesigning and, then, this is just me and I will let our other fellow Commissioners -- because we are redesigning this whole thing and we are not going to have a chance to look at it before it goes to Council. That's before the applicant even gets up here. I just want to throw that out there, because that's my concern to make sure we are hitting stuff and we trust you guys to guide us on where we are headed and I'm afraid where we are headed is we need to look at this again. But any additional comments or questions for -- for Joe? Dodson: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Yeah. Go ahead. Dodson: If I may, I do understand what you are saying and I understand that that might be a big concern for all the Commissioners. To be honest, this is something that staff has discussed or reached out to the applicant with and noting that maybe a continuance would have been necessary in order for staff and the applicant to work through. That was not taken advantage of and that's fine. Hence why staff has decided and had to take the path of conditioning the project, which is where we are at. Fitzgerald: Okay. Dodson: So, I do understand your perspective. Fitzgerald: Thank you for the clarification. That helps me. Commissioner Holland, you came off of mute, ma'am. Do you have questions? Holland: No, Mr. Chair. I was just going to go with what you said. I have got some concerns about bringing this forward to Council the way that it is right now, because it's just -- it won't even look like the same thing by the time it gets to Council. So, I -- at this point with the number of conditions that are requested by staff, without even hearing from the applicant, I would -- I would want to vote to continue it and not spend too much time looking at it tonight until we have got an adjusted layout, because I think it's going to be a moot point until we see the adjustments on it. Fitzgerald: Yeah. That would be my -- I want to hear from the applicant and get their feedback. Holland: Sure. Fitzgerald: -- but I definitely am -- that's where I'm leaning as well. Any additional comments or questions for Joe? Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F25] Page 22 of 110 Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Joe, can you -- what's the vertically integrated building? Can you give me -- give me some detail on it? Dodson: Commissioner Cassinelli, so vertically integrated is what a lot of people call a live-work. It's a commercial on the first floor and, then, residential on the top. It doesn't have to be two stories, it can be three, four, whatever it needs to be. Like the Old Town Lofts across from City Hall. Cassinelli: Yeah. Dodson: The point is to just offer the integration of the residential with the commercial within one building, rather than spreading it out across the site. It's more of an urban -- urban feel. Cassinelli: Sure. That's what I thought you were going at with that building, but I wanted to double check. And, then, did anybody on that three-way intersection -- did they look at a -- at a one way, almost a -- you know, kind of a little traffic circle or roundabout in that scenario? Dodson: Commissioner Cassinelli, great question. That is something that staff has told the applicant was something that needs to be looked at from the beginning. I don't know what they did look at in potential options. I believe that they will be able to better answer that for you. Cassinelli: Okay. And, then, a final question for you, if I can. You said that you are not -- that staff was not really in favor of drive-thrus in commercial up front. Can you give us some detail on that? Dodson: Yes, sir. Commissioner Cassinelli, Members of the Commission, the point of that is -- is the two -- having two drive-thrus right next to each other staff is not in support of. At least initially looking at this. Again, none of the commercial is being proposed right now, but they -- they will all have to have a conditional use permit. So, I believe that's a better time to review those uses would be at the future CUP point. Cassinelli: Okay. Dodson: That was okay with at least one, if that makes sense, at the hard corner especially, and I think the applicant and I had discussed that before, just showing two right next to each other, as we know with stacking issues and things like that, that can be troublesome. So, that was -- that was the main point of that comment. Cassinelli: Okay. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli, are you good or do you need follow up? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F26] Page 23 of 110 Cassinelli: I am -- and I know -- I mean if we are going to go the direction that we have already -- that we were talking about, I don't know if I want to spend too much time on that, but can't we -- can we condition for just -- if we were to go down this road tonight, reviewing everything, can we -- can we condition for just one or do those -- does every time somebody wants a drive thru do we have to -- do we have to look at that? Because, then, it's -- what happens is if we open the door for that, then, you know, you kind of put a second individual come in for an application or the third, it's a disadvantage, but if it's -- if it's conditioned up front for just one and one only, then, it goes to the highest bidder I guess. McCarvel: Yeah. Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: Wouldn't -- don't we just see it -- wouldn't we just see the second one when it comes in as a drive-thru within 300 feet of another drive-thru? Fitzgerald: Yeah. A conditional use permit we see it again. McCarvel: Yeah. Dodson: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner -- go ahead, Joe. Dodson: No problem. I guess me and Commissioner Seal get confused for each other every time. The -- in general you are correct, Commissioner McCarvel, it is -- if it's one within 300 feet of another, but because this is also within 300 feet of a residential district each -- McCarvel: Okay. Dodson: -- each drive-thru it has to obtain a CUP. So, even the first one would. McCarvel: Yeah. Dodson: This is not -- that is not part of this application. McCarvel: Okay. Dodson: I don't think the -- the applicant's not wanting to go that route at this moment, because, you know, end users are not yet known. McCarvel: Right. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F27 Page 24 of 110 Dodson: So, commercial is conceptual. That's why I -- I didn't want to limit that up front. Obviously, that is the purview of the Commission and Council if they want to. Like you were saying, Commissioner Cassinelli, I understand your perspective there, because I can see that understanding that, yes, if -- after the first one comes in the idea of another one going in is probably going to be lower. So, I understand your perspective. Fitzgerald: Additional questions for Joe? Grove: Mr. Chair? Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Grove. Grove: Thanks. Joe, question for you. With the improvements to Pine, is this development and the other development -- does that mean that Pine will connect all the way through? I was not completely clear on that. Dodson: Commissioner Grove, Members of the Commission, yes, I -- I didn't go into too much detail. I don't want to -- you know, because of the hearing laws and things that are well outside of my purview -- intelligence at this point. I don't want to speak too much on that application. But with both this application and the ones that are surrounding to the west and north, if both are approved, then, yes, Pine will get punched all the way through from Ten Mile and, then, over the Ten Mile Creek and connect through to Black Cat, which is the intention of both applicants. Fitzgerald: And that's the long-term plan, Joe? Either way, even if it's not these two applications? ACHD has that plan; correct? Dodson: Mr. Chair, that is correct. They don't have it on any of their CIPs that I know of, because the expectation is that some applicant's will be able to take on the burden and not put it fully on the taxpayers as those lots get redeveloped, but it is on the master street map to be a full collector, yes. Fitzgerald: And that's the expectation for development I would guess. Dodson: Yes, sir. Fitzgerald: Any additional questions for Joe at this time? Okay. Seeing none, at this point would the applicant like to join us? Nelson: Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission. Deborah Nelson. 601 West Bannock Street here on behalf of the applicant team. I also have here with me members of the development team and they are available to answer questions with you. I'm going to -- or with me. Excuse me. For you. I'm going to share a screen here and let me know -- can you see that just fine? Great. Fitzgerald: Yep. Thanks, Deb. Go right ahead. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F28 Page 25 of 110 Nelson: Okay. You know, I'm going to jump in pretty quickly to the substance, because Joe covered a lot there and you guys had a lot of questions, so I may just skip with some of these formalities. You already know about Baron Properties from their project at Black Cat and Chinden and so this is their second project in Meridian where they are starting from ground up. We are excited to bring this mixed use project right here to Ten Mile and Pine that you can see on the vicinity map. We have got existing commercial around us with the gateway at Ten Mile and the Ten Mile area specific plan to our south. A lot of employment uses going on there with the new Amazon. Additionally we have got the commercial that's immediately across Ten Mile. I want to focus on the site plan right from the get go here. I want to show you where our zones are proposed. The R-15 is 11 .42 acres. The C-C zone is just over six acres. And you can see the delineation on the site plan where they break up here. Both of these zones are consistent with your Comprehensive Plan designation of mixed use community. We have heard Joe's concern about wanting to align the lots with that break in zoning and we can accommodate that. We will add a third commercial lot that will fall within the C-C zone, include the two vertically integrated buildings and the clubhouse area -- everything that's not included in the other commercial lots and we will add that to our C-C zone and update our plot accordingly as he's requested and, then, the plat lot lines will fall directly on the zone lines as he -- as he desires. I want to also walk through some of Joe's other comments. guess maybe as a preliminary matter from the development team's perspective the changes that are requested in the staff report are new and surprising, given the extent of time that the development team has worked with staff. They are very interested in getting staff support on this development, that's why they worked so hard at it. We learned a lot through the Black Cat evolution. We felt like we got a lot of good feedback from staff and from the Planning and Zoning Commission that led to a better project. We incorporated all of the feedback. We heard from staff over eight plus months of discussions. Our first pre-app with them was in February. We didn't file until October. We had many site revisions, a lot of movement with a lot of focus on integration between the commercial areas and the residential areas and that is what led us to this site plan. We had specific comments from staff about placing the townhomes along Ten Mile in the southeast portion to create framing against that street and instead moving the more activated commercial, vertically integrated uses up into the central part of the site. Staff wanted us to pull the commercial down Pine to better serve our residences -- our residents and the residences that are planned further west and with the Pine access being the full access here, they really wanted that commercial to frame that corner and further to the integration we created the crosswalks and the two plazas that are between the commercial and the residential. These vertically integrated buildings are very purposefully placed. They frame this area, they create transition from the harder corner, the commercial area, bring that activated commercial feeling -- you know, urban feeling from the parking out front, put pedestrian friendly from the crosswalk and they bring that right up around all of the activity going on around the residential area. That is exactly what your Comprehensive Plan calls for. Moving that further along Ten Mile creates islands of commercial and residential, exactly what staff has advised us for the last year to try to avoid with the site plan reconfiguration that we have done here. So, it is news to us what is being asked for now and we are not supportive of it. We like the evolution that we have come up with with staff. It's very practical and functional. We like the framing of the townhomes along Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F29 Page 26 of 110 Ten Mile. We think the better activation is along Pine and Central. We like having our single story detached units up along Pine, not townhomes there. It creates a nice visibility. It creates compatibility with the single family homes also planned along Pine. We like featuring those products there. We like the -- the --the unit that was asked to be removed entirely from our southwest side. That's part of an area that has MEWs and has connectivity. It's safe. It's well lit. It meets all of your city code requirements. We specifically reviewed that particular unit with Joe Bongiorno to make sure that all of the fire and safety issues were taken care of. From a police standpoint, again, that the lighting -- everything creates a safe environment. If, instead, we pulled it out I think we would be running into exactly what we hear from your police chief when you create an open space in the back that would, then, not have activity. So, those are some of our concerns. Additionally moving the vertically integrated down on the southeast portion creates a parking conundrum. I mean there is a different parking setup for the townhomes versus the vertically integrated product. There is access considerations there. That access, as Joe noted, is -- is not likely to be full access forever and it -- it's not going to support the same commercial activity down on that corner, where the full access on Pine will. It also doesn't work to move that access point on Ten Mile further north as he suggested as a possible fix to our functional space concerns, because it's already within the spacing minimum of ACHD. They allowed us to put it there to align with the street across Ten Mile and so it is -- it's purposely sited there. We did consider the -- the island -- the landscape island, the configuration that's causing some concern. We think it creates traffic calming. It's also aesthetically pleasing. We are happy to work with the city, though, and comply with the condition suggested by Joe to make sure that we are addressing all of the city departments concerns with. If there is a safer configuration they prefer we can abide by that condition to work through that. We -- we would also like to point out the concern about having the townhomes along Ten Mile is inconsistent with other locations and our own experience in the City of Meridian. We operate the -- Baron operates the Redtail Apartments at Meridian and Victory and has had no trouble with -- with leasing along those major streets. In fact, they have found that visibility to be great for that kind of residential product. We did hear from Joe last week, the one topic that did come up before we got the staff report on utility concerns, and we have addressed all of those now with Public Works, without needing to redesign this site. Our civil engineer has been busy working with Public Works to address all of their concerns. We now have confirmation from them that we have and so there is also not a need to reconfigure any of this for that purpose. I think with that let's try to move on to some of our other selling points here and, of course, I would be happy to address any questions you guys have if you still have remaining concerns based on what Joe has -- has raised. A couple things just to point out maybe about the vertically integrated. This is a product we introduced at Black Cat that was well received at all levels of the city, because it creates that integration, it's not just horizontal. We will have residences on the second floor and commercial on the first floor. We expect to be able to have a coffee shop, yoga studio, the kinds of uses that work great right next to the residential areas. In our commercial area we expect more of restaurant, retail, office, medical office, daycare, that sort of thing. That -- the commercial buildings -- we don't have elevations for those yet. We ask that the conditional planning those now be postponed until we do come in with future plans. The city is going to have a chance to look at them then and you still have to approve CZC, plus the design review, Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F30 Page 27 of 110 and if there is a drive-thru we would need a conditional use permit. So, you have lots of opportunities to review those at that time. I just want to walk through some of our architecture quickly, show you some of the features. This is our entry monument off of Pine. Some -- some images of our clubhouse. We will have work from home space there. Private offices for resident use, as well as community meeting space there inside the clubhouse. There is also a coffee bar. There is indoor gathering and seating areas, a kitchen and a fitness center. Outside the clubhouse there is a community pool, a large deck, and covered gazebos and grill areas. This is our vertically integrated product showing at this point the commercial on the first floor, the residential on the second floor, with great layouts. I also want to run through some of our residential units, so you can see the variety and the quality of materials. There will be one, two, and three bedroom offerings in detached homes, duplexes, six-plexes. Some of them will have attached and tuck under garages. All residential uses provide private outdoor space. Most with private backyards. So, that this community really lives and feels like any neighborhood would with single family detached housing and townhomes. The residential units include modern finishes, stainless steel appliances, washers and dryers, great living spaces with spacious floor plans and high ceilings. The exteriors use quality materials, including stone and stucco and wood tone siding. This slide is showing a one bedroom duplex with a couple of different roof lines. Here is a couple of our two bedrooms. We have two different types of two bedrooms to show different layouts. Have three bedroom units as well. And this is now showing some of our six-plex townhomes with the tuck under garages -- two car garages underneath. These images show front and back with multiple color palettes. A lot of variety here. In this -- in this slide we are trying to show all the unit type variety, where they lie, so the -- the one bed one bath, two bed two bath, etcetera, are all distributed throughout the site, so that you can see that variety in the community. Architectural variety as well. Here we are trying to show what the different roof lines and color palettes -- how they are intermixed through the development, so you don't see a lot of one thing, with two different roof lines, three different exterior facades, three different color palettes. These all together can be mixed and matched to create 18 unique exteriors on these detached units. We heard the comments from Joe. We disagree that more is needed from that. We like the cohesiveness of this -- of the patterns we have selected. However, if the Commission feels like adding another color to that mix would help create more variety, you know, we are happy to work with the city to do that. We have got ample parking and storage, more than is called for with detached garages -- 30 detached garages that are shown in green here. A hundred and four covered parking spaces that are shown in orange. Plus we have the 84 attached two unit enclosed garages. We also have storage through self storage lockers that creates a great amenity for our residents. As Joe walked through the open space really carefully, I would just add in addition all the -- the green public open space and the -- and the blue private open space that you can see through this slide the connectivity really, that east-west connection where you are really pulling the residence towards the commercial and creating a nice connection there. On the -- on the pathways we have got the ten foot wide multi-use pathway on the south. But I think it's also a great point out that these all connect to the west. We are providing connectivity to our neighbors. We have got a walking loop that goes all the way around the entire facility -- the entire community. Amenities Joe walked through very carefully. They are -- they are centrally located and really connected well to all of the residents Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F31 Page 28 of 110 around. There has been no concerns raised by any of the services. We meet all of the current plans. ACHD concluded that all of the roadways have acceptable levels of service. All schools that serve this project have capacity. We did ask for a number of changes to the conditions. We have addressed them in a letter that we provided today and in the testimony tonight. I think the only thing I maybe didn't address yet are the last -- that we ask that the future CZC be specific to a zone, so that we can move forward with either the residential or commercial first and not required to develop the entire site at once. And the last one is simply to have the Public Works condition language match the city approved language that we received on the Black Cat development that better suits the timing for multi-family development. I would like to -- if you will allow me, if there is time -- I'm sorry, I can't see a clock where I am in the Zoom format. If there is time we have a two minute fly through that I would share with you if -- if I'm able. Fitzgerald: Yeah. You have got a few minutes, Deborah, if you want to go ahead. Nelson: Thank you. Fitzgerald: We can't see it yet. Deborah, we are not seeing it. Nelson: Oh, it's not -- oh. Okay. We -- we did send it to -- to the clerk. I don't know if that helps the -- Fitzgerald: Madam Clerk, do you happen to have it? Weatherly: I have it. I don't have it pulled up. So, if you want to give me just a minute or so I can try to pull it up on my end. Fitzgerald: Okay. While we are doing that, are there any questions we can start kind of kick it off for Deborah? Holland: Mr. Chair? Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland, I saw you first. Holland: Deb, the overview -- we appreciate it and that's why I love mixed use concepts and I love a lot of the elements that are in this project, but I think my only concern is still that staff has so many concerns and how we move forward if they are requesting some changes and -- and how we kind of keep things moving forward. I'm not sure if you want to just kind of address that. If you think some more time with staff you guys could figure out a way to kind of bridge the gap and come together. Nelson: Well, Commissioner Holland, Chairman, I appreciate that question and we -- we do prefer to be aligned with staff as well and so I understand your concern, but we made every effort to. I mean honestly we were just really surprised by the level of changes that Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F32 Page 29 of 110 have been proposed and I guess I would just point out -- and we looked at them pretty carefully to see, okay, what is this -- is this something that makes sense here and none of them are required by your code. So, there is nothing that's been proposed that needs to happen. And, then, you look at, well, your subjective criteria in your -- in your Comprehensive Plan, we think that our design, which was based on staff's input for the last year, better meets your plan. It creates more of that integration, instead of having all of your commercial along Ten Mile, it's all pulled into the site and intermixed with our residential. So, we think that we meet all of your code requirements. We best satisfy your Comprehensive Plan with our design and it is our preferred layout. We have -- we have really grown to enjoy this functionality. We have spent a lot of time and money on it. We have done all of our utilities work. I mean we have really developed this site that we worked on a long time with staff. So, we are not supportive of a continuance to revisit something that just came up, that is inconsistent with what we have worked on for a long time, that's not required -- or we think even beneficial. I mean just with all due respect to Joe, because we appreciate he's put a lot of time into this -- it feels like just a preference. Just kind of a -- you know, he rolled up his sleeves, right, the staff and thought, hey, wouldn't it be great to move this stuff around. Our preference is different. We feel like this is a great development for you to consider as a whole, so -- oh. And thank you, Adrienne. It looks like she's got the fly through ready. Weatherly: Mr. Chair and Deb, I apologize, I don't think that I can bring up the sound, but I think I should be able to get the video rolling for you. Nelson: Great. Thank you. (Video played.) Nelson: Thank you, Commissioners, for allowing us to play that. Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Holland, I think I was wrapping up your -- your question. I guess one additional point to consider on the -- the layout of why we think it's -- it's -- it's beneficial and why we prefer it. That commercial -- moving that commercial down, they -- the vertically integrated down to the southeast isn't consistent with what we have -- understand from working with our brokers on what's going to be viable there. I mentioned the access limitations, but they really think that corner -- the -- the north corner and the centrally located commercial is going to create better access vehicularly. Also from a pedestrian standpoint we think that, you know, some of these users, particularly those that are in the vertically integrated buildings -- you know, the coffee shop, the yoga -- the yoga facility, the yoga studio, those are the uses that people need to walk up to and the further you put that away down in the corner the less they are going to get used. You put those right around the clubhouse and -- and the main central part of the neighborhood, we feel like that's going to activate those. Fitzgerald: Thank you. Commissioner Holland, do you want to follow up? Holland: No, I don't know that I have any follow ups. I'm just -- I just feel like we are between a rock and a hard place, because I don't like being stuck in a spot where staff Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F33] Page 30 of 110 doesn't agree with it and I hear where the applicant is coming from, too, and I like a lot of the elements of it. I think they have -- they have shown that they are a good developer and they think outside of the box in how they bring projects together and I agree with you, I like how a lot of those elements flow together, because mixed use concepts that draw people towards kind of that central congregating area tend to be more effective in the long run anyway. So, I don't disagree with that. But I'm not sure how we mitigate some of staff's concerns here, too. Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal, go right ahead. Seal: I echo what Commissioner Holland is saying and after listening to the applicant I mean what she said was basically that they have worked everything out with Public Works and -- I mean I don't see anything on record as far as what was worked out, how it was worked out, what that's going to look like. So, it sounds like some middle ground was met, but there is -- there is no record of what was -- essentially what's being recorded for that. So, it would be nice to remove ourselves out of that and let it -- let that come to where it needs to be before this comes back, basically. That's -- that's my opinion of it. I mean -- I mean there is a lot of things I really like about this product and, you know, I like that it's here, but there are some big concerns. McCarvel: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: Yeah. I'm -- I'm actually kind of liking the commercial where the applicant has it. I think the big -- the issue that -- part of the issue that staff had moving it was the utilities and I agree with Commissioner Seal that-- I mean I would like to see maybe more on what the resolution was on that, rather than just having to say, well, we resolved it. I think since it's been brought up as an issue. If we could see how that was resolved I think that would alleviate some things for me as far as all the moving around. I think the other stuff we can kind of discuss, but I think like that I would like to see some more information on. Fitzgerald: Agreed. Nelson: Mr. Chairman, may I respond to those two comments? Fitzgerald: Go right ahead. Nelson: Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Seal and Commissioner McCarvel, since you both asked the same question. I appreciate the opportunity to respond. I think -- I think it's -- it's covered in the conditions that staff brought forward and so in their condition A-7 they contemplated that there could be some continuing resolution of the concerns and -- and so there is an express condition that allows, you know, at least ten days prior Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F34 Page 31 of 110 to the City Council hearing the applicant will obtain that approval and so we have submitted the updated plan to resolve their -- their minor concerns and they have approved it and our civil engineer is here, David Bailey, if you would like more details about exactly how they did it, but I guess the punch line that I want to make sure we -- we all have in front of us is it doesn't cause us to rearrange the site, so there is nothing new to consider there and, two, that staff has already thoughtfully put that into the conditions of approval as a forward looking way that -- so long as we have resolved it that can move forward with the Council, so -- and, like I said, our civil engineer is here if you would like to ask him anymore detailed questions than that. Fitzgerald: Appreciate that. I think the -- my only concern is I -- we haven't, as a Commission, heard from the Public Works. That's the only challenge. We usually have all that information in front of us and I don't want to hand City Council something that we haven't tried to work out all the details on before it goes to them. That's our job. But I appreciate the feedback there. Dodson: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Yeah, Joe, go right ahead. Love to hear from you. Dodson: Sure. Thank you. The last thing I want to do is get into a tit for tat with Deb. I very much respect Deb, so I'm not trying to do that at all. I -- I, too, have not gotten any kind of-- I shouldn't say any kind of. I have not gotten a final approval from Public Works that the utilities match and will be functional a hundred percent. I have not received that. I have been told that we are a lot closer than what we were, which is fantastic, and that's why I mentioned that in my initial presentation, because I -- we need to keep working there. But, again, I -- like the Commission I have not seen that final approval, which is why I put that condition in there and I was being courteous to say prior to City Council, as you guys are discussing. That is part of why some of the changes that we recommended are based somewhat on the incorporation of the utility concern, not only -- yes, can it fit in the street, but also the service lines as well, even though I have been told by land development that some of those discussions have occurred and we are a lot closer, they still have concerns whether or not this will functionally work and I want to --to ensure that the site design is -- is okay, that I want that final -- I guess formal -- whatever word you want to use there -- approval in order to make sure that this works. I'm not going to fall on the sword for moving that one vertically integrated building. I'm fine with that staying there. But the point of moving that was to avoid removing some of those units on the internal area to help spread those out and help with the service line issues as discussed, not by just myself, but also Public Works. That's -- that was one of their conditions on the other Modern Craftsman and finally conditions on this one. In regards to the other condition that they would like to modify regarding -- I believe they said it's one of the Public Works conditions regarding modifying it to match the Modern Craftsman one, staff is not supportive of that, because the only reason that combination was made previously is because they did not do a preliminary plat, they did a short plat. So, it was all done up front. In this case that's not true, they will have to come back for a final plat. So, that Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F35] Page 32 of 110 condition is written in line with our current processes. So, I just wanted to clarify those few points there and, hopefully, we can keep moving forward. