Loading...
2021-01-21 Item 1. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting January 21, 2021. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of January 21, 2021 , was called to order at 6:15 p.m. by Chairman Rhonda McCarvel. Members Present: Chairman Rhonda McCarvel, Commissioner Ryan Fitzgerald, Commissioner Lisa Holland, Commissioner Bill Cassinelli, Commissioner Andrew Seal, 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 Ryan Fitzgerald X Andrew Seal X Nick Grove _X Steven Yearsley X Bill Cassinelli X Rhonda McCarvel McCarvel: All right. Good evening. Welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for January 21st, 2021, by Zoom and in person. The Commissioners who are present this evening are at City Hall and on Zoom and we also have staff from the city attorney and the clerk's office and Planning Department with us as well. If you are joining us on Zoom this evening you may observe the meeting and we can see that you were there. However, your ability to talk will -- and be seen will be muted. During the public testimony portion of the meeting you will be unmuted and able to comment. If you have previously sent a presentation for the meeting it will be displayed on the screen and the clerk will run the presentation. If you simply want to watch the meeting we encourage you to watch this streaming on the city YouTube channel. You can access it at meridiancity.org forward slash live. We will begin -- we will open each item individually and begin with the staff report. Staff will report their findings on how the item adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and the Uniform Development Code. After staff has made their presentation the applicant will come forward to present their case and respond to staff comments. They will have 15 minutes to do so. After the applicant has finished we will open the floor to public testimony. When the public testimony is open the clerk will call the names individually of those who have signed up to testify on our website. You will, then, be unmuted. Please state your name and address for the record and you will have three minutes to address the Commission, unless you are representing a larger group, like an HOA. After that time we may ask you some questions for clarification. But once you are done you will be muted and no longer have the ability to speak. Once all of those who have signed up in advance are called we will invite others who wish to testify. If you wish to speak on the topic you may press the raise hand button on the Zoom app or if you are only listening through a cell phone or Iandline you can press star nine. Wait for your name to be called. If you are listening on multiple devices, a computer or phone -- and a Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 6 Page 2 of 84 phone, et cetera, please be sure and mute those devices, so you don't experience feedback and everyone can hear you clearly. Please note that we cannot take questions until the public testimony portion. If you have a process question during the meeting please e-mail city clerk at meridiancity.org and they will be able to help you as quickly as possible. With all that being said let's begin with roll call. ADOPTION OF AGENDA McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda and I think -- no changes. We have Item No. 2 is -- the applicant is requesting a continuance and staff will inform us on that. So, at this time could I get a motion to adopt the agenda? Seal: So moved. Fitzgerald: So moved. Cassinelli: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] 1. Approve Minutes of the January 7, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting McCarvel: The next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and we just have approval of minutes for the January 7th, 2021, Planning and Zoning Commission regular meeting. So, can I get a motion -- a motion to accept the Consent Agenda as presented? Holland: So moved. Seal: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] ACTION ITEMS Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 7 Page 3 of 84 2. Public Hearing Continued from December 3, 2020 for TM Center (H- 2020-0074) by SCS Brighton, et al., Located East of S. Ten Mile Rd. and South of W. Franklin Rd. A. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 83 buildable lots and 2 common lots on 132.42 acres of land in the R-40, TN-C, C-C and C- G zoning districts. McCarvel: So, at this time we would like to continue -- continue on from December 3rd, 2020, TM Center, H-2020-0074. The applicant is requesting a continuance and so if we could have some comments from staff. Allen: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. Yeah. The applicant would prefer to continue this to the February 18th hearing. Staff is recommending that it be continued to a later date to run concurrently with the upcoming planned unit development and development agreement modification applications for the same property. This was the reason this application was originally pulled back to begin with, so that could be reviewed comprehensively as an overall project. As is the street sections that are proposed with the preliminary plat and actually some have been constructed are not consistent with the Ten Mile plan and there are changes to the -- some of the guidelines in the Ten Mile plan that are anticipated to be incorporated into a new development agreement master DA for the overall site, so -- so, that's the reason staff would prefer to process this all together. Staff will stand for any questions. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: Sonya, what date are you looking for? Allen: Well, I think that the second meeting in March would probably be the safest. That would be the 18th. But I don't know -- the applicant may be able to provide more information on when they anticipate the additional items being submitted for those other two applications I referenced. If -- if it's going to be submitted soon, then, staff doesn't have an issue with the March 4th meeting, then, that would only delay it a couple more weeks than what they are -- what they really wanted to get on. Thank you. Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Follow up to Commissioner Fitzgerald's question. Do we have a lot on the agenda for the 4th or the 18th? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 8 Page 4 of 84 Weatherly: Madam Chair, this is Adrienne. Currently we do not -- I don't believe. I'm away from my computer trying to fix some technical issues, but we don't have more than two, I think, for the 4th and I don't think we have noticed anything for the 18th yet. McCarvel: Any other questions for staff? Would the applicant like to address the Commission? Weatherly: Madam Chair, that might take us a minute to see if he is online. McCarvel: Okay. Weatherly: Part of our reboot with -- it took away our guest list. McCarvel: Okay. We will wait. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. I mean I know you all have a pretty significant lineup for February. I know looking at what you have on the docket for the last two meetings is relatively significant, so I -- I would say -- I would suggest if we are going to do something we push it at least to that first meeting in March, if not to that -- where the staff thinks they can align everything. McCarvel: Agreed. I'm -- personally I like to error on the side of staff and not rush them. Holland: Madam Chair, I would be happy to make a motion, unless we need to hear from the applicant. I didn't catch all that. I'm sorry. McCarvel: I didn't either. Weatherly: Madam Chair, we are trying to test our sound again. Chris is going to talk through the microphone and see if you can hear him. McCarvel: Okay. Johnson: This is Chris trying to see if you can hear me through the sound. McCarvel: Yes. Johnson: We are going to pause for one moment, connect everything over and make sure you can still hear us. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. McCarvel: At this point I think I would be supportive of the March 18th date. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 191 Page 5 of 84 Holland: Can I make a motion or do we need to hear from the applicant? Weatherly: Madam Chair, Commissioners, my apologies for all the technical difficulties we are having right now. To pick up where we left off, I cannot locate anybody from the applicant's -- McCarvel: Okay. Weatherly: -- team online. If they are online and you wish for them to talk I would just asked for them to raise their hand, so I can identify them. McCarvel: Okay. If the applicant is here for H-2020-0074, if they could, please, raise their hand to be noticed by the clerk. Okay. I would say a motion is in order. Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I move we continue Item No. H-2020-0074 for TM Center to the hearing date of March 18th to allow staff more time to work with the applicant on supporting materials for the application. Grove: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to continue H-2020-0074 to the date of March 18th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Okay. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. 3. Public Hearing for Mark Enos Annexation (H-2020-0119) by Mark Enos, Located at 2972 E. Leslie Dr. A. Request: Annexation of 1.05 acres of land with the R-2 zoning district. McCarvel: Next item on the agenda is H-2020-001 -- I'm sorry. Dash 0119, the Mark Enos Annexation and we will begin with the staff report. Tiefenbach: Good evening, Planning Commission. Can you see my presentation and can you hear me? Thumbs up. Great. Alan Tiefenbach, planner with the City of Meridian. Again good evening. This is an annexation and zoning. The site consists of an acre of land. It's zoned R-1 in unincorporated Ada county. It's located at 2972 East Leslie, which is south and west of the East Ustick Road, North Eagle Road intersection. The property is bordered on two sides by the city limits. To the north is R-15. To the east is R-2. Unincorporated Ada county to the south and to the west. Comprehensive Plan recommendation is for a low density residential. This is a proposal to annex and rezone Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 Flo] Page 6 of 84 of one acre of property to R-2 to obtain city services. The property is in unincorporated Ada county and is served by an individual well and septic. I will put this site plan up here. The applicant desires to construct a detached accessory building of approximately 1,750 square foot. That's what you see here on the north and that would be for RV garage and upstairs living. The applicant has been unable to obtain a new septic permit from the county. They want to add a living space above. They have been unable to obtain a septic permit for the addition due to the location and the limitations of the existing system. So, where the system is located where there is a ditch they can't expand the system easily. The county has recommended that the applicant annex into the city. The annex is -- the applicant has determined it would be cheaper to do this than to try to upgrade the whole system. That's the reason for this annexation. If the -- if the applicant chooses to use the upstairs living area as a secondary dwelling unit, it's subject to specific use standards, which includes the living area being less than 700 square feet, one additional parking space, and the property having to be occupied at least six months out of the year by the primary occupant. Comprehensive Plan is supportive of the secondary dwelling unit. There is recommendations in the plan that support the construction of accessory dwelling units, as well as increasing the diversity of housing. So, again, the only reason for this is for the applicant to be able to obtain city services, so they can build this second building. With that staff recommends approval. If you have any questions. Cassinelli: Madam Chair, this is Bill. McCarvel: Yeah. Do you have any -- yeah. Sorry. I was muted. Cassinelli: Can you hear me? McCarvel: Yes. Cassinelli: Okay. I'm just -- I'm curious on the -- the condition for owner occupied for at least six months out of the year. Is that city code on that? Tiefenbach: Correct. I think the intent of that is so that somebody remotely doesn't just try to Airbnb everything out and to make sure that there is somebody on site that if it is used for a secondary dwelling unit there are some eyes on the property and it's not all just a renter. So, yes, that is the city code. Six months out of the year. McCarvel: Any other questions for staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to speak? If you are in the -- on Zoom, please, raise your hand. Oh, there we go. Adrienne, do you see him? Enos: Am I unmuted now? McCarvel: Yes. Oh. There you go. Okay. Yes. Please state your name and address for the record. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 Fill Page 7 of 84 Enos: This is Mark Enos. Address 2972 East Leslie Drive in Meridian and, no, I don't -- I don't have anything to add, unless there is specific questions. McCarvel: Okay. Any questions for the applicant? Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Mr. Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: Just really quick. Mr. Enos, how are you accessing that secondary dwelling? Do you have a driveway you are adding to your lawn? Enos: Sure. On the right side of the property there is already a gravel driveway that accesses the back of the property. Fitzgerald: And that's on your property? Enos: Yes. Fitzgerald: Okay. Perfect. That just--that was a question for me. Thank you. Appreciate it. McCarvel: And do we have any -- anyone signed up to testify on this application? Weatherly: Madam Chair, we do not. McCarvel: Okay. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to testify on this? Please raise your hand. Okay. Seal: No one in chambers either, Madam Chair. McCarvel: So, I think at this time if I can get a motion to close the public hearing for Item H-20 -- sorry. Lost them. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Mr. Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: Can I -- I make a -- or I move that we close public hearing on H-2020-0119, Mark Enos Annexation. Holland: Commissioner Holland second. McCarvel: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing. All those in favor -- and second on -- all those in favor say aye. Those opposed? Motion carries. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F12 Page 8 of 84 MOTION CARRIED: ALL YES. McCarvel: Any other discussion on this? It is pretty straightforward. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, this is a pretty simple one. I -- I appreciate they -- they are wanting to add an additional dwelling unit. I think there is space there and if Ada -- if Ada county can't serve them for a new well and septic, then, I think picking up the city services is appropriate. So, if anybody has a problem let us know. If not I will make a motion. McCarvel: Always in order. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council file number H-2020-0119 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 21 st, 2021 . Holland: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve H-2020-0119 to recommend approval. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Congratulations. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. 4. Public Hearing for Schnebly Annexation (H-2020-0115) by Richard Schnebly, Located at 2690 E. Franklin Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 0.75 of an acre of land with an R-2 zoning district. McCarvel: Next item on the agenda is the Schnebly Annexation, H-2020-0115, and we will begin with the staff report. Allen- Thank you, Madam Chair. Oops. Can you all hear me? McCarvel: Yes. Allen- Thank you. I'm sorry. I thought I was muted. Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. The next application before you is a request for annexation and zoning. This site consists of .63 of an acre of land. It's currently zoned RUT in Ada county and it's located at 2690 East Franklin Road. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation on this property is commercial. The applicant is proposing to annex .75 of an acre of land and that goes to the section line of East Franklin Road as required by rezoning, with an R-2 low density residential zoning district. The reason for annexation is that the existing septic system on the single family residential property failed last -- late last year and the applicant had to hook up to city water and sewer service. No new development or redevelopment of the property is proposed at this time and the use will remain residential for the foreseeable future. As a provision of hookup to city services Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F13 Page 9 of 84 annexation into the city is required. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for this property is commercial. Because there is an existing home on the property and the use is proposed to remain residential, an R-2 zoning district is requested as recommended by staff as a placeholder zoning district until the property redevelops or a change of use to the property is proposed in the future. At such time the property should be rezoned and the use -- development should be consistent with the commercial future land use map designation. To ensure future development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan staff does recommend a development agreement is required as a provision of annexation that requires the property to be rezoned and the agreement modified to include a conceptual development plan consistent with the commercial designation prior to any change in use or redevelopment of the property. This would not prevent the applicant from selling the property for continued residential use, but would preclude it from being subdivided to increase the density on the property and further the residential use of the property. Written testimony has been received from Brad Miller from Adler Industrial. He has concerns pertaining to compatibility of R-2 zoning of the property with adjacent industrial uses to the north and suggests commercial zoning might be more compatible and a better option. I did touch base with Mr. Miller and did explain that this is just a placeholder zoning that's requested and supported by staff. Anyway, just to explain that. Staff is recommending approval of the requested annexation with R-2 zoning and the requirement of a development agreement as previously mentioned. Staff will stand for any questions. Holland: Madam Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner McCarvel -- or I mean Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yeah. There we go. Thank you. Commissioner Holland, I think you started first. Holland: Either way. Sonya, just one quick question. With the --the comment that came in from Brad Miller, if they have an R-2 designation does it impact them any way on the industrial side of things with setbacks or anything like that? Because I know sometimes there is additional setback requirements for residentially zoned properties next to industrial areas. Or is there a way that in the development agreement it could be noted that they would be exempt from those traditional setbacks, because it's planned to be commercial in the future? Allen: Well, I believe that the -- I'm just double checking that. I believe that the industrial uses to the -- the industrial property to the north is already improved and, therefore, nothing additional would be required. If the site were to redevelop with the new uses, then, yes, a buffer to residential use is required. Holland: So, follow up to that. Do we -- if it is all developed, then, probably no concern, but if somebody was to come in and do another industrial use their way, we can put that note in the development agreement or the staff report that it's a placeholder zoning and Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F14 Page 10 of 84 the typical buffers wouldn't apply, because we are going to follow the notes of the future use map for that site? Allen: I will defer to legal on that, but I don't believe so. The developer -- or the requirement would -- would be on the priority under development and it is based on the zoning district of the property under -- under development. So, I believe it would apply in either case. Pogue: Agreed. McCarvel: Mr. Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: Sonya, did Brad have a response to your comment? Did he give you feedback? Allen: Well, I don't want to put words in his mouth, but he seemed okay with that explanation and -- and, yes, I can see from the aerial that that property to the north is currently developed. He represents the property owner to the north. Adler Industrial. Fitzgerald: Got it. Okay. Allen: I think he just wanted the comment to be on the record. McCarvel: Any other questions for staff? Parsons: Commission, this is Bill. McCarvel: Yes. Go ahead. Parson: I was going to also let the Commission know that the two vacant parcels there have also been approved by the city to develop industrial uses. So, it will be a fabrication shop and some outdoor storage. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions for staff before the applicant? I don't see the applicant in the Zoom audience. Do we have the applicant in chambers, Commissioner Seal? Weatherly: Madam Chair, it looks like I do have somebody raising their hand -- McCarvel: Okay. Weatherly: -- wanting to talk for a moment. McCarvel: Okay. Okay. So, is this Mr. Schnebly? You are on mute, sir. If you are -- you will need to unclick your mute. I think you have the permission to talk if you unmute your -- your side. There you go. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F15] Page 11 of 84 Schnebly: Can you hear me now, Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yes. There you go. Please state your name and address for the record. Schnebly: I'm learning how to work this. My name is -- McCarvel: We all are. Schnebly: My name is Rich Schnebly and my -- you want my home address or the address of the property that I own? My home address was 4050 East Hubbard Road, Kuna. 83634. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Is there anything you would like to share with us about your application? Schnebly: No. I believe it's pretty straight forward. My one concern that I had after being given the staff report -- and I will have to tell you that Sonya has been very patient with me throughout this whole process and that she's tried very hard to make sure I understand things, but still this is very new to me and trying to work through all the ins and outs of this project have been somewhat overwhelming. But, anyway, the one thing that I had after the staff report was this DA that -- this development agreement that you wanted me to sign or apparently is required and never having seen one or whatever I was very very concerned over what obligations it would put to me, what kind of legal stuff that I would be required to do and that this is kind of something you guys apparently need or want and I have questioned the necessity of it, because it just seemed most everything in there is kind of a given. You know, if the house changes hands at some point down the road certainly don't have any thing, but if it's sold to somebody that's a commercial developer I mean however it's zoned or whatever don't -- don't they still have to come in front of you guys to get it rezoned for commercial use and come with a plan. I'm somewhat uncertain why the development plan even needs to be in place and the fact that I get charged for the privilege of signing it. McCarvel: Okay. Sonya, do you want to respond? Allen: I'm sorry, I was tending to a technical difficulty and I did not catch that question. I apologize. McCarvel: Mr. Schnebly wants further explanation on why he needs the DA agreement. Schnebly: Madam, could I interrupt there just a second. McCarvel: Sure. Schnebly: Sonya and I had a pretty good discussion last night via e-mail and she tried her best to explain the necessity of it and the requirement of it and, again, I understand it, but I still have a little bit of resistance I guess. So, if you guys really feel that it's a Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F16 Page 12 of 84 necessity-- the one thing is I just happened to notice on one of the other applications that you had that in the staff report you have a zoning of R-1. I only put a zoning recommendation of R-2 in there, because it was one of the recommendations Sonya put out in the pre-planning meeting that we had to go forward for my project and would a zoning of R-1, would that help better that it could only be a single family dwelling on that acreage and maybe a development plan wouldn't be needed. But at the same time if you guys do feel that you do need to put the development agreement together and it is required, I will go forward with it, but I guess the one thing I could ask of you is I don't know if you have it within your power to maybe waive the fees for having to put that together, because I still have to go forward this spring. This project has been enormously expensive for me and not planned and has been kind of a financial burden to me at the moment. So, the 300 bucks or whatever that was being required to -- to put this agreement together could be better used this spring, because I have to totally re-renovate my entire front yard on that property that got tore up in this project and that money I think could certainly be better used to put things back together again this spring. So, that's my comments. Thank you very much. I will let you guys go forward. Allen: Madam Chair, if I could respond to Mr. Schnebly's suggestion for R-1 zoning. The city does not have an R-1 zoning. R-1 is a county designation. The lowest density zoning designation the city has is R-2. So, that's why staff recommended that zone. McCarvel: Thank you. I guess at this time do we have any further staff comments from Bill? Parsons: Sure. I'm listening to their conversations, so I think this body is aware and also for Mr. Schnebly, certainly wouldn't want to put undue burdens on homeowners or people that just want to hook up and -- and honor their commitments with the city, but this site is a little bit different. We are -- we actually have a comprehensive plan designation of commercial, but we are recommending a residential zone to help assist with his need to annex in and that's really our standard process, so the state statutes enable staff to require a contract with annexations or rezone. So, once -- he's right, though, they -- technically he could come back through -- whoever buys the property could come back through and rezone it and, then, at that time the city, through our process, could require a development agreement or amendment to the DA if-- if you choose to do that. The city does not have a fee waiver process anymore. We modified the code a few years ago and took that out. The Council at the time had determined that, you know, it just doesn't set a good precedent to be waiving fees for applications, because there is staff time involved, there is -- there is so many different staff members touching these applications. But what I can recommend to this Commission is certainly the city has the ability to get some other assurances with the rezone, but to me it's really a Council decision. They are the ones that are going to be making the decision on the land use. So, if that's something that the Commission feels is appropriate in this case, then, I would go forward on a recommendation of the annexation without the inclusion of a development agreement. That's certainly something you can do and see whether or not Council would support that recommendation. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F17 Page 13 of 84 McCarvel: Okay. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: So, Bill, we can't recommend that anything on that property until it comes back, has to go through the process again? We can't make that determination in a DA? Parsons: Oh, sure you can. You always have the -- that's what a DA mode is; right? Fitzgerald: Yeah. Parsons: You put a DA in place. Yes. The avenue to change that contract is to go before City Council. Fitzgerald: Yeah. So, that's my one concern about not putting a DA in place is that comes back and it still remains residential down the road where it's supposed to -- where I think it's a commercial zone. Parsons: Correct. Fitzgerald: Or industrial zone. So, that would be my concern about that. Parsons: Yeah. The long-term vision for this property is commercial and we don't want the residential. Not that it -- it can't continue, but the intent is not for that to be residential forever. Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner -- Commissioner Holland. Holland: Questions for staff. If we condition it so that they don't have a development agreement, can we still make a condition through annexation that they are not allowed to subdivide the property in the future? Parsons: Madam Chair? Allen: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Where did Sonya go? Allen: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, state code does not allow annexations to be conditioned. The only method we have of doing that is through the development agreement process and agreement. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F18 Page 14 of 84 Holland: That's what I thought. Thanks for clarifying. McCarvel: And I mean it just helps everybody be clear -- you know, a future purchaser, it just helps things from slipping through the cracks, so -- okay. If -- anymore comments from the applicant? I think we still have you. We are answering your questions and staff's at this point. Schnebly: Am I still on with you? McCarvel: Yes. Schnebly: Okay. I certainly understand and, like I said, Sonya has been very very patient with me and tried to explain it to the best of her ability last night to me. So, I -- and if you don't have the ability to waive fees anymore, I guess you -- I will have to accept what you move forward with and go from there. Right now I'm just trying to honor my commitment to you that--of annexation, because all my permits were issued early on, so that we could get the house back up and habitable, because I have people living in it and they really needed to be able to use the system. So, anyway, thank you very much for your time tonight. I do appreciate it. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Is there anybody in the audience who wishes to testify on this application or do we have anybody signed up? Weatherly: No, we do not. McCarvel: Okay. So, at this time if I could get a motion to close the public hearing for H- 2020-0115. Holland: So moved. Seal: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for H-2020-0115. All those in favor say aye. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. McCarvel: Comments? Discussion? Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: We did a lot of it. Mr. Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: Yeah. I think my comments kind of float into what I said. I mean I totally understand the challenges that come with attaching to the city services and this just happens to be a unique property that we -- we see further commercial use on it and I -- Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F19 Page 15 of 84 I'm sorry for the applicant's situation. I know it's -- having a development agreement does cost money and I -- and I'm definitely sympathetic to that. The challenge is if we don't do it and we -- and he sells that property or something changes with it, we can't control what happens after annexation and so, unfortunately, I think we got to have a development agreement go with it in my opinion. So, that would be my -- my thought is that we attach it with an R-2, that's fine, but, then, it has to come back through the process to get redeveloped once that next step happens with that property if it's redeveloped in the future. Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I would echo Commissioner Fitzgerald's comments. I -- I wish that we had the ability to do a fee waiver, because I would make that recommendation to Council that they consider waiving the fee, but if that's not a tool that we have available to us -- I don't know if there is anything creative Council can do to help them, but I think it's -- I think it's important to have that development agreement in place just because of-- it's a step away from the Comprehensive Plan that was designated for that property. I think the only other possibility -- and I don't think this is an option either -- is requesting the waiver of the fee on the Comprehensive Plan amendment, but that's the same -- same situation. We don't have that ability to change those fees. McCarvel: I agree. I do feel -- I mean it -- we need the DA in place just for transparency for everyone involved and as fast as things move here it could easily be forgotten, so -- any other comments or motions? Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Unless there is other comments I -- I will move -- I will make a motion. After hearing all staff, applicant, and public testimony I move to recommend approval to City Council of file Number H-2020-0115 for the Schnebly annexation with the request that they would work with staff on a development agreement. I think that might already be in the staff report, so maybe it doesn't need to be in the motion. McCarvel: I believe it's in there. Do I have a second? Grove: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to recommend approval on H-2020-0115. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F20 Page 16 of 84 5. Public Hearing for Village at Meridian Cafe Rio Drive-Through (H-2020- 0116) by Layton Davis Architects, Located at 3243 E. Village Dr. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a drive-through establishment within 300-feet of another drive-through establishment in the C-G zoning district. McCarvel: Next item on the agenda is the public hearing for Village at Meridian Cafe Rio, the drive-thru, H-2020-0116, and we will begin with the staff report. Allen: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. The next application before you is a request for a conditional use permit. This site consists of .97 of an acre of land, zoned C-G, located at 3243 East Village Drive. This property was annexed back in 2007 as part of the larger Village of Meridian project. A development agreement was required as a provision of annexation, which has been amended twice since that time. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for this property is mixed use regional. A conditional use permit is requested for a drive-thru establishment for Cafe Rio within 300 feet of another drive-thru facility to the north Chick-fil-A as required by the UDC. Cafe Rio is proposed to occupy the southern tenant space of a 10,000 square foot multi-tenant building. The existing drive thru is separated from the drive thru to the north by a public street, East Village Drive. Therefore, no traffic conflicts exist between the two sites. The proposed use is subject to specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-11, drive-thru establishment. Staff has reviewed the proposed site design and found it to be consistent with these standards. Access is proposed via a driveway from a right turn lane from Eagle Road on East Village Drive along the northern boundary of this site across the abutting lot. Direct lot access via Eagle Road is prohibited. ACHD's traffic engineers have reviewed and approved the proposed turn lane configuration. A reciprocal cross- access easement for vehicular and pedestrian ingress and egress exists between the lots in the subdivision. A cross-access agreement also exists for shared parking between businesses and lots in the subdivision. Parking lot landscaping is proposed in accord with UDC standards. Street buffer landscaping was installed with development of the subdivision along North Eagle Road and East Village Drive. Because the drive-thru lane and back of the building with mechanical equipment will be highly visible from North Eagle Road, staff recommends additional landscaping, consisting of coniferous trees and bushes, is provided within the street buffer along Eagle Road to screen this area and functions while preserving a clear view of the drive-thru window for surveillance purposes. Conceptual building elevations were submitted as shown that incorporate materials consisting of EFIS in two different colors, tile, metal and concrete trim and accents and standing seam metal roofing. Final design shall be consistent with the design standards listed in the architectural standards manual. Written testimony was received from John Davis, Layton Davis Architects, the applicant's representative, and they are in agreement with the staff report. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions in the report. Staff will stand for any questions. Holland: Madam Chair? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F21 Page 17 of 84 McCarvel: Yes, Commissioner Holland. Holland: One quick -- just one quick question. Sonya, is the drive -- driveway through the north side of the property, is that where the entrance is, or does it come in on the south side for the drive thru? Allen: Madam Chair, Commissioner Holland, Commissioners, the drive through --the site plan is oriented to the north. Top is north. So, they come in along Village Drive from the north, down in here, if you can see my cursor, and -- and up around this way. Holland: Okay. Perfect. Thanks. Allen: Yep. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yes, Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: This is Cassinelli. Sonya, I was curious about the landscape issue brought up. Is the -- are there not parapets around the top there? You mentioned --of mechanical equipment on the roof. Allen: Well, Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli, Commissioners, the code does require mechanical equipment on the roof to be screened, but this -- what I was referring to is mechanical equipment on the rear of the building visible from Eagle. Cassinelli: Oh. Okay. Okay. Got you. Sorry. Allen: Either way we want it to be screened. Cassinelli: Yep. Holland: Madam Chair, one more follow-up question. McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Is that an escape lane in -- around the drive thru that I see kind of on that southwest corner? Allen: If you -- Madam Chair and Commissioner Holland, if you look at the hatched area right there, that's the escape lane, and, then, they can drop off here where the road is and go out. Holland: I have gotten stuck in a long drive thru before and -- you turn the corner and, then, realize there is 20 cars in front of you sometimes and you need to escape. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F22 Page 18 of 84 Allen: Right. Our -- our city code requires an escape lane if the stacking lane is greater than a hundred feet in length. Holland: Perfect. Thanks for clarifying. McCarvel: Any other questions for staff? Do we have the applicant in chambers or -- oh. Do we have -- is that said John Fink is the applicant? Allen: Yes. McCarvel: Okay. Mr. Fink, if you would state your name and address for the record and the floor is yours. Fink: Are you able to hear me? McCarvel: Yes. Fink: Wonderful. Thanks for the opportunity to speak tonight and thanks for the presentation, Sonya. Everything's pretty straight forward. We are going to add another 10,000 square foot building on this property. Right now there is only going to be one restaurant in this building. We do not plan to put a restaurant on the north side of this building. There may be a restaurant in the middle of this building, but they will, obviously, not be a part of the drive thru. But the staff recommendations from Sonya will add extra landscaping in the back, will widen the sidewalks on any pedestrian walkways and we are in full agreement of that. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Okay. Do we have anybody wishing to testify on this application? Weatherly: No, we do not signed up. I did have one person raise their hand. Layton Davis Architects. I have moved them over and they have the opportunity to speak. McCarvel: Okay. Go ahead. Layton Davis. Davis: This is John Davis. McCarvel: The floor is yours. We can hear you. Davis: Yeah. I was just offering if there was any -- any questions. That's why I raised my hand. I have nothing further to add. Thank you. McCarvel: Okay. All right. Thank you. So, if there is no more comments from the applicant and no questions, could -- any -- any other final thoughts from the applicant before we close? Okay. Could I get a motion to close the public hearing on H-2020- 0116. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F23 Page 19 of 84 Fitzgerald: So moved, Madam Chair. Holland: Second. McCarvel: Did I hear Madam Chair in there somewhere? It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2020-0116. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. McCarvel: Thoughts? Comments? Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yeah. Mr. Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: I think the -- I mean the Chick-fil-A is pretty significantly distanced from this and I think the stacking lane that they have is pretty significant. It's long and they have an escape lane at the end if they needed to get out of there for -- so, it seems like a reasonable use and with guidance from the applicant not having other restaurants using the drive thru under the circumstance I think it makes sense. I don't have any problem. It looks -- looks pretty straight forward. Cassinelli: Madam Chair. McCarvel: Yeah, Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Commission Cassinelli. I would echo those comments by Mr. Fitzgerald. McCarvel: Great. Thank you. And I would just remind whoever is making the motion it's a CUP, so it's approval, not a recommendation. Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve the drive thru for the Village at Meridian Cafe Rio, H-2020-0116, for their conditional use permit for a drive-thru establishment with the conditions in the staff report. Grove: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve H-2020-0116, Meridian Cafe Rio drive thru. All those in favor say aye. Motion passes. Thank you, Mr. Fink. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F24 Page 20 of 84 6. Public Hearing for Prescott Ridge (H-2020-0047) by Providence Properties, LLC, Located on the South Side of W. Chinden Blvd. and on the East Side of N. McDermott Rd. A. Annexation of 128.21 acres of land with R-8 (99.53 acres), R-15 (8.82 acres) and C-G (19.85 acres) zoning districts. B. Preliminary Plat consisting of 371 buildable lots [single-family residential (215 detached/102 attached), townhome (38), multi- family residential (14), commercial (1) and school (1)], 42 common lots and 6 other (shared driveway) lots] on 124.81 acres of land in the R-8, R-15 and C-G zoning districts. McCarvel: Next on the agenda is the public hearing for Prescott Ridge, H-2020-0047. We will begin with the staff report. Allen: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. This project was previously heard by the Commission in September of last year. The Council heard this application and was not in favor of annexing the medical campus portion of the site without inclusion of the 1 .27 acre parcel at the northeast corner of the site. So, if you will remember, this is the medical campus portion of the site, the commercial area. There is a parcel right here, if you can see my pointer, along the northeast corner that was an outparcel previously and was not included in this application. So, the Council remanded the project back to the Commission for inclusion of that outparcel in the annexation application. The applicant has submitted updated plans for the overall project that include this parcel and the annex -- annexation boundary now consists of 128.21 acres of land, with 19.85 acres in the commercial portion of the site. An updated conceptual development plan was submitted for the medical campus portion of the site as shown that depicts the three story hospital in the same location and the medical office building now shifted to the northeast corner of the site, if you can see my pointer there it's this area right here. The medical office building changed. It increased in height from three stories to four stories and is proposed to be approximately 80,000 square feet that now incorporates retail and restaurant uses on the entire first floor, which provides a mix of uses desired in a mixed use regional designated area that was not there previously. Staff wasn't planning to go into the whole application again, since this was heard previously by the Commission, but if there is any -- any questions you have or anything you would like me to cover I'm certainly willing to. The rest of the development really didn't change. It's -- it's the same. It was just the commercial portion of the site. Holland: Madam Chair? Sonya, did we approve another hospital just down the street from this one, too? Do we have two medical facilities going in next to each other? Allen: And the Brighton application, Pollard Subdivision, directly to the north across Chinden did include a hospital in their concept development plans, yes. Holland: And I remember -- Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F25] Page 21 of 84 Allen: I don't believe there has been any movement on that as far as I know, though. Holland: Okay. One more follow up if I may. I read that there were some concerns potentially with the emergency vehicle access coming in and out. I think that was my -- my only main concern on this project. Do you have any comments related to that? Allen: The emergency vehicles should be -- it's -- well, let me clarify. Were you referring to emergency vehicles with the emergency department in the hospital? Holland: Yes. Allen: Yeah. Yeah. They will be accessing the site from Rustic -- Rustic Oak Way and Chinden. So, they will -- they will come out of here -- there will be a signal here, traffic signal, and they will come in here and access and -- and the ambulance -- ambulance entry is right here, if you can see on the site. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Go ahead, Bill. Holland: Go ahead, Bill. I will ask mine later. Cassinelli: Go ahead and wrap it up. Holland: My only other concern was the way that single family abuts the commercial site. Did staff have any concerns with that? Because it looks like you have got some pretty significant commercial frontage against some of those backyards there. Allen: Yeah. Madam Chair, Commissioner Holland and Commissioners, yeah, that -- that really hasn't changed, but the improvements to the site plan have been the -- the shift of that medical office building as far away as they can get it at the northeast corner of the site. They are providing a 30 foot wide buffer that's heavily vegetated as you can see along the west and southern boundaries adjacent to existing and future residential uses. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Shall I go ahead? McCarvel: Yes, Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Sonya, just real quickly, I'm assuming that -- I know the last time we saw this that -- that they were hoping to have that parcel under contract. So, I'm assuming that that -- that is now the case. But my real question here is how does the layout of the medical campus differ from -- because the -- to me the last time we -- I think we have seen a couple versions of it and it -- it -- I'm not sure if this goes back to the -- closer to the first time we saw this or the last time we saw it. Do you have -- do you have a rendering of what that looked like, the layout of the medical campus, when we approved it -- when we last saw it? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F26 Page 22 of 84 Allen: Yes, I can find one, Commissioner Cassinelli. It was roughly in this location right here, though. It was oriented more north-south and right here where my pointer is. I can find one for you if you will give me a minute. Cassinelli: Okay. Because if memory serves me, we also saw a completely different rendering of it at one point in time, but I don't remember if that was the first time out. Allen: Yeah. There were several iterations of the concept plan. It's been constantly evolving based on staff -- staff recommendations and the public's requests as well. McCarvel: Any other questions for staff? Okay. Is the applicant with us? If you could raise your hand. Oh. Okay. Mr. Connor? Connor: Yes. Hi. My name is Patrick Connor. I would like to share my screen if I can. McCarvel: Okay. And if you could state your name and address for the record. Connor: Yes. Thank you. My name is Patrick Connor. Address is 701 South Allen Street, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. McCarvel: Thank you. Go ahead. Johnson: Madam Chair. Mr. Connor, you should have the ability to share your screen now. Connor: Okay. Thank you. One moment, please. Hey, Stephanie? Okay. Thank you. Sorry for the technical difficulties. As I said before, my name is Patrick Connor with Providence Properties. This is the third time we are presenting this project to you all at the Planning and Zoning Commission, with the exception of Commissioner Holland, I don't think you have seen this full presentation, so I would like to run through it just so you have an understanding of the full project. As I get to different parts of it where things have changed I will stop and spend extra attention, so the full Commission can see what we have changed and improved. So, this is Prescott Ridge. The location -- the project location is in northwest Meridian, just south of Chinden, and east of McDermott Road. Everything you see on the screen here is either platted, built, under construction or approved for construction. The project does include 28 acres of a site that's owned by West Ada School District. It's part of our project to get them legal -- get the legal lot legally annexed and zoned as part of our application, but it will develop separately from our project. Here is a future land use map. The majority of the site is medium density residential, with the north portion as mixed use regional. I also want to point out that a portion of the Peregrine Heights neighborhood is also mixed use regional to our northwest. The current zoning. To our south is R-4 and R-8. To our north is general commercial. The requested zoning boundaries --we requested about 16 acres of general commercial, 7.92 acres of R-15 zone, and about one hundred acres of the R-8 zone as shown on the map. This preliminary plat, as Sonya alluded to, has not changed really at all, with the exception of the addition of the 1.2 acres as requested by City Council. So, Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F27 Page 23 of 84 that is now part of this preliminary plat, as shown in the north corner of the property. Three hundred and seventeen single family lots, 38 townhome lots, eight single family attached two unit buildings. We have 14 multi-family lots with four-plexes on each of those lots. So, it totals about 56 units. Forty-two common lots. The one medical campus lot, about 16 acres, and, then, the Ada county -- or West Ada School District parcel, which is 28 acres. Our qualified to open space is about 15 and a half percent, which is shown on this map. I should note that this excludes the commercial property and the West Ada School District property. It does include what is included in the residential portion of the project. We do have a main central park with a pool and a clubhouse, with a large tot lot. We have pocket parks scattered around, including two tot lots and a dog park on the west side of the property. Here is some renderings of that central clubhouse with the pool and the large tot lot and here is some renderings of the smaller tot lots and the pocket parks around the property. The pedestrian connectivity is always a big necessity for community and it's always a big amenity that people desire. So, what I have shown here are the pathways that are through our common lots that kind of break up the -- the blocks to allow for connectivity and pedestrian connectivity and also recreation. There is also a ten foot Parks Department pathway that runs from the north of the property through the medical campus, through the cul-de-sac, through the center of the property of the center park and to the school district site. Also the ten foot pathway continues down Rustic Oak to Rustic Oak -- or Oaks North south of our property. Here is a shot of the phasing plan. Just want to point out the -- phase one hasn't changed. We are building the full extent of Rustic Oak in our property from the south portion all the way to the north portion. This was something that the Fire Department liked and that the city did like, because it offered two points of access to our south to Oaks North and also to the north at Chinden and, then, extends all the way farther west to McDermott with those two points of access to ensure that the fire emergency response time is up to snuff and up to their level of service. With this full build out of Rustic Oak from the very beginning it will connect to the Oaks North, Rustic Oak and, then, down to McMillan. Both the Fire Department and the Police Department have said this would improve the police and fire response times for the entire area. We do have 15 neighbors to our west that are not in the city limits, but they are in the county, but we have paid attention to their access point on the south of their cul-de- sac. We are stubbing a road here. To ensure that they still have emergency access or to give them a secondary emergency access we have offered to install an electronic gate with an opticom device that would not impede their response time, but also prevent any through traffic or cut-through traffic through Serenity Lane from Prescott Ridge. In working with a neighborhood over the past year we have made a lot of different changes, particularly to the medical campus, but this is one example of a gate that they would like to see that we would have installed on the property to ensure they have emergency access, but to restrict the cut through. I'm going to talk a little about the housing types and then -- and, then, get more in particular about the product. So, the majority of the property is the mixed 45, 50 and 60 foot lots that you see in yellow. Then you have in blue the cluster of 40 foot lots, but the option to have attached units in those. In the green are a townhome variety that we will get into more detail later and, then, the red you will see is the multi-family portion of the site. What you see in purple are large lots, 70 to 100 feet in width. We located these next to our neighbors of Peregrine Heights as a buffer and as a transition to their large lots. In working with the neighborhood and the -- Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F28 Page 24 of 84 particularly the HOA and HOA board, we have committed to limit the height restriction to single story on these nine lots shown. Particularly this is to make sure that the two stories wouldn't block any sort of view of the mountains that they had and lower the scale of our homes adjacent to their properties. Here is an example of some of our homes for our 40, 50 and 60 foot plans and these are larger 50 foot and 60, 70 and up houses with a third car garage option. Here is an example of our attached single family. So, getting more into the townhouse -- and you have seen a couple of variations of this townhome. This has not changed since the last hearing where we really improved the layout. Just for some background, we now have two points of access of this private drive to Rustic Oak and Wildfire Drive. We have 46 total townhome units, but there is three different townhome product types. There is 29 rear load townhomes, which are the ones in the center and in the north part of the site. These will have two car garages, but their front yards are fenced in, but that's for their -- their private spaces that opens up to a common view MEW here and these open up to more of a private MEW on the north end. We also have front load two car garage units here on the west side. They actually have a backyard that's fenced in for privacy and on the south side of this townhome complex are our two unit duplexes, which are front load onto the -- onto the public road, but also have private driveways. We do have a common MEW area here and we have this amenity pocket park over here with a pergola, barbecues, seating and a fire pit. Here is an example of the rear load townhomes in the center of the site and the north of the site. This is an example of the townhomes on the west portion of the site. These designs are -- actually the architecture is getting updated to match the overall architecture for the traditional townhomes and duplex product. And this is the duplex rendering. Here is an example of some products that we have worked on as a team around the country, different MEWs and how they can live to be communal spaces that open up and are used by the community and here is an example of some amenities that we would have in that townhome gathering park. A private space located in the townhome area. This is one area that we have improved since the City Council hearing in December. Some of the comments we got were having also some private amenity areas for this townhome -- or for this multi-family. So, we included a new tot lot here in the southeast corner, as well as a gathering place here in this area of four lots. We have also included the location of our mailbox kiosk and a service shed for maintaining the landscape around the units. Here is an example of a rendering of the front, side, and rear of these -- of these multi- family four-plex units. We are building these units in two or three other communities around the valley. For all of our homes of all varieties we are committed to a hundred percent energy star certification. Along with Brighton we have delivered the most homes in the Treasure Valley that received this certification of energy efficiency to help decrease energy costs, but also help the environment. All the homes also -- our buyers have the opportunity to come to our design center to customize their home. Here is a shot. We are on the cover of the Parade of Homes last fall and here is a shot of some of our interiors. Lastly, the medical campus. And to answer some of your questions from before -- and I do have an exhibit in here that shows the other layout, but this medical office building was initially shown to you all in this corner over here and some of the comments that we got from the Commission and from our neighbors was it was too close to our neighbors next door and so we located it as far as we could in the northeast corner over here. Also I don't know if you remember, but the southern -- the bottom portion of the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F29 Page 25 of 84 medical office building is retail and a restaurant. Initially the retail and the restaurant were a separate building. We went ahead to make it a true mixed use. Put it on the bottom floor to allow more kind of neighborhood friendly services for retail and -- and restaurant bottom floor and having the top three stories as a medical office. The hospital building was -- most recently has always been oriented this way. Initially, probably about six or seven months ago, the building was rotated 90 degrees clockwise. Some of the comments we got from our neighbors was they did not want the loading zone next to their homes and so we rotated this direction. We also moved it another 40 feet most recently to the east to alleviate it as far away from the neighbors as we possibly could without taking away our ability to park and to loop emergency traffic through the site. Other than that nothing really has changed on this layout for the medical campus. What you see shown and circled in red are the outdoor areas and integration into the neighborhood and just for reference, Commissioner Holland, because this is a commercial site and these are residential, we will have an eight foot high masonry wall on the south and the west portion of this site, as well as a 30 foot wide landscape buffer. We think that this will give a pretty sufficient vegetative buffer between the residential and the commercial uses. There will be two access points of pedestrian access into the medical campus, both here to the townhomes and here is a ten foot wide pathway through the single family that will continue on to Chinden and the path -- the city pathway that's already built. Here is some renderings of the large -- larger hospital building here and, then, this is an example of what the medical office building would look like. The architecture will -- will match what the hospital looks like, but this is the medical office campus that HCA operates in Caldwell and this is the same sort of use and -- and feel that they would have on this campus in Meridian. These are just some schematics of some integration into the park system and pathways, outdoor seating, walkways through greenspace and areas for people to gather outdoors. So, that concludes this presentation. As Sonya said before, we were remanded from City Council to include that other parcel,. Answer any questions on that. That outparcel is now acquired by us. So, it's part of this application. So, it's no longer a what if it becomes part of the project, it is now part of the project. We are very happy to present this to you all again and, hopefully, I was able to fill in any sort of questions you had on things that we have changed and, hopefully, was able to remind you of some of the good and positive aspects we have in this project. So, with that I stand for any questions. McCarvel: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Connor. I think that, you know, getting that parcel in -- included in this and being able to see the finished product is very helpful. Do we have any questions from the Commissioners for the applicant? Holland: Madam Chair, I would say thank you for the -- the overview, because I wasn't here for the first time this came through. I might have been on maternity leave when that one came through. So, thanks for the overview. I appreciate it. McCarvel: Any other questions? Okay. Do we have anybody signed up to testify on this application? Weatherly: Madam Chair, we do not. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F30 Page 26 of 84 McCarvel: Okay. With nobody being signed up, is there anybody in the audience, if you just hit raise your hand or star nine. Weatherly: Madam Chair, I see a couple people raising their hand. Cory Coltrin. One moment, please. McCarvel: Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Coltrin. Please state your name and address for the record. Coltrin: Madam Chair and Commissioner, this is Cory Coltrin at 6178 North Serenity Lane. I am the third lot from south off of Chinden down Serenity Lane, just as a reference there, and I would recommend to the Commissioners and to the chair that you reconsider or turn down, actually, the rezoning from RUT to C-G, that that be denied. We have got a 25 year neighbor -- and the reason for that is we have got a 25 year plus neighborhood here. I have been here 22 years now. I have got my -- raised my family here. I have got my life invested into this property. We always knew that, you know, at some day there would be some type of growth going on and -- behind us and -- and we -- we knew that. But the idea to change this from RUT to C-G and put a hospital right in our backyard just breaks our heart and it's going to significantly impact us, you know, and I'm also concerned with -- with the access that they are proposing off of our private road and I know we are going to have some comment on that coming in, but I just want to -- to voice my opinion that I am totally opposed of this medical campus. Yeah, they -- you know, they are going to put an eight foot wall, but how does an eight foot wall, you know, block out a 56 foot hospital. Not to mention the -- it doesn't matter how -- how a wall or how many trees -- and the trees just, you know, inhibit our -- our beautiful view that we already -- that we -- we have had of the mountains and what you are going to be taking away also from -- from the -- from the hospital. So, I appreciate your time and you consider denying the rezoning of that -- that parcel of property. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you, Mr. Coltrin. Anybody else, Adrienne? Weatherly: Madam Chair, I'm going to allow Mr. Jacobson to talk. One moment, please. McCarvel: Thank you. Jacobson: Madam Chair, can you hear me? McCarvel: Yes. Please state your name and address for the record. Jacobson: Very good. My -- my name is James Jacobson. My address -- my -- my residential address is 8386 West Sundisk in Boise. But my purpose in being here tonight is that I was recently approached by the Peregrine Heights HOA. I am an attorney with the law firm of Sasser and Jacobson and Mr. Coltrin has already spoken. He is a member of the HOA and has been my point of contact. My purpose in providing comment is simply on behalf of the HOA. I think that there are some legitimate concerns that have yet to be addressed and I appreciate that the presentation offered some overview and some Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F31 Page 27 of 84 additional insight, but I don't think that the -- the issues regarding the abutment to the residential have been appropriately addressed. I think Mr. Coltrin spoke to some of his concerns with regard to that. The ingress and egress off of this frontage road that's been proposed from Serenity Lane I don't think have been appropriately addressed. There was some mention of a gate and using that to try to address the --the volume of traffic coming off of Serenity Lane into the proposed medical campus, but there was no addressing as to how that gate is going to be used or controlled and how it's going to, then, effectively deal with the potential increased traffic to the medical campus. Also there was some mention of -- by the chairperson of an additional medical facility located just a short distance from this proposed one. I think that's some concern that we have got two medical facilities that are being proposed within a short distance of each other and -- and so I think that this particular project bears some additional consideration regarding those issues that -- that haven't been adequately addressed. I know that this was something that was presented back in September of 2020 and that we are here now with some effort having been made to try to address some issues, but I don't think that they have been. And so as Mr. Coltrin indicated, I know that there is a desire for the project to be rejected, but at a minimum there should be some additional addressing of those issues adequately and appropriately before a vote is taken and approval is given. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Anybody else, Adrienne? Weatherly: Yes, Madam Chair. Next will be Sue Ropski. Sue, one moment. McCarvel: Okay. Ms. Ropski, if you would unmute your mic, the floor is yours. Please state your name and address for the record. Ropski: Madam Chair, thank you. My name is Sue Ropski. I live at 6262 North Serenity Lane, which for point of reference is -- Cory Coltrin's next door neighbor. I'm the second lot as you come in on the east side. I moved here 21 years ago from Chicago to get away from exactly what I'm going to be sitting in the middle of. I have been a registered nurse for 35 years and I have concerns that we will have medical campuses across the street from each other. Regarding the medical campus in the back of my property, I'm very thankful that you turned the loading dock, but I still have concerns, knowing what goes on at a hospital, I don't see anywhere marked on there now where your medical waste facilities will be and I am concerned with a loading dock still on the side, that the noise will affect our neighborhood. The height of the medical office buildings has fluctuated between three and four feet. So, I just want you to imagine sitting in your backyard looking at a tower of a building that -- I mean my -- my gardens will be gone. I won't have sun in my yard. I just have concerns that this is going to dramatically affect not only our quality of life, but whether or not I'm going to have my basic hobbies that I have been doing from gardening to having a green yard. So, I oppose a four story structure that is going to block my sun, block my view, and change the quality of life. The access road I don't believe has been addressed and I know that my neighbor Mr. Pittman, who is the first street coming in, is -- is very concerned about how that traffic will move alongside his house and into the neighborhood. So, I -- I go along with Cory and I continue to oppose this project. But thank you very much for letting me give my opinion. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F32 Page 28 of 84 McCarvel: Thank you, Sue. Adrienne, who do we have next? Weatherly: Madam Chair, next is Patricia Buckholtz. Patricia, one moment. McCarvel: Okay. Patricia, you have entered. If you can unmute your mic and state your name and address for the record. The floor is yours. Buckholtz: I'm actually not a part of this. I just wanted to see if I could get the name of Mr. Jacobson's law firm again. McCarvel: Okay. Weatherly: Madam Chair? McCarvel: It will be in the minutes. Adrienne, do you know it offhand? Weatherly: Madam Chair. Patricia, if you want to e-mail cityclerk@meridiancity.org with your request we would be happy to help you with that information. Buckholtz: Okay. Great. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Weatherly: Madam Chair, next we have Cary Pitman. Cary, one moment. McCarvel: Okay. Cary, if you would like to unmute your mic and state your name and address for the record. Pitman: The address is 6203 North Serenity Lane. McCarvel: Okay. Go ahead, sir. Pitman: Yes. So, as was previously stated, I am the first property going south off of Chinden on the east side and there is -- the -- a proposed frontage road that continues to be an issue on how there is going to be enough space between ITD's right of way and my property line and there seems to be some issues with -- and, of course, the fire chief and those have not been responsive and -- or been in these meetings and there was a point of -- there was a certain amount of space that needed to be between the property line and the ITD right of way that was a minimal property -- or minimal distance and I'm concerned that that's not been addressed in a -- a manner that someone has never really come out and said, yes, we can and cannot have this much space or can't have -- or we need this much space to get a firetruck and/or other vehicles through this space that is considered to be there -- an access to this medical campus. McCarvel: We will have the applicant address the questions. Did you have any others, Mr. Pitman? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F33 Page 29 of 84 Pitman: Not at this time. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Weatherly: Madam Chair, next is Doug Haneborg. Doug, one moment. Haneborg: Can you hear me? McCarvel: Yes. Thank you. State your name and address for the record, please. Haneborg: Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair and staff. This is Doug Haneborg. I'm the HOA president of Peregrine Heights. I live at 6002 North Serenity Lane, Meridian. 83646. So, I just wanted to start off by saying that we do appreciate Patrick and his team trying to meet some of our needs and our concerns of our neighbors and, you know, such as like the single story lots that are abutting our larger lots that he spoke of and the southern gate as well. Patrick has accepted and made some adjustments for some of our requests and we do appreciate that. But, however, that being said, there are still ongoing communications with the neighbors of Peregrine Heights to check the support levels of this project and there are still major concerns as you guys have heard previously tonight. Patrick had asked me if I could maybe write a letter in support of the project and I wanted to run that, you know, by our neighbors and get a pulse and I have met a lot of resistance in doing that and I received several responses from our neighbors in writing and I just wanted to share a few snippets of those responses. One neighbor had stated given that we still don't know what else they can sneak in via amendments between now and the time that this is all built out, we not only don't see how we can rubber stamp the plan, but why we should. We are quite sure that P&Z and the City Council don't expect or require us to, especially since they put the whole hospital complex in a separate application in order to move this all through faster. It's certainly not going to be helpful for our neighborhood. In response to Patrick's requests, he was also wondering what other requests that we had and the neighbors feel like we have already been sharing that with him and have been turned down on some of those. For example, a buffer space between some of the back fences and our yards. Fewer houses abutting the southeast Peregrine Heights properties and the fact that they are ignoring the major frontage road issue. Another neighbor response was: I'm hesitant to sign off on a letter of support. Each time we meet more details come to light. Since the hospital campus is an evolving project, things can continue to seem to change. Another neighbor wrote: We are adamantly opposed to having a hospital next to our subdivision. I have always expected that there would be a nice residential neighborhood behind our property, but would never have imagined someone would try to put a hospital there. Lastly, another neighbor wrote: I'm not a supporter of this project. I have no desire for a large structure behind my house with parking lot lights everywhere blocking the view that was one of the reasons why I purchased this home and the road that they want to put 25 feet from our yards is not acceptable. As previously stated by other people tonight, too, there is a consensus that the private road and it being owned by our HOA, legally the development cannot tie into a privately owned road for their access requirements without our consent and so that Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F34] Page 30 of 84 seems to be an ongoing discussion and issue. That's all that I have at this time. So, thank you, Madam Chair. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: Mr. Haneborg, could I ask you a quick question? Haneborg: Sure. Fitzgerald: So, when the highway district or ITD eventually closes your road off, where are you going to get access? Because that's what is eventually going to happen. We have been -- we have been -- in the earlier conversations about this that is the access to your neighborhood, whether it be private or not. It is likely going away in the next five to ten years. Is that -- can we agree on that? Haneborg: Well, that's what it sounds like and that's kind of our question, too, because if this project requires two access points and that one's being taken away, then, it doesn't have two access points. Fitzgerald: It does. On McDermott it has one on -- on Chinden. So, I'm confused. I think beforehand we were -- we kind of found an even medium by hopefully giving you guys a gated access for that until your right-in, right-out comes into play and, then, the actual eventual termination of your road goes away. So, I thought we had come to that -- Haneborg: So, that would be the southern -- the southern access point with the gate. But the frontage road is still an issue, because if you are saying their second access point is off of McDermott, then, what's -- what's the need or requirement now for the access point on our private road? Fitzgerald: And I think it was for you guys, to be honest, and -- Haneborg: No. This is -- Fitzgerald: We will let Patrick respond to that, but -- McCarvel: Okay. Haneborg: And I think it's been a consistent issue and one of the largest concerns is that road tying into our private road. You know, there is -- like you are saying, what the highway is going to do is what the highway is going to do and so that's why we don't even understand that if in five years I agree with you, if they block that, then, it's a null and void, you know, reason now, because within five years what's even the point of that road there tying into ours if it's going to be blocked off anyways and that's one of the concerns, because, then, if for those five years we just have an excess of traffic that, you know, isn't Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F35 Page 31 of 84 necessary or required. And, again, there is no other access road anywhere down Chinden. Not even on the busiest intersections or any of those -- any neighborhood there is not one I have seen anywhere. Do you guys know of any? So, it doesn't make sense to us why this little strip has an access road that will probably be not accessible in five years as you are stating. That's part of our -- our issue, too. And, then, you want to put it 25 feet from someone's yard, you know. So, that's where we are stating that there is -- it's not clear, it doesn't really make sense and if you are saying their other access point is McDermott, then, that's -- that makes sense; right? Because that's a future --those are the two -- that's what I have been saying, too. If it's McDermott and Chinden, then, why are we putting an access road for, you know, a short -- short little gap that there is no other access roads anywhere else down Chinden on north or south and if it's just to fulfill a little requirement or something for the hospital, that's where it doesn't make sense to us. Fitzgerald: Appreciate it. McCarvel: Thank you, Mr. Haneborg. Haneborg: Thank you. McCarvel: Do we have anybody else, Adrienne? Weatherly: Madam Chair, I don't see any other hands raised. McCarvel: Okay. And, Commissioner Seal, do we have anybody in chambers wishing to speak? Seal: We do not. McCarvel: Yes? Seal: No. McCarvel: No. Okay. Okay. Would the applicant like to comeback up and address the issues that we have heard? Connor: Yes, I would. McCarvel: Okay. Go ahead. Connor: Before I address them, Sonya, do you want to talk a little bit about the Code, UDC 11-3H-4B that tied us to the frontage road with the intent to connect to adjacent properties, particularly the property on the west side of Peregrine Heights? Allen: Madam Chair, would you like me to address that? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F36 Page 32 of 84 McCarvel: Sure. Allen: Thank you. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, the city code requires a frontage road adjacent to state highways. So, it's the -- the access road is not simply serving as an emergency access from Chinden. I mean it is, but the -- the main reason for the access -- well, let me back up. With -- with the first phase of development the applicant is proposing to construct a collector street that's going to extend from Chinden Boulevard to the property's south boundary, which will eventually connect through to McMillan Road. So, that will eliminate the requirement for --for an emergency secondary access from the Fire Department when that is constructed. The -- again, back to the frontage road requirement. That is a -- the UDC requires frontage roads to restrict accesses to state facilities for safety reasons. So, people aren't constantly, you know, slowing down, pulling out into traffic. So, that will serve as an access road between the property to the west of Peregrine Heights Subdivision when that redevelops and that will provide an access road out to the signalized intersection at the collector street Rustic Oak Way and Chinden. So, the applicant isn't really -- it wasn't their idea to propose this road, it was -- it's a city code requirement. With the State Highway 16 going in further to the west there it -- it locks in this property -- kind of landlocks it without these access roads. Hopefully that helps. McCarvel: And I guess to Mr. Connor, then, we have had several questions about that access road, if it fits. Connor: Yes. Allen: Yeah. And I can actually respond to that, too, Madam Chair. Joe Bongiorno, Deputy Fire Chief, has been out to the site, has inspected the road, as well as reviewed the -- the plans and he has determined that it meets the fire department standards for access, which will also meet the city code requirements for frontage road as well. McCarvel: Okay. Allen: And the frontage road is not a public road, but more of a private driveway access, just to clarify. McCarvel: Okay. And, Mr. Connor, I think we had also questions about where the medical waste was going and the -- the gate for the emergency access. Connor: Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. I will answer all the questions that are brought up. McCarvel: Okay. Great. Connor: So, just some quick background. I think we have had three -- either three or four neighborhood meetings about this project and the comment about the site changing and moving around is accurate. I would say it's changed because of comments and us Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F37 Page 33 of 84 trying to accommodate changes that are asked either by the neighbors, by staff, or by the Commission. So, we are changing it. I would argue that we are improving it to be a better product -- product -- project, but also a better neighbor for the neighbors. So, just briefly just going through it, yes, by city code we are required to have the frontage road. The intent of their frontage road is to connect to the property on the east side. I have worked with the current planner that's working on that project on the east side of Peregrine Heights to coordinate a plan as was recommended by staff and by Chief Bongiorno to ensure that they have that access road as well -- that frontage road as well. We understand that it does kind of create a unique situation with the driveway to Peregrine Heights. We have offered to put in -- put signs that say for emergency use only and trying to deter any sort of traffic from using that road, as well as not printing any sort of signage for the hospital to use Serenity Lane, but to drive all the traffic through Rustic Oak. So, that's one accommodation that we want to ensure. If and when the access to Serenity Lane does go away, the -- the only point of access will be the southern part of Serenity Lane through our project. So, we did do a few changes to the building. So, we oriented the loading dock -- and this is also the location of the trash receptacles, which is on the south side of the building. That was a recommendation by -- by Ms. Sue Ropski and we made that change pretty early on in the revisions of this project and we maintained it. The comments about the height of the building, so the hospital building, the larger building, was made three stories and combining the restaurant and retail into the medical office buildings it did -- it's at four stories. That's -- the initial application was a three story building for the medical office building. Again, moving it all the way to the northeast corner we were trying to alleviate the concerns that were brought up at a previous public hearing that the building was in the wrong location. The attorney, Mr. Jacobson, saying that there is still concerns to be addressed. We have been addressing concerns throughout this project. At the last neighborhood meeting I had two big takeaways from the HOA president, the HOA members and neighbors. The first concern was -- and I believe it came from Mr. Coltrin, but he wanted to seethe hospital moved over further east. I moved it I think 30 to 40 feet further east, while maintaining the necessary parking that we had on our east side, but also allowing enough traffic moving to the ambulance entry as I previously said. This is as far east as we can move the building to make it work and function as a hospital. So, that was the first request from the neighborhood. The second request is that we look at decreasing the height of our residential units adjacent to them. Initially I was only given the permission to decrease the height of four houses. I had bent over backwards and asked for permission to move that number to nine as recently as just a few days ago. The HOA president Mr. Haneborg asked me for an additional lot to be dropped down to one story and I made that accommodation. So, that's nine houses that we are taking down to help their view--their view shed. Also this building in the northeast corner, the medical office building, we orientated it east-west. That actually will take away from some of the visibility of the emergency room and the hospital building by moving in that direction. The sole reason for this movement was to help alleviate some of the questions and the concerns that these neighbors have had about their view. So, those are the concerns that have came up in the most recent neighborhood meeting and all neighborhood meetings and I have asked if there is anything else that is to be addressed. They have brought up the issue of the frontage road required by code. I believe that those issues are addressed and it's necessary for access, as well as it's part of code and Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F38] Page 34 of 84 it's part of this project and so there is really nothing that we can change on that. There is alternatives if -- if and when -- a possibility in the future, as this whole area here -- pretty much the whole scene that you see is on the future land use map for mixed use regional. If and when these homes redevelop we could potentially have a stub road at this point. There is -- there is options down the road for how this whole area can redevelop in the future. As far as the parking lot and the lights and -- and having that use, we will be using -- using parking lot lights that only shine on the pavement and not up in the air. This hospital, just for clarification, is going to cater towards women services. Typical hours are, you know, 7:00 o'clock in the morning until about 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon for most of the surgeries and the operations. It's a fairly lightly used hospital use. It's not a trauma hospital, so any sort of big issues or ambulances will go to St. Al's or St. Luke's and not to this hospital. The ambulance entry is really only required because of the level of surgeries that they would do for the outpatient surgeries in the hospital. So, also any sort of -- you have regulations for no sirens and no lights adjacent to certain neighborhoods. So, that's a policy they have to not disturb any sort of residential areas around the area. So, just another clarification. We are -- we are about-- I think it's -- and I can do the measurement, but I think we are over 120 feet from the edge of the property line. This buffer zone is 30 feet, plus 20, plus probably another -- I would say 80 to 100 feet and so the argument that the building is 25 feet from the property line is not an accurate representation of this project. Hopkins: Yeah. I will add some things. This is Stephanie Hopkins with KM Engineering. 9233 West State, Boise. 83714. Just to kind of touch on a couple of the code related things and to kind of add to what Patrick has already said. I think Doug and maybe another neighbor had mentioned that they think that we are kind of sneaking things through. I think Patrick did a good job of, you know, explaining how many times we have met with neighbors and all the conversations we have had with them and staff and -- and other stakeholders in the area. Additionally, any applications that were --that the hospital will have to have a conditional use permit, which will include more detailed plans, more requirements, such as photometric tests and -- and other things that will require that we make sure we are not disturbing them with light and that any noise is mitigated and we comply with design standards. In that application and through the next -- and the application, after that we would have to comply with all the code requirements and -- and the neighbors would have another opportunity to talk to us about their concerns and thoughts, too. I think Doug had also mentioned that he was hoping to see residential in this area and, as Patrick had said, this area on the future land use map is designated mixed use regional zone, which the future land use and that -- that area really does guide development towards higher developments or higher density developments for residential properties. So, really, the only residential designation we would be able to request here is R-15 or the R-40 zone and, in fact, they actually hope that you are going to have more of a commercial and a regional draw to the area. So, that's kind of where we landed with this project through several discussions with the city and, you know, just looking to see what makes sense in the area. So, I think that's all I had to add. Connor: I just want to add just one more thing. There has been some mention of there is already an unimproved medical campus across the street. We are fully aware of that. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F39 Page 35 of 84 In fact, HCA, who is attached to this project, was initially attached to that project and so they decided that their relationship would be better used with us on this side of the street and so from -- from a resident and a user standpoint having multiple medical options nearby is actually beneficial as a consumer. You, potentially, have more access to a variety of doctors and options, potentially at lower cost of surgeries and operations, as well as there is some efficiency and it's smart to have an adjacency of uses of -- of similar medical professions across the street from each other. So, it can be almost like a medical hub. Obviously, the market will dictate what services that each of the hospitals provide, but in many cities all across our region and around the country there are many different medical operators who operate adjacent to each other and this is not to be, you know, to be in competition at all times, but also there is real efficiencies and this can be a real win for the city and for the consumers from a medical standpoint. So, I think that covered most of the questions that were -- that were brought up. McCarvel: Do we have any questions for the applicant? Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: So, I may have missed it. I apologize. The hospital is -- was it five stories? Is that what I heard? Hopkins: Madam Chair, Commissioner Yearsley, it's -- it's a three story hospital. Yearsley: Okay. Hopkins: Four story medical office building with the retail and restaurant on the bottom floor. Yearsley: Okay. So, for a long the residence to the west I know we got a 30 foot wide buffer with trees. Are you planning a fence or a structure of any kind to block the noise? Connor: Commissioner Yearsley, by code we are required to do an eight foot tall masonry wall. Yearsley: Okay. Connor: So that -- and, actually, in talking with the neighbors over this time, they may -- I believe were -- were happy with the 30 foot buffer and -- but they also were saying, you know, we don't want too many trees, because we don't want them to grow too high, because that would obstruct the view even more. So, we want to make sure that we work with the neighbors ensuring that we put in appropriate species of trees there that you don't completely block out their view. So, that's something that we want to make sure that we work with the neighbors as we pick the right species of trees to offer the visual and sound barrier, but -- but not too much. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F40 Page 36 of 84 Yearsley: Okay. Thank you. McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Seeing none, I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing on H-2020-0047. Yearsley: So moved. Seal: Second. McCarvel: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: Let me start out by saying I sympathize with the folks that share this -- the border there to the west. So, I have had a place with a view twice in my existence here in Idaho and I have moved out of both of them, because houses or something else were built behind me. So, I very much sympathize with that. But I mean how do we protect a view? It's not in our purview. It's nothing that anybody owns. We have been through this before with other applications and although I sympathize with them, there is also an understanding when you move in that there is going to be building around here. There is -- there is no stopping it at this point in time. Hopefully we have done a good job in mitigating, you know, the growth that comes here and making sure that we are responsible about it. I mean I know that so far I mean I have just been jotting down -- I mean the hospital was turned and lowered. The fencing was revised. They put in a 30 foot pathway. They have put in an electric gate. ACHD has approved -- I mean the city was the one that asked them to put in the access point. The commercial building has been moved. They lower the houses to one story around. They are working with West Ada School District to bring in a school. I mean I can't think of -- and through the entire process I think that they have tried to be very transparent. I mean we have worked with a lot of developers and builders that I feel are not transparent, they are trying to get away with an absolute minimum and bring things in. I think these guys are being very creative and I think they are trying to add something to the community that I think is sorely needed, not only in services, but in jobs as well. So, having all that done and, again, there are -- there has been a lot of changes. I mean we have seen this thing three times now and all the changes that I have noted here and everything that I see coming through are all because of recommendations that have been made. I don't see anything that's coming in here as, you know, they are trying to sneak in or put it in sideways or whatever the verbiage is around that. So, I mean at some point in time you have to accept that you are going to have neighbors. That's -- I mean it's an unfortunate thing and, again, sympathize with that. But, you know, at least it's not a big box store or you know -- you Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F41 Page 37 of 84 know, an R-40 or something like that coming. I mean a quiet little hospital that's sitting there, I would almost welcome it in. Grove: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Grove. Grove: I would like to echo a lot of what Commissioner Seal just said. One of the things that, you know, we have seen this, like he said, three times and I -- I feel for the residents that are next to this project. One of the things that kind of keeps them back is this -- and I know this is not their intent, but the compromises that have been made are not -- it's not a -- it's not a capitulation to do everything that is asked of the developer, there is a compromise that has to come from both sides, and I feel like throughout this process that that has been the goal of the project is to meet in the middle on a lot of these things and so I -- I applaud, you know, the changes that have been made and some of the things that they have changed even since we saw it last time in the residential piece, I -- I like, you know, what they have done with the -- that four-plex area and making that more of a livable space and the -- I continue to like what they did with the -- I think it was the second time we saw it when they changed the townhome section to have the MEW and creating that sense of space within that area. The whole project has done something that I appreciate, which is creating a sense of space, a sense of community within a project and I think tying that into the medical campus is great with what they have done and I -- I'm in favor of where they have moved the medical office and the consolidation of it into one building. I know that added a story, but it did improve the -- the traffic flow in that area and it provided a -- provided a different aspect that seemed kind of cramped before, but feels like it -- it will really do what they had intended to do from the get go. I think that, you know, where this is next to the state highway is a great location for a hospital facility and especially where, you know, it's going to have the two highways crisscrossing not far from this and it's also going to improve what else is going on in this general area with, you know, bringing jobs out to northwest Meridian where, you know, we need to continue to have places for people to work near where they are living potentially and so we don't want to have solid -- just solid, you know, residential use throughout an area. It -- it doesn't hold up well in my opinion over time. McCarvel: Thank you. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: So, here is my -- you know, one -- one thing I will -- I will note. There seems to be far more comments by the residents of the -- of Serenity Lane there this time than -- than last time, which -- which is interesting and I thought we hit a lot of the concerns last time. But here is what really -- here is what's kind of getting -- getting to me and bothering me. When we first saw it back in September it was a -- it was -- one of the buildings was four story and one was three and, then, when we saw it in October and Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F42 Page 38 of 84 think we went past midnight that night and I hope we don't do it tonight, but when we -- when we saw it then and went over it, they had reduced the height of -- of both buildings and taking them to three stories and that was -- I think that was a big part of -- and we liked everything else they did on the residential set, but I -- but I think that that was a big thing with -- with all the Commissioners, that they -- that they really looked at that and they -- they -- they did what they could to work with the -- with the neighbors there to -- to reduce the -- the height to try and keep a view to a degree. They moved -- you know. And we had asked him that I could -- you know, I'm looking at the motion that we passed last time and it was -- it was a three story medical office building be moved to the east and now that they got that lot they were able to do that, but now they bumped it up to four. So, we approved it unanimously as a Commission at a three story hospital and a three story office building and now they come back today and one of those buildings is now a four story. I don't know how much the hospital has changed. It doesn't look like much. It's -- it has been orient -- reoriented a whole lot from the very first time it was, but it looks like it's pretty similar to when we approved it. But the big one is that we have -- what we approved was a three story, where now they have come back -- kind of feel like a little bait and switch. They have come back now since going to Council with a four story and that's not -- that's not what I wanted last time. I don't know if -- you know, I can't speak for all my fellow Commissioners here, but I do know I'm looking at the motion and -- and what was made there and it was an approval based on both buildings being three stories. So, where -- where I sit -- I'm -- that's what I wanted, that's what I said yea to on the approval and that's what I'm sticking with is -- if they came back four -- or if they came back with the three story on the office building -- and I realize they are trying to put -- they want to put retail and restaurant on the bottom floor. I get what they are doing. But that's -- with all the work that we did and the hours we spent on it, that's what we approved and now we are --we are --we are looking at something different now to approve it and, really, all Council wanted to do was kick it back to us until -- until we had that parcel as part of it. Well, now it's -- the design has changed since what we approved. That's what I'm trying to say. So, I -- personally I can't get behind it. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, can I ask Commissioner Cassinelli a question? Cassinelli: Yeah. You bet. McCarvel: Yeah. Commissioner Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald: So, I get what you are saying. I think the -- if I recall correctly -- and you can correct me if I'm wrong if you are looking at the notes, but there was a request to not only bring that -- that parcel in and try to incorporate it, move the medical building over, but also include retail. That was a direction they gave them --we gave them. So, I think they are going after the direction we gave them or at least that was my understanding of the direction we gave them. Because we would like to see some type of retail restaurant pad, something there that incorporated that into just -- not just an office building. So, I mean moving it, you know, 50 to 80 feet or more, I'm not sure exactly what-- at least a significant amount is much more than the angle you are looking at if you -- if you had it in the middle of that parking lot and so we approved it not knowing exactly if that thing was going to be Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F43 Page 39 of 84 -- it was going to be approved with that new lot or not and it was in the middle of that thing. So, we had moved it over 80 to 100 feet and it's added a story that we asked for. I mean we didn't ask for that specifically, but we asked for retail and restaurants to be on that pad somewhere. So, I don't think they are bait and switching, at least I don't want to put words in their mouth, but I don't think there is a bait and switch going on. I think there is -- they are listening to us and trying to incorporate what we asked them to do. So, that -- at least that's what I took away from it. Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Can I just ask a clarification question to staff? Do we have anything planned to the east of this development on Chinden right now or what the future use map is there -- is still continued -- possible commercial zoning there? Allen: Madam Chair, Commissioners, we do not have anything directly to the east yet. That area is also designated mixed use regional. I believe there is a landscape company there now. Holland: So, it's likely that at some point that would continue with more commercial? Allen: That's correct. Holland: Okay. Thank you. I don't know if you want me to make my comments now. McCarvel: Go right ahead. Holland: I -- this is my first time really looking at this application, because I was out the last couple times you guys heard this. I think, again, I was maybe on maternity leave or elsewhere, but apologies for not being involved in that before. I love -- I really like commercial developments. Obviously, that's my background is economic development. Hospitals bring great jobs. They bring great wages. They bring great amenities that are needed for communities. So, people don't have to drive as far for medical services. If I could have picked where to put one I wouldn't have chosen to put it necessarily next to an R-2 subdivision, so that's -- that's my challenge to looking at it and I know it sounds like you guys have done significant rounds of conversations on how to be as amenable to that neighbor as possible. It's tough. I would -- I think it looks like they have made some good concessions to try and fit in there. The residential component I think it's -- it's a well balanced project. The only heartburn I'm having is still with that Serenity Lane and how that ties in. I wish that there could be another row of homes to transition it, but I know that that would probably still have some heartburn for those folks as well. So, I commend you all for making the recommendations you did. It looks like they have integrated a lot of those components. I would also agree with Commissioner Fitzgerald's thoughts on the -- moving the building to the east. If it's going to integrate with future commercial you are likely going to have other structures that will come in at a height and Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F44] Page 40 of 84 you are kind of transitioning it over to the east side. I think it might be far enough away that the difference between a three story and a four story is not going to make a huge difference where it's located. So, I'm okay with the four story building there for the office, because it adds the -- the potential to have more restaurants, live-work spaces available to the public there, but I certainly commiserate with the Serenity Lane folks and I'm struggling on how to help them, but it's -- it's tough that that neighborhood is located next to this project or that this project is located next to that neighborhood, which ever way you put it. That's my only heartburn. McCarvel: Mr. Yearsley. Yearsley: Yes, Chairman -- or Chairwoman. You know, it's -- I guess for me is the homeowners, you know, to the east--to the west has had a great opportunity for 20 years to live out in peace with -- with nobody around them and, unfortunately, growth has finally caught up to them. As I have been listening tonight I have -- I have tried to determine is the use appropriate for the area. Initially I thought that the hospital was five stories, but three stories I don't see as a big an issue, especially as far away as it is. My one concession is they are going to do an eight foot wall -- masonry wall. I would consider making a motion go ten feet tall if-- if, you know, as an option just to give a little bit more screening for the homeowners if they prefer. I have watched and seen other areas have the same issue with remote residents out in the -- out -- out in the fringes getting caught up and it is tough, I feel for them, but at the end of the day, you know, development has come close up to them. It may not be the development that they want, but I think it is an appropriate use given the location to the highway and the future State Highway 16 and so I think with that -- and, then, also I echo Commissioner Fitzgerald. We asked them for some rough commercial and I like where they put that and added the story there just to give -- and it's far enough away that I don't think it will be as big of an impact as more commercial use on -- closer to them. So, with that I would be in favor of the project. McCarvel: I guess I will go ahead and throw in my two cents. I think with the highways where they are -- I mean they just -- we need to have -- it begs for a regional use and I feel bad that they have -- you know, that their houses were once upon a time next to a much slower moving highway or way less traffic, but the growth has come and I think it's an appropriate use and, yeah, personally I think I would rather have this than a big R-40 development right behind me and that's -- you know, a 15 or a 40 is what could potentially be there. I think this is probably a better transition and saves the view and probably less noise for more of the homes there, because you have got, you know, parking lot for the most part not obstructing several of the home views, so -- and I think the applicant as well as done a lot. I mean a lot of what we have asked in working with neighbors, you know, like I said, it doesn't -- sometimes it's just not everything you want, but I think they have done a good job in providing better access in the future for what's coming. Anybody else? Comments? Motion? Yearsley: Madam Chair, I will make a motion. McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F45] Page 41 of 84 Yearsley: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number H-2020-0047 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 21 st, 2021, with the following modifications: That the block wall to the east be raised to ten foot upon approval of the homeowner's association of that -- that increase at City Council. McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley -- Allen: Madam Chair? McCarvel: -- did you mean west? Yes, Sonya. Allen: Clarification. Yes, I believe he meant west. Yearsley: Yes. Allen: But city code restricts the maximum height of fences in the commercial districts to eight feet in height. Yearsley: Okay. Allen: However, you could -- you could require a two foot berm with an eight foot tall fence on top -- Yearsley: I like that, Sonya. You are awesome. Allen: -- for the same result. And they could also apply for alternative compliance to that section of code that restricts height to eight feet as well. So, either one of those options and you could -- you could allow for either of those options if you would like. Alternative compliance has to be approved by the director, so there is no guarantee in this forum that it would be approved. Yearsley: I like the -- I would like to amend my motion to add a two foot berm with an eight foot block wall to the west. Seal: Madam Chair, quick -- McCarvel: Oh. Could we -- Seal: -- if I could make a point. We -- I mean the whole argument started out we were trying to protect a view. If we put a ten foot fence and they are going to have a view of concrete. Yearsley: Well -- and I -- you know, for me it was -- is based on, you know, if the homeowners association doesn't want that that they can say no. That was my -- my motion is based on approval of the homeowners association. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F46 Page 42 of 84 Seal: Okay. Yearsley: My only concern was the noise from the hospital, trying to help block the noise. Seal: Understood. McCarvel: Okay. Is there a second? Holland: Second the motion of Commissioner Yearsley. McCarvel: We have a motion for approval of H-2020-0047 and a second with modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Cassinelli: Nay. McCarvel: Motion carries. Thank you, Mr. Connor and Stephanie. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE NAY. McCarvel: Next on the agenda is -- I think I will stop real quick. Does anybody -- do we want a five minute break or do you want to plow through? Okay. It's 8:32. So, let's do five minutes. (Recess: 8:32 p.m. to 8:38 p.m.) 8. Public Hearing Continued from January 7, 2021 for Vicenza North Subdivision (H-2020-0108) by Bridgetower, LLC, Located in the Northwest Corner of N. Ten Mile 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. 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. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F47 Page 43 of 84 McCarvel: Okay. So, we will reconvene and start -- next item on the agenda is the public hearing continued from January 7th for Vicenza North Subdivision, H-2020-0108, and we will begin with the staff report. Dodson: Thank you, Madam Chair. Joe Dodson, associate planner. Bear with me through this one. It's a complicated project and I will probably explain a lot. I am going to do my best not to get too far into the weeds and rather let you guys ask those questions if you want them. I hope that you all have reviewed my staff report, as it has a lot more of the detail. Secondly, I do -- I have heard that the applicant is in attendance and I will be running their presentation from home -- or madam clerk. So, now we can get going. As you can see on the images in front of you, this is a project located generally in the northwest corner of McMillan and Ten Mile, but behind -- all the undeveloped land behind the existing Walmart. The property consists of two elements. The MDA, the development agreement modification, consists of approximately 76 acres, while the plat and rezone request consists of 63 and a half acres of land. The rezone request -- or currently it is zoned C-C, C-G, and L-O as -- and R-15 for the remaining piece along the south. North is R-8 and residential zoning. To the west is R-4 and residential zoning. To the south is R-8 and residential zoning is -- or residential uses. Volterra South and, then, also to the south as C-G with the noted Walmart and some other smaller commercial uses. East across Ten Mile is more R-8 zoning and residential uses, some L-O and, then, on the northeast corner of McMillan and Ten Mile is more C-G, but it should be noted that the largest lot in that area was approved for a large 55 and older multi-family community. This application is located in the mixed use community future land use designation as a very small area of medium density residential along this western boundary that is basically part of the existing Bridgetower Subdivision. As noted the applicant is requesting a rezone and it totals 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 37 acres to approximately three and a half. Reducing the L-O zone from approximately ten acres to one and a half and increasing the C-G zone from approximately 13 acres to 16.7 acres. It includes a preliminary-- preliminary plat request that consists of 169 single family residential building lots, detached residential, six commercial building lots and eight common lots on 56.9 -- or 57 acres of land and the development agreement modification as noted as part of the request -- well, they want to amend the existing development agreement for the purpose of developing the site with detached single family and general commercial consistent with their new development plan as seen here with the new zoning exhibit. Excuse me for a second. One correction. The -- this portion here, if you guys can see my pointer, this small -- it's about three and a half acres -- is actually supposed to be C-C and not C-G. The rezone exhibit submitted by the applicant are wrong and I -- one of my conditions of approval is to correct that to include this area as C-C. They would have to revise their other rezoning exhibits as well. And, then, north would be to the right on this image for reference. Moving along. The applicant is proposing to construct the project with six acres of qualified open space, which amounts to the minimum ten percent. The qualified open space consists of the Ten Mile buffer, the collector street buffers, the pathways, multi-use and micro, and other smaller landscaping lots. The applicant is not including any of the open space from the existing development, but is removing some of the existing park area for some lots within this plat. As you can see there is a dotted line on this. That Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F48] Page 44 of 84 is the boundary of the existing park right now where the fence line is. So, they are taking just these -- this little area here. The applicant has submitted a master open space plan for both -- which I should say it shows compliance with the overall required minimums and approved amounts for Volterra North and South, which were previous approvals. Specifically as noted, the existing park is over 13 acres in size and that was constructed and improved in 2017. It was approved to be a minimum of 10.2. So, it is currently larger than what it is intended to be. With this plat the applicant is leaving 11.4 acres of the park untouched and, therefore, exceeding the approved park size. One qualified site amenity is proposed in this development consisting of a segment of multi-use pathway as required by the master pathways plan. It is going to be on the north side of this collector street. Connect all the way to Ten Mile, run along it, cross the local streets, then, connect back into the multi-use pathway existing in Bridgetower. The proposed plan as noted is over 40 acres in size, so that requires at least two amenities. I have recommended a conditional approval that the applicant add an additional amenity within the proposed subdivision or within the shared park. I would like to note that there have been some discussions of potentially adding one in the park in Volterra South. In order to make that work staff needs to see an overall amenity list as well and make sure that there is enough amenities nearby this subdivision for that to work. Otherwise, the amenity will have to be on this side of McMillan and within the subdivision. Access is proposed via new local street connections to an existing -- to an extension of the collector street as noted that goes through the site from the southwest all the way to the northeast and is shown as West Gondola Street. The commercial portion of the site has driveway accesses to this collector street as well, but only on the east side of the street. West Gondola will be extended from the center of the development where existing North San Vito Way and North Vicenza Way intersect. North San Vito Way is this western one and Vincenza Way is this eastern one. Both are shown as collector streets and end right in these points. Gondola will continue east and north and connect to Ten Mile Road. The applicant is proposing to construct all internal local streets of the subdivision as brick pavers, as he did in Bridgetower, and extend the two local street stubs from the Bainbridge Subdivision to the north. Through the traffic impact study the applicant is required to construct dedicated westbound right turn lanes on McMillan Road at both existing collector streets, San Vito Way and Vicenza Way. So, again, those are westbound turn lanes on both of those. The TIS provided by the applicant did not incorporate any of the future commercial -- any of the future commercial traffic, because no end users are currently known and the applicant does not intend on constructing the commercial until at least phase five of the development. Because of this exclusion, ACHD is requiring that an updated TIS be submitted prior to the first application for any use within the commercial portion of the development. Staff fully supports this condition by ACHD. The applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval of 169 detached single family lots, eight common lots, on 41 acres of the 63 acre rezone request and will -- as I noted with six commercial lots. According to the phasing plan, the residential and commercial is constructed over seven phases with residential being in the first four. The applicant is also proposing to fully construct a collector street extension in phase five, which staff does not support, and has recommended it is constructed fully with phase one for added connectivity and overall circulation. The applicant is requesting to modify the existing DA, which is the existing concept plan that is in front of you now, which is, again, as I noted, approximately 76 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F49 Page 45 of 84 acres, because it includes the existing R-15 piece, which is right about here. It should -- it is now being proposed to include detached single family dwellings as discussed. General commercial, a small area of office, and conceptually multi-family along McMillan. The existing DA includes a concept plan for this mixed use area from 2008. There was a modification to the DA last year--or, sorry, we are in 2021 now. In 2019 and it continued -- which they brought forth this concept plan with it and the majority of the existing DA provisions. This existing concept plan received a -- and, again, it's from 2008 when the property received a comp plan map amendment to change the property for medium density residential to mixed use community. The current concept plan depicts a large scale business park consisting of a private hospital or other large employer, large and small scale commercial, and a large area of assisted living facilities with supportive medical offices in the area that is zoned R-15. To put it more bluntly, this was intended to be another Silverstone or El Dorado type of business park. That was the initial intent when this came forth in 2008. It was intended to be an employment center here in northwest Meridian. The applicant believes the existing concept plan depicting this business park and medical campus is no longer obtainable on this site, because of various market factors and the fact that no hospital or large employer has requested approval. Therefore, the applicant is proposing a new concept plan and plat with a significant reduction in the existing commercial in order for the single family residential to be developed. As part of the rezone request the applicant is requesting the overall commercial zoning from approximately--sorry. Is reducing the overall commercial zoning for approximately 63 acres down to approximately 22. This loss of 41 acres equates to approximately 65 percent of the existing commercial zoning out here. The percentage itself is large. I apologize. But just as important is the loss of potential employment. The remaining smaller areas of commercial proposed will likely be, you know, strict commercial with a majority of minimum wage service jobs, instead of the higher wage job seen in larger buildings or those with complex uses that require more expertise. Staff does not believe the remaining 22 acres is enough. Hold on one second. Clearly I'm talking too much because it's telling him stuff. I apologize. Staff is amenable to additional residential on this site as noted in my staff report and as discussed with the applicant, but there is significant loss of commercial and potential employment with the applicant's request. Because of this staff recommended specific revisions to the development plan to retain more commercial zoning and include more integration within the development to be more compliant with the Comprehensive Plan and the mixed use community designation. The main recommended revisions are as follows: Construct Gondola Street further west and deeper into the site, generally located where the existing North Calcutta Street is. Connect the easternmost stub street along the property's north boundary from Bainbridge directly to Gondola Street and still meet the ACHD offset requirements. With the movement of Gondola Street further west you would, then, be able to expand the commercial east of Gondola Street. I would recommend that that new area of commercial as noted on the right-hand side would be C-C or L-O, preferably C-C, and that is what the applicant did show on the left there and in addition I recommended depicting the existing R-15 piece, maintain the existing concept plan of assisted living and other specialized nursing, medical uses as discussed in the 2008 application and, then, shown on the subsequent existing concept plan. To go a little bit more into detail here, the applicant did --well, before-- before I do that I will finish the other part. This new area of commercial Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F50 Page 46 of 84 that I noted would allow buildings to front on Gondola Street and have shared plazas along that street within walking distance of the residential and the parking area between the sets of buildings, rather than parking and, then, Gondola Street and, then, homes. It would offer a better buffer and more integration of the uses and a better transition from the residential to the commercial and, then, subsequently the residential to Ten Mile Road. The main reason for this rezone request is for -- is to reduce the amount of commercial area due to market factors, as stated by the applicant. In line with this if the applicant chooses to zone this area C-C there is potential that the multi-family residential could be approved later on with a conditional use permit, which gives the applicant an opportunity to turn some of this commercial area into residential in the future, while also allowing the city to keep more commercial. Another option in the commercial zone could be vertically integrated as well, which includes residential and commercial in the same structure. Staff recommends -- well, as I noted, the applicant did submit a revised plan prior to the Commission meeting in response to my recommendations, as is shown on the left-hand side. It is not what I envisioned. It's more changed in that than I anticipated. There might be some just miscommunication between what I wrote and what the applicant saw. With that being said, what I tried to draw up on the right, so I apologize for my second grade art skills with computers, was just generally showing how this -- how this could work. What I -- what I -- as simple as it can be is just shift Gondola Street and the residential west and remove some of those lots, but still maintain the same format and the same design, just shift everything west and, then, that new space to the east of Gondola Street is now an area for more commercial. I don't find it necessary to shift the road north as shown in the new concept plan by the -- on the left or to change the internal circulation of the other side. I do appreciate that they showed the connection from the eastern most stub street for Bainbridge as well to help minimize any cut through traffic. But, again, I think that some of the revisions were just overly complicated and maybe not necessary. Obviously, the applicant will have their time to speak as well and maybe give some more insight into why that was changed the way it is. In addition, Commission has the opportunity to recommend that we continue the project to work together and kind of get our concept plans more aligned or recommend denial of the project, stating any number of reasons as known, or recommended approval of the existing plan as proposed. There were 15 pieces of testimony submitted as of about 5.30 this afternoon and this evening. Some are in favor and some are against the project. The main issues presented by the neighbors were as follows: First, of all, how the first neighborhood meeting occurred and its validity -- validity. This was the reason for the original continuance in December. We recommended highly and the applicant listened to us to hold another neighborhood meeting in November -- or in December in order to make sure that everybody had the opportunity to participate and it met code. In addition, there were concerns about the loss of acreage in the park. As noted they are still leaving more than what the required amount is for the park, so there should be no issue there. Concern with the addition of more homes and the increase in traffic. Utilization of the existing amenities and park space with more homes and, then, the lack of supportive commercial. On the second hand I did have other -- other pieces of testimony that -- that there wasn't enough residential and a preference for less commercial. The applicant did receive letters of support noting the overall quality of the existing community and its general upkeep. Those are generally the main comments from the estimate. Overall with my recommended Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F51 Page 47 of 84 revisions and conditions of approval outlined in my staff report, I do recommend approval of the subsequent applications and after that I will stand for questions. You are muted, Madam Chair. McCarvel: Thank you. Any questions for staff? Hearing none, do we have the applicant? Dodson: Should be in person. I will run their presentation. McCarvel: Do we have the applicant there, Commissioner Seal? Okay. Seal: Yes. She's preparing right now. Dodson: Can everybody see my screen? McCarvel: Yes. Dodson: Okay. McCarvel: And so would the applicant state their name and record for the -- name and address for the record and the floor is yours. Layton: All right. Can you hear me? McCarvel: There we can. Yes. Layton: Thank you, Madam Chair Woman and Members of the Commission. I'm Bonnie Layton with NV5 at 690 South Industry Way, Meridian, Idaho. Suite 10. 83642. And I'm here tonight on behalf of our client to represent this project that Joseph has laid out for you. So, just to touch base quickly on the project, it has quite -- quite a history with it and we appreciate the work that we have been able to do with staff and the feedback that we have had from them. We have been working with staff since July on this. We have had two formal pre-application meetings, several conversations in between them and some other meetings to really look at how we can revise the site and -- okay. Thank you. So, what I did just for your reference was put together a bit of history of the site and so what you should see on the screen is this project was originally annexed in 2005 and at that time the project included 312, almost 313 acres and 44.23 acres of that was nonresidential. So, as you can see on the slide the prop -- property boundary is in yellow and, then, the nonresidential zoning is in blue. Joseph, if you can switch to the next slide. Thank you. And, then, in 2008 the previous owner applied for a rezone and a DA modification and so what I have done is tried to illustrate what that request actually was. So, it converted 93 acres of-- of residential from the original application into an additional 73.64 acres of nonresidential and 20 acres into the R-15. That was further broken down into -- and I have it on the slide here -- 37.84 acres of C-C zone, 25.10 acres of C-G zone, 10.7 acres of the L-O zone and 20 acres of the R-15 as I mentioned before. If you could go to the next slide, Joseph, please. So, effectively, what that did is the owner was specifically rezoning this property from primarily residential for the purpose of a hospital and surrounding facilities similar to a hospital facility located at Eagle Road and 1-84. So, this was something that was envisioned at the time and that was why this request was Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F52 Page 48 of 84 brought forward. A revised concept plan was created with that to accommodate a main hospital building and ancillary support buildings. Various zoning designations were requested as well to support those ancillary uses and so -- oh. So, as this next slide identifies, the reason I have referenced in that site plan revision and how these zoning designations came about, it was very specific to this site plan. Again, that is -- that contemplated a hospital site and ancillary uses that would support and be complemented by each other. Let's see. In the C-C zoning there were some specific -- there was some specific language in the intent of the application, as well as in the L-O zoning and the R- 15 zoning and while this plan contemplated the -- the complementary uses to the main building, which would be the hospital, which is -- it's hard to see, but under the C-C designation kind of in the middle of the site, even though those uses were contemplated, the development agreement and the application at the time did leave room for any of the uses proposed would be part of the underlining zone. So, in the R-15 zone, for example, the resident down at the bottom that have underlined, the proposed R-15 residential area will help meet the city's objectives. The area also acts as a transition use for the proposed residential areas to the west and will be developed with uses listed in the city's Uniform Development Code. With that effort, the plan was changed in 2008. Unfortunately, that deal did not happen and the hospital did not locate in -- in this location. So, the plan that was envisioned, although it was a great idea at the time, did not come to fruition. Joseph, you could switch to the next slide. Thank you. So, then, in 2010 with the hospital concept gone away, the user finding another site, a portion of the project was sold --or the property was sold to Walmart. It was 21 .52 acres in the northwest corner of Ten Mile and McMillan. The remainder of the project at the time stayed the same, so -- and I have identified that in -- in the red box there. That was the remaining nonresidential from 2008 and, then, the zone changed to R-15 in 2008. That also stayed the same. The property was, then, purchased by the -- the current owner, our client Bridgetower Investments, in 2011 and the owner -- our owners kept that land as commercial, because they build commercial space. They prefer commercial space. From 2008, though, until now there has been essentially no demand for commercial users. There has been absolutely no demand for well paying employment jobs. There has been some interest in the R-15 zone. However, no senior housing or assisted living developers have expressed any interest in that site. Then in 2019, 1 think it should be noted, that there was another DA modification that supersedes all the other DAs that had come before, I believe there were four, and all of the designations remained for the project. However, all of the other details were stricken from that, leaving it fairly open with the underlying zoning designations. I should also note that during this time our client has widened McMillan Road and Ten Mile Road. The right of way has already been dedicated, so ACHD has the ability to widen the road further and put a stoplight in at San Vito Road. They previously widened it to three lanes across the property frontage and reserved room for a signal. So, what you can see from this -- sorry. back and forth here. So, essentially, what we are doing is we are trying to revise -- revise our plan to revert some of the property back to residential as it was originally annexed and zoned in 2005. With that said, we are still at a net gain of -- Seal: Commissioner Cassinelli needs to go on mute. Cassinelli: Sorry about that. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F53] Page 49 of 84 Layton: Back on here. So, in the -- in the original zoning we are still -- with the rezone -- I apologize. The rezone we will still have a net increase from the original zoning of the site. We are just reverting some of it back -- what we believe to be more appropriately the highest and best use of the land in this area. We have tried to lay it out mindfully with the line -- with the spine street in the purple dashed line being the buffer between the two uses and with our rezone will result -- it will still result in 54.77 total acres of the original project that had been annexed of nonresidential, which equates to 2.3 million square feet of commercial land available. Overall we believe that consistent with the other projects that our owner has done in this area as part of Bridgetower, we are delivering a quality project. We have, as I mentioned, had several meetings with staff. We appreciate their time and their help in developing this plan. Again, we intend to do brick paver roads, consistent with the other-- other portions and subdivisions that we have done in the area. It's our intent to have the same quality of builders continue on. This is really a continuation of the subdivision to the west. With that I think I have touched on everything and I know it's late for everyone, but I can stand for any questions that you may have. McCarvel: Any questions for the applicant? Cassinelli: Madam Chair, this is Commissioner Cassinelli? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: First of all, sorry about the interruption there. I didn't realize I wasn't muted and had a bit of an interruption. And, Bonnie, may have touched on it, but what is -- what's your plan for the -- I guess it's the southwest corner? And if you touched on that my apologies. Layton: Commissioner Cassinelli, the southwest corner -- do you mean the R-15 zoning district -- zoning designation? Cassinelli: No. I'm sorry. Isn't that -- because isn't that on the southwest corner of the intersection there isn't that part of your property? Is that part of it as well? Do you own that? Layton: Yes. That is correct. We -- our client does own the southwest corner of Ten Mile and McMillan. That zoning designation -- we are not requesting that as -- as a change as part of this application. In the previous slides I was trying to illustrate what the original nonresidential zoning area was of the overall property that was annexed. That corner is vacant and has sat vacant. Our owner has talked to a couple of different commercial users, but felt that they weren't the appropriate type for the area. One was a strip -- a strip retail type user, like a Dollar Store type tenant and there was a -- I believe one fast food operator that had looked at the area and not the --to staff's point, not the high paying jobs that they were looking for. Really, though, overall with the project -- and, Joseph, if you could, please, flip back to a couple of slides a little bit -- one more I think. Really, when you look at this, you know, the -- what was contemplated in this -- or this rezone Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F54 Page 50 of 84 that happened in 2008 was a pretty ambitious development that really centered around the hospital locating on this site and that just did not come to fruition and aside from the northwest corner of the intersection being sold off to Walmart and developed, the rest of the project has sat empty. It's, you know, planned this way and our--our client has strong relationships with a number of high tech companies looking in the area. This is not a site that they are interested in. We believe the highest and best use is to rezone some of this -- not all of it, but some of it back to residential. Joseph, if you could flip ahead one more slide. Another slide. Thank you. And, really, what we would be doing is -- you know, obviously, we have got residential to the north. We have residential to the west. If we look along the corridor of Ten Mile you have got Costco up there along Chinden. We are still retaining some of the commercial along Ten Mile. We think that's appropriate for some retail users and I believe in your packet there are some concepts of what that retail would look like. But until -- until we have a user the concept plan for the commercial was just that, a concept. And, then, using the R-15 as zoning designation, which would comply with the land use code. Dodson: Madam Chair? Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yes. Dodson: Sorry. I was hoping to clarify Commissioner Cassinelli's question. I wasn't sure if he was referring to this southwest corner of McMillan and Ten Mile or the -- the C-C zoned piece that's shown as neighborhood commercial in this slide. McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli? Cassinelli: I was curious about it, because in some -- in some of the illustrations there that southwest corner of McMillan and Ten Mile was -- was brought into that and I -- it's -- I understand it's not part of this development, but I didn't know if they had an overall plan to tie that, because they do own -- this is an extension of the development to the south, so I didn't know if they had a -- kind of a master plan that tied in that corner as well, even though that's not part of the application we are looking at. So, I was just kind of curious on that, because some of the slides there showed that it tied that in with some of the -- some of the renderings. So, I was just curious if they had -- if that was -- if they had plans to tie that in to all that, if that makes sense. But I realized that's -- that's not part of the -- it's not really part of the discussion tonight, I just didn't know if they had some plans to tie that in eventually and what that might look like. Dodson: Understood. Thank you for clarifying, sir. Cassinelli: Thank you. Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F55 Page 51 of 84 Holland: Bonnie, I'm -- I'm curious on what efforts were made to try and market the property the way that it was established originally in the DA. I'm certainly not opposed to seeing, you know, another element of residential, but I really like the concept that was in the DA, because I think the one challenge we have in northwest Meridian is there is a lot of retail potential, but there is not a lot of those higher paying office jobs and there is not a lot of great places to put office projects or some of those higher employment centers and so my concern if we are changing this all back to residential as its proposed here, we are going to limit the type of users that come in in the future to retail and maybe some office or daycare centers or senior living complexes or have someone come back and say we want to see this be multi-family. But I'm just curious on what some of the marketing efforts were to try and find another anchor tenant besides the hospital. Layton: Madam Chair and Commissioner Holland, thank you for that question. Our clients -- our clients are owners of multiple high tech professional campuses that encompass millions of square feet and have very strong relationships -- Dodson: We can barely hear you, Bonnie. Just to let you know. Layton: Can you hear me now? Dodson: Yes. Layton: Thank you. Our owners of this property are owners of multiple high tech professional campuses that encompass millions of square feet. They have strong relationships with various tenants that they lease to. These tenants include folks like Oracle, Intel, and Google and I can't speak specifically to some of those conversations, but in the conversations with folks and users like that that are their clients and their tenants and looking at the valley, I know that our owners also own another 80 acres out on Ten Mile and 1-84 and so when they have -- with their close personal relationships with these folks brought them out, this location is not where they are interested in locating. They have tried to shop this and work with people that they know to get this developed and it's just not a location where folks want to be. Does that answer your question, Commissioner Holland? Holland: It does. I still have the same concerns about rezoning it back to residential and, you know, the way that the site plan is presented it doesn't look like there is a lot of additional amenities that really make it that exciting of a new residential component to me either. It feels like it could be using something that would give it a little bit more flair to match Meridian's, you know, desire to be a premier community. It just feels like we have a lot of R-4 and I know I was reading the COMPASS report and, you know, I'm making these comments now, because I -- it's -- it's good to have this conversation, but reading the COMPASS report the jobs-to-housing ratio in this area is .3 and a good jobs-to- housing balance is a ratio between one and 1.5. So, I do have concerns that we have 2,860 homes already within a mile of the site, but only a thousand jobs within a mile and most of those jobs are related to retail uses, not high employment needs. So, that--that's one of my biggest concerns and I -- I would be interested to know what the Economic Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F56] Page 52 of 84 Development or Community Development Department thought about the economic development possibilities of this site as well. Dodson: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Sure. Go ahead, Joe. Dodson: I don't know if that was a question for me or not. The -- the economic development portion of Community Development does have major concerns with this loss of commercial, yes. I'm not a long range planner. I will note that as well. But with discussions with our long range planning team and it's been ongoing with multiple projects, there -- there is overall seams in the city that are very worrisome when it comes to applications just like this with -- with general loss of commercial. There is -- there is two facets to this. There is what we are seeing now, the existing zoning, where over the last seven, eight years we have -- we are -- there is a trend of losing C-G specifically, but also just all of the commercial zonings, except for maybe the C-N and C-C district. But both C-G and I-L have been consistently dropping and as a ratio of, you know, per one hundred acres of residential they are both lower than 20 per hundred, so -- and it's been consistently dropping over the last seven years, which is concerning, obviously, for that tax base that the city wants and needs to thrive. Second to that is the -- looking ahead in a very macro view, 75 percent of the remaining land to be annexed in the City of Meridian is residential, according to the future land use map. So, 75 percent of all this remaining land is very likely to be residential and, then, of the remaining 25 percent, a lot of that is mixed use, which, again, portions of the mixed use will very likely be residential as well. So, then, you have a very high chance that the remaining commercial zoning is probably going to be less than 15 percent of the remaining land. So, a lot of this land that we are rezoning we are not going to be able to get back for a very long time. I have heard multiple times from developers that the redevelopment cycle of scraping a building and starting over is somewhere in the 30 year range. So, if we have -- when we get to homes that's even longer. But that's for commercial. So, when we -- we are talking about losing this kind of commercial zoning, we are not just picking on this applicant and it's not just with this site, this is something that we are trying to become more and more aware of and bring up with every application that proposes these types of things in order to help plan for the future and not just the housing market demand that we have right now. So, I -- the Community Development Department seconds your concerns, Commissioner Holland. Holland: Thank you. I appreciate that, Joe. Dodson: You are welcome. McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant? Grove: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Grove. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F57 Page 53 of 84 Grove: Yeah. I had a question that was brought up in a few of the public testimony pieces regarding amenities or-- and the perception of a lack of amenities or the use of amenities not being adequate for the combined uses of the different subdivisions. Can you address that concern? Layton: What we have done is we have looked at this -- this will all be managed under the same HOA and our owner has worked with the residents to address their concerns to make sure that there are adequate amenities. There was concern about the size of the pool, the existing pool not being large enough. Our owner has gone ahead and stated that he would be building an additional pool to that. We believe that the rest of the amenities throughout the project are in compliance and meet the -- meet the city's requirements. But there was some back and forth between the residents of the existing -- of the existing homes and so we worked through that with them to make sure that we addressed their concerns. Grove: Thanks. Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Did that answer your question, Commissioner Grove? Grove: For now I guess. We will -- McCarvel: Okay. Grove: -- see what the public comment is and I'm guessing there is going to be some -- some feedback on -- on that that we will come back to this again. McCarvel: Okay. Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: So, as a former Parks Commissioner, the loss of acreage of the -- the park really concerns me, especially with the size of the lots and the homes that are going to be put on there with -- with no really amenities. I think my -- my concern is -- I know overall for the site it's -- it meets the minimums, but given what we are asking, you know, to get rid of commercial and add more, in my opinion, high density housing, I have really concerns about limiting the --you know, cutting down the open space for--for parks. Can you -- can you talk to that? McCarvel: The floor is yours, Bonnie. Layton: What we did actually when the --when the subdivision to the west was built there was a line in the field that made sense to overseed that park, so it wasn't really part of the original of the subdivision to the west, but for the sake of maintenance and not being a weed patch, the owner went ahead and overseeded that and maintained that just -- just to keep that area clean. So, while that area shifts a little bit it really doesn't -- it's -- it's not necessarily a loss, it's just a reconfiguration of the park, but to make sure that both -- the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F58 Page 54 of 84 community to the -- to the west and, then, this new plat that we are proposing, that all of that open space meets the requirements, if that makes sense. Yearsley: Yeah. McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you, Bonnie. We will have -- we will have you come back up after the public testimony. Layton: All right. Thank you. McCarvel: Adrienne, do we have people signed up to testify? Weatherly: Madam Chair. So, we have a situation where we did have two people that were in-house originally, Janice and Raymond Borchard. They both signed up to testify and, then, they subsequently left, but said they would be on Zoom. I'm thinking it's Mike Borchard here, so I'm going to transfer them over first to see if that's -- and I want to give them precedence. McCarvel: Okay. Mr. Borchard, if you would like to unmute your mic and give your name and address for the record and the floor is yours. Borchard: Full name Raymond Michael Borchard. Address 5466 North Botticelli Avenue. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Borchard: Okay. Begin? We, along with a few of the other existing homeowners, are very very concerned about the intrusion into what has been used as the park area for quite a few years and with the -- as expressed by some of your Commissioners, the design of the very small lots of 50 by 110, the -- kind of a row housing effect, the long straight line streets and -- and no meandering curve, so that it's just -- it's almost like an apartment complex and the lack of any playing area for young children, we have a statement from Bonnie Layton that -- to address some concerns of overcrowding and the pool right now, that the developer is toying with the idea of putting in a pool. We have seen no substance to that conversation. We have no proposed location. Yeah. I contacted Matt Munger, both by phone, leaving a message and also a written letter requesting information about the impact on the park area and the lot placement. Got no response at all. So, we are just--we have got questions and they are not being answered. When I look at the -- the 109 lots, I ask where are people going to park? Okay. You got a 50 foot opening. If you put in a cut for a two car garage what's left? So, we have no -- a play area for children. Are they going to be playing in the street that's already been packed with some vehicles trying to park there? There are a lot of questions here. The -- the layout that John Dodson -- Joe Dotson, excuse me, proposed really looked a lot nicer in terms of the street layout and getting away from the row housing effect that I see in this proposed plat map. Then one other concern is to minimize the height to one story housing on the westerly edge where the houses come up to the existing development, so that the view shed that does exist can be preserved somewhat. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F59 Page 55 of 84 McCarvel: Thank you. Weatherly: Madam Chair, next is Tammy Paxman. Tammy, one moment. McCarvel: Thank you. Hi, Tammy. If you would state your name and address for the record and the floor is yours. Paxman: I'm Tammy Paxman. I live at 3646 West Balducci Street in Meridian. 83646. And I just wanted to comment that I had been at other community meetings where our neighborhood was together and we asked about more park spaces and about -- the pool was addressed and things like the geese being a problem, things like that, and we had no response at all from the property owners, the development people. So, the things that Bonnie was saying I have seen none of that and my neighbors have -- my neighbors on my particular street were at that meeting, too, and they have seen none of that where there has been nothing -- when no one's talked to us about really going to do something to make more play areas or more grass or more -- a bigger pool. The pool is already very crowded and there is one little basketball thing. It's just -- I mean our neighborhood is a large neighborhood and to crowd in more homes without more facilities and to say they are talking to us when they aren't talking to us, they are not talking to all of us if she thinks they are talking to us. That's all. Thank you for listening. McCarvel: Thank you, Tammy. Weatherly: Madam Chair, next is Patricia Buckholtz. Patricia, one moment. McCarvel: Patricia, if you would like to unmute, the floor is -- and give your name and address for the record, the floor is yours. Oh, did we lose -- did we lose Patricia? Weatherly: Madam Chair, I'm looking for her. Fitzgerald: She shows back up in the early attendees side. Weatherly: Commissioner Fitzgerald, do you see her? I can't see her. Oh, there she is. Fitzgerald: Yeah. Weatherly: Sorry. One moment, Patricia. Thanks, you guys. I'm scrolling up and down and could not see her. Fitzgerald: Patricia, you're on mute still, but we can see you. Buckholtz: Thank you for your time tonight and thank you for bringing me back in. I want to reiterate what some of the other residents have stated. There has not been any communication as far as the process has gone, as far as the meetings and everything. Bonnie literally filed a notice saying that the first neighborhood meeting was attended Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F60 Page 56 of 84 when nobody was able to actually attend and she canceled it and said that she was going to reset it and never did and, then, we received a city notice. So, there has been a lot of errors in the -- when the processes come down the line to begin with as far as the last time that the meeting was set for -- to be before you guys there was no proper public notice posted. We did receive, however, mailers from the city, which we did not receive this time, but a public notice was posted out on the one. So, I don't know exactly what city process is required to do. It's my understanding that public notice is required. As far as what Bonnie stated about communication, we have expressed concerns about the lack of our public area being reduced. The density of the population for what's used at the pool. We knew that this was going to be developed, but it was our understanding that this development was going to stay consistent with what we had. We purchased half million dollar homes -- in excess of a half million dollar homes with the idea that that development was going to be in continuation with what our current flow and vibe was. We never purchased this with the idea that we were going to be inundated with apartments behind us or row housing, patio homes, tiny homes, whatever you want to call them and so it's kind of disheartening to know that everything is being so misrepresented as far as what's being communicated to us, what was presented to us when we were purchasing this home. Some people paid additional money to ensure that that park stayed open and not reduced and I just would really like to hope that you guys are taking a step back and saying what -- how would I feel if this was my home. We understand that Idaho was going to grow and develop and this is actually the second time that I have moved to Idaho. I have lived here for 11 years between '94 and 2005 and recently moved back in 2018. 1 also understand that the density of this traffic is also based on a report that was generated in 2018 that has no bearing on today's population. The -- the growth that has incurred in the Meridian location between 2018 and today is 20 times fold. So, I don't think a traffic report -- and to talk about the density is accurate. I think when you stop and look at how you have travel down Meridian Road you are going to build that here on Ten Mile. You are going to build an hour commute -- it's already an hour commute. I had to travel from the intersection of Highway 16 -- is it Highway 16 and Chinden and go into downtown Boise and it took me over an hour and I had -- I thought I had appropriately timed myself to make that appointment and it took over an hour. Every place that you look on every street in Meridian currently is being developed to some level. There is so much growth and density going on in Idaho and I understand the shortage of homes and I understand the need for housing. People aren't moving here to be back in San Diego or San Francisco or these other dense areas where literally it takes an hour to travel seven miles on the freeway and in Meridian in Idaho you can't even get to the freeway. So, I just think as a whole the density that they are putting in this four mile block between Ten Mile and Black Cat and McMillan and Chinden is just insane. It's absolutely over densified. You are still planning to put into different apartment buildings and from tonight -- McCarvel: Patricia, if you could wrap up your thoughts. You have gone over the three minutes. Buckholtz: Yes. I'm sorry. Just one second. There is two more developments -- apartment complexes that are going to be put in this area. I think -- I just think the density Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F61 Page 57 of 84 is just too much and thank you for your time. McCarvel: Thank you. Weatherly: Madam Chair, next is Carrie. Carrie, one moment. McCarvel: Okay. Carrie, if you would like to unmute your mic and give your name and address for the record, the floor is yours. Zummersch: Yes. Okay. So, I'm Carrie Zummersch. I live at 3924 West Wapoot Street. And just to tag on to what everybody has said, I wasn't even invited to the neighborhood meeting that Bonnie had discussed. I found out for one specific kind of meeting from Joseph Dodson that I was out of range. I'm in the first loop right across from that basketball court. Very close to the pool house. So, I just want to -- want to express that I was not invited to any kind of community meeting to discuss this by Bridgetower West, nor MGM Management Company, and I just wanted to confirm a couple of things for later. Seeing Joseph's two maps and, then, Bonnie's map that we are looking at right now, I just want to confirm that this is the current proposal or is it the line drawing on Joseph's, which is much different. That one on the left. So, I think we should just confirm that, because the lot sizes look to be a lot different. The residential density seems to be a lot different. I think when we have a final proposal it would be very important to take a look at the actual comparative lot sizes and the number of units with the larger lots and kind of like the range of the current -- the current lots on the current homes as compared to this new development. It seems to be quite different. But I think we should take a look at ratio and also numbers. I love everybody else's concerns. Let's see. Regarding the pool. Yes, I agree. I -- per Bonnie's concern that -- Bonnie's -- how do you say -- contention or claim that they worked through the concerns and have promised to build another pool, there is nothing -- there is no communication, there is no -- it's not in this plan. That sort of thing needs to be in writing. I know a lot of my neighbors that have lived here longer have expected a lot of things and I'm wondering if it's from this kind of communication potentially that says one thing or hints at something, but doesn't actually do it or I don't know that, I'm relatively new from 2018. 1 know that you are still interested in -- you know, very concerned about the commercial element here as a group and that's great. Unfortunately, I just can only focus on the residential and I think that was about it. Thank you very much. McCarvel: Thank you, Carrie. And I think, you know, we are definitely hearing a trend that the people testifying this evening are talking about some frustration with communication with the developer and the second meeting was not held. Definitely frustration with the amount of open space and the pool and the area and the lack of the commercial. So, if we have new comments that would be great. So, if you still wish -- Zummersch: I'm not-- I don't have any new, but I wasn't even invited to your first meeting. I'm just saying that -- like others were invited to a meeting, I had received zero invite -- invite to meetings and I was in communication with Joseph Dodson trying to figure out if I would be and I never received anything for one of those and I can't technically tell you Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F62 Page 58 of 84 the term of the meeting or what the name of it was, I was considered out of range and I live across from the basketball court. McCarvel: Yeah. Thank you, Carrie. Zummersch: Yeah. Thank you. McCarvel: So, Adrienne, do we have other people wishing to testify? Weatherly: Madam Chair, next is Chris Williams. One moment. McCarvel: Hi, Chris. If you would like to unmute your mic and give your name and address for the record, the floor is yours. Williams: Yes. Good evening. Can you guys hear me? McCarvel: Yes. Williams: Chris Williams. 4476 North Girasolo Avenue. 83646. A couple things I just wanted to clear up as I have been hearing a little bit there -- not that I think that the communication was done very well, if I'm being honest, but there was a second meeting that I did attend. Neighborhood meeting. I was not invited to it, much like everyone else. I saw it on social media and did dive in. One of the things, though, that Bonnie mentioned earlier when she was speaking is that, you know, the -- they relayed a lot of the neighborhood concerns. I was part of that meeting as I said and, you know, talked about those concerns. The only thing from her e-mail as of December 31 st that she e-mailed us that was in attendance in that meeting was the developer says that they would consider a second pool and that was it. All the other concerns about greenspace, you know, additional kids playgrounds, et cetera, was not addressed. They said that they did address with the developer the small lot sizes, the 50 foot lot sizes, but that's it. They addressed -- you know, spoke to the developer. We didn't hear anything else on that. So, yeah, I would like to echo that the communication has been poor. On that, though, a couple other things that a Commissioner-- I believe it was Holland said -- I agree with the fact of losing our commercial space. I do. You know, it's unfortunate there, you know, hasn't been much interest in there. I think as time goes on hopefully there will be, maybe if they continue to market it a little bit better. If something does have to go into there, though, and if it's not going to stay commercial, you know, at least the staff concept that we are looking at on the screen on the left here, a little bit better. Definitely way better, will say, than what they are proposing. To echo -- again, small lot sizes, 50 foot lot sizes, row housing, traffic with all the extra cars. That just doesn't make sense. Again, with the -- you know, I understand the developer as far as the Bridgetower West communities, that the developer did do amenities, but they have done very minimal amenities in that and with such a large community it would be nice to have more amenities if they want to add more homes. From there everything else has already been discussed. I'm not going to go into that. But, definitely, would highly suggest that this application be recommended for denial. Maybe go back, redo, hold some neighborhood meetings and figure out a way to maybe expand the invite list than just a small little area. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F63 Page 59 of 84 McCarvel: Okay. Thank you, Chris. Williams: Thank you. Dodson: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yes, Joe. Dodson: I apologize. I wanted to wait until everybody was -- all the public was done, but this has come up a few times and I just want to clarify for the public's benefit and ours that the -- on the screen right now -- if you don't mind, Madam Chair. McCarvel: Yeah. Go ahead. Thanks, Joe. Dodson: The screen right now -- the plan on the left is not mine. That is not a staff plan. That is from the applicant in response to my recommended changes. The one on the right is a very poor rendering that I came up with of what I was -- more in line with what I was proposing as the changes. The -- how do I put this? The inclusion of the 55 foot wide lots -- I mean 5,500 square foot lots are not that small in general and, then, the inclusion of the other lots -- I guess I will show the other open space image. These -- the change in lot sizes were done because of staff's recommendation. The applicant originally wanted to have all of these -- the, you know, 7,000 or more, but because of the future land use designation, mixed use community, you know, we want transitional lot sizes. We don't want two -- you know, 2,500 square foot homes abutting C-G. It's usually not a good -- good mix and there is not a transition and there is no shared space between those types of uses. So, that -- that is not on the applicant's fault there, that is staff. Staff wants that and that meets a lot of Comprehensive Plan policies. Other than that, the -- the park portion that keeps coming up -- and, again, I'm not speaking on behalf of the applicant. This is just Planning's perspective of what can and cannot occur here. The park -- the existing park, whether -- whatever is seen visually now is more than what's supposed to be there. So, it can be reduced to 10.2 acres at anytime by the applicant regardless of any additional development going on over here, because that is what was originally approved. So, the fact that the applicant is only requesting to take 1.6 of the 13 acres out and keep 11.4, which is -- again, is a whole acre more than what should be there -- is a blessing and do understand the concerns regarding the amenities and I noted that in my staff report there needs to be some more thoughtful explanation of that and inclusion of additional amenities, either within this plat and/or in the shared park, but wanted to clarify some of those points as they keep coming up and make sure that residents understand that the plan on the left is not mine, I didn't draw that, but the plan on the right is more in line with what we were referring to and the transition of lot sizes is a staff recommendation for the past six months and not the applicant. McCarvel: Thanks, Joe. Yeah. I think as the Commission we are probably very ready to discuss, you know, the open space in the area and the commercial uses and the layout, you know, the differences here. So -- and it looks like we have several more people who would like to add their comments. So, if we have new ideas it would be great. I think we Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F64 Page 60 of 84 are getting to a point if we are going to -- if the same comments that are coming. I think we understand the comments that have already been brought up. So, if you have something new I will turn it back to the clerk. Weatherly? Madam Chair, next is Dan Buffum -- Buff ham. One moment. Buff ham: Hi. Can you hear me? McCarvel: Yes. Please state your name and address for the record and the floor is yours. Buff ham: Thank you very much. My name is Dan Buffam. I live at 3554 West Balducci Street, which is actually the south side of the northern of where this development -- or the west side -- or the opposite side of where this development is being put. I have several concerns. One I want to start with -- I recently moved here approximately was -- in July 2019. The reasons I chose this space is I'm a CEO of a global software consulting firm. I have offices all over the world and one of them we just announced in 2021 that we are going to be opening in the Boise-Meridian area. We have to choose Boise, because when you say the word Boise, because it's known, you know, as a more sense area. Nobody knows where Meridian is. But I chose this area for two purposes -- well, three -- many purposes, actually. One, there was -- we were told that it was going to be, you know, quote, unquote, the next Eagle. Everybody told us this. It wasn't just coming from my -- my salesperson, it was coming from everything I read on Facebook, everything I read from the management, the developer. I did a lot of research on this area. This specific area I saw that it was going to be built for commercial purposes and -- which is great for somebody like me who wants to be within a one mile working area of his office and I don't have to commute all the way down to Boise or even to those up by the freeway or anything like that. But there is nothing that exists for -- you know, or very few things are not -- that I find appealing, you know, for a 75 to one hundred employed company full of consultants, that I could rent here or -- you know. Or lease. It's not going to happen. If this doesn't happen I don't see where it could go. The other part is is right across the street -- if you guys are going to rezone this -- this smaller 50 to 110 space, which, you know, to me it -- and I agree with all of my neighbors on every single point. I won't reiterate them and waste your time on that. But if you make it that dense and, then, you take that R-15 over here and you turn that, because what's going to stop them saying, oh, well, you know, we are not getting any bites on the senior living either, so we are going to turn those into apartments. You just killed this entire area and you made it one giant living space, which is cool, but there is no workspace. There is no community. There is no money coming in here, because there is no place to work and doing something like that would destroy it. I think--you know, I agree with, you know, everything that everybody said. Commissioner Grove said that, you know, he was curious about, you know, the HOA. None of that. I'm not going to reiterate it, but it hasn't happened. And to put these 2,000 square foot homes and a house that, you know, I paid a half a million dollars for that's now appreciated up to a hundred -- or 650,000 dollars and you are going to go put a smaller home in there, you are -- there is no place to, you know, grow for these guys. I'm older. My fiancee. We -- our kids are grown. Everything's like that. I don't have it, but I see kids out here, they are playing in the streets. That's cool. But we are having to put signs everywhere. There is Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F65 Page 61 of 84 not enough places for people to go do things. They need -- we need more amenities. We need more open spaces. We need green space. We need commercial space. We need businesses. We don't need a thousand more homes or 169 more homes that they are going to take the R-15 and two years from now -- well, that didn't work out. We are going to rezone that, too. I don't think it's right. I -- that's -- that's pretty much it. I -- you know, I think -- you know, we already have a lot of traffic. You know, my house -- I don't -- you can't really see it on this plot map, but my house is the keystone map on the corner of Vicenza and McMillan. It's the largest lot on this side of the fence or it was until they built the new -- new stuff. I already see all night long trucks coming out of Walmart. Invested 6,000 dollars in trees in my backyard to try-- hopefully they will grow big enough and fast enough that I won't have to see these trucks literally driving down my residential street. If you guys keep doing stuff like this, it's just going to make it more dense, more loud, more annoying and I will move it, you know, and that's not why