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Joe. Dodson: In addition -- sorry, Mr. Chair. Fitzgerald: Go ahead. Dodson: I wanted to ask Deb if I saw that -- the parking plan that you had, ma'am, has that been updated to the new or the latest easement changes that have occurred? Because it doesn't look like it. So, I just wanted to clarify if that parking matches what's been changed to accommodate the easement. Bailey: If I can speak here. This is David Bailey. I'm with Bailey Engineering and the project engineer on this and we -- we actually got notice of the issues that we had here a couple of weeks ago on the Black Cat project and the Black Cat project was a little different in that the water lines within that subdivision are -- are under the jurisdiction of Suez and they have slightly different easement requirements and so we were able to make a minor adjustment to those plans that we could accommodate both the city's and -- and Suez's requirements on that. So, since then we have gone through several iterations looking at how to locate the water and sewer lines within the street and this was the primary requirement and just for the record this is new to us and the city on this project is the first time they will enforce not putting the -- not allowing the easements underneath the covered parking on the project, so we moved things around a little bit and we were able to move a few of the carports around and adjust the location of the sewer and water lines within the drive aisles, so that we would provide the full easement required for the city for both the sewer and water lines without either of those easements being underneath any carports or any garages and it gets difficult when they are across from each other, as it has on previous projects, because your drive aisles are 25 feet and 30 feet is total required to provide those two easements for the sewer and water. So, we have made those adjustments. My engineer Kevin Craig has submitted those changes to the Public Works. Public Works come back and had a question about a separation of a storm drain line on the plan, whether it would be four feet from that. He made that additional adjustment and submitted that to Amanda McNutt on Tuesday, December 15th, and she sent an e-mail back, which I just forwarded to Joe, that said thank you, Kevin, appreciate your showing that. I think you have a good plan in place that should work with our standards. So, we have a specific e-mail from Amanda McNutt saying that this was completed. I guess Joe didn't get the copy of that. Fitzgerald: Thanks, David. Appreciate it. The only challenge -- I will be fully frank and honest with you -- is I think we are in the middle of designing still. This just feels like we are -- we are still at the pre-app table. I mean just to be frank and honest with you, it's -- this is supposed to be done and cooked, so we can make good recommendations to Council and you guys are still designing a little bit in the middle of our meeting and that's -- that's rough to put our Commission in the middle of and so I don't want to put -- I Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F36 Page 33 of 110 appreciate both sides and I respect both sides of our team and your team, but I also want to make sure we are -- we are staying in the process and it's -- it's difficult for our Commissioners to have to -- a little bit call balls and strikes and this is a -- it's a weird position to be in, to be totally frank. So, I don't know where my fellow Commissioners are. I would love to get your take. But this just seems like we are not there yet. Bailey: Can I answer that question? Fitzgerald: Absolutely. Go ahead, David. Bailey: Great. Thank you, sir. I don't feel we are in the middle of designing this and, in fact, we don't do final designs for preliminary plat. Never have in the past. We submitted this in accordance with the standards and designed it in the way that we have for all of the projects we have ever done in Meridian. They have acknowledged -- your Public Works staff has acknowledged that your standards have not changed, but they have decided to start enforcing this in the middle of our project. So, it's not you that are in the middle of this, it is our client and this project that is in the middle of this and we are as frustrated as you are at this point of how we have been treated going along this way and we have made some significant efforts to make sure that we are addressing every single comment that comes up on this and we have addressed them all and we get to this Planning and Zoning meeting and your staff member is still telling me that I haven't resolved them and let me tell you, sir, I have resolved these issues and we can meet all your standards and I can design and build this project in accordance with the way we have it set up here. Fitzgerald: Appreciate that. Also appreciate the position we are in. I hope you understand, we are -- we have to make good decisions and provide a recommendation to the City Council and so I'm trying to do that and give our Commissioners the best package we can see and we have definitely a different view on both sides, which is -- which is not where we like to be, if that makes sense, and so I'm not trying to place blame on any -- either side, I just want to give the best product and final package we can to City Council, if that's where the -- the decision of the Commission. So -- and I hope -- Deb, I hope you understand that we are not trying to cast blame on anybody, we are just trying to polish the truth as I call it and I just -- it's -- it's hard to do that when we have very different views in the middle of -- of our meeting, if that makes sense. Dodson: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Yeah. Go ahead, Joe. Dodson: I just wanted to clarify. Again, these utility standards are not planning, so I'm not -- and I'm not an engineer, so I don't pretend to know those requirements. I have been tasked as a city planner, being the project manager, in conglomerating all of these different perspectives and issues and concerns and desires into one cohesive report, to try my own qualms with, but we are here -- neither here nor there, we are trying to move forward. The point is the instances that Mr. Bailey is referring to I -- I have been told Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F37 Page 34 of 110 specifically that they were instances in that the city had to make accommodations because things were missed and, therefore, we had to allow waivers and not to mention we have different--we have had different city engineers and this is what I have been told. I -- I feel bad that he feels that we are picking on this project and calling out this specific project for things that haven't been enforced before. I don't -- none of us want that for Mr. Bailey. So, I do apologize for that. I have been told specifically that these are our standards and there shouldn't be waivers requested to meet the standards, unless there are extenuating circumstances, which is what I was told were the situations previously. I don't want it to be misinterpreted by anybody that the city is picking and choosing who they want to enforce their standards on, because that is not what I have seen while being here at the City of Meridian and that's -- that's not what I was told either. So, I just wanted to clarify that for both the applicant and the Commission. Fitzgerald: Thank you. Appreciate that. Nelson: Mr. Chairman, may I make one further point? Fitzgerald: Yeah. Deb, go right ahead. Nelson: And we appreciate the -- all -- the position you are in and the comments from Joe. He's relaying concerns from Public Works and so I guess what I would ask for you to consider, since you are asking is this fully designed, you know, how is this before you. The way I see this is that there -- to the extent there were Public Works concerns, they have been resolved on our end on a factual basis, but from your point of view -- and I think from Joe's point of view, he set you into the right path by requiring a condition of approval that does not allow us to get to City Council ten days before. We have to show those plans and so I think from the Planning and Zoning Commission's perspective you have a site plan, you have the site plan that we are proposing and we have to get Public Works sign off on that site plan. If we don't get Public Work sign off on that site plan we are going to have to come back to you with another site plan. But if-- but if it is functionally and, you know, materially the same, then, you have before you what you need and you have a condition of approval to protect you to make sure we have to still get Public Works sign off and -- you know. So, assuming we can address that -- and it sounds like from Joe's comments I appreciate that was kind of the root of some of his redesign. He was trying to create more space. That's helpful explanation to us, because it did feel a little out of the blue. If it was just that, then, we are happy that that has been resolved and we can deal with that. If it's a preference -- you know, we don't share that preference and have already walked through why and it sounds like some of the Commission members have -- you know, also agree that they prefer the layout as it is and so I think the Commission actually has before it what you need to decide with the planning and the layout and the site plan. This is a site plan generally and the uses generally that you like. So, I would be happy to answer more questions, but thank you for allowing me to make that additional comment. Fitzgerald: Absolutely. And thank you for bringing us back to that point. I do have one -- and it's not a preference, it's a safety thing. I don't like the -- the way you have set that Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F38 Page 35 of 110 intersection up at all. I think that's just waiting for somebody to get in an accident or somebody to get run over. So, if there is a different design that you would be willing to throw in there, whether that's a roundabout -- one way roundabout or something, is there a direction you can go there? Because I think if that's two way traffic all the way around that thing, with commercial and residential traffic all trying to intermix, I think that's going to be somewhat of a train wreck. So, can you sum -- can you comment on that? Nelson: Mr. Chairman, yes, we are perfectly willing to work on that with the city to make sure that -- you know, that it's -- it's redesigned in a way that everybody is comfortable and that's why -- you know, we did comment on the condition of approval from Joe, but we accept the condition where he asked us to work with the city and resolve any safety concerns they have and we are happy to do that. Fitzgerald: Perfect. Thank you, ma'am. McCarvel: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel, go right ahead. McCarvel: I noticed the same thing, Deb, in the video view it almost looked like it was acting like a roundabout. I didn't really see the two-way traffic. So, it seems like it could be almost there, it's just -- it's -- I mean is that what I saw or is that really supposed to be two way traffic in there? Nelson: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner McCarvel, I mean that may be one of the solutions is to route the traffic in that direction. We certainly like it as a traffic calming device and so, you know, if we can preserve that functionality, that it calms and slows people, that would be nice. But, obviously, want it to be safe. Fitzgerald: Additional comments or questions? Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I have got a -- got a couple things that I haven't -- I don't think I have heard information on. This being a hundred percent leasable product, is there a requirement for an on-site manager and -- and can you -- can you address that? Nelson: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Cassinelli, yes, we will have on-site management in the clubhouse for the residential property there. Cassinelli: So -- and that will be staffed to the standard business hours or what -- what's that? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F39 Page 36 of 110 Nelson: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Cassinelli, yes, seven days a week. We have office space for them available in the -- in the clubhouse. Cassinelli: Okay. Another question I have -- and, Mr. Chair, if I can, I have got a couple here. Fitzgerald: Go right ahead, Bill. Cassinelli: I don't know -- if you guys -- if-- and this might be for--for Joe, but the project to the -- on the -- I guess it would be the southwest edge there where all the -- where the townhouses are lined up, I don't know what's proposed in that adjacent property, but is that a -- is that a good transition to what's --what-- because, obviously, there is something -- we have got a cul-de-sac in there and I don't know what -- if we have looked at that before. I have missed the last couple of meetings. So, if that's been looked at. But I would -- my -- I would just -- I want to know that we are not going to have an issue, I guess, with transition on those townhouses at some point down the road. Dodson: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Go ahead, Joe. Dodson: Thank you, sir. Commissioner Cassinelli, great question. I touched on it in my staff report, but just not tonight. Directly adjacent -- abutting the property there is going to be a few lots -- not very many, but they will be detached single family homes and thankfully the applicant is proposing to have those townhomes opposite direction, I guess you could say, or perpendicular to those lots. That way the --those homes are not looking at 60 houses, they are only looking at one side of a building, which I think is a great site design by them and incorporates those MEWs as well and the pathway that's also a buffer between those that will include landscaping. So, I touched on all of that in my staff report and I think that it should be a fine transition. I don't -- I don't think we will have any issues there. Cassinelli: Okay. Parsons: Mr. Chair? Mr. Chair, this is Bill. Also to that point is we -- we have an active application right now, so we can't get into too many of those details with you guys, but you will see that coming for -- forthcoming and just to let you know that the same engineering firm is representing that landowner, too, so they are working together and making sure that these projects do integrate and get some of that connectivity that we are looking for in this area. So, I just wanted to let you know, yes, that's all being worked out and everyone's working together and that's really how we are going to get this Pine Street connected and completed with this project. It's critical. To me that's the critical point -- portion of this development is really getting that Pine Street connected with the first phase and this applicant -- and even the applicant to the north is willing to do that now, because it's required of their development. So, they are working out those details, a private agreement behind the scenes, and, again, we have had conversations with the applicant, Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F40 Page 37 of 110 they know the city's desire to make that happen and they are doing everything they can to do that. I did just want it basis -- at least give you guys a little bit of insight with my experience on this project, just to kind of help you guys -- guide you to a decision or some recommendation tonight I guess, because we have gotten off topic a little bit. It's -- it's not always professional for us to be here bantering back and forth about a project and this is an unusual one for sure. We --we had Public Works give us -- have some concerns -- raised some concerns and so Joe did what he did as the lead, reached out and tried to resolve that issue, although it was a little late in the process, I wish we could have got it before the app was done -- figured it out before the application was before you, but sometimes those things happen. Now, Joe and I did meet with some of the applicant's team back in October and we talked about some of these integrations and some redesign with them and we all left that meeting feeling comfortable and we were also asked to condition the project with some of those changes and so, in my opinion, I -- I left that meeting in October thinking we had -- we had a solution. I think they somewhat agreed that they could look at making some of those changes. Ultimately they didn't and so staff landed on a position that -- where we had to make a recommendation to make sure that what they were proposing was not only consistent with code, but consistent with the comp plan's policies and I think the applicant's representative Deb does a great job, I mean the comp plan is a guide, it's -- it's not thou shall, but, you know, it is -- it is open to interpretation and from staff's vantage point we feel -- maybe not always the changes that we are proposing this evening, but some of those changes could be incorporated to get this in alignment a little closer to what we feel is more consistent with the mixed use community designation and so I'm -- staff -- and staff was very adamant that potentially continuing this out and working with the applicant to smooth out some of thing is probably in their best interest, but realizing that, you know, they -- they -- they have spent a significant amount of time and money into this site design and although it's not -- it's not horrible, it's not a bad site design, I appreciate the commentary tonight and -- and Deb explaining somehow that integration and their thought process behind that. To me that helps go a long ways. So, certainly, I don't -- I don't know if we are all on the same page tonight. We will -- we will leave that up to you, but as you know, this is annexation. This is -- once we get zoning -- I mean we lose a little bit of that control. So, this is our one chance to get it right and if you guys think the plan that they are presenting is getting it right, then, by all means, you know, forward on a recommendation of approval and strike those conditions. If you feel like we haven't baked this idea -- this plan enough and you still want to see Public Works -- or at least have somebody testify at a hearing to speak about some of their concerns or if we have it worked out, that's fine, we can move forward with the condition as the applicant stated. But it's our opinion -- at least staff's opinion that there needs to be further refinement to this plan and going back to -- even going back to the Black Cat project, you know, this Commission was -- was very instrumental in making sure -- I mean this is mixed use. Although we can -- yes, we have a design review process. We know they could come back and provide elevations and go through that process and try to emulate the development. This is mixed use. This is meant to be integrated. To me all of these details should be provided to you now to make sure that it is consistent with the mixed use and that's exactly what you did on the previous project, you have told them to bring back -- you wanted more commercial and you wanted them to incorporate the commercial elevations into that design and that's what we tied them to Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F41 Page 38 of 110 in their project off of Chinden Boulevard. So, to me we are treating this application -- this application the same as the last one. We worked with them. We made changes. Deb acknowledged that, that we worked very well -- I thought it was a very good effort and we appreciate their collaboration and their teamwork. I mean they did a phenomenal job. That turned out better than when they first submitted it and that's really what we are trying to do, we are trying to help guide them and partner with them, so that we can carry this along side and not bring any issues to and go forward to City Council with a project that we can all be proud of. So, I'm going to quit grandstanding now. Sorry, Deb. But I just at least wanted to share with the Commission that, you know, each project is unique, but at the same time I think we have seen this similar project and a lot of these same issues that were brought up on that project still exist on this project. So, I just want to at least try to refresh your memory on that previous project and let you know that we did work very well together and we got to the finish line. So, I will just stop my-- my grandstanding here and, then, stand for any other questions you guys may have. Fitzgerald: Bill, thank you. We always appreciate your perspective. It helps keep us moving forward and keep us focused. So, thank you very much. Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I just -- if I could -- I guess questions answered, which -- which I appreciate. I just wanted to make some comments, too, on this and that was good hearing -- hearing Bill's perspective. I do like --there is a lot of elements about this that I like that are unique. I looked at some of the applicant's other projects throughout the -- the country and I think they bring a -- I think they bring a refreshing aspect that -- we seem to get stuck in some of the same things here in Meridian by the same developers doing projects over and over and over again. It's kind of a rubber stamp. Nothing unique. And I think this brings some unique aspects. So, I -- I'm 0- you know, I appreciate the comments from staff and I don't normally like to -- you know -- and I totally respect staff and -- and what they do and their -- their passion and heart for doing things right. I -- I -- there is -- there is a lot of things I like about this. The only thing that I -- to me is this a public -- Public Works issue that needs to be resolved and -- and I don't like -- you know, I'm -- I like having the complete package, so I'm a little -- I am disappointed that we didn't get it with -- with all those questions answered already. So, we are not trying to have to figure out how we move, but I did want to comment that I really like a lot of the aspects. I like -- I do like the commercial -- all that commercial tight together, because it does keep it -- it keeps it together instead of being spread about. But in my opinion what we really need to do is, obviously, figure out that Public Works aspect and I don't know if just that condition is good enough for that. But those are -- those are my thoughts right now. Fitzgerald: So, Commissioner Cassinelli, I wholeheartedly agree with you and I think that I love the productivity that's literally getting built down the street from me off of Black Cat. So, I totally agree with your comments. I think this is a unique product that is needed in our area and I don't think we would probably have a problem. I just want to make sure Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F42 Page 39 of 110 we have all our ducks in a row and -- and I'm not saying that you guys don't, I'm just saying we don't have all the information we need to -- from our team possibly to make a good decision. So, it has nothing to do with design of the project in my opinion right now, it's making sure that we have all our information. So, if it's the commissioner-- if you feel comfortable with the aspects that Joe's laid out in the conditions, I just -- my concern is looking at the response from the applicant we have five pages of response with -- that are basically -- we don't -- that they don't agree with a lot of the conditions that are in there. So, we are going to need to sit down for a while here and work through five pages of response and what I think maybe we could possibly -- as Bill suggested, continue this to the 7th of January, which is only two weeks away and I know that it's the holidays and I will let-- Deb, I will let you comment on this, but we don't have very much on that calendar -- let you guys sit down with -- with the team of our-- of staff, finalize all this stuff and give us a package that we know we can be proud of and move forward without any real issue and we can feel like we are doing our job for City Council. Deb, would love -- would love your feedback there. Nelson: Mr. Chairman, appreciate the opportunity to weigh in on it. Now, obviously, we don't want more delay. It's been a long process and we did come forward with a fully complete site plan. But we understand your concern of wanting the Public Works item to be resolved and -- and resolved in a way that it's been for you that you know the site plan that you like is going to happen and so if we could limit the deferral to not open everything back up and just be to -- you know, confirm the Public Works, we would ask that of you if we could, to consider that, so that it is truly just to get that last item pinned down. That would be our request. That we -- we would just appreciate everything we can to move forward in a timely way and not, you know, revisit everything. McCarvel: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Sorry. I never want to delay you guys. I know how much time and money goes into your efforts. So, that's never my -- I don't want to delay you anymore than you have to. Commissioner Holland, go right ahead. Holland: I think that was Commissioner McCarvel speaking. Fitzgerald: Oh, I'm sorry. Commissioner McCarvel. Sorry. McCarvel: Yeah. Do we want to discuss some of the other things before issuing the continuance and do we want to do public testimony tonight or on the continuance? Or is there any? Fitzgerald: I don't know if we have -- we didn't have any in the packets. I guess we need to check and see. We can keep moving forward. I -- I think we all -- I don't want to speak for everybody, but I -- I mean I think we -- we liked the design previously and we have worked really well to get that over the finish line, as Bill said, and I think there is some -- I know Commissioner McCarvel, you probably-- you and I probably are on the same page Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F43] Page 40 of 110 on where the commercial is and it sounds like Commissioner Cassinelli may be as well. So, I'm happy -- McCarvel: Yeah. I like where the -- Fitzgerald: -- happy to do that and just work through it. McCarvel: Yeah. I like where the commercial is. I also -- I agree I think with the applicant about that unit in the back, about not having that being open space. I think it's probably safer having the unit back there and, then, the subjective about the colors -- I actually like the colors, even though there is not that many, I -- they caught -- there is a lot of contrast. So, you know, it's -- to me it's better than having four pale colors, you know. The design I think offered a lot of kind of-- you know, was pleasing. But I do -- yeah, I think if we get that roundabout or just that entrance figured out and the Public Works. I think a lot of the other stuff in it I like, so -- Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal. Seal: I mean I'm -- if it's alright I'm just going to go through the applicant's responses here to the staff report and ask questions specific to that. So, on A-2 -- and, Joe, these --these questions are kind of coming your way as -- and if -- if you are looking at the applicant's response to A-2, what exactly -- I'm just trying to get a better understanding of exactly what that means and their response, to make sure that we have got the rest of this. Because there is five pages of it here. Two pages are basically as explanation and some of the rest of it is, you know, dotting I's and crossing T's in my opinion. I just want to make sure that, you know, like A-2, A-15, B-2-9, that those responses from the applicant are acceptable. Dodson: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Go ahead, Joe. Dodson: Thank you, sir. Commissioner Seal, sure. The -- how do I put this here? I got to read their specific recommend -- or request there. Seal: Yeah. Sorry. To put you on a spot, but it's -- Dodson: No problem. Seal: -- there is just a lot of info here and I want to make sure that, you know, if we do move forward with this that it's informed. Parsons: Mr. Chair, this is Bill. I would suggest that we let Joe review the applicant's response. Let's get through the public hearing portion. Let's open this up for public Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F44 Page 41 of 110 testimony and finish that and, then, we can let Deb have a rebuttal and, then, Joe -- and, then, we can attack any of those other applicant's response and conditions and that if we -- that way you can make -- either get prepared to make a decision or make a recommendation to continue, deny, approve, whatever it may be, but let's -- let's just form a final -- follow the process first and, then, we can circle back on that applicant's rebuttal and answer some of those questions for you. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Joe and Bill. Parsons: You're welcome. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal, does that work for you? Seal: Yes. Fitzgerald: Because that -- I think that's my concern is that we are going to be here for another two hours walking through this and that's what I want to see before we get here. In normal circumstances we are -- we have a couple of items that are on -- we don't have a five page list and that's my -- that's -- and I know we are slammed and staff's busy, but that's -- usually we have most of that stuff worked out and we are on a couple of items, so -- but let's -- yeah, let's keep processing forward. Anybody have any additional questions for Deb at this point? If not, we will open the public hearing -- or open for public testimony and, Deb, we will come back to you, so you can close and, then, we will fire questions at Joe after that. Does that work, Commissioner Seal? Seal: Possibly. My -- my only concern is that if we go through with the public testimony and we come back, then, we have -- and we do move to continue it, then, we have to condition that as well, so that we refine that into the smallest amount of hearing possible the next go around. Fitzgerald: That's -- I think that's Deb's request as well. Seal: Okay. And that's -- that's my only concern. I think we are -- we are down to the meat of it at this point in time. I think we are close. I think we are -- my opinion is we are still far enough away that a continuance is there, but I just want to make sure that if we go that route that, you know, we -- we do it with the smallest footprint as possible. Fitzgerald: Absolutely. Makes sense. Any additional questions or comments at this point? Okay. Deb, we will come back to you shortly, ma'am. Madam Clerk, is there anyone who wishes to testify on this application? Weatherly: Mr. Chair, there is not. Fitzgerald: And if you are on Zoom, please, raise your hand via the Zoom application at the bottom of the screen. Commissioner Grove, you are giving me a thumbs up that nobody is there? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F45 Page 42 of 110 Grove: We have four people in the audience, but nobody's indicating to speak on this one. Fitzgerald: Yeah. Thank you. Okay. Commissioner Seal, do you want to walk through with Joe or do you want me to have Deb to go ahead through and close? What would be your preference? I want to make sure we run through -- Seal: Yeah. In the interest of time let's go ahead and have Deb wrap it up and, then, we can have -- hear from Joe and I think we are ready to make a decision at that point. Nelson: I will save you the time, because I know we do --we do want to work through the conditions. We appreciate that effort. If you have questions of me I will answer them and I would like to weigh in on any comments on the conditions as you walk through them, but I think we have said what we need to say to support the development. Thank you very much. Fitzgerald: Deb, we appreciate it. Thank you so much. Joe, do you have some feedback as -- I know you probably were speed reading, but you can start walking us through the responses -- walk through this? Dodson: Absolutely, Mr. Chair. The first one I understand where they are coming from for A.2. I don't a hundred percent agree with the way that they are requesting to write it, only because I do want -- and when we write these we do specifically want to note that they need a rezone exhibit and legal descriptions to be revised. I'm assuming that--that's presumed, but we also want that specifically written. If they want to take off the end, because none of my recommended changes are going to be there, I'm perfectly fine. don't -- I'm not going to -- I don't care. That's fine. So, basically, to say at least ten days prior to Council hearing the applicant shall provide a revised plat and rezone exhibits and legal descriptions of their requested R-15 and C-C zoning districts to eliminate any split zoning, that's fine with me. Nelson: Mr. Chairman, we would agree with that. Fitzgerald: Okay. Thanks, Deb. Moving on to the next one, Joe. Dodson: You want to go literally to the next one, A-5, or the ones that they are amenable to, but want corrections? Which -- how are we doing this? Seal: I -- the ones -- I mean the ones that I seek to understand specifically were the A-2, A-15 and B-2-9, just to make sure that I understand what -- what that -- what the implications are with that. Dodson: Okay. All right. A-15. The applicant shall obtain certificate of zoning compliance approval for the entire subject site prior to applying for any building permits. That is in line with most multi-family and commercial projects. The point of having it for the entire site is because it's a mixed use project. If -- I'm amenable to splitting it up Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F46 Page 43 of 110 between the residential -- one for the residential, one for the commercial. That -- that's fine as well. That's also in line with the way that we do things if these happen to come in separately. So, again, I -- when I wrote that condition it was just to go along with the fact that it's one project. Granted, any approval garnered from this will also be the overarching theme. So, it works both ways. Parsons: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Bill, go ahead. Parsons: I just want -- I just want to go back to that condition a little bit more and just get explanation. Maybe even from the applicant. Is it your -- your intent to develop this in two phases? Because that's how we would do that. Your commercial would have to come in with a phase and, then, the residential could come in as one phase and you could show us a phasing plan from -- until Council -- ten days prior to City Council give us your phasing plan. But I know it's been our staff's experience that our City Council and even P&Z would like to get some of those landscape improvements along the frontage, just to kind of beautify the development and, then, hold off on the rest of the commercial pad sites, but I don't know if the applicant is amenable to maybe even adding a condition that if they do phase the development for the commercial, at least commit to doing the frontage improvements along Ten Mile with the first phase, so that we get all that landscaping in at one time. Dodson: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Go ahead, Joe. Dodson: I do have a condition already in there that requires that the frontage and landscape improvements are done with phase one, even if there is not a phase, but in general to have them done up front. So, I think we are covered there. But, then, to Bill's point -- and thank you, Bill. I agree, yes. The other aspect of requiring a CZC for the whole site is because this has not been presented to us as a phased development. So, if they are going to develop the whole site at once, then, they should do one CZC and, then, knowing that each individual pad site -- commercial pad site will also require a CZC for that building and design review for those buildings. Nelson: Mr. Chairman? Fitzgerald: Deb, go ahead. Nelson: We are amenable to providing that phasing plan as requested. Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you. What was the -- B-9. Dodson: Yes. B.2.9. Correct. So, this -- as I noted before, they are requesting to change it to the same one that was written in for Modern Craftsman at Black Cat, which is the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F47 Page 44 of 110 sister project to this. Again, the only reason that was changed before was because the existing condition notes a final plat, which was not applicable and the other project is applicable in this case, because this is a preliminary plat because of other legal issues regarding whether or not the -- the type of parcel it is and whether it's been subdivided before, et cetera. They have to do a preliminary plat. So, at final plat these other things need to occur and that is one of those stop gaps that Public Works has to ensure that the road base and the sewer and water systems and everything is approved and finalized before the subdivision is recorded. Sorry. And that the final plat is recorded prior to receiving any building permits. This is to ensure that we don't give building permits out before all the public improvements are -- are there. That's -- that's why staff is not amenable to changing that condition. Nelson: Mr. Chairman? Fitzgerald: Yeah. Go ahead. Nelson: Can I just say thank you to the Commission for allowing us to do this. We can agree to the -- the B-2-9 language as presented if we could -- our concern with the final plat is that we would just like it to be approved, not recorded, because there is a significant amount of development that occurs after approval and before recording with bonding and so I think that would address our concerns and we don't have to go all the way back to the same language. We had proposed that, because it had been approved by the city, but I understand the concern that Joe's making, that there is a reason to not go all the way to that language. If we could have that the final plat for the subdivision shall be approved prior to applying for building permits, that allows us to move forward expeditiously and in accordance with the city code that allows bonding. Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you very much. So, I think that leaves maneuvering things around. Is the -- and the open lot versus the buildable lot in the rear and, then, colors. Is that my understanding? Someone correct me if I'm wrong. Dodson: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Go right ahead, Joe. Dodson: If I may make this easier for everybody, I will not fall on the sword for moving the vertically integrated and/or removing that lot along the southwest. I understand the explanations and the desires of the applicant. I think I have a better understanding now than what I did, to be honest, which I appreciate it. Thank you, Deb. So, that is understandable. I do still feel that having townhomes along Pine is somewhat of a better transition than those detached units. I don't want to make them lose units. That's not my intention either. If they could remove those 14 and maybe add -- add additional -- if they did three of the townhomes that would be 18. So, they actually gain some. I could see how that would work. Maybe even just two and, then, they lose two units, compared to the 14. Again, part of that point is to help alleviate some of the utility concerns of having garages or carports within the easement along the private street, which would not be an Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F48 Page 45 of 110 issue anymore if you have driveways abutting that street. So, again, as I said before, I did not receive that e-mail that Mr. Bailey referenced, so he's right and I did not get that -- I did receive a separate e-mail noting that, yes, we are a lot closer, but we are still not a hundred percent clear how this is going to work and that hundred clear part is where I have concern and so that's why I have that condition in the staff report, noting that at least ten days prior, which I feel needs to be a very hard deadline that most applicants never adhere to -- needs to be held to and so that we have adequate time to both review those documents and also get a proper recommendation from Commission to Council. I think that's very important. So, the other -- like I said, the -- the southwest unit, keep it. Fine. Keep the vertically integrated where it is. Understandable. The colors. As I noted that -- the point that I was trying to refer to is that the specific use -- or the architecture standards manual says that no two multi-family buildings will be -- should look the same. However, there is 135 units and multiple, multiple buildings in here. So, you can't have, you know, 80 different looks. I understand that. My point is that both the Commission and the Council last time around, the same color scheme, had noted that it tends to blend together, which also is part of the mixed use policies. So, I can understand they are contradictory somewhat, but my point of that was just to try to help get a little bit more differentiation between the units, a little bit more pizazz, for lack of a better term, just to help bring a little bit more life. Again, if the Commission feels differently, I understand that as well. Maybe it gave me flashbacks to West Point. I don't know. Not a good time. But it -- it makes sense, though, to keep them cohesive as well. I do understand that. And, then, I don't -- I don't believe there were any other concerns, other than the internal intersection, which, again, I would like to note has been brought up multiple times and we were told to condition that. So, I -- that's what we did. So, that's where we are at with that. Fitzgerald: Joe, quick question on the -- the townhomes on the Pine side. Dodson: Yes, sir. Fitzgerald: If we had clarification from Public Works on -- on waterlines and -- would that give us the ability to understand that better? And we don't have that right now. Would that -- if we did have that at a later date would that help us or -- Dodson: Mr. Chair -- Fitzgerald: -- or does that need to be dealt with now? Dodson: -- to address your -- I -- having their approval and, then, having all the plans revised to reflect that would be very beneficial, yes, because I don't know if I said it specifically, but the plans that were shown here -- at least in my presentation -- do not reflect some of those easement changes that I also received in a separate document and so my concern is that some of this may not be a hundred percent accurate. Again, I -- I didn't draw these, so I can't make those changes. I don't know if they were that major. I think some section of the roads were widened and that changed some things there and, then, the placement of the garages, carports, changed as well, which is not reflected on Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F49 Page 46 of 110 any of the CUP plan or-- I don't know the parking plan, if that was updated or not, because that wasn't in my set of plans. So, I think that having those all be reflected throughout those site plans would be a benefit, yes. Fitzgerald: Thank you. Dodson: You are welcome, sir. Fitzgerald: Additional comments or questions for Joe? Nelson: Mr. Chairman, I apologize, are you looking for my feedback on those items? Fitzgerald: I think we are just trying to see where we -- what we have left over and where we can go. So, if you have additional comments, please, share them. Nelson: I appreciate all the work by -- and cooperation with Joe and the work by the Commission. It sounds to us like we can bring back for you before the 7th in time for you to consider a full package on the 7th. We need to address the intersection. We need to address the Public Works requirements and confirm that, in fact, they have approved our plans. And we need to provide you the updated rezone and plat lines. And so with that I think that we --we feel strongly that we can do all of that before your January 7th hearing, so that you can just have those items remaining. Fitzgerald: Thank you very much. Any additional questions for Deb before we close the public hearing and -- or maybe not close the public hearing -- Grove: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: -- and deliberate. Grove: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Grove, go right ahead. Grove: Thanks. Hey, Deb, I had a question for you on something that we haven't really discussed and, sorry, I don't want to drag this out any longer, but just in regards to the vertical integrated unit that's in the center, one of the aspects that you had on the last project on Black Cat and Chinden was integration with that vertically integrated product more so with the open space and my question is how is that envisioned to work with that open space that is next to it, but not necessarily behind it? Nelson: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Grove, thanks for that question. So, the vertically integrated space that we had at Black Cat was along Black Cat Road and it was separated from the clubhouse by a road and it was actually separated from the big community plaza area by the road, too. It was the pop up space that kind of opened right onto that plaza. So, I think that might be what you are thinking of. But, in any case, we -- we actually like Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F50 Page 47 of 110 that -- the way that both of these vertically integrated buildings are oriented here. They accommodate that kind of active streetscape with the parking that's available to serve them, so you get that commercial activity, but also has the pedestrian pathway that runs along both of them that is part of the -- like for the one on the north, the east-west connection for those residences as they are moving toward the commercial area and, then, you have the raised crosswalks or delineated crosswalks that are going to go just next to that that connects on the side of that northern vertically integrated building and same when you look at the one that's central. It's next to the open space, the park on one side, on the other you have got the raised crosswalk that goes across and in the middle you have got the larger crosswalk that goes over to the two central plazas. So, it's not facing the big plaza in the same direct way as that the pop up was, but it is fully surrounded by connectivity on all sides. Grove: Okay. Thank you. Appreciate that. Fitzgerald: Any additional follow up, Commissioner Grove? Grove: No. Fitzgerald: Any additional questions for Deb at this time? Deb, you are awesome. Thank you so much for working through it with us and we will have a chat and we will go from there. Before we close the public hearing, do we have a direction we want to head? It sounds like Deb knows where they need to go. Do we feel comfortable bringing it back on the 7th of January with that information? Is there anything else you would like her to take into account or do we want to deliberate on anything further? Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I have a list of things that I wrote down from all the comments if you want me to read through them and see if we are hitting all the marks. Fitzgerald: Yes, ma'am. Go right ahead. Holland: Okay. I have, first of all, A-2, that we would revise the staff report to have the applicant provide a revised plat for lots and zone lines. A-15. That the applicant will phase the commercial and do the frontage improvements with the first phase. B-2.9. That the final plat should be approved prior to building permit, not necessarily prior to being recorded. We would remove the condition to relocate the vertically integrated structures and leave them where they are. That we would have the applicant revisit with staff on the types of units that are against Pine. That was a request by Bill. The color palette is still an item of discussion if we want to include something about that. I -- I'm okay with the color palette, the way that it is, but we could put a condition in there that the applicant would consider an additional color palette or accent that could help with differentiation. Confirm with Public Works on meeting their needs with this application Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F51 Page 48 of 110 and, then, the last thing I had was adjust the layout to show a revised roundabout or alternative intersection in the entrances around the commercial. Fitzgerald: Sounds right to me. Commissioner Seal, go right ahead. Seal: That's -- it's like she was looking at my notes. But very similar notes. The only thing -- I agree with -- and maybe it's because I have lived on military housing as well, so -- I mean I know in the beginning with the contrast that's there, it all looks shiny brand new and everything, but over time that's going to -- it's going to look like Army housing, you know. Navy housing. So, I just don't think there is -- there is enough color -- there is enough different -- different -- difference in there for sure, as far as what's built and how it's built and how it's put together and presented, but the color palette to me needs to be expanded to provide something a little bit less earthy in areas where applicable. Fitzgerald: Thoughts on the lot in the back? I know I heard Commissioner McCarvel's opinion on that. I -- I have mixed emotions, because I think it is a great spot for open space, even if it is in the back. So, I'm -- and it's kind of a weird spot without seeing a lot there. But I'm kind of -- I'm indifferent. So, any additional thoughts there? Grove: Mr. Chair? Holland: Mr. Chair, I'm kind of indifferent on it as well. Grove: Mr. Chair, I -- I think it's hard to fully make a decision, just because we don't know what's to the west of it and so knowing if it -- how open that would look from -- from a police perspective, I think that would be -- it's somewhat hard to make a full decision on that in that -- in that regard. Fitzgerald: Maybe we could ask Joe to get Meridian Police Department's opinion on that sort of change, if they have an opinion. Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Yeah. Holland: One other thought is if we did leave that as open space it might be nice to have some sort of specific amenity to it that would help prevent crime-related type uses. Like potentially it could be a good dog park location, if you had a fenced area, or -- I don't know. Something that's a little more visible, so it's not -- not a danger zone. Fitzgerald: Yeah. Holland: And I'm okay with keeping a lot there, too. It doesn't seem to be a conflict to me. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F52 Page 49 of 110 Fitzgerald: Okay. With that I think we have given Deb direction and I think we have space on our 7th -- July -- or January 7th calendar, so is there any other additional comments or things we need to share with them, so they can make decisions and be able to finalize everything to bring it back on a very limited public hearing package? Parsons: Mr. Chair, is there any desire of the Commission to see commercial elevations or are you in agreement with the applicant allowing that to happen when they actually have an end user? Fitzgerald: They are coming back with a CP or a CUP; right? Parsons: For the drive-thru use, yes. It's going to depend on the proposed use in the commercial zone, whether or not that's principally permitted or conditional use. Fitzgerald: Thoughts, team? Seal: I believe was -- A-11 was the one that was in there and I just -- well, no, that was A-14. I don't have a note on that one. It seems like -- you know, if there were elevations submitted, then, that seems to be covered. That said, there is -- I think there is a -- I don't have any issues with them needing to submit elevations for that. If that's what they are after. Between now and then. Holland: Mr. Chair? Dodson: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Grove, go right ahead. Dodson: It was Commissioner Holland and, then, myself, but -- Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland and -- it all forms into Commissioner Grove's voice. that was awesome. Commissioner Holland, go right ahead, then, we will go to Joe. Holland: Mr. Chair and Joe, one of my suggestions would be on the commercial elevations that we could just make a note that says it would be something comparable to what was shown on the flyover video. I felt like they did kind of show some sample elevations in the way that the flyover came through, how the commercial would integrate in. I don't know. That's just a thought. Dodson: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Go ahead, Joe. Dodson: Thanks, Commissioner Holland, I do understand that and that's kind of the point of why I asked for that. It's not to say that this is what you shall build, it's just this is annexation and a mixed use project, I'm not asking for something we don't always ask for Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F53 Page 50 of 110 with commercial projects, which is some type of conceptual elevations. More so as a guide for future development. I do not plan on saying that these are the elevations that will be built. It's more of just conceptual, so both Commission understands what's being proposed and also Council. That's -- that was my only comment there. Fitzgerald: Okay. Holland: I'm fine adding that to the list. Fitzgerald: Does somebody want to make a continuance motion, if that's the direction we are headed, and try to make it as narrowly as possible to keep us where we -- we will work with the applicant on these specific things and we can go from there? Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to continue file number -- there is a lot of text here. H-2022-0099, Mile High Pines, to the hearing date of January 7th for the following reasons: That the staff and would work with the applicant and also make adjustments in the staff report on these items. A-2. That the applicant would provide a revised plat to align lots and zone lines. A-15. Modify that the applicant will phase the commercial and do frontage improvements with the first phase of development, but that they would also provide conceptual elevations for what the commercial could look like in the future. Modify B-2.9, that the final plat should be approved prior to building permit, not necessarily before recording. That we would remove the condition of relocating the vertically integrated structures and leave them where they are. That the applicant would revisit with staff on the type of units that are going to be placed against Pine and the transition there. That the applicant would consider an additional color palette or some sort of accent within the site development that could help with differentiation and breaking up the development. That the applicant would -- or that staff would confirm with Public Works on meeting their needs with the application and have that reported in the staff report. That the applicant would adjust the layout to show a revised roundabout or alternative intersection in the entrance around the commercial and I think that's it. Fitzgerald: Nice work. I have a motion. Grove: Second. Seal: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to continue -- if I can find it -- file number H- 2020-0099 to the hearing date of January 7th, 2021. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F54] Page 51 of 110 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Fitzgerald: Deb, thank you guys. Joe, thanks for all your work. Appreciate it. We look forward to seeing you on the 7th. Nelson: Thank you. Merry Christmas. Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: One quick comment before we keep moving on. I know we still have three applications to hear tonight. I'm a little bit nervous about the last application, that we might lose some folks who had interest in public testimony before we even get to those applications. Do we want to confirm with the clerk if we have -- or if we have people signed up for public testimony on some of those last items, to see if we want to shuffle things around? Fitzgerald: Yeah. We can -- Madam Clerk, do we have public testimony on the last three items? Can you give us some -- I don't want to -- I mean I understand what you are saying. What I want to say is that we can call it when we think we need to and that's not putting any pressure on -- but I also want to make sure the public gets their time and they have spent some time with us tonight. But if we are feeling like we can't go further than the next two, I want to make sure we do that now. So, thank you for bringing that up. Madam Clerk, do you have thoughts there? Weatherly: Mr. Chair, since we are doing in person and online, I have some signup sheets that I have to run and get from the back. Preliminary information shows that I do have only -- on the next three applications I have a few people that have signed up for the Southridge South application. Give me 30 seconds and I will be right back to give you more information. Fitzgerald: Okay. Does anybody need a real quick break? Cassinelli: This might be a good time to take one. Fitzgerald: Yeah. While she's doing that let's do a three minute break or a bio break and get some water and we will be back in -- at 8:37. (Recess: 8:34 p.m. to 8:38 p.m.) Fitzgerald: We are mostly back. Madam Clerk, do you have more information for us? Weatherly: Mr. Chair, I do. So, for Daphne Square I have a few people that are in house wishing to testify on that project. On Cache Creek I have one person in house wishing to Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F55] Page 52 of 110 testify on that project. On Southridge South I don't have anybody signed up in house to testify on that project, but I do have one or two people online wishing to testify. Fitzgerald: I think we need to keep plowing forward, especially if we have people in chambers on the next two. So, if is there a time when we -- if you have a situation where you need to get off, let us know and we can make sure we have a quorum. But let's see how far we can get. Commissioner Holland, I know you are in a situation where the little one may need you, too. So, keep us in the loop and we will keep plowing forward until you -- and we have a quorum -- over a quorum right now, so if there is a situation where you needed to hop off, we totally understand. But let's see how far we can get and let me know if there is -- if there is a concern from you or from other Commissioners and we will go from there. Does that work? Holland: Sounds good. Thanks, Mr. Chair. 6. Public Hearing for Daphne Square Subdivision (H-2020-0101) by Matt Schultz of Schultz Development, Located 4700 W. McMillan Rd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 4.97 acres of land with an R-15 zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 30 building lots and 3 common lots on 4.97 acres of land in the proposed R-15 zoning district. Fitzgerald: Yeah. Thank you. With that let us move on to the next item on our agenda. I think we have everybody back. The next item on the agenda is Daphne Square Subdivision, file number H-2020-0101 and let's start with the staff report. Alan, are you available? Tiefenbach: Good evening, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. If you can hear me and see my presentation give me a thumbs up. Fitzgerald: You're good, sir. Go right ahead. Tiefenbach: So, this is a proposal for annexation and rezoning to R-15 and a preliminary plat to allow 30 building -- 30 building lots and three common lots. The site is 4.97 acres of land. It's presently zoned RUT in unincorporated Ada county and it's located at 4700 West McMillan Road. It's north -- northeast corner of North Black Cat and West McMillan. You can see the future land use map there. It recommends medium density residential. You can see the zoning map in the middle and the aerials. We will start with the plat here. So, the property presently contains an existing manufactured home that will be removed. This proposal includes mostly duplexes, in addition to several single family attached structures. Staff does believe this is a housing plat that would lead to more diversity in housing, as a majority of the housing in this area is single family residential. I will put this out. It's easier to see this color probably plat. There is two points of access proposed. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F56 Page 53 of 110 The first is an internal street that's here. It goes to the north to Brody Square, which was approved I think in July. It comes up to Daphne Street and, then, you can either go east down to McMillan or you can go west to North Black Cat. Only one street, which is this one here, will serve the internal development and this one dead ends in a cul-de-sac. So, Black Cat and West McMillan have presently two lanes. They don't contain any sidewalks at the present. The applicant is required to dedicate right of way for future widening and the construction of a five foot sidewalk. These are the same width that would connect with properties that have been approved -- the Brody Square to the north, as well as properties to the west. They are also -- it's important to note that there is a roundabout -- a future roundabout that is planned at this intersection here. The applicant has provided a parking exhibit, which indicates 30 additional on-street spaces. This is in addition to the two car garages and the two car driveways that are shown for all units. So, each unit has two -- like I said, two car drive -- two car garage and here is a parking plan which shows that in addition to that, above what's required, they have 30 parking spaces. This is the applicant's common open space exhibit. So, this property is less than five acres in size. This means that per our standards it does not have to meet the minimum -- the common open space and amenity requirements. However, this is an annexation and the applicant proposes the density that's at the high end of the MDR range. Again, the range is three to eight dwelling units per acre. The applicant proposes six. Staff informed the applicant that in order for staff to support a density and size of R-15, this development should contain quality open space and amenities. If not, perhaps a lower density, such as R-8, would be more appropriate. The landscape plan indicates 12 percent of open space, amenity of a 5,600 square foot lot, which you can see right here, and staff is not convinced that this project -- that this project actually proposes 12 percent common open space. The reason why is, first of all, it counts the buffers twice. You can only count the landscape buffers along Black Cat and McMillan as one half. So, that's counted as one half. But it also looks like that they might be counting the parkways that are along this as well, which is kind of double counting. The other thing is that the parkways that you can see along Riva Capri Street, those are the detached sidewalks. You can't count the driveways and this exhibit here, from what you are seeing, shows that those driveways are being counted. And the last thing is that there is a -- as we mentioned there is a roundabout that is eventually proposed at the Black Cat-McMillan Road intersection and we don't know how much of this landscaping at the end of that cul-de-sac this project is going to lose, but we do think that that could happen. We would really want to see what this project will look like after that roundabout and after the right of way is dedicated. But also I guess staff's opinion is that the -- the common open space that they are proposing here is directly on the intersection of North Black Cat and the West McMillan. Staff doesn't believe that a park or a bench directly on this intersection would be considered quality open space, something that the residents would use. So, staff's recommendation -- there is a retention pond, which is shown up here -- let me back up and you can see it here. So, there is a retention basin that's shown here. One of staff's recommendations is that these two lots could be merged into one larger open space and this could serve as a quality open space. Per the code if it is more than five acres, if they were using the retention basin, then, they would have to provide at least 20,000 square foot of additional space. In this particular case this is much less, but we do think it would be usable. Again, staff's -- staff's thoughts on this is that they are proposing to go to R-15, which is pretty Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F57 Page 54 of 110 dense. That's pretty high on the recommendation, but staff's opinion is that if they don't provide a good quality open space for the residents, we would probably recommend something lower, otherwise R-8. Here is a picture of the elevations if you would like to see them. With that -- really that's our -- our only major issue is the merging of the two lots into the detention basin and with that staff recommends approval of the conditions as listed in the staff report. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Alan. We appreciate it. Are there any questions for Alan at this point? Okay. Hearing none, thanks, Alan. We appreciate that. Would the applicant like to come forward or join us -- I think Matt's online. Matt, I see you -- thanks, Alan. Matt, can you unmute yourself and turn your video on if you would like and you can join us. Matt, are you with us, sir? Schultz: I am with you. Fitzgerald: Hey, sir. Good evening. Schultz: Get the light off my face. It's a little bright. That's a little better. All right. Fitzgerald: Please introduce yourself and the floor is yours, sir. Schultz: Thank you, Commissioners. Matt Schultz. 8421 South Ten Mile in Meridian. Here on behalf of Berkeley Communities for the Daphne Square Subdivision. Thanks for having me and staying up a little late. It's a pretty small little site that -- that Joe Atalla brought to me and said, hey, what can we do with this and even though it says 4.97, it's really about 3.75. It has an extraordinary right of way requirement being on a corner. I have done some other 4.97 sites -- acre sites that all the right of way was already taken out. This is not one of them. So, it's a really constrained site in terms of what can you do with it. We have had a similar one with Berkeley a few years ago --three years ago called Bancroft Square by Sutherland Farm. It was a cul-de-sac and your open space tends to be on the end of the cul-de-sac and -- or, if not, you are -- you are just losing lots to lose lots and I would be remiss to -- to do so without at least giving some other options and so I want to speak to that. But first I would like to kind of go to the -- the big picture of where our site is and how it relates to Brody Square to the north that was approved over the summer previous to us, because, really, this is like a phase two of Brody Square and that our access relies on it, because we cannot take access off of Black Cat and McMillan any longer with the intersection being right there and we rely on their sewer, their water, their -- everything. And they are -- they are out there right now tearing down some houses and getting going and -- and we hope to kind of come along a few months behind them and do phase two. So, if -- I don't know if Alan or somebody can put -- can you put up that -- or if I can take control of the presentation to where I can scroll forward a little bit. Tiefenbach: You should be able to share your screen there, Matt. You should have the option to do that. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F58 Page 55 of 110 Schultz: Okay. Share screen. All right. Well, I have never shared a screen before, so -- Tiefenbach: There you go. Schultz: All right. All right. All right. I'm little bit -- you are screen sharing. Okay. I'm not seeing anything -- Tiefenbach: I think it's to your computer desktop right now. Schultz: Okay. You were going to put up -- you were going to put some of your slides. I gave you a couple of them. I didn't have them -- I didn't have them uploaded and ready to go, those ones that I sent you. Weatherly: Mr. Chair, Matt, this is Adrienne. I can help you. Which one do you want? Schultz: The one that shows both of Brody Square and -- it's green and white. It just has green open space and white. I apologize. I need to be more sophisticated. Fitzgerald: No worries. Matt, you can stop sharing your screen, that will give Adrienne back the screen. Schultz: Stop share. There we go. Weatherly: Okay. Commissioners, this is a pdf, so I'm trying to maneuver it, so that you can see everything here. One moment. Fitzgerald: Thank you, ma'am. Weatherly: Matt, tell me if this is the right one that you are thinking of. Schultz: It is. Great. Thank you. So, you can see the -- the bottom -- the bottom rectangle down there is our five acres and the top bigger rectangle is Brody Square, which is 15 acres and this -- this whole 20 acres is about a mile away to the west of Walmart. About a mile and a half from Heroes Park. There are some R-15 and R-8. Of course, Brody Square is R-8. There is some R-15 across the street. We believe that R-15 is appropriate in this location due to the constrained location. We need some dimensional flexibility. The densities -- I would say only six for R-15, especially the medium density is three to eight. Six is in the middle. We are definitely not in the high end of -- of that medium density. I thought it was important to show how we compare -- or how we connect, how we integrate with Brody Square with their -- we have the same statistics as far as percentage of usable open space. Theirs is, obviously, bigger, because they had a bigger site and a bigger area to work with. We -- we have -- if you look at a combined density of both of our sites, they had 4.3. We have six. There are -- combined is -- thank you. The combined is 4.7, which is that fourth line there. Excuse me. Third line that says density. You can also see the percent of right of way on ours is 25 percent, which is quite Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F59 Page 56 of 110 large. And perimeter right of way. I have never had a site, I don't think, with that large of a right of way. So, kind of our net acres is 3.72 and the qualified open space percentages are very similar. So, really, what we are getting down to is even though we are under five acres, we are still providing over the ten percent and we are still providing an amenity. Now, staff is wanting a little bit bigger open space and to us to relocate the amenity and we are open to that. With that said, if you can go back to that overall look, please. Like I said, we are like a phase two of Brody Square in terms of timing, integration, access. I know Mr. Atalla is working with the other owner as far as potentially joining HOAs together, cost sharing on pressure irrigation, even buying lots inside Brody Square, in addition to developing Daphne Square. This is a very similar situation to the Bancroft Square next to Sutherland Farm that we did where we proposed -- kind of thinking a little bit outside of the box here, a condition that we replace number -- condition number two, which is that we reload -- that we combine Lot 28, 29, Block 1, into Lot 30, with -- maybe that's our second alternative, but our first alternative would be to locate a playground amenity in Brody Square on the east side of that park and if that can't happen, then, we would put an amenity at the -- at our intersection, instead of at the end of the cul-de-sac and that's something that I know this Commission has done before and allowed when we are joining or there is the potential to join, those things take time and we would definitely work all that out or we would build an amenity at the intersection. Do we need to lose two lots? I don't think so. I think we do with one extra one right next to that and still have ample open space. But if we can't get to the bigger playground amenity in Brody Square, which I don't see why we wouldn't, it's going to add value not only to Brody Square, but to us. It's going to be better centrally located to the entire 20 acres. It's just a better plan and I think with the -- with our five acres we kind of get down in the -- in the details and, then, to kind of zoom in on it -- and I understand where staff is coming from, but I think there is probably a better option. It's a third option than either we have presented, what they proposed, and, hey, here is a third option that I think would work out better for everybody. As far as the open space percentages, we did -- we did doublecheck those and we have 1 ,200 feet of park strips internal and that was a choice that we did. We didn't have to do it. Only 40 percent of that is counted because of driveways and our open space exhibit does say that, it says minus driveways. So, that was -- that was accounted for. We think it's a good product. It's got some good diversity. Berkeley's a good -- a good home builder. He's an architect. He's done some nice elevations and, like I said, the size -- condition two and condition three we do agree with staff's recommendation for approval and staff's conditions. Condition three is that we show the roundabout. We have --we have dropped a template of ACHD's roundabout in there and we have room. Roundabouts are very specialized designs. This is like ten years out. would hate to lock in on an exact design of what that looks like, knowing that even if they took 5,000 square feet out, we would still be over ten percent. We have ample room. We are giving 61 feet on McMillan of right of way, when typically you will see 48. So, we are already giving an extra width. We are also giving extra width on Black Cat. We are at 50 to account for that roundabout, whatever it may be in that location, and there may be a little wedge that comes out in the corner, but it's -- it's -- it's pretty much going to fit and we would hate to get locked in in an exact design when there is no exact design right now. ACHD does not have a design. They have a template that doesn't work at this specific location, because some offsets are going to have to be required. There is going Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F60] Page 57 of 110 to be some value engineering about power poles and canals and there is some other things that are outside of our-- our site that need to be taken into account with that design, but it's going to take a lot of time and a lot of money for ACHD to determine that. But in the meantime we have dedicated -- or we are going to dedicate ample right of way and before final plat maybe they will have a better design. But, like I said, this isn't even on their -- on their ten year plan right now I don't believe. So, we think it's a good design. We think it's the right location. We think it's a good mix with Brody Square. It integrates very well we believe. I think it's -- because of the constraints of the site this density isn't -- isn't too bad or offensive, if you will, and I think it blends in very well with what we got and depending on -- especially in this location. So, I will stand for any questions. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Matt. Are there any questions for Matt at this time? Commissioner Cassinelli? Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Go right ahead. Cassinelli: Matt, is this -- is this a rental product or not? Schultz: Is it -- oh, hi, Commissioner Cassinelli. I don't believe so. It could, but I don't believe -- that's not his intent. His -- Mr. Atalla and Berkeley Builders sell these. They are a zero lot line. Now they are not -- even though they are attached they are --they are individual lots per unit with a zero lot line between them, except for there is a couple of single family detached where we don't have an even -- an even lot count in the block, there is one on the end that's a single on a couple of the blocks. But they are -- they could rent, but at the price point and everything else, I don't think so. Cassinelli: Okay. And, then, another question if I could. Fitzgerald: Go right ahead. Cassinelli: The -- the lots on the north side that back up to -- is it Brody Square on the north? Schultz: It is. Cassinelli: You got two to one and those are -- you know, two story product there, overlooking -- you know, you got one lot with two two story homes, what can we -- you know, is there anything that -- have you looked at -- at that transition along there? I'm not -- I would like to see a little bit -- I would like to see it a little thinner. Schultz: If I could, Mr. Cassinelli, just respond to that. There is eight lots in Brody Square backing up to our side. We have got one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, 11, 12 -- they are going to look like six buildings from the back, because they are Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F61 Page 58 of 110 attached. It's going to look like six structures versus their eight structures. So, we -- and even talking to the other -- the other developer, he didn't see that as being a big deal, because they were attached, they won't -- they won't look like a bunch -- it won't look like two to one, even though it is two to one, because of their width and efficiency. So, that's -- that's how we are looking at it. You may still not like that, but that's -- it is actually less structures backing up to their more structures. Cassinelli: So, on that how close to the -- to the rear lot line are those? Do you have something that -- Schultz: I do. We have--we have looked at--we have looked at our layouts and because we chose to put the park strips in the front of these, it actually pushes your house ten feet back and at that we are meeting the 12 foot setback. If we did not do the park strips and pull the sidewalk and made it attached in the front, we would have 22 feet -- or 22 and a half feet, something like that. And so we do meet setbacks in there and they have 50 foot wide lots. Probably some two -- a lot of two stories as well. So, it will probably be two story to two story. Fitzgerald: Follow up, Commissioner Cassinelli? Cassinelli: No, that -- that answers it. Thank you. Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Matt, I'm just curious. It's kind of along the same lines of what Commissioner Cassinelli just asked you, but would you consider doing a single family product that backs up to the existing single family that will be in the new -- in the other developments in the north of you and, then, doing your more dense product on the bottom where you have it? But would you be willing to adjust the northern part of that to do single family on that part, instead of your attached product? Just to create a better transition between those houses. Does that make sense what I'm asking? Schultz: Oh, it absolutely makes sense what you are asking. It's not my subdivision. Yeah. I know that -- I know that Mr. Atalla likes this product. It's something that he thinks complements it, but if that's your recommendation we would certainly go for the -- hopefully City Council with that recommendation that we convert that. Obviously, I think it would -- I mean if-- if you did 40 foot lots -- I don't know if you are looking to go one for one 50 foot lots, because once you get to 40 they are detached. Holland: You know, looking at it just first glance the way that it compares, I think one of my recommendations might be to have the lot lines match up and do single family -- Schultz: Okay. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F62 Page 59 of 110 Holland: -- on that northern boundary and, then, leave more of the attached product on the bottom side, but maybe that would help with the transition there. Because to me I look at that and it looks like a lot of density compared to the other project and I think -- I would agree with staff that I would rather see R-8 or R-4 there to tie in with the future use maps calling for with medium density housing there. Schultz: Right. Commissioner Holland, R-4 would definitely not -- be like 90 by 90s or something to hit the R-4. Probably be the reverse transition that we are looking for from that intersection. R-8 definitely is -- definitely within your purview. That would be -- if we did 40s in there we would lose probably three or four lots in that area right there to -- to get those in there. With the same setbacks -- same setbacks allowed in R-4 -- not R-4. Excuse me. R-8 and R-15. They are the same regarding setbacks. Fitzgerald: Follow up? Oh, is that -- oh. Okay. Any additional questions? Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal. Seal: Just listening to the applicant's testimony earlier about the roundabout that's going in there, as I'm looking over the -- the ACHD final report and in condition 2.13 in there they actually have -- and it is a very rudimentary drawing of how the roundabout would fit into that intersection and it actually looks like it -- well, it doesn't look like they are actually recommending that more offset -- let me see here. How do they word it? Applicant shall be required to dedicate additional right of way to accommodate the future construction of the multi-lane roundabout and they show an attachment on there. Has -- have you used that basically as, you know, essentially that kind of template to apply to what's being submitted? Because as I'm looking at that it's going to take a substantial piece of that corner away. Schultz: Right. Staff and ACHD dropped that in there really quick. When they do these roundabout designs they probably spend about four or five months and about a hundred thousand dollars designing them with civil engineers and survey and everything else and there is ways to rotate those, so the -- the legs curve a little more efficiently around there. They didn't do us any favors by how they dropped that in there, but that was definitely not a design drawing. They will be required to be shifted -- shifted over to the west, probably shifted up a little bit to the north. We have preliminarily dropped a template in there and there is a little bit of a cut on the corner, but there is more right of way there than it looks like. It's not an apples to apples comparison of the aerial overlay that you are seeing and our-- and our site plan, but-- but it fits -- it fits into right of way. We are giving exceptional right of way beyond and they said, yes, you are going to need to do a little -- you know, a little bit of additional right at the corner, but we have -- we have room there for them to take a little bit out of that corner. Holland: Mr. Chair, one more question. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F63] Page 60 of 110 Fitzgerald: Go right ahead. Holland: It's -- it's kind of untraditional to have a cul-de-sac be on the hard corner of two major roadways. I have seen it done a few times in other subdivisions, too, but it's -- it's kind of atypical. Is there going to be significant landscaping, fencing, that kind of goes around that cul-de-sac and the open space? Schultz: Yes. Absolutely. I know we have submitted a landscape plan -- a color landscape plan and it will be berm and there is significant landscaping in our landscape plan there to where it's not going to be, hey, you can see the cul-de-sac on -- from the main road. It's going to be bermed up, trees and shrubs and bushes. Fencing. As you can see there. That's the intent. And, really, it's because there is -- there is no access allowed that close to the intersection, obviously, that -- that we have that cul-de-sac there at the end, which -- which happens sometimes on certain projects. Not a lot, but it happens sometimes. Fitzgerald: Following up on Commissioner Holland's comments. Matt, if that roundabout is built there and it eats into that -- all that landscaping, how close can we talk about it getting to the -- to the roundabout? It seems like that eats the landscaping completely. Schultz: Well, again, that -- that diagram that was shown there was -- it didn't do any justice to how that might land there, especially the final design work. But if it ate in there like maybe ten, 15 feet, there is -- there is 25 within the common lot and, then, there is more north of that -- 30 to 40 feet there, where 25 is required. So, there is -- there is quite a bit of room there. There is more than it looks like for these -- these roundabouts and, really, it's -- like I said, it's a four intersection design that they get into in there and what's funny is the next application up -- we have a site that's right on a hard corner where they have done 99 percent drawings and you can see exactly how it worked and these are -- but this one is -- which they are building next year. This one is not even on the ten year plan right now. Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you. Additional questions for Matt at this point? Seal: Mr. Chair, just -- Fitzgerald: Yes, go right ahead. Seal: -- I had one quick question. Well, just to the applicant when --what's your timeline for trying to essentially merge the two HOAs and provide for that, you know, kind of phase two go of it? Schultz: We-- how we have worded these before is, you know, prior to final plat signature shall prove that you have joined -- or have an agreement to put the amenity in there -- you know, whatever it may be or join the HOA, that we wouldn't have initially have to join the HOA, but, obviously, it would make it cleaner as far as use and all that -- be a cross use, cross-access. On the -- on Bancroft Square it was prior to final plat show Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F64 Page 61 of 110 documentation that you have -- you have done the merger or have an agreement to do the merger and that was -- that was enough for the city attorney and the staff on that one. Their idea being that we want to do it as soon as we can. You know, if we can get it worked out in the next month we would. Fitzgerald: And, Matt, that was just to clarify. That was -- you would remove the gazebo concept and move whatever it may be. Schultz: Yeah. Exactly. Fitzgerald: Okay. Got you. Commissioner Cassinelli, did you have another question? Cassinelli: No. Fitzgerald: Okay. Cassinelli: My last one just got answered. Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you. McCarvel: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel, go right ahead. McCarvel: Can we get that visual back up on the white and green with the two subdivisions back to back? I just want to look again if those -- yeah. If you are really looking at -- Fitzgerald: If there are 30 foot versus 50 foot lots. McCarvel: Right. But they will be one structure for over the line. Fitzgerald: Oh, yes. McCarvel: Yeah. I mean this visual -- what -- the other thing that kind of stands out to me, Matt, is just taken on the entry there where you have got the three lots, you know, coming right in a row from the single family. That's to the north of it. Coming right in on that -- on the entry there. It looks kind of -- maybe continue just the single family, make that one or two lots right there. I'm not sure how wide that would make those -- Schultz: Fifty's. McCarvel: Yeah. Schultz: Fifty, probably. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F65] Page 62 of 110 McCarvel: Yeah. I mean -- and you don't notice it until you put the overview on it, but -- but that might look a little more appealing driving down that street if those were all in line. Fitzgerald: Any additional comments or questions for Matt at this point? Okay. Hearing none, Matt, we will be back to you and let you close after we take public testimony. Thank you, sir. Madam Clerk, it sounds like you have people in -- in the audience that would like to testify on this application. Weatherly: Mr. Chair, I do. First would be David -- is it Pera? Pera: Mr. Chairman. My name is David Pera -- oh, I'm sorry. Commissioners. I live on Daphne Street. I am the vice-president of the Beach Lateral water users and we have been working with Brody Square on their irrigation. We have live irrigation there. We flood. We all have five acre pieces. So, there's water ditches and there is wastewater ditches that flow right through Daphne Square. We haven't had any contact from the developer yet or anybody about what they plan on doing with this water. So, we are just asking that they come to us with some kind of plan, so we can go over it and approve it, talk to them and see what we can do to make everything work. Like I said, we have almost got everything done with Brody Square. I don't see any difference, but we just -- we need to get something from them. Fitzgerald: Sir, thank you so much for being here tonight. We will make sure they answer that. They are required to make sure that water flows through their -- their site and so we will -- we will make sure Matt answers that when he comes back up. But, yeah, the water definitely will continue to flow through the property and so they will make sure that that's taken care of. We appreciate you sticking with us tonight. Pera: Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Fitzgerald: Thank you, sir. Weatherly: Mr. Chair, next is Mrs. Corbell. Fitzgerald: Good evening, ma'am. Please state your name and your address for the record and we will -- the floor is yours. Corbell: I beg your pardon? Lanelle Corbell. 4520 West McMillan, Meridian. And if you would put that plat back up. If you would put that plat back up that has the property lines on it. Fitzgerald: Madam -- there you go. Thanks, Adrienne. Corbell: That long side east of Daphne Square is my property. I have ten acres. It borders right on Brody Square and Daphne Square. It was my understanding that there would be that one street that would go along by my property line. We have livestock. We have ten acres. We have livestock. We are not in the Meridian city limits. I'm going to Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F66 Page 63 of 110 have to have some kind of a substantial protection on that property line for my livestock. Also we depend completely on the irrigation to keep our grass for our livestock and that's a main irrigation line on McMillan Road that goes all the way down to the corner of Black Cat and, then, goes north towards Brody Square. So, we are going to have to be sure that we have no interruption in our water services, our irrigation, and we are going to be -- have to be sure that we are protected from people entering our property from both Daphne Square and Brody Square and we are going to need to have protection on the back, because our property goes all the way back to Daphne and that's where all the traffic's going to be and we do have small calves and we need to be protected from the traffic. We have got bumper to bumper traffic all day long on McMillan now. Everybody going down to Walmart, so -- and everybody going to work and into the construction sites and so we are going to need to be protected from that. I would urge you to make sure that they put some kind of a permanent substantial protection on that property line for those ten acres all the way down to Daphne. Fitzgerald: And, ma'am, I will have Matt respond to you when he comes back up, but -- regarding the fencing and the protection of your water and thank you for being here tonight. We appreciate it greatly. Weatherly: Mr. Chair, next we have Randy Corbell. And he has chosen not to speak. That's all I have signed up, Mr. Chair. Fitzgerald: Is there anyone either in chambers or online that would like to testify on this application? Please raise your hand if you are in chambers or use the raise your hand function on Zoom. Commissioner Grove, don't see anybody? Okay. Matt, would you like to close and answer some of those questions -- or answer some of those questions and close. Schultz: Yes. Thanks. Thanks. Matt Schultz. 8421 South Ten Mile. Yeah. Appreciate David from the Beach Lateral water users showing up. We did show some preliminary lines coming along with McMillan and Black Cat. We fine tuned those, working with the area owners and if there is any lateral ditch companies in our final designs, but, obviously, we -- we maintain all historic deliveries, whether that would be wastewater or delivery water. As an ex-engineer that's -- it seems to be the number one thing that we do is figure out those things and at this juncture we -- we know we have to do it. We just don't know exactly if there is a little branch somewhere, but we have got a couple lines playing, which kind of goes along with Mrs. Corbell's comment as well about drainage. We met the Corbells at the neighborhood meeting and -- and talked to them about that -- our shared property line there on the -- on the east side of us and the west side of her. We are planning to do a -- fix a vinyl fence with a berm and what we have done in these -- in these situations where we have had livestock on the other side of a vinyl fence -- because some people are not worried about that and some people are as we put a parallel -- usually a parallel three or four strand barbed wire, you know, parallel to it, just to kind of keep them away from the vinyl. So, we end up putting in two fences and we would fence off across the stub street, that when that does continue on in the future those panels come out and it's a moot point at that -- at that juncture. But in the meantime there is no vision Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F67 Page 64 of 110 through that stub street and it's all fenced off and not a -- not an escape point for any livestock. So, those are the two issues, that fence line and the irrigation for the neighbors and I hope we have addressed them adequately. I have been texting the -- the owner a little bit here as we were waiting for -- for, you know, the responses and looking at that north property line and if we could put the diagram back up, the site plan, please, and look at it. As far as Commissioner McCarvel talking about coming in there, I don't know if you can -- okay. As you come in from Brody Square there is a T intersection. As you are going south on the left on the -- on the left-hand side there is those three lots. On the right there is the open space. We had those three lots oriented the other way previously, so they were faced internal to the subdivision, instead of, you know, they -- they are lots that you would line up with the other houses as you drive in like, Commissioner McCarvel pointed out. We had those rotated previously and staff wanted us to rotate them back this way, so -- so, kind of going in a little bit of a circle there. In looking at the question if, hey, can we go to R-8s or -- or 40 foot lots, potentially, on the north side -- we could do it if you want to. I think -- if it's your recommendation we would certainly take that forward to Council. What we have submitted I think is what we think works. We would -- they would propose that we -- like I said, get the amenity in Brody Square and for some reason we can't -- and I don't see why we couldn't, but if there is some reason we can't we would move our amenity that we are currently showing down the cul-de-sac over on this intersection and put it -- I would like to rotate those three lots north-south and lose one of the building lots and on the corner we would have our amenity as you drive in with the other two lots facing north-south. So, we would lose a lot there. That's -- I think that's a good solution to the streetscape issue that Commissioner McCarvel brought up. It's a good fallback solution to the amenity not being at the end of the cul-de-sac and being more -- I guess somewhat centrally located. There are -- and I will tell you the truth -- and we are planning on spending three times as much on that playground as we are on a sitting area in terms of what we want to put into Brody Square. Really similar to what we called Warrick a couple years ago and it's being marketed as Calistoga on Amity. It's about a 45 to 50 thousand dollar playground. That's what we would like to put in Brody Square and that's what we are approaching the owner with and in our negotiations, say, hey, let's just make a better centralized open space for everybody within those 20 acres. They had -- they just had a sitting area coming in off of Black Cat and we would have -- and there is a pond in the middle for the irrigation and, then, on the other side we have a playground and I think that's a better big picture solution that's going to give better value to everybody in the neighborhood, instead of getting down in the weeds on this little five acre site. So, that's my -- that's our proposal. We hope you would go along with us, but if you want to make a different recommendation moving forward that you approve it by -- you want 40 foot lots on the north, that's certainly something that we are open to moving forward with. But we -- we would like to -- for you to approve what we submitted, with the minor modifications as discussed. Fitzgerald: Matt, in regards to the open space lot, I mean that's a -- that's a holding pond. Are you doing subsurface water with a play area over the top or how -- what does that look like? Schultz: Are you talking about what we currently have? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F68 Page 65 of 110 Fitzgerald: Yeah. Schultz: What we currently have as you drive in -- it's -- it's just a -- it's a dry retention basin that fills up in the hundred year event. We are not counting it as open space as shown. It's not included. It's just there. The facility. It was not included -- it was not counted as usable open space in what we have shown. What we are proposing is right across the street we would have one that would be usable with -- with an amenity in it that has no drainage related to it whatsoever. Fitzgerald: But the drainage basin is it subsurface or is it going to be open -- kind of an open -- kind of swale? Schultz: It will be depressed to the low flow -- the trickle flow, the carwash flow will go underground and so it will be dry, unless there is a really heavy -- you know, really heavy downpour, it would fill up and, then, go down again and dry out again. So, you know, 99 percent of the time it's dry grass, with a little little sand window in the bottom for the -- the trickle flow that comes off of sprinklers or whatever when it's not raining. Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you. Additional questions for Matt? Grove: Mr. Chair. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Grove, go right ahead. Grove: Matt, question. Would you be open to having a sidewalk that connects to the Black Cat sidewalk? It looks like there is no connector-- or easy access from here --from the subdivision going that direction. I know it's not that hard to walk around the cul-de- sac necessarily, but it seems like it would be an easy way to improve some connectivity there. Schultz: Yeah. Absolutely. We just showed it to McMillan and didn't -- didn't continue that thought process far enough and that is absolutely a great idea to make that connection through. You do --you do lose a little bit of privacy when you do that, because you are depressing the berm to punch that sidewalk through. You know, we just had one -- one little break and we are not -- we are not opposed to doing that, but that is the tradeoff if -- if that sidewalk does want to open up a view through there, which -- which isn't the worst thing in the world, but we are certainly open to doing that. Fitzgerald: Additional questions? Going once. Going twice. Matt, thank you very much, sir. We appreciate it. I know we will see you momentarily again, so -- Schultz: Thanks. Fitzgerald: Thank you. Can I get a motion to close the public hearing? Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F69 Page 66 of 110 Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I move we closed the public hearing for file number H-2020-0101, Daphne Square. Seal: Second. Fitzgerald: Motion and a second to close the public hearing on Daphne Square. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Okay. Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Fitzgerald: Who wants to lead off? Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I kind of already made my comments to Matt there earlier, but I -- I think at a minimum I would want to see at least those lot lines align on the northern boundary of the site coming into it, because it just seems like it's an abrupt transition to density when it doesn't necessarily need to. So, I think I stand with that comment. I'm not necessarily opposed to having the attached product that's on the south side there, but I would want to see enough green space and -- and break up those a little bit. So, I would say on that northwest chunk there I wouldn't want to see more than seven lots on that north side of the cul-de-sac and, then, no more than two on that kind of eastern -- northeastern chunk that's there, too. That way they would align with what's -- what's in Brody Square. That's my initial thought. Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you. Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: With -- with regards -- I think Commissioner Holland and I are -- got similar thinking there. But if I can make a comment, I believe there is eight lots on Brody Square on the north side and you just mentioned seven. One is going to already -- well, I guess one -- one will be that retention pond now that I'm looking at it. So -- Holland: Mr. Chair, that's why I counted seven was because I wanted the space for that retention pond for a little bit of green space coming in there. Cassinelli: And if he goes -- I think Matt mentioned on the -- if we were to change that there to single family instead of to detached, it would have to be 40. 1 mean would you be -- would you be okay with it, you know, if maybe it was eight or nine in there versus -- Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F70] Page 67 of 110 right now there is one, two, three, four, four, five, six, seven -- nine, ten, 11 -- there is 12 along there. I definitely don't like the transition, the two to one that it's at right now. Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Yeah. Commissioner Holland, go right ahead. Holland: I think that's why I was trying to come up with a compromise in -- in trying to give that single family transition that meets the R-8 standards on that northern boundary, but still allowing the R-15 style that's on the south side there and he could probably -- we could probably let him have eight lots there and he could condense it a little bit, but I would love -- I always like to see when the fence lines align, because it always seems funky when you are sharing -- when you have got a fence line like halfway in the middle of your yard. I have that -- if we can avoid it. Fitzgerald: So, I understand where you guys are headed. The challenge -- I guess the only thing I will comment back is if this neighborhood had been built already that would be one thing, but this neighbor is flat dirt right now and I would guess they are all going to get built together and they know -- they know what's going to come. So, that's my only -- I'm not saying that I disagree with you, just taking that -- taking that into account is we usually work through transition when there is people already living there, but that's -- I'm not sure that changes anybody's mind, but this is all going to be flat dirt that comes in together. It is a hard corner on two relatively busy roads. I'm not sure if that makes a difference, but it would transition from the busy road to a single family home. Yeah, I -- that's my only thought. I understand where you are going. Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Yes, sir. Cassinelli: The other-- the other issue there is that those are 12 foot setbacks to the rear. Fitzgerald: Yeah. Cassinelli: So, they are very close to -- to those lots to the north. Fitzgerald: That's true. Cassinelli: I don't know if that -- and my other thought -- as long as we are talking lots on the north -- by flipping those -- on those three, if you -- if you rotate them, then, you have two going into the site of the one house. You would have a -- Matt was proposing a -- a common lot there on the -- on the corner, but, then, the other two -- then you have -- again, you got two backing up to the side of a house. I don't know if that's -- that's only in one spot, I don't know if it would be that big of a deal there. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F71 Page 68 of 110 McCarvel: Yeah. Mr. Chair, I don't think I -- I think I dislike the flipping it more than I dislike leaving it the way it is, but I just thought, you know, transition wise you are driving by, you know, single family and, then, all of a sudden you get these couple of detached just kind of sticking there by themselves. Or attached. Cassinelli: If he's willing -- if he was willing to give up a lot there and if you give up a lot and just have two houses oriented -- McCarvel: Yeah. Cassinelli: -- the way they are, maybe that's a little bit -- not -- not quite -- McCarvel: Yeah. Cassinelli: -- radical going from, you know, single family -- you know, detached single family to -- to three, but if you just go to two, maybe -- McCarvel: Well, Mr. Chair-- and even -- even the way -- you know, I'm looking at the way the attached product is lining up, that they come in and they start right next to the open space with a detached and, then, you have got your two attached, which would make them totally offset from the attached -- or the single family on the other side. So, you would have that fence line almost office -- you know, in the halfway on those lots on every one of them, rather if you started with that first one being attached they would maybe at least, you know, structure wise they would line up a little better. Grove: Mr. Chair, from what I'm looking at -- McCarvel: But they are still really close to that back fence. Grove: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Grove, go ahead. Grove: Looking at the -- the units like almost everyone's saying basically if the nonattached units were taken out it would vastly improve this project, because there is one, two, three, four that aren't attached. It seems like that starts to resolve some of the issues that we are having. Fitzgerald: You're talking about on each end? The single on each end? Grove: Correct. Yeah. McCarvel: Yeah. Grove: There is four of them, I believe, and -- Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F72 Page 69 of 110 McCarvel: Yeah. Grove: -- at least three of them are problematic. McCarvel: Yeah. If you took those three -- I see what you are saying. Yeah. Take those three out, that might -- Grove: But if you took out all four it would make it seem more cohesive also. Fitzgerald: And, then, the masking that you were talking about before that -- that Matt mentioned before, it would somewhat match -- match up better. So, Commissioner Cassinelli, can I ask you a quick question? Cassinelli: Yeah. Fitzgerald: So, would you rather see an attached sidewalk and shift those houses forward than a ribbon -- than a park strip? Cassinelli: What does that do to -- what does it do to the open space? Fitzgerald: Oh. That's -- exactly. Well, I don't know if the park strips are in there. We could ask Matt. Cassinelli: Well, we would have to open it back up to do that. McCarvel: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: That's 22 feet versus 12. Yes, Commissioner Cassinelli, go right ahead. Or Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: Yeah. Well, if you are losing that one detached there on that northeast corner and make it open space, put that back in your calculation, I don't know if that would get you where you wanted to be. But if you are taking out a few of those detached ones and make it a little more open space out of that, then, you could put -- take and push the -- the structures forward and have that sidewalk changed and probably almost gain open space. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal is being very quiet. It's unlike you. Come on, man. What are you thinking? Seal: Well, I mean I would like to see the lot boundaries line up a little bit better, but for sure I -- you know, I think that the roundabout probably is going to eat into a considerable amount of the area that's there. You know, it would have been nice if ACHD provided something other than, you know, a stencil crayon drawing in their report. A little -- a little lackluster on --on their part for sure. So, I mean it makes that --you know, it makes some kind of determination difficult on this. You know, looking at it -- I guess I'm caught in a Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F73 Page 70 of 110 quandary of, you know, they -- they want to be part of Brody -- was it Brody Square? But they are not and that makes this difficult, because I'm looking at the sub to, you know, essentially stand on its own. Knowing that they want to be part of that subdivision, you know, the HOA and all of it, that would probably change the way that I looked at this a little bit for sure, where I give them a little bit more latitude and -- and look at it -- so you -- you know, lose less of the homes that are there, still provide, you know, better lineup with lot boundaries that are there for sure, but if they were part of that HOA and they could provide, you know, the amenities that we are looking for and everything, that is going to make me look at it differently and if that's not there -- and I -- I mean it sounds like we can condition that as part of it, but at the same time, without knowing if that's ever going to come to fruition, you know, what's going to happen. So, if we condition it on that and they say, no, we don't want to do that, then, do they start this whole process over again? Fitzgerald: Well, it's possibly to get it remanded back, but the City Council could take into account our recommendations. Parsons: Mr. Chair, I can certainly add in on that. Fitzgerald: Bill, go right ahead. Parsons: So, I -- I actually liked the idea of Matt working with the adjacent development and -- and making that happen. He has been successful several times over the years and I -- at least from staff's perspective we are confident that he probably can make that happen, if that is the desire of the Commission. This is annexation, so you have the ability to require that as part of the DA and I looked at the past DAs where Matt was successful in that effort and it said if you can't -- you know, the condition read if you can't get agreeance to join that HOA, then, you provide X amount of open space in one amenity. So, we can certainly tailor a DA provision to that effect and I would imagine Matt would be comfortable with that, because, again, he's -- he's been successful in two pretty tumultuous projects from my -- what I remember. They were pretty controversial projects that he was able to get that accomplished and get it done and I think that would just make it a better development overall. This really should have been part of Brody Square when it came in and when we started -- when we first pre-apped with Brody Square this piece was included and because of that ACHD requirement of dedicating that additional right of way for the roundabout, the developer didn't want to buy the property, because it took too much property -- too much land. So, he went ahead and purchased the northern five acres of Brody Square, rather than the southern end of it, and so whatever we can do -- and going to your -- to Alan's presentation to you this evening, this is under five acres. So, technically by code they don't need to provide five -- or any--ten percent open space. So, having this merge with that adjacent development, I think it's a win not only for Matt, but also Brody Square. We have consistent design elements. We have consistent maintenance. And we have got -- more likely people in this subdivision are going to go walk over there and use that park anyways and, then, we just avoid conflicts in the future. So, I think to me this is a win and if Matt is amenable to that condition, then, I would ask the Commission to include that if you choose to do that. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F74 Page 71 of 110 Fitzgerald: Thanks, Bill. Additional comments? Thoughts? Commissioner Yearsley, haven't heard from you all night. Are you -- Yearsley: I know. Am I my supposed to say something? Sorry. So, looking at this I have a tendency to agree with everybody else's comments that lining up those northern lots with Brody Square -- and I do like the idea of having them join HOAs and having them provide an amenity in their park. I think that would make the things a lot cleaner. I think with that I could support this application. I can't believe that they are going to lose a lot more property with the roundabout in that corner, because they just take up a ton of room no matter how they lay them out. They just take up so much room that it just wipes out a lot of corners. Fitzgerald: I think we are close. Parsons: Yeah. Commission, the other thing I would like to add on that as well is that's why Alan and I were pushing for showing us how that -- that right of way lands on this property, because what we don't want to happen is the road improvements go in and all of a sudden there is no landscape buffer and we have people -- people's backyards up against right of way. I think -- I think all of us can agree, we have seen that throughout our community, it's not a good look. We want to make sure that people have some -- some privacy, especially on those major arterials and looking at how this is laid out, given the fact that you have Idaho Power on one side and a pretty big irrigation facility on the south side, they may be looking for more right of way on the north side to try to -- like Matt says, value engineer the project, because it's going to get expensive to remove power lines and bury ditches. Fitzgerald: Thanks for that ray of sunshine. Yearsley: And just from a --from a practical use, we just ended up -- on Eagle Road they are putting a roundabout around our entrance to Tuscany and it's amazing what they did to our frontage and our property coming into it. They took it all. It's -- it's just horrendous what they did for the -- for the right of way for a roundabout, so -- Grove: Mr. Chair, question for staff. Fitzgerald: Go right ahead, Commissioner Grove. Grove: With the -- the front of the -- the front sidewalks in front of the units, does that align with what Brody Square looks like in terms of the landscaping between the sidewalk and the street or -- I guess -- my question is if we conditioned it to look like it was part of Brody Square does that provide better offsets for the -- like the southern boundary for -- if the right of way were to expand further than -- than anticipated? Tiefenbach: If you would like, if you want to give me a minute I can get the Brody Square landscape plan up. Would you like to see that? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F75 Page 72 of 110 Grove: Sure. Tiefenbach: Give me -- give me -- if you want to keep going, it's going to take me a minute. If you want to keep talking and, then, I will -- I will send that over to you. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Alan. Parsons: Alan, I got -- I have it pulled up. Tiefenbach: Oh, yeah. I'm not going to go through why I can't do it, but if you can do it that would be quicker. Parsons: Yeah. I'm happy to take that for the Commission. Tiefenbach: All right. Thanks. They have a color landscape plan in there that would probably be very good. Parsons: Well, we don't need to share it, but we could just tell the Commission that, essentially, they have attached sidewalks in their development, so they do not have the green strip between the sidewalk and the curb. So, to me if that's something that you -- I kind of agree with Commissioner McCarvel, if you were to pull the buildings closer to the street, you get a deeper backyard, you get a little more open space on the -- you get more buildable lot, more open space for those residents, and you get greater separation between the houses, which I think, you know, I'm not -- I'm always a fan of having detached sidewalks, but in this case with the amount of curb cuts you are not really gaining much of a parkway strip along the street, you are really getting a lot of curb cuts, a lot of concrete. So, you are not really -- to me it's almost an impediment to the development, because of the minimal amount of green space that you are getting. I would almost rather see the -- get the bigger lots, have more of a front yard, more of a rear yard for residents to use, especially when you are next to an arterial roadway like that. That's going to be their private space on their property. So, whatever we can do to do that I think that's a win. Now, it does that -- going back to the Commission's question, does it reduce the space. Yes, but it will be a minimal given that it really doesn't count because of the curb cuts. So, it to me I think if -- my recommendation to Matt, if he wants -- and the Commission, if we are going to pursue that avenue of this property joining with the adjacent property and HOAs and Matt may want to maybe crunch some of those numbers -- numbers for City Council, say, hey, even between these two projects we still exceed code -- minimum code requirements for open space and amenities. Amenities is going to be a no brainer. They are definitely going to be over what the code requires for an amenity. But as far as their open space, combined with Brody Square's, what does that total look like. So, at least we can give -- give that comparison to City Council if that's the direction the Commission wants to go. Fitzgerald: And because it's a five acre in-fill they don't really have to do -- I mean they don't have to meet that minimum. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F76] Page 73 of 110 Parsons: Yeah. This --well, this is an interesting property, because when I was reviewing the staff report for Alan it's interesting that Ada County Assessor says it's five acres, but when you draw--when you look at the surveying documents, this property--this property is under five acres. It's -- so, I don't know where that discrepancy lies, but I just know it's not a true five acre parcel based on all the documentation that we have gotten on this. So, the county may have rounded it up, I'm not sure, but it's not five acres, it's definitely under five. But it is annexation. I mean certainly it's within your purview to -- to recommend changes if you want to see that. Within reason, of course. Obviously, we can't make him lose half his lots and put in 15 percent open space, but I mean some of the discussion that I have heard this evening sounds pretty reasonable from my standpoint. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Bill. I don't think we are very far apart, guys. I think you guys outlined it well. I think, Commissioner Groves, that-- that was a great question, because I had the same thing going on in my mind as well, is how do we give people more space and it -- aligning it with -- or whatever it's called. Square. I mean I think that makes sense. It wouldn't make any sense to look differently and lose space in the rear of the house, so -- so, are we kind of walking through it? Do we agree that we need to -- the north side needs to line up -- the lot lines on the north? Yearsley: I would agree to that. Fitzgerald: Okay. And, then, do we want to lose that lot -- that second lot -- or the third lot on the northeast corner to be replaced by open space? Or an amenity? Grove: I would -- I would be okay with it as it is, because I'm assuming they are going to have to lose lots to make the lines align on that northside to Brody Square. So, I wouldn't be opposed either way. Fitzgerald: Well, is it -- is it a qualifying where if they can't get into the HOA, then, they have to lose a lot and -- and put in an amenity that -- whatever would be that third lot? Is that the -- the tradeoff? Cassinelli: I think that makes sense. Holland: Mr. Chair, one more clarification. Are we requesting that they stay single family on the northern side, instead of attached product? Fitzgerald: I think that's up to us -- up to the crew. I -- I don't have a problem with zero lot lines, to be totally honest, but -- as long as the lots line up. But I -- if someone has a different opinion that's -- I totally am open to that. McCarvel: Yeah. Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Go right ahead. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F77 Page 74 of 110 McCarvel: I think -- I would agree. I think as long as the lot lines line up where you have got structure for structure, I'm okay with the zero lot line in there. And, then, in giving them more -- more distance, I think that makes a difference from -- from the back line. Fitzgerald: Losing the park strip, moving the houses forward, attaching the sidewalks. McCarvel: Yeah. Fitzgerald: Additional thoughts? Somebody have a motion? Seal: We have to close the public hearing first. Fitzgerald: We already did. Seal: We did? Okay. Where was I? Fitzgerald: It's all good. Commissioner Seal, did you have a motion you were preparing to make? Seal: I'm thinking about it. Make sure I have got the right thing. Yeah. I will take a crack at this. Mr. Chair, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number H-2020-0101, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 17th, 2020, with the following modifications: The DA provisioned to ensure that they join the Brody Square HOA. They reconfigure the northern boundary homes to align with lots in -- that are already existing in Brody Square and they eliminate the park strips to better align with the look and feel of what's going to exist in Brody Square. Fitzgerald: Can I clarify one thing? Seal: Yes, sir. Fitzgerald: If they can't join Brody Square are we going to stipulate the loss of that lot, so they can put an open space in there and an amenity on the northeast corner? Seal: Yeah. Amend my motion to include if they are unable to join Brody Square HOA they will need to eliminate -- oh, at least lot --what is it? Lot 29 of Block 1 to provide more open space. McCarvel: Second. Grove: Would that be 29 or lot one? Fitzgerald: That would be lot -- McCarvel: One. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F78 Page 75 of 110 Fitzgerald: Yeah. It would be Lot 1. McCarvel: Do we want to stipulate a lot, instead of the end one, I guess. One -- Seal: It would be the -- the lot closest to the open drain area of that. Grove: I thought we were talking about -- McCarvel: Yeah. Cassinelli: Talking about those three lots. One, two, and three. McCarvel: Yeah. Fitzgerald: Yeah. I want to make sure we are clear. McCarvel: On the northeast corner there. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal, does that make sense or did you have a different idea? I know you -- Seal: It does. I'm just trying to make sure I have got -- okay. Tiefenbach: Are we talking about Lot 1, Block 2? Fitzgerald: Or that northeast corner block? Whatever block. Tiefenbach: Lot 1, Block 2, if I'm reading it correctly. I'm just trying to make sure. Fitzgerald: Okay. Thanks, Alan. Seal: Okay. So, with that -- so what we are asking -- what we would be asking is for them to eliminate lot -- Lot 1, Block 2 -- McCarvel: Yes. Seal: That's it, because we already asked them to align the lots -- the northern lots along the boundary line. McCarvel: Uh-huh. Yeah. Fitzgerald: Would the second stipulate to that motion adjustment? McCarvel: Yes. Fitzgerald: Okay. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F79 Page 76 of 110 McCarvel: All that -- Fitzgerald: All that stuff. I have a motion and a second to recommend approval of file number H-2020-0101 , Daphne Square Subdivision. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you all. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. 7. Public Hearing for Cache Creek Subdivision (H-2020-0105) by Matt Schultz of Schultz Development, Located on the Northwest Corner of E. Victory Rd. and S. Locust Grove Rd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 15.18 acres of land from RUT in Ada County to the R-4 zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 41 building lots and 4 common lots on 13.99 acres of land in the proposed R-4 zoning district. Fitzgerald: Moving on to the next item on our agenda -- first I have to close out my agenda. What's the number? It's -- the next item on our agenda is Cache Creek Subdivision, file number H-2020-0105 and, Alan, is this yours, too? I believe. Tiefenbach: It is. I'm just trying to get my Zoom to work here. I got to -- there we go. Okay. Sorry. Give me one second here. Okay. Do you got that? That was a thumbs up? Fitzgerald: Looks good. Tiefenbach: Okay. Thank you. Sometimes there is a lot of maneuvering going on here, as you already know. Okay. Just a second here. Grove: Mr. Chair? Tiefenbach: Okay. Grove: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Yeah, Commissioner Grove, go right ahead. Grove: Sorry, Alan, I was just going to ask a question before we jumped in. We are getting close to 10.00 o'clock and I just wanted to see if we wanted to discuss if we will be hearing the -- the last one before we get started or not. Fitzgerald: Commissioners, what's your thoughts? I -- we have done late nights before, but I -- I want to be sensitive to your -- your desires and requests. So, we have got by 11 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F80 Page 77 of 110 people that are online with us still and, then, we have got at least one person in chambers on this one. Do you want to see how it goes or do you want to stipulate that we are going to stop after this one? Comments? Yearsley: If we have got people waiting I would prefer not to have to have them come back and we just go a little late and get it all finished. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland, I know that you are -- may need to leave us, so as long as we have a quorum we can keep plowing forward. Holland: Well, my kid is asleep. I just get less sleep, but that's all right. I'm used to sleeping on -- or surviving on three hours now, so I'm good. I will power through with you guys. Fitzgerald: Okay. Commissioner Cassinelli, are you good? Cassinelli: I'm good. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal? Seal: Good. Fitzgerald: Okay. Commissioner McCarvel and Commissioner Grove? McCarvel: Sure. Fitzgerald: That sounded really like robust. Commissioner Grove, are you okay? I know you are in person. Grove: I'm good. Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you all. I appreciate it greatly. And we appreciate the public sticking with us. Okay. Alan, it's all you, sir. Tiefenbach: Yes, sir. Thank you. All right. So, this is the Cache Creek-- or Cache Creek Subdivision and this is an annexation and rezoning -- a zoning to R-4 and a preliminary plat to allow 41 building lots and four common lots. So, this property is 13.99 acres of land. Presently zoned RUT in unincorporated Ada county. It's located at 1560 West Victory Road and 2955 South Locust Grove, which is the northwest corner of South Grove -- or South Locust Grove Road and East Victory Road. You can see it's recommended for low density residential. The zoning map showing it's surrounded by R-4 and R-8. See if I can move on here. Okay. So, this proposal includes the annexation, zoning, and platting to allow 41 building lots and four common lots. The property present -- presently contains two existing homes. The one to the south, which would be the one to the southeast, will be demolished and the one to the northeast, up at the top there, will remain. There is going to be two accesses to these properties. Each access will connect to a stub Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F81 Page 78 of 110 street in the Capella Creek Subdivision. So, one access -- so, there is a stub here. You can see this. And there is -- oh, sorry. Yeah. So, there is a stub here and there is a stub here. These two accesses will connect to those stubs. These stub streets terminate at South Bailey Way, which is, basically, running north and south here and from that, then, you can either go east up to South Locust Grove or you can go south to Victory. Within this subdivision -- the Cache Creek Subdivision applies a loop road, which you can see here. That's a 33 -- a 33 foot wide road and you have detached sidewalks and eight foot landscaped strips. South Locust Grove on the east currently has two lanes and no curb, gutter, or sidewalk. East Victory Road to the south presently has two lanes with no curb, gutter, or sidewalk. Both of these are going to be widened in the next three years and just like the other project there is going to be a roundabout that's being planned and that's at East Victory Road and South Locust Grove Road. There is also a detention pond or a retention basin that's in the development down here as well. Ten Mile Creek runs right next to the road across the property. You can't see it here -- which I will talk about in a minute -- but it runs right through the property. Sufficient right of way presently exists for widening both South Locust Grove and East Victory Road. However, the applicant will be required to dedicate additional right of way for the roundabout. Because both of these roads are due to be reconstructed, ACHD has requested the applicant pay 38,000 dollars into a road trust deposit. This road trust deposit will be used by ACHD to construct sidewalks that abut the site as part of the future intersection project. Staff has received letters and -- from neighbors and from the president of the Cabella Creek Homeowners Association. They request to not connect to the stub streets to allow direct access, but, instead, they want to allow direct access from South Locust Grove. One suggestion was by lining up with East Sagemoor Drive. As you can see my pointer, East Sagemoor Drive is here, so the request was to see if they could line up an access here and get rid of the accesses there. It's important to note that both the city regulations and the Comprehensive Plan discourage new developments directly connecting to arterials and collectors and in addition to that I talked to ACHD today and they -- they responded that allowing a new access onto the South Locust Grove Road would not meet their spacing requirements. It needs to be at least 1,300 points -- feet. They can't get close to that. Now they could ask for a waiver from our policy, but they have noted that the only time that -- that they will -- that they will grant waivers from the policy is if the roads that they are stubbing to are deemed to be over capacity and in order for that to be happen those roads would have to be serving more than 2,000 trips per day. This proposal is estimated to generate 387. So, ACHD does not support opening up any accesses to this project. Five foot detached sidewalks are proposed on both sides of all the streets within this development. There is also a pedestrian connection, which is here -- oh, sorry. Which is here into this common lot. There is also a pedestrian connection that runs along this retention basin here. This development includes two amenities, which is the playground, as well as a very large open area that's central. Two amenities and approximately 16 percent open space. There is a regional pathway, which is down here, and that parallels Ten Mile Creek to East Victory Road and the Cabella Creek Subdivision. It runs right through this subdivision, although the pathway itself is not on the subject property. There is also a ten foot pathway -- if you can see my pointer -- over here that runs along the Eight Mile parallel lateral and it dead ends right here. So, there is not really a good crossing right now. Although the proposed plat shows that there is a five foot sidewalk Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F82 Page 79 of 110 that is running -- if you can see my pointer-- it sort of runs down along South Locust and, then, there is another sidewalk that runs along east Victory, people could come out here and walk down the street and turn. Staff thought that it would be better to actually have an internal connection where you could get a faster way -- cut through to common open space here, if you can see my pointer, and, then, you can either choose to go into the Ten Mile here or you can go and hit Ten Mile and go the opposite direction. We made that recommendation. Yesterday the applicant provided us an updated plat. Hopefully they can show you that, but I have put a picture on here, so that you can see -- maybe not very well. This is the trail -- the trail connection that the applicant is proposing to connect to. This is basically in the area -- if you read the staff report where staff was suggesting that we needed to have that. So, that's what we were looking for. Although the minimum square footage of the common open space is satisfied, one thing that's important to note is that there is an arterial buffer here and this arterial buffer does not meet the minimum 25 foot spacing requirements right here. Hopefully you can see my pointer. This is the existing residence here. Right now there is -- there is several accesses onto South Locust Grove. Those accesses are going to be closed off with landscaping and both of their accesses are going to occur from these internal driveways. There is two, which is a little strange. I thought the applicant could sort of weigh into why they actually need to have two. However, so -- so, we have got a 25 foot buffer, but it goes down to I think around nine or ten feet right here. The applicant has noted that it's not feasible to be able to --to provide this buffer, because of the engineering and because of the location of the house, but if you look at this very carefully, this is all asphalt here. Paving. We believe that at least some of that buffer, if not 25 foot, could be put there. So, we -- it was our opinion that the application needs to revise these plans to reflect a -- reflect a 25 wide -- 20 foot -- 25 foot wide buffer or as close as they can get or be -- or apply and be granted a buffer reduction through the alternative compliance process. That's an administrative process. So, what will happen is -- is that they would either provide that buffer or before City Council at the Planning Commission they would have to make an application with some specific findings that need to be met and the committee -- the planning director would have to decide whether they would grant alternative compliance. If they did it would be a nonissue. If they didn't, then, that would be something that they would have to talk to the Council about, whether or not the Council wanted to grant that. The other thing I want to mention is that the landscape plan is missing a little piece of the lot. If you look at -- this is the GIS and if you look at the -- these lots were drawn on. So, these aren't existing now. But this is the applicant's lot. If you see the corner of this, this lot goes all the way down to Victory. If you look at the landscape plan, it's kind of cut off here. Ten Mile Creek is a major amenity and our regulations and our Comprehensive Plan talks about preserving and enhancing amenities. So, one of the things that we want to see is that the landscape plan, first of all, incorporates all of the property onto the landscape plan. The second thing is that we recommend that this landscape plan be updated to design this waterway in as a natural amenity and with that staff recommends approval with the conditions as listed in the staff report. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Alan. Appreciate it. Any questions for Alan at this point? Hearing none at this point, Matt, are you still with us? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F83] Page 80 of 110 Schultz: I am. I just got to get on video here. I'm trying. I'm trying. Fitzgerald: You're good, sir. If you will re-introduce yourself and your address for the record, the floor is yours when you are ready. Schultz: Thank you. Matt Schultz. 8421 South Ten Mile, Meridian. I'm here on behalf of Challenger Development. It's R-4, can we just like approve it? Just kidding. Anyway, it does make it a little bit easier. We have a site that, in my opinion, is pretty straightforward. I did look at this site a couple years ago and we were looking at it like, man, maybe we could do R-8, maybe we could have an access off a Locust Grove and -- you know. And, then, last year when it was brought to me again to look at, I said, man, the roundabout is going in, there goes our access, and there is two other accesses into an R-4 sub. Comp plan. There is no step-ups anymore. Even without that rule, because of the access and how it does integrate with Cabella Creek, it really needed to be R-4, like Cabella Creek. It is -- it's pretty straightforward from that perspective and I just told my client it's R-4. So, that's what we did. That's how we did it. We didn't even think about putting an access out to Locust Grove Road, because of the proximity to the roundabout and that roundabout is based on a 99 percent plan approved, ready for bid, ready for right of way acquisition. Our layout completely matches it. They are going to widen both roads. They are going to extend that culvert to the Ten Mile drain. They are going to wipe out everything and if we would have waited another year we could have got some free sidewalk, but as it is they are going to build it next year, so we are going to put up 38,000 for our share of the sidewalk and -- and so be it. It's -- it's good to have that work done sooner than later, in my opinion, so we can have a cohesive integration with the transportation facilities in our subdivision. I do appreciate staff pointing out that a pathway would be a good idea and they were absolutely right, it would be a good idea, and we did that pretty quickly yesterday and without sacrificing our R-4 lot sizes we were able to put a pathway in across -- lining up with that -- across Locust Grove Road into our common central open space. It fits very nicely. Two quirky things about this subdivision and, then, I will -- I promise I will try to stop talking, but the -- the existing home we are keeping, they always present their challenges for setbacks and access and -- and how do you -- how do you reorient them and we are keeping the one. The Carringtons would like to stay there. The reason there is two internal driveway common -- it's just all part of their lot with frontage into our subdivision, is that if you look at the current situation --there is a driveway on the north property line that goes back to their back shops and, then, there is a circular driveway that goes to their house. Once you cut off those accesses those two driveways don't connect, without wiping out their entire backyard, and so we just did two separate -- one -- one connection to their back shop and one connection to their--their-- their--their garage, which does get a little bit close to that front buffer. Like Alan said, we propose a ten foot minimum. I still need to -- I wasn't exact in my -- my alternative compliance application, which I'm going to do so. Right after Christmas I promise to get that in and we will see how it goes administratively, but these houses sometimes beg for some administrative relief. In this case I have done a calculation, we meet the total square footage over the whole buffer, because there is some areas that are extra wide and so we are asking for a little bit narrower and I think it all comes down to landscaping. You know, ten feet or -- ten or 15 feet of landscaping is a lot better than Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F84] Page 81 of 110 a 50 foot buffer with weak landscaping. So, I think it comes down to landscaping and how you do that and everything lines up. The other issue is -- and it's the only -- it's the only condition that I would like to talk about, because we do approve -- agree with staff's recommendations and their recommendation for approval and their conditions is item number four -- and Alan talked about it. Down there in our corner -- the reason we excluded that -- and we should have done a better job of showing the -- the Nampa- Meridian hundred foot easement that's there, but really with the -- with the pathway being on the south side already within that easement, the north side is theirs, to not do anything within, so they can get in there and clean it out and do what they got to do to the Ten Mile drain, that's -- that's there -- whatever -- whatever side the pathway is going on, they take the other side for their maintenance and access. In addition, ACHD is going to totally rebuild that entire ditch in that area when they expand the road, expand the culvert, and that drainage lot that we put in there was -- it's theirs. We don't need it for open space, even though it's big enough to qualify as open space, if it's -- if it's landscaped adequately and we would ask that you provide a -- it's almost a recommendation to ACHD that they do landscape this facility to Meridian's landscape standards, because it's for the roundabout. We are not using it for our drainage. It's a roundabout drainage facility. They had one in the general area previously that was a long narrow -- along our west property line. We said, no, no, no, this is a better spot right in the corner next to the drain, we will put a pathway through, it's great. So, they are going back and tweaking their design in that area to use that as -- as a space for theirs. But if you don't encourage them they are -- I don't know what they would have done, but I know the old design was a fenced off no man's land of sterile -- sterile drainage, which they tend to do along these arterials sometimes if they are not directed -- or encouraged, like I have already done, to -- to do the landscaping that -- that's nice and integrates these transportation facility drainage areas with --with the subdivisions, instead of having a sterile fenced off no man's land. So, that's -- that's what we have shown here. You know, they will be landscaped with a pathway on one side and so with that, like I said, it's -- it's pretty straightforward. A few little quirks. But we think R-4 is appropriate. Good park strips. Good size lots. I know the access in the Cabella Creek is an issue with those neighbors, it always is on these stub streets that we connect to, but that's what they are for is for connectivity and we just don't have a high density subdivision that's going to generate the traffic that's going to cause ACHD to want to approve any other access. So, I think what we have is -- is a really good design. So, thanks. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Matt. We appreciate it. Are there any questions for Matt at this point? Okay, sir. We will come back to you as soon as we hear from the public. Schultz: Thanks. Fitzgerald: Madam Clerk, do we have -- we have people in -- in chambers? Weatherly: Mr. Chair, we have Mrs. Rita Green joining us. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F85] Page 82 of 110 Fitzgerald: Mrs. Green, thank you for staying with us tonight. We appreciate you hanging in there. Please state your name and your address for the record, ma'am, and the floor is yours. Green: Rita Green. 37 East South Bailey Way, Meridian, in Cabella Creek. Okay. This -- this propose --- this proposed subdivision is east of my house and they want to use the access roads of Sagemoor and Loggers Pass, which is through our subdivision, and that's going to increase the traffic by 80 to a hundred cars going through right by my house. It's going to -- also there is no access for emergency vehicles. They have to come through my subdivision, get on Bailey or Loggers Pass to access that subdivision, so -- and I have never seen a subdivision built that doesn't have their own exits and entrances. It's just unusual to me. I have never seen it before. I just want to see something provided for those people. They are a different subdivision. They are not paying into our association or anything and it's our responsibility -- I know roads belong to Meridian, but I'm right on that corner and my husband and I are both retired, he's completely disabled, and a lot of noise upsets me tremendously. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Thank you, ma'am. We greatly appreciate your being here tonight. Is there anyone on Zoom that would like to testify on this application? Please raise your hand via the Zoom app if you would like to testify on this application. Anyone new? Going once. Going twice. Matt, would you like to close, sir? Schultz: Yes. Matt Schultz. 8421 South Ten Mile. I do appreciate Mrs. Green not wanting any change on that vacant property next to her, but those stubs streets were provided forjust what we are saying and, ultimately, because of the roundabout being put in it's probably even better. So, no matter what those stub streets are just going to have to connect, even if we did have another access out to Locust Grove, those would still go through. ACHD never abandons those. It's a good idea for pedestrians or anything else and it is a low density-- I know it's a small cancellation, but it is a much lower density than what it could have maybe been put in there ten years ago even. And, really, it's the design, probably, that would have happened as a Cabella Creek phase two. In fact, Cabella Creek HOA president -- I might get in trouble for this, but he approached me at the -- at the neighborhood meeting and said, hey, you want to join the HOA. Said, well, we will look at it, but -- but we have got the amenities, too, so -- we will look at it, you know, but you know what I mean, it's --we are matching the detached sidewalks. We are matching the feel. We are matching the size of the houses. We are matching -- we are really just trying to get along out there and not have any -- any kind of transition problems whatsoever. So, with that, yeah, I think -- I think that's the end of my presentation and ask for your approval. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Matt. Schultz: Thanks. Fitzgerald: Any questions for Matt or additional comments? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F86 Page 83 of 110 Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal. Seal: Just wanted to ask staff real quick -- on the condition four where he explained as far as making the Ten Mile Creek into a natural amenity, was -- was that enough of an explanation to -- that we can basically strike that? I mean it makes perfect sense. I live along a piece of irrigation canal like that, so it makes sense to me. I just wanted to make sure that that was okay with staff as well. Tiefenbach: Alan Tiefenbach. Community development planner here. I guess my question is what's going to happen -- is that going to become a no man's land or are they going to be deeding that over to ACHD? I guess I'm not -- not exactly -- I'm not exactly sure what's going to happen with that little corner piece. If it's going -- I understand it's within a drainage easement. What we don't want to see is, basically, a no man's land there. So, it either becomes -- it's either retained with the applicant or it goes to ACHD, who I guess we can work with. But I guess we are not sure about how that's going to work. Fitzgerald: Matt, will you clarify that, please. Schultz: Yeah. Yeah. Thanks. Thanks, Alan for-- for the -- Commissioner Seal, for the question. That's going to be a common lot owned by our HOA. The Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District has exclusive rights to it and in jurisdiction over what goes in there, given that there are easements that they control in there and so we -- we have to take care of any weeds that may pop up, because they don't -- they don't do that great of a job at it. So, we maintain that access road for them on that other side, but they don't generally like to give us any kind of improvements within their right of way that they might have to replace if they have to go in and clean out that ditch, which they do every once in a while with heavy equipment on the other side and so, yeah, I think it's great just what's out there right now. In fact, if there is an existing pathway and good landscaping -- and if there is a little teeny tiny triangle right there in the extreme corner that we need the landscape just outside of their easement we will. We will get that plotted on there before City Council, so we can see. But if it is it's going to be tiny. I mean it's going to be like ten square feet I think. It's -- it's really -- there is just nothing left down there to do, so -- Fitzgerald: Matt, if you could just make sure it's being platted, so that -- Schultz: Pretty sure -- Fitzgerald: -- in a questionable area -- Schultz: It will be a lot and block and that the HOA has responsibility for. Tiefenbach: Sir, if I may -- if I may add, I think it would be very helpful if there -- if their landscape plan could just sort of give us an idea of what that's going to look like. Right Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F87] Page 84 of 110 now there is nothing there at all. I think that's part of what's making staff a little nervous is we -- we don't want to see something where people are throwing their soda cans in from the road. We would like to know that there is something happening there. They are pretty major -- there is a major trail pathway running right along it, so we want to make sure that that is maintained. Schultz: We will get it better documented for you, Alan. Tiefenbach: Thank you, sir. Schultz: Yep. Fitzgerald: Thanks, sir. Any additional questions for Matt? And, Mrs. Green, we appreciate you staying with us and -- is she still in chambers, Nick? I just want to be clear that, unfortunately, where your house is located that stub street -- they would require us to connect that almost -- almost guaranteed with whatever was going to get built in that corner or that -- that spot of land and so, unfortunately, that kind of growth has come to that area and -- and so ACHD is required -- requires us to continue that street into whatever is built and so, hopefully, when -- I know Matt will be a good neighbor if this is approved. They always do a good job. But that is the reality of that --that land connection -- or the interconnection of the roads. So, I just want to make sure we are clear there. If there is not additional questions or comments for Matt, can I get a motion to close the public hearing? McCarvel: So moved. Seal: Second. Holland: Second. Fitzgerald: Have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on file number H- 2020-0105. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli, it's R-4. Go for it. Go for it. Go. Cassinelli: Not a whole lot I can say with -- with everything we have discussed, with the conditions, you know, and to address what you just did as far as the stub streets and traffic flow, they can't access Locust Grove -- it is what it is. It's too bad there wasn't a stub street to the north, instead two out to the -- to the west, but that's not -- you know, that's not this -- this subdivision -- that's not this development's fault, basically. So, it would have been nice had it done that, but it didn't. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F88] Page 85 of 110 Fitzgerald: Well, I think, also, to that point -- and I don't want to cut you off, but to your point, I -- in this situation I'm -- probably for the Greens, it's better that it doesn't connect to Locust Grove, because it would probably be a thoroughfare through the neighborhood into that -- into Cabella Creek. So, hopefully, this is a narrowing of only the people that are in that neighborhood. So, sorry. Go right ahead. Cassinelli: If you find out. And I think one of the things --just to maybe -- to put -- to put her at ease a little bit, I think R-4, the price points in here, you are not going to be getting -- you are not going to be getting drag racers. McCarvel: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Go right ahead, Commissioner McCarvel. I'm sorry. McCarvel: Oh. Yeah. Yeah, I think this -- yeah. To everybody's point, R-4 -- yea. And I think the -- I would be in for leaving the landscape buffer the way it is, just because I think most of that buffer is for the benefit of the homes that are on the other side to buffer from the street noise and everything and if it's -- that homeowner is -- I can see why they need it to have that swoop around there, but I would be in support of leaving that. Fitzgerald: Like move that through alternative compliance? McCarvel: Yeah. Fitzgerald: Yeah. I'm kind of -- I think it looks good. It was well thought out. The big -- the amenity in the central core is nice, so I -- I don't have any concerns with going through alternative compliance for Matt's client either, so -- I would like to see the landscape plan. I think that's already in our stipulation per Alan's condition, so that isn't something we have to cover, it's already in there. So, any additional comments? Yearsley: Mr. Chairman? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: I'm actually giving Matt a standing ovation for doing an R-4 finally, so -- grateful for having -- I do -- I think -- I think it looks good. I think for the most part everything is good. I -- I would try to -- like to see that detention basin be grass instead of the weeds and crap that are going to be in there if you don't -- they have got several around here and that's all they become is just a weed catcher and so if we could condition that to be grass I think that would be a much better use of that area. Holland: Mr. Chair, I'm just giving my thumbs up and saying ditto. Commissioner Yearsley, I think you should make your motion. Yearsley: Hey, let me see if I can pull it up. Mr. Chair, after considering all staff, applicant and public testimony I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number H- Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F89 Page 86 of 110 2020-0150 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 17th, 2020, with the following modifications: That the ACHD detention basin be landscaped instead of -- with grass, instead of just the sand that they like to put in the bottom of it. Holland: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to recommend approval of file number H-2020- 0105 with modifications. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Fitzgerald: Matt, thanks for hanging with us. Look forward to seeing you later, sir. Have a great -- Merry Christmas. Schultz: Merry Christmas. 8. Public Hearing for Southridge South (H-2020-0083) by The Land Group, Inc., Generally Located South of W. Overland Rd., East of S. Ten Mile Rd. A. Request: Rezone of 7.15 acres of land from the R-4 to the R-2 zoning district and 28.89 acres of land from the R-2 and R-4 to the R-8 zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 254 buildable lots and 29 common lots on 83.77 acres of land in the R-2 and R-8 zoning districts. Fitzgerald: Okay. Moving on to our last item on the agenda is the public hearing for Southridge South Subdivision, file number H-2020-0083, and turn this over to Sonya. You survived until the end, ma'am. Allen: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. Thanks for keeping this on the agenda tonight. The next applications before you are a request for a rezone and a preliminary plat. This site consists of approximately 84 acres of land. It's zoned R-2 and R-4 and is located on the south side of West Overland Road, east of South Ten Mile Road, and is part of the larger 291 acre Southridge Development currently in the development process to the east. Southridge encompasses land on the south side of Overland Road from this property to the east to Linder Road and to the south to Val Vista and Aspen Cove Subdivisions. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north across Overland Road is vacant, undeveloped land, zoned R-8 and apartments in the development process, zoned R-15. To the east are single family residential properties in the development process, zoned R-4. To the west and south are rural residential properties in Val Vista and Aspen Cove Subdivisions, zoned RUT in Ada county. So, just to give a little history on this property, it was annexed in -- in -- excuse me -- 2007, with a development agreement that was later replaced a couple of times with new development Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F90 Page 87 of 110 agreements. The existing agreement requires a minimum of one thousand and a maximum of 1 ,286 residential units, consisting of a mix of apartments and single family residential homes to develop in the overall Southridge Development, unless otherwise specifically approved by Council through subsequent applications. Subsequent development agreement vacation applications were approved that removed the two apartment projects to the east from the overall Southridge Development and placed them in development agreements of their own, which no longer tied them to the terms of the original agreement. So, if you can see my pointer here, this orange area here on the first map is the Southridge Apartments site and, then, to the east of that is another apartment site. So, just so you have your bearings of what's going on in this area. With the 640 units anticipated to develop in Southbridge Apartments, 336 units in Linder and Overland Apartments -- and that was the furthest east apartment complex -- 221 single family residential units in Southridge phases one through five to the east and 254 in the proposed development, that's a total of 1,451 units, which is 165 units over that originally anticipated in the development agreement. Mostly the difference is in the apartment units, which were approved through subsequent applications as allowed through the development agreement, which were 848 anticipated units and 976 were approved. The single family residential units were anticipated to consist of 438 units or a balance of -- or a balance to total of 1,286 total units with the apartment units. The total number of single family units in the overall development, if this development is approved, will be 475, which is approximately 37 over that originally anticipated. Because the subject plat is a subsequent applicant, as described In the development agreement, staff finds the proposal in compliance with the agreement without a modification to the development agreement. A preliminary plat was approved with the annexation that included the subject property as mega lots for future resubdivision. The existing development agreement does not include a conceptual design plan for this and only governs the number of lots anticipated for future development, which can be modified through a subsequent application approved by Council. I should clarify that the existing development agreement does include a conceptual development plan, but the text of the agreement only requires that the public streets be in alignment with that shown on that concept plan. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is low density residential, which is 5.5 acres of the site and that is that green area, if you can see on the screen that I'm pointing to, and the rest of this site is designated medium density residential, which consists of approximately 78 acres. A rezone of 7.15 acres of land is proposed from the R-4 to the R-2 zoning district and that is along the southern and western boundary and 28.89 acres of land from the R-2 and R-4 to R-8 zoning districts for the development of 254 single family residential detached homes, at a gross density of three units per acre, consistent with density desired in the Comprehensive Plan for this area. The Comprehensive Plan includes goals for development that encourage a variety of housing types that meet the needs, preferences, and financial capabilities of Meridian's present and future residents, with a desire to avoid the centration of any one housing type or lot size in any geographical area and desires for diverse housing types to be provided throughout the city. With the size of the Southridge Development and no other housing types besides apartments in this vicinity, staff believes more variety in housing types is needed in accord with the Comprehensive Plan and, therefore, recommends another housing type, either attached units and/or townhomes, is provided in this development. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F91 Page 88 of 110 By attached I mean two units attached together or townhomes, three or more units attached together. A preliminary plat -- actually, let me back up. I did make that recommendation and ask the applicant to submit a revised plat that indicated compliance with -- with a variety of housing types prior to the City Council hearing. A preliminary plat is proposed consisting of 254 buildable lots and 29 common lots on 83.77 acres of land in the proposed R-2 and R-8 zoning districts. The minimum lot size proposed is 4,369 square feet, with an average lot size of 8,053 square feet. The plat is proposed to develop in four phases, as shown on the phasing plan. There are a variety of lot sizes proposed and a variety of styles of homes. Just not a variety of housing types, as desired in the comp plan. Staff worked with the applicant to modify the phasing plan prior to the hearing to include the large 3.8 acre common area where a clubhouse, swimming pool, tot lot is proposed to develop in the second phase, along with the bridge and extension of a stub street to the east, instead of with the fourth phase as originally proposed. There is one existing home on this site that is proposed to remain on a lot in the proposed subdivision. Access is proposed via one public street and one emergency access via Overland Road. Stub streets are proposed to the west, south, and east for future extension. Off-street parking will be provided in accord with UDC standards on individual lots. On-street parking for guests can also be accommodated on both sides of public streets. Public streets and three common driveways are proposed for internal circulation and access to lots. Detached sidewalks with landscape parkways are proposed throughout the development. The Ridenbaugh Canal runs along the northeast side of this development and is a large open waterway that is required to be piped, unless left open and improved as a water amenity or a linear open space. The applicant requests a Council waiver to this requirement, which is in UDC 11-3A-6B, to allow the canal to remain open and proposes to construct six foot tall chain link fencing along the waterway to preserve public safety. The Williams Northwest Gas Pipeline bisects the southwest corner of this site within a 75 foot wide easement and is contained within common lots and that is this hatched area you can see right there on the plat. A 35 foot wide landscape street buffer is required along Overland Road, an entryway corridor. Ten foot wide multi-use pathways are proposed in accord with the pathways master plan on the site within the street buffer along Overland Road, along the Ridenbaugh Canal, and along the Williams Pipeline. Qualified open space is proposed in excess UDC standards. A minimum of ten percent or 8.38 acres is required. A total of 22.3 or 26 percent of the site is proposed consisting of half the street buffer along Overland Road, linear open space and open grassy areas of at least 50 feet by 100 feet in area. Parkways also qualify toward the open space requirements, but were are not included in the calculations. A minimum of four qualified site amenities are required. A clubhouse, a swimming pool, tot lot with children's play equipment, three different segments of multi-use pathways and additional qualified open space above the standards are proposed in excess of UDC standards. Conceptual building elevations are proposed for each of the different lot widths proposed. Four 39 foot wide lots as shown, 50 foot wide lots, and 60 foot wide lots. Written testimony has been received from the following: Tamara Thompson, The Land Group. She is the applicant's representative. She is in agreement with the staff report, except for staff's recommendation that another housing type is provided. She would like this requirement removed and I will let her go over the reasons for that in her presentation. Letter of testimony was received from Ken and Sherry Fawcett, neighbors. They are not in favor Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F92 Page 89 of 110 of the proposed R-8 zoning and location of the stub street to the south. They would like it to be moved further to the west between Lots 4 and 5 and I will just go back to the plat here and show you where that's located. So, four and five are right to the corner -- at the southwest corner of the development. So, that's where they would prefer that the stub street be located. A letter of testimony was also received from four couples, also neighbors to this development. Scott and Jennifer Nichols. Curtis and Naomi Elton. Steven and Susan Przybos and Michael and Brenda Voglemore. They are in agreement with the location of the stub street to the south, where it's at, and that does stub to the Nichols' property and they have three requests as follows: The first they would like suitable drainage for irrigation and runoff to be maintained from the west end of the Southridge fence, northwest towards Overland Road. Second, they would like a condition placed on this development and the associated housing to only allow dark sky compliant lighting, so that it doesn't encroach on their properties. The city has no ordinance, just as a -- as a side note for such. And, third and finally, they would like Lots 1 and 2, Block 10, located on the east side of the stub street -- those are these two lots right here where my pointer is at. They would like those relocated to the north in this common area right here. And they would like the height of the residential vegetation adjacent to Val Vista Subdivision fence to be limited at ten feet above ground level for the reasons stated in their letter. Staff is recommending approval per the conditions in the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Sonya. I appreciate it. Any questions for Sonya at this time? Hearing none, I see Tamara Thompson joining us. Tamara, you want to take it from here? Thompson: Absolutely. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Tamara Thompson, I'm with The Land Group. We are located at 4628 Shore Drive in Eagle. And if I can, I have a PowerPoint for you that I will go through. I want to mention as well that with me from The Land Group is Jason Densmer. He is an engineer on the project. Okay. Are you seeing that? All right. Thank you. All right. Before you this is the Southridge South Subdivision. This is a rezone and a preliminary plat. The property is located south of West Overland Road, east of Ten Mile Road. As Sonya mentioned, it was annexed in 2007. It's gone through several different development agreement modifications over the years. The latest which was dated 2012. So, it's had the same development agreement since 2012. The rezone is necessary to clean up the zoning boundaries to be consistent with the proposed lot configurations and to be consistent with the development agreement and the future land use designation from the city. So, I have color coded this for you, so you can see it a little easier. The blue-purple color is the R-8 zone. There is roughly 68 -- or 63 acres of that and the R-2 is 22.25 acres and that's the salmon color. And, again, the proposed zones are consistent with the existing development agreement. This is the master concept plan that is in the development agreement and, please, note the different varieties of homes that are included in the overall master plan. So, in this area there are alley-loaded patio homes. They are detached units, but they are patio homes with -- that are alley loaded and in this area there is some smaller narrow lots, Blue Valley Elementary school is -- is located here along Linder Road and I can let you know that that school is currently in design and permitting. There is a commercial corner and, then, this was approved as the Linder-Overland apartments and that is -- I don't know if it's a hundred Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F93 Page 90 of 110 percent done, but the units -- there is several units that are occupied and, then, the Southridge Apartments are in this area. So, the area that we are talking about tonight is the area I have outlined in blue. So, the preliminary -- the preliminary plat is -- is what you see here. It consists of 254 single family lots proposed in four phases. The services are available to serve the site and we will go to this one here. The -- as Sonya mentioned, we have 22.3 acres or 26 percent of open space, which is in 29 common lots. Amenities are a centrally located clubhouse, swimming pool, tot lot, play equipment, multiple use pathways throughout and as Sonya mentioned, we are requesting a waiver to leave the Ridenbaugh Canal as is and it's an open canal. Access to Overland Road is in one location. There will be another crossing over the Ridenbaugh Canal, which would go to the east and, then, this little connection right here is the emergency fire department connection. So, although all the units are single family residential, there are three different product types. The conceptual elevations that I'm showing here are for the 60 -- 60 foot lots and, then, we have different ones for 50 foot lots and 39 foot lots. We have read the staff report and we agree with the analysis in the conditions of approval. Although it's not a condition of approval, but, rather, a requirement on page 35 of the staff report, it states prior to the City Council hearing we request -- require -- or there is -- that we need to include another housing type and as I have mentioned before, this is part of a larger master plan and within that master plan there are several different housing types. We have three different housing types within the Southridge South and we are requesting that this condition be removed. And with that I will stand for questions. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Tamara. Are there questions for the applicant at this point? Jason, thanks for being here, too. We appreciate it. Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Go right ahead. Seal: Just in looking at the -- I'm looking at the landscape plan, but it's area three where those common driveways go down, I mean it's -- there is essentially six properties that are going to be taking access from the shared access driveways there. Considering that the staff is asking for another type of housing in there, I mean would you guys be willing to look at that as an opportunity to do that in there, because the shared driveways in there -- I mean having six properties off that is really cramming them in there, basically. I think that's an opportunity there to possibly look at a different housing style that would eliminate that altogether. Densmer: I would be happy to answer that, Commissioner. This is Jason Densmer with The Land Group, just to get on the record. My address is also 462 East Shore Drive in Eagle. I have been involved with Southridge since the original annexation in 2007 and so I have a little bit of background with that. The -- the type of housing that we are proposing there with the six lots along the common drive has already been built-- I believe on four other streets in the original Southridge to the east and it's really successful in helping us tackle some of the typography challenges that this site has, which makes it unique in several ways from other properties in the City of Meridian. This is kind of a Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F94 Page 91 of 110 bench property where the Ridenbaugh Canal is along the edge of the bench and so below the canal to the north and east is significantly steep and, then, also on this property above the canal there is quite a bit of grade change. So, those -- that style of housing -- six lots clustered along a common drive really works well for us to create some tiered lots where each lot along the common drive is different elevation from its neighbor, which is not at all conducive to a different housing type, like an attached product as the staff report suggests we should include. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal, follow up? Seal: No. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Jason. Any additional questions for the applicant at this juncture? Tamara and Jason, thank you so much. We will let you finish up and close answering questions after we hear public testimony. Hang with us and we will get back to you. Densmer: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Thank you. Madam Clerk, do we have -- I know we have a number of people online. If you would like -- I think I will let you go down the list, ma'am. Weatherly: Mr. Chair, I apologize, the two people that were signed in ahead of time were Mr. Densmer and Tamara. There are several other people signed in, but not indicating the wish to testify. I did see a hand raised earlier prior to this hearing, so we will see if that person does that. Scott Nichols. One moment, please. Fitzgerald: If Mr. Nichols would like to testify, bring him over. Hold on one second, sir. Mr. Nichols, are you -- I think you are transitioned over. Nichols: I think I'm transitioned over. Can you hear me? Fitzgerald: Yes sir. Go right ahead, please. Nichols: I did -- I did open up the video. I don't know if you have got video. It doesn't look like there is video on me right now. How about -- there we go. Okay. This is Scott Nichols. My address is 2730 West Val Vista Court, immediately south of the Southridge South plat that we have been looking at this evening. I'm actually speaking on behalf of the four residents that Sonya was outlining earlier, Curtis and Naomi Elton to the west of me. Myself. Mike and Brenda Voglemore to the -- to the east. And Steven and Susan Przybos, the furthest eastern most residents in Val Vista. Sonya, I want to thank you for a really good presentation and thank you for pointing out our concerns. We have been working on this project with The Land Group and Jason for -- I can't believe it's been 13 years and our -- our underlying and the most important thing that we have been working on in those 13 years is to ensure that the value of the lots that we are living on and that we purchased and that we moved here for are not lost in transition from the term Val Vista to no vista. They have worked through the process with us and -- and there are some Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F95 Page 92 of 110 instances where Jason has been excellent to work with. There are some other areas that he pointed out, justly so, that he really can't represent us in -- in what we would recommend. So, we find ourselves, as we always knew we would at sort of at the 11 th hour, asking the Planning and Zoning Commission to, please, take a look at this -- and I don't think there is anything egregious or out of the ordinary or unreasonable that we would ask, other than to help us preserve the view lot that we have established. Mr. Przybos has been in his house for -- I don't know how many years. Probably 15 or 20. He was one of the first residences here, I believe, and actually constructed his -- his -- his house there. Mr. Voglemore purchased his house a number of years ago. All -- all of us for the same reason, the view that we had of the valley. I want to reiterate that none of us ever anticipated that there would not be development to the north. So, we are not opposed to the development, we just really want to make sure that if at all possible -- and we believe it is possible -- that we can integrate that development and preserve not only Southridge Subdivision's values or enhance their values, but it makes them this very simple improvement for -- for the city and for the future of Val Vista Subdivision. Sonya, again, thank you for the really good summary. I want to just -- if you can go back to that slide that shows the plat with the lots that are shown on the -- on the very bottom, the lot lines. I will let that come up real quick. So, the -- as you follow to the very southwest corner of Southridge South -- Sonya, if you can put your cursor on that stub street of Red Clay Road that heads south into Val Vista. That one -- right there. Jason did a really good job coordinating with us on the location of that. It comes out west of my house, east of the Elton's house and wouldn't -- you know, doesn't interfere with either of us. As a matter of fact, in some ways it's a benefit from the standpoint of natural gas, water, sewer, or-- or fiber optic for -- for the Curtis' and myself, potentially, if we wanted to do that. But there are two lots to the west of that stub street that will significantly -- in fact, not even significantly, they will eliminate Mr. Voglemore's view shed to the northwest and totally eliminate my view shed to the north and with the light pollution we have talked about, turn our typical dark sky that I'm looking at right now, literally just looking out to the north, will -- you know, our backyards are going to be illuminated without consideration for these -- for these two minor things and I understand the city doesn't have a dark sky ordinance. Wouldn't prevent us from implementing dark sky lighting. I cannot believe it would be any more expensive and with the additional lots that have been placed out here -- I don't remember the exact number, Sonya, but we are well above the original plat that was intended to be here and, again, this is a rezone to increase the density. So, the first issue was the dark sky. The second issue really has to do with -- with this -- the ten foot vegetative buffer right along the fence line. That's all we are asking for is that we don't have a -- a bunch of 60 foot trees that would block Mr. Przybos' view shed all the way to the east on the other side of Williams Pipeline -- across Williams Pipeline and, then, just to the west of Williams Pipeline to protect those view sheds there and, then, Mr. Elton's view shed looking to the -- to the northeast also. He's got a great view of Bogus Basin. So, we are not asking for no development, but the last point of that is that we really believe that moving those two lots right there in the corner of Williams Pipeline and that stub street, if you were to put those two lots to the left in that little cul-de-sac, they are not going to fill up that park area, but it allows that park to become -- instead of one central repository where people come and stop, it allows people to flow down the street, through the park, out to the pipeline area onto the rest of the greenscape that's integrated in the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F96 Page 93 of 110 community and it would flow really really well. So, I am going to leave that with you. I think there are four really good reasons for us to make those two changes and for the Council to find in favor. These are not major or significant in terms of redesign or consideration, but they are a major impact for the residents and the future layout of the community. I guess I want to say to the other thing is is that it adds to view lots for the developer -- I'm sorry, it adds one additional view lot for the developer, instead of limiting -- limiting the view of lots that are there along Williams Pipeline. So, I am going to -- I'm sure there is something that I forgot, but we did submit written comments and I would just ask your consideration in making those changes before we issue a final plat. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Mr. Nichols. We appreciate you being here tonight. Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: If I could address a question to Mr. Nichols. Fitzgerald: Yes, sir. Go right ahead. Cassinelli: Mr. Nichols, could you just summarize real quickly -- you just -- you just want to lose -- you're asking for those two lots in that corner there to come out? Nichols: Actually, only to be moved. We will retain the two lots, let's just fit them in right there where Sonya's cursor is. Cassinelli: Okay. And, then, what was your other request? Nichols: The other request was for a -- a -- just a ten foot max vegetation height on the southern edge of the subdivision on the fence line, so that we don't have 60 foot poplar trees blocking Mr. Przybos' view to the east or Mr. Voglemore's view there just along Williams Pipeline. Cassinelli: Okay. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Scott, can I ask you one quick question? How high above the current -- it's a gravel pit now; right? How high above you guys -- or below it are you? You guys are high above them; correct? How -- how many feet would you say? Nichols: We are actually -- and I want to tell you we -- we supported the development of that gravel extraction under the guise of regrading, recognizing that it would benefit the developer and us. That was a painful process to go through with the dust and the noise and we lived through a lot, but I think the bottom of the gravel pit-- I would defer to Jason, but I believe that is 35 feet down the slope to the bottom and that would be in the area east of Williams Pipeline. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F97 Page 94 of 110 Cassinelli: Okay. Nichols: The area west of the pipeline is actually higher than where I sit right now. So, as I -- as I'm looking out my window I'm looking straight out the lot line parallel with the cross-hatching that covers the Williams Pipeline and that ground is actually a little bit higher than me. So, yeah, I -- you know, I don't -- I'm going to live with houses out there. Mike -- and we all understand that. We are just trying to buffer the impact a little. Fitzgerald: No. That helps me understand it. Thank you. I -- I was trying to pull it up on Google Maps. I couldn't get the grading. There is now, so -- Nichols: Yes, sir. Fitzgerald: Thank you very much. Nichols: You are welcome. Fitzgerald: Madam Clerk, who might be -- if there is someone who would like to testify on this application that's online, please, raise your hand via the Zoom application to the bottom of your screen if you would like to testify. We have several of Mr. Nichols' neighbors that are still online. If you would like to testify, please, raise your hand. If not, we can -- Mr. Voglemore, we see that you are on. Would you like to testify? We will bring you over in just a second, sir. Did we lose him in the process? I don't see him anymore. Weatherly: Mr. Chair, I think maybe we lost him in the process of transferring over. I didn't see any technical issues on my end, but I'm not -- I don't have an explanation. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Madam Clerk. I appreciate it, Adrienne. Jason, while we are waiting to see if he -- if he hops back on, can you answer a question for me? Do you have a topo at all on that -- on the grading that was finished out there or the -- the pre -- pre-finish where it is right now? Do you guys have a topographical, what that looks like? Densmer: We do and we have included a conceptual mass grading plan in the pre-plat materials, although I admit there is quite a few sheets there and a lot of detail that you probably haven't committed to memory. Fitzgerald: Okay. So, what Mr. Nichols was talking about there -- so, is a mound in the middle right now. Is that going to be flattened out or what's that going to look like after this is done? Is there going to be a below grade -- below Val Vista that they sit up on? Densmer: The amount of the middle certainly wouldn't --wouldn't be capped. The overall grading has lowered the property at least 30 feet, depending on where you are. Of course, we didn't lower the grade at all at the Williams Pipeline, but as you move towards the north the ground level has gone down quite a lot. I think one of the -- one of the areas where the masquerading for the gravel pit benefited the neighbors to the south is kind of right at the corner where the Val Vista and Aspen Cove Subdivisions come together, Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F98 Page 95 of 110 which is just to the west of the common driveway access lots that Commissioner Seal asked me about earlier and in that corner there is kind of one particularly large lot that you can see on the screen in front of us. Probably can't see my cursor, but it's kind of dead center of the south property line. Right at that location. I think overall the mass grading resulted in that lot being lowered -- I think 27 feet from the natural grade, which certainly has lowered that lot and all the lots considerably to the benefit of Val Vista's neighbors' views. Fitzgerald: Okay. Densmer: While I'm on the topic I did want to maybe mention some of the other requirements that were encapsulated in the original development agreement in 2007 and, then, carried forward into the -- the development agreement modification in 2012. All of which were originally designed in response to neighbors' concerns about a lot of the same issues that have been brought up tonight. In particular, the development agreement required -- and the developer has already completed a very expensive six foot tall masonry fence along the entire south boundary line of the project, between Val Vista and Aspen Cove and the Southridge South project. There are specific restrictions on the heights of the homes that can be built along that shared property line. They are limited to a maximum height of 22 feet or to a -- you know, basically, the maximum height of the ridge of the -- the roof of the house has -- can -- can be taller than 22, so long as it's not higher than the top of that six foot fence. So, for the lots that have been lowered, taller homes are possible, but they still wouldn't be above the top of the fence. There is a -- there is a categorical restriction on the number of homes that can be along the shared property line. The development agreement restricts it to 14, which is exactly what we have proposed. So, we are --we are staying consistent with the promises that have been made all the way back to 2007 and, then, there is also a requirement on an increase setback for all of the lots that -- that border that property line. Although, those properties are zoned R-2 and have been since the original annexation into the city, the R-2 zoning allows a rear setback of 15 feet, but through the development agreement the property has agreed to a 50 foot setback for those lots in order to move the homes much further away from the neighbors and the underlying zoning requirement would allow. Fitzgerald: Thank you. Densmer: I sort of hijacked the original question, but -- Fitzgerald: You're fine. Densmer: -- it provides more color to the discussion. Fitzgerald: I appreciate it. No, I appreciate that. Mr. Voglemore, you are -- I think you are with us now, sir. If you unmute yourself you can join our conversation. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F99 Page 96 of 110 Voglemore: You know, with Jason -- he touched on everything. I just wanted to make sure that, you know, we all had the same understanding and so Jason did explain that well. Fitzgerald: And, Mr. Voglemore, can you introduce yourself, just so we have you on our -- Voglemore: I'm sorry. I'm Mike Voglemore. 2720 West Val Vista Court. Fitzgerald: So, any additional comments to make -- follow that up? Voglemore: No. Jason touched it very well. Fitzgerald: Okay. That was -- it's helpful. Thank you so much for the information. Voglemore: You bet. Fitzgerald: Adrienne, I see -- I think Karen has her hand up. Weatherly: Yes, Mr. Chair. Karen, one moment, please. Karen, if you could unmute yourself and finish transitioning. Karen, if you would like to unmute yourself and introduce yourself. Did I lose Karen? Fitzgerald: Madam Clerk, we are losing people left and right. Weatherly: Mr. Chair, I promise, I don't know what's happening, but I'm not doing it. Fitzgerald: Is there anyone else that would like to testify, to see if Karen comes back in -- that is in the audience or online that would like to testify, please, raise your hand. See if Karen gets back on. Not seeing anyone --Tamara, would you like to take an opportunity to close and we will let Karen hop back on if she gets back online. Thompson: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, this is Tamara Thompson again with The Land Group. If I could, I will just share one more screen real quickly. There we go. Let's see. Did that work? Fitzgerald: Not yet. Thompson: Okay. How about now? Fitzgerald: Yep. Thompson: Okay. So, what --just in -- in addition to what Jason said, I think he -- he did the -- replied to Mr. Nichols' points on a lot of things. As far as the drainage, the comp -- point number one that Mr. Nichols brought up, of course, we are aware and we will accommodate the drainage that he is referring to. As far as the streetlighting with the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 Flool Page 97 of 110 dark sky, we are happy to include the area that is adjacent to the Val Vista Subdivision that we can include in the CC&Rs for having some dark sky light fixtures in that area. And, then, as far as the subdivision layout, Jason addressed that. There were -- this is the master plan from 2013 and the Val Vista Subdivision was included in -- in those. Mr. Nichols has lived there since 2006. So, he's been involved in this process through -- throughout and -- and I have done lots of research as far as on their subdivision and the deeds of the homeowners along that south property line and there aren't any -- any view sheds or anything like that that are deeded and, you know, you buy your property, but you don't necessarily buy the view. The view -- the view is for sale sometimes, but -- but that's not -- having conditions that are -- encumber somebody else's property aren't something that's -- that's part of your deed, but these have been -- since 2007 there has been many concessions that have been made and those are codified, they are in the development agreement and we are complying with every single one of those. So, I just want to go back that we -- we do agree with the staff report. We agree with all the conditions of approval. There is the -- the one requirement to include another attached unit and we are asking for that condition to be removed, that we would like to keep these as detached single family homes and with that we respectfully request your approval tonight and thank you very much. Fitzgerald: Tamara, real quick. Can you -- what about the vegetation buffer or the -- keeping the vegetation lower than the ridge line or ten feet? Densmer: Mr. Chairman, this is Jason Densmer. If I can jump in on a couple of items that maybe I have a little bit more background on and that might be one of them. Fitzgerald: Go right ahead. Densmer: Yeah. Thank you. And to the point that -- that Tamara made, certainly we have been -- we have enjoyed working with Scott and all of the neighbors in Val Vista since 2006. It really has been a partnership in working with them and -- and seeing that their needs are addressed through the development agreements and are documented. We are-- I'm quite proud of the project that's in front of you tonight, because it-- it respects all of those. It also meets the developer -- our client's goals and aspirations for the property. There were -- in addition to the vegetation -- trust me, I'm coming back to that eventually. The -- Scott did also ask about relocating two lots -- the two lots that were used for the stub street and -- in between the stub street and the Williams Pipeline. One of the things that we are particularly proud of with the layout of the subdivision is the effective use of open space and while I appreciate this suggestion that we take those two lots and relocate them into the area across the street, you can see here on the master plan that's in front of us the -- there has always been lots proposed along the south boundary line in that area between the stub street and the Williams Pipeline. On the master plan originally there had been lots across the street in the open space, but we deliberately removed those in order to increase the amount of open space and really provide open parkland in a more meaningful way that can benefit the neighborhood. The proposed design of that open space area is really -- it really meets the vision of an open space by being open. It's not cut up and it doesn't have two lots just floating out in the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 Foll Page 98 of 110 middle of it, which allows us to provide more sportsfield type space with a perimeter walking path that can connect in with the multi-use path that follows the Williams Pipeline. We really feel like -- while I appreciate this recommendation and the city has been great since 2006 in providing us with feedback on the design, with regard to those two lots and his suggestion, I think what we have proposed is a stronger proposal. As far as limiting vegetation along the south property line, that's really difficult and it's not a component of the existing development agreement. As Tamara mentioned, there are -- and summarized them for you -- there is a number of protections that are already built into the development agreement and that are being honored to try and control individual homeowners landscape is -- is a minefield and I don't think even the city gets into that. You provide us with recommendations and requirements for common area landscaping, but there is very few restrictions on individual homeowner plantings. It's not a requirement that we would be willing to add to the project. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Jason. Additional questions for Jason or Tamara? None at this time? This is your last chance. If anyone has a quick -- quick question or follow up. Okay. Tamara, Jason, thank you so much for being here this evening, hanging with us, and with that we are done discussing at this point. Could I get a motion to close the public hearing. Seal: So moved. Holland: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on H-2020-0083, Southridge South Subdivision. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Fitzgerald: Anybody want to leadoff? McCarvel: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I will jump in on a couple of things. I think I would actually be in agreement with the applicant on the side of not requiring another housing type right here within this. I just -- I think there is plenty of housing types within the area. I mean we have got some decent size lots in here and -- you know. And even in the R-8s and I think there is a nice variety within the area. Fitzgerald: I agree. I think there is -- then the apartments are right next door. There is townhomes right -- McCarvel: Yeah. There is a ton of apartments. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F102 Page 99 of 110 Fitzgerald: Yeah. I agree. McCarvel: And, you know, I'm -- I'm for, you know, doing -- you know, within reason to help conserve people's views that have been there for a while, but on the other hand, you know, you can't limit what this property is -- I mean the -- there is more view lots coming. I mean they are going to have views as well. But I think there is some things that, you know, they have suggested within reason and I think Tamara was in agreement with -- already with the dark sky lighting. Yeah. And, you know, the ten foot vegetative limit on one hit -- you know, seems like a reasonable request on the one hand, but on the other who is ever going to be able to police that. Fitzgerald: Additional comments? Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I would agree with Commissioner McCarvel's comments there, too. I don't really feel like there is a need for another housing type. I think that it's well accomplished within this area regionally. So, I -- I would be okay with striking that. The only other thing I noticed was like -- and I don't think I want to change it necessarily. I appreciate that they have got a large section of open space, but I felt a little bad for all the R-8 units that just look like rows of R-8 without any breaks in them. I guess I don't know that I necessarily want to change anything, but it's something I certainly noticed. It's just a big section of R- 8 and there is not really any pocket parks or any other amenities on -- on that section for those homes, it's just kind of more on the south side. So, there are two houses that get great access to the big open spaces, but they have the bigger lots and the R-8 -- it's all kind of more packed and they don't have as much open space that's close to them, but I think they are meeting and exceeding what -- what they need to do for open space throughout the entire project, so just a point of conversation. Commissioner Seal kind of touched on it, but I always hate shared drives when you have got three -- six houses on one split down. I just hate those. I don't think they work well. I think it causes issues with trash collection, it causes someone who has got a trailer or you have got people double parked or whatever it is -- guest parking. It just -- they don't -- they don't work well and I don't think anybody on the Commission likes them, so that would be my only point of consideration if we were going to make a recommendation to see if there was an alternative way to -- to do that. But other than that I -- I am not opposed to the development. I think it's a pretty good layout and I think the R-2 was a nice transition. I would also like to make a couple comments about the view lots. It's hard to restrict somebody on a different property from what they want to do with it, but I think they have tried to do what they can to be accommodating to those neighbors. Fitzgerald: So, my only -- I agree with -- with the majority what you just said. I think the comment about the common area in the -- on the R-8, that is a pretty big field -- a pool in the middle at the southeast corner that is away from the R-2 that I think is really centralized. We always talk about -- like to break up these little pieces all over the place. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F103 Page 100 of 110 I love that central area. I know there is park strips all along that middle -- I know it's just kind of a funky -- like ribs layout, but that-- I love the Central Park they have in the middle with the pool in it. So, unless you want to trade off for a pocket park. Holland: No. And that's why I said I don't think I want to change anything, because I would much rather have a big open space and walk an extra two blocks to get to it, but it's just sad when you see rows of R-8. I wish there was an extra pocket park, but I'm not going to make them take away from something else to add it in there. Grove: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Any thought? Grove: Mr. Chair? Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Mr. Chairman? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: So, you know, I think one of the banes of being on Planning and Zoning is having to look at a house with a 39 foot frontage, because all you see is a big garage door, with a little front door and it -- to me that is probably one of the most things that just -- I hate, just because it just -- all you do is you see a sea of garage and you don't see much of the house and so I guess that's more of my nitpicking versus wanting to do anything about it, but I don't know -- if we could get rid of some of those and make a little bit bigger lots I would be much happier. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Grove, I think I cut you off. Grove: It's all good. I would echo a lot of what's been said, especially with what Commissioner Holland said. That north portion -- or northwest portion where -- there is no open space, but I don't -- normally I would probably want to change some of that, but because of what you said also, Mr. Chair, with how big the open space is and the amenities that are there, I -- I think that that works for this. I understand what Commissioner Yearsley says about the garage that -- and how those look. I think at this point, though, for me, having houses that are smaller does improve what is available for our community in allowing more people access to homeownership and so I'm in favor of -- of how this has been laid out. Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal. Seal: I like a lot of things about the sub. I like the -- you know, the layout of it. I agree that the -- kind of the rows and rows of houses I don't necessarily care for, but I -- you know, I mean the rest of it is laid out a little bit differently, so provides some variety in the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F104 Page 101 of 110 community. But the shared driveways where there is six homes on each one of those, I just -- I just can't -- I can't get over that. So, I -- you know, I would really like to see those eliminated or at least limited to three, you know, and in doing that I don't know -- I mean looking at the -- essentially what Sonya has got in the staff report, she gives an example of single family attached or townhomes that she's not necessarily saying that that's what has to go in there, but I think there is an opportunity to, you know, do both -- provide something that could be different, not necessarily attached -- you know, single family attached or townhomes or something like that, but just something different in there that eliminates the need for those shared driveways. So, I appreciate that it's a little bit different landscape in there, but even in the original drawings they had -- they had cul-de- sacs in there, so I just think that the community in -- between all of the services that need to be provided there and everything else, it would be better served by eliminating those shared driveways or at least getting them limited to, you know, no more than three on a shared driveway or something along those lines. I don't know. And I can see maybe an alley load product or something like that working well in there, especially with some kind of, you know, view in mind with them. Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli, go right ahead. Cassinelli: I think the -- the one thing on those shared driveways -- I think what Jason was mentioning -- had with the -- with the topography and so I -- I think that they are kind of limited on that. I just wanted to throw that in while I'm thinking about it. A couple of my thoughts here. I -- I don't -- I'm in agreement with the applicant. I don't think -- I think there is enough housing types in that area that we don't need to try and just shove one in here for the sake of shoving it in and we have got some of these smaller lots -- these 39 foot lots -- I'm in agreement with Commissioner Yearsley as far as the look of that, but that will bring in a -- I think a lower price point product and open the door and some of those may be with some, you know, more patio home styles that will, you know, bring the -- bring the cap and open it up for more -- more ownership. I couldn't figure out what -- what was getting me when I looked at all of this -- kind of those that -- you called it -- you referred to it as kind of the rib effect, the rib look, and as you pointed out is that there is -- there is no greenspace there. It was all so straight. I'm -- I'm not so sold on the fact that you have got to have that huge open area by the R-2 and, number one, R-2 people, they got big lots, they are not going to be going to a huge common lot. It's going to be the other people that want that. So, you know, I would ultimately like to see that move. Again, this is a preliminary plat, but I would like to see some more -- more open space in some of those other areas. It's those smaller lots that -- that need close access to -- to a pocket park and I know in -- in my subdivision we have got one huge open space area -- nobody really uses it. Every once in a while somebody will -- will put a volleyball net up there, every once in a while that's where we have our -- you know, some -- some community events twice a year. It's not like it's full every day with kids playing in there like you might think. It's -- you know, it's actually -- a couple of smaller pocket parks that I think are used more, because they are, you know, a block away, half a block away, instead of all the way across the subdivision. So, that's my thoughts on there. And, then, Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F105 Page 102 of 110 one of the comments I wanted to address to one of Mr. Nichols' comment, is in his e-mail was that, you know, they are -- the applicant is asking for a rezone of a -- significant request for a rezone and I know they have -- they have worked together a lot. I don't see -- you know. And moving those two lots -- I think it's not the -- the residents up on Val Vista didn't just say we don't want it, we don't want it, I mean they kind of -- they took -- I think they were creative, they took some time, they have, obviously, spent a lot of time communicating. It sounded like the only reason why they -- why the applicant was opposed to moving those two lots is because they had that one big open area. Well, alls that does is it kind of shifts it a little bit and, again, I would -- I would -- I'm more in favor of moving some of that open space even -- even down. So, I'm not -- it's a preliminary plat. I'm not -- I would love to see some changes in there. I would love -- I would like to see the applicant really look hard about moving those two lots. It's not -- there is not a -- there is not a real reason not to do it and I don't think that the folks up on Val Vista are asking for the moon on that and I think it could be done. So, those are -- those are my thoughts. But I would really love to see some more -- some of that open space shifted down below. And I guess I have a question if I can. Sonya, are we just approving the rezone? I think you thought -- I think your comments -- your initial comments were they are presenting a preliminary plat, but we were only addressing the rezone. Can you clarify that? Allen: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli, Commissioners, no, they are requesting a rezone and a preliminary plat. So, both of those items are -- are requiring a recommendation from you to Council. I would like to clarify something that's not in the staff report specifically. The -- the applicant references 39 foot wide lots. Those do not meet the minimum dimensional standards of the R-8 district. There is a minimum frontage of 40 feet. Their plat is missing dimensions of the frontage. The final plat will have to comply with the dimensional standards of the district that they are approved with, but just --just to note that, that if there are 39 foot wide lots, that does not meet the R-8 standard and they will need to be widened a little bit. Fitzgerald: Thanks for that, Sonya. Just to follow up on Commissioner Cassinelli's comments. I -- I understand your comment about shifting a lot over into the open space. One of the things I don't want us to get into as a -- as a Commission is view sheds are not something we can -- I mean that's not -- it's not in code, it's not anywhere we can discuss it. I mean it's -- it's something that everybody has a right to. It's a property right that no one can take away from other people. When it's landowners that's -- what's on their land. So, I'm going to make sure we -- that's not the direction we go on some of these comments, because that's -- and I really appreciate that we don't want to impact the people on Val Vista, that -- I totally agree and they have been great partners, but I want to make sure that view sheds are something that get real sticky when you go into -- especially in a legal battle, because there is nothing that defines that in our code and every property right owner has a right to their own -- where their lot sits and where their view is and so does the property owner where this is developed. So, we got to make sure we don't -- we got to be real careful about how we approach that. So, I -- not that that impacts my comments about -- or your thoughts about the -- moving the lots. If that's something we think we want to do, the good kind of partner in the city, that's --that's okay, Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F106 Page 103 of 110 but let's be careful about how we approach that. I think that's my--at least in my thoughts. I would love feedback there, if there is others that have different opinions. Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Yeah, go right ahead. Seal: Just on moving those lots, I mean the one thing, you know, to -- to consider is if those lots are moving that becomes open space. There is requirements on the open space to have things like trees, things that are going to block that -- that view anyway. I think what we are going to run up against is the -- I think, you know, what I'm hearing from -- from the folks that live south of this is, you know, essentially, they don't want anything that's going to encroach upon their view shed -- or on their view at all and I think, you know, as long as the buildings are kept to, you know, certain height restrictions and things like that, that can somewhat be accomplished, but you can't necessarily tell somebody that they can't plant a tree in their backyard. You know. And, again, who is going to enforce that. You know, I mean we -- everywhere we go, you know, the mantra is plant as many trees as you can stand on your property. I mean I think we still have the two tree minimum in our front yards for Ada county. So, you know, we kind of get into that where, yeah, we might move two houses and, then, the next thing you know there is trees in there that are going to block the view. So -- you know. And I sympathize for them. I mean to be perfectly honest, this is a piece of property I have eyed for a long time, like if it ever comes available I'm going to start shopping, so --you know. And --and specifically for the fact that it's going to have great views, you know, and there is not much that's going to pop up in front of it. Not that I'm -- you know, I don't necessarily want to look out on a whole bunch of apartments, but you do have Bogus Basin in your view as well. So, you know, I agree we have to be careful with what -- you know, what we are trying to accomplish here by accommodating them, because in trying to accommodate them it might turn into just the opposite where we are going to have -- you know, because of the requirement to put in trees and, you know, bushes and things like that, it might end up doing the opposite for them. So, that's -- that's my thoughts on it. I mean -- Fitzgerald: And we can't plant anything besides grass on that -- on the Williams -- or on the Williams Pipeline, which is a big section of that greenspace. Seal: Right. Fitzgerald: So, just to keep that in the -- McCarvel: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Yes, sir. Go ahead. McCarvel: Oh, this -- Fitzgerald: Oh, sorry. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F107 Page 104 of 110 McCarvel: Yeah. I really don't -- I don't see the real value in moving those two lots over into the middle of that green space and just kind of floating those two lots there in the middle of, you know, what looks like very nicely -- nice designed area and I agree with Commissioner Seal, you take those out you might be getting worse as far as view blockage. Holland: Mr. Chair, could we restrict them to single story? Would that help at all? Fitzgerald: I think Tamara put restrictions in place. Holland: I think that was already covered, but -- Fitzgerald: Yeah. And, Sonya, can you speak to that? Was that something that -- was it in the development agreement originally? Allen: I'm sorry, Chairman, can you repeat the question? Fitzgerald: On the height of the R-2 along the southern border. Allen: Yes. The height is dealt with in the development agreement and I believe I included those conditions in the conditions of approval of this staff report. Do you have it handy? Fitzgerald: I do somewhere, yes. And the 14,000 tabs I have open. Allen: Would you like me to review the condition or -- Fitzgerald: That would be awesome. Allen: Hang on. Fitzgerald: I think we covered it, if I remember correctly. I'm just trying to find it. Allen: Yeah. That -- the height of the homes along the southern boundary of the subdivision shared with Val Vista and Aspen Cove Subdivision shall be limited to a maximum height of 22 feet measured from either the midpoint of the front of the lot at the top back of curb or the midpoint of the rear of the lot, whichever is more restrictive, to the average height of the highest roof surface. In the event the maximum height of the home as so measured is lower than the top of the six foot tall masonry fence, then, the maximum height may be increased, so that the maximum height is equal to the elevation of the top of the fence at midpoint of the rear of the lot. The lots along this boundary are also required to provide a minimum 50 foot rear setback. Fitzgerald: Thank you. Allen: Yes. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F108 Page 105 of 110 Fitzgerald: Additional comments or thoughts? What do we need to work through? I know we are -- we have some pocket park discussions. We have common driveway discussions. And, then, anything else that's -- that's hanging out there that anybody has some concerns about? I think we all -- do we all agree that we don't need to have a different type of housing type, unless they are going to shift the common drive lots? Like are we all okay there? Cassinelli: I'm -- I'm good with that. Yearsley: I good with that. Seal: I mean I -- honestly my -- I mean the only thing I have hanging out there. I understand about the -- the parks and how things could be redone in order to accommodate, you know, losing a little bit of that larger area and making some small areas to, you know, break up the block base and those -- you know, where they are all just right in a row. You know, I -- I like to do everything we can to eliminate the -- the garage farm concept for sure, but I mean there is a lot of things in this subdivision that make that a little more difficult to do, so -- geographically that is. I mean my -- my only hang up really is those common driveways. I think we would better serve the community by trying to get -- you know, at least reduce them to, you know, no more than three at this point. Holland: Mr. Chair, I would say maybe no more than four, because, then, you could at least have them even. There is six right now on them. Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Go right ahead. Cassinelli: Sonya, back to the outline. They have proposed 254 building lots. There were a lot of different numbers there in the beginning from the original development agreement to current and -- and the apartments and all the number breakdowns. How many more units -- if you know this off the top of your head. How many more units are they -- are they proposing now than what -- what the net after -- you know, the apartments and all that, what it should have been? I think -- I see in 37 is that what -- is that correct? Allen: Well, it just depends on how you do the calcs. It's 37 in the single family homes. But there was a -- there was a variance that the DA -- the development agreement allowed, which was -- hang on just a second here. They were anticipated -- the single family units were anticipated to consist of 438 units or a balance of the single family and the multi-family to total 1,286 total units. So, if you just look at the calcs on the single family, it's approximately 37 more. If you look at the calcs overall the -- the maximum number originally in the development agreement was 1 ,296 and today if this development agreement is approved they would be at 1,451. However, you know, it's important to note that the other -- the two multi-family developments have gone through Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 Flog] Page 106 of 110 separate approvals and are now broken out into their own development agreements and were approved for that number of units, if that makes sense. So, the numbers really aren't a whole lot of applicable at this point, because there has been a lot of changes to the site and the development since 2012 when this development agreement was last modified. Cassinelli: And I guess where I'm -- where I'm going on this -- some of my fellow Commissioners -- is, you know, can we -- can we pull out some lots. A couple of you have shown some concerns over the common driveways. Can we pull out a couple there and, then, can we pull out a few in all that -- the large R-8 section and keep in mind that, you know, what they are asking for, too, is a whole lot more R-8 than -- there was R-4 in there and that's -- that's gone. They are asking to get rid of the R-4 all together and go -- replace that with R-8 and there was R-2 in there as well. I'm not looking at the -- the original right now, but, you know, I don't think it would be -- I don't -- I don't think it would be a stretch for us to ask them to eliminate some of the -- you know, some lots here and there to get a pocket park in some of those R-8 sections. Fitzgerald: Additional thoughts? Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland, go right ahead. Holland: My only concern is if you ask him to start eliminating lots to put in open space, then, we are looking more at a continuance for them to come back to us again to look at it again. I don't know that -- I don't think we need to necessarily do that. I think we are pretty close here. The thing -- I think if we were to restrict those common drives down to four, instead of six, I would feel better about that, but I think with how big those open spaces are, I would say -- you know, I lived in a neighborhood before the one that I'm in now that had a fairly large open space and it was well utilized for the neighborhood. It was mostly an R-4, R-8 kind of mixed neighborhood, but all of the kids were using that park, people were using it with frisbees and dogs and we walked four blocks to get to it and we didn't mind, because we liked having the bigger open space. So, I think it's just personal perspective and -- and preference there. I would prefer to have the bigger open spaces, so I don't know that I want to mess with it too much to have them eliminate lots. McCarvel: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel. McCarvel: I would agree. I -- I like the bigger open space. I think maybe what we are trying to get after is fewer of the 40 foot lots, so we don't have, you know, so many of those places there be just walls of garage. Yeah. It -- you get a little bit -- better varied fronts if you just -- I mean maybe we limit the number of 40 foot lots. I don't know. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 Fol Page 107 of 110 Fitzgerald: Well, I think I'm -- I'm in agreement with -- I mean Commissioner Holland and -- your comment and Commissioner Seal where if we take the -- if we start with the camera, the six lots on a common drive, and take to four -- looking at -- and I see looking and the open qualified -- or qualified open space, there is green space pretty much everywhere. It's not a pocket park, but there is green space all over the place and I do like the centralized -- you know, there are centralized places and kind of in multiple locations, but there is two big significant open spaces, which I kind of like. I don't -- I kind of like the mix of different housing types. If you are going to do that I -- I'm not sure how you do it or where you start. McCarvel: Yeah. Yeah. I -- going after those -- eliminating the -- those shared driveways is the bigger deal, because it just -- talking through this, I mean those narrower lots do provide the housing, the different -- in my mind the different housing type, that it lends itself to having the different housing type is just detached. Fitzgerald: Yeah. McCarvel: Which I think is better than having more attached, being that they are so close to other townhomes and massive amounts of apartments. Parsons: So, Mr. Chair, if I may. Fitzgerald: Go ahead, Bill. Parsons: Thank you. So, keep in mind this is a plat. There is a rezone associated with it, but as staff has mentioned in their presentation there is no modification to the DA at this time. We have found that even with this rezone and the subdivision before you tonight it is consistent with the recorded development agreement. So, we have to be a little bit careful of trying to redesign and require people to lose lots and make -- provide more open space when they already exceed code requirements. So, I will caution the Commission on that discussion this evening. The other thing that the Commission is missing on this exhibit before you is a qualified open space exhibit, is that the applicant is going to be building a ten foot multi-use pathway along the Ridenbaugh. That is a ring around this community. So, you don't see that green line going up along that north -- north boundary of this project, which to me is probably one of the better amenities for this development, because that's a tremendous amount of pathway being added with this development and to me that's what gives you that walking path and starts connecting some of that open space in here, so -- so, keep that in mind. It's -- it's hard to see it, because it's such -- it only has to be 15 feet wide, but that's a tremendous asset to this community and it does tie -- not only does the road network tie into the -- the adjacent Southridge to the east, but it also ties into the pathway system into that development as well. So, we are going to have a mile segment of pathway through this entire development when it's done. So, I just wanted to at least bring that to your attention as you are -- you are deliberating tonight. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 Fill] Page 108 of 110 Fitzgerald: No. Bill, that was hugely helpful. Thank you. And so -- but I think we can request a modification of the DA that no more than four lots come off a common drive; correct? Parsons: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, I probably wouldn't go that route just to modify a DA to reduce two lots. The applicant's demonstrated that it can work in the development to the east. Sonya's conditioned it appropriately to make sure that we are adequately addressing our concerns and the fire department's concerns. So, at this point -- I mean we hear you, we understand what you are -- what you are saying. If the applicant's amenable to losing a few lots, I think maybe opening up and having that discussion with them about doing that -- or maybe even Jason can explain how it worked in the previous phases, because, again, we have already done this before. It doesn't mean we have to do it again, but, again, I -- I don't know what the benefit is opening up a DA and doing a DA mod to lose four lots. At the end of the day it's got to work, it's got to meet code, and the code allows up to six units off a common drive. Fitzgerald: Got it. Holland: Mr. Chair, perhaps we just make a recommendation that the applicant might consider alternatives to that shared drive, but make it not a requirement. Fitzgerald: Yeah. Bill is all kinds of rays of sunshine this evening. He just drops like -- drops the mic and starts beating everybody about the head. Thanks, Bill. Where were you a half an hour ago? No, I'm just joking. Parsons: Trying to get you to bed earlier. Fitzgerald: Lisa said that a long -- an hour and a half long ago. Sorry. Anyway, I'm getting loopy. Anyone have additional comments around that? I -- I tend to agree with Bill's comments. I -- I think this is -- this is pretty baked into -- and it has been for a while after 13 years of working on it, so -- Holland: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Just to clarify, is there anything that we do want to condition, then, or we -- it sounds like we have kind of resolved almost everything at this point. We are not planning to condition much. Parsons: Well, Mr. Chair, I just wanted to mention, too, that the applicant will have to lose some lots. Some of his -- their lot sizes don't meet code. So, by virtue of just code they are going to probably have to re -- reconfigure some of those R-8 lots to meet our dimensional standards. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F112 Page 109 of 110 Fitzgerald: Then if that's the case -- I mean I think it may be -- and I will leave this up to you guys making motions, but maybe we make a recommendation that they look at losing some R-8 lots in the middle. They look at removing the six lots on a common drive and trying to find some way to put -- I don't know, pocket parks in somewhere. I mean I leave it up to you guys, but -- and it's more of a recommendation going forward than an actual condition. Holland Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I'm going to attempt something. Fitzgerald: You go. Holland: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number --just lost the file number. Fitzgerald: Eighty-three. Holland: File number 2020-0083 for Southridge South, with the -- as presented during the hearing date on December 17th, 2020, with the following recommendations: That the applicant would consider alternative options for where the shared drive meets six lots and that the applicant might also take some time considering the dense R-8 section and the possibility of removing a few lots or adding another couple spots of green space in there. Fitzgerald: And the housing type pieces. McCarvel: Yeah. Holland: And that we would remove the condition and requirement for an alternative type of housing product to be provided. McCarvel: I think it's 8-A, isn't it? Holland: Condition 8-A. Seal: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to recommend approval of file number H- 2020-0083 with modifications and recommendations. Any other further comment? Okay. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same? Cassinelli: Nay. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. December 17,2020 F113 Page 110 of 110 Fitzgerald: I have a -- Commissioner Cassinelli, Commissioner Yearsley, is that right? Or Commissioner Grove? Yearsley: I said aye. Fitzgerald: Okay. Commissioner Grove, did you want to -- were you nay? Grove: I was aye. Fitzgerald: Oh, you were aye. Cassinelli: Commissioner Cassinelli was a nay. Fitzgerald: Okay. Sorry. Was there any other -- I just want to make sure we are clear. Okay. Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE NAY. Fitzgerald: Thank you, Tamara and Jason and members of the public. Hopefully we will work through this and it will be a successful partnership for everybody going forward. With that can I get one more motion? Holland: Mr. Chair, I move we adjourn. Seal: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to let Commissioner Holland go to bed. All those in favor say aye. Motion passes. Thank you, guys. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11.55 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED 1 1 7 12021 RYAN FITZGERALD - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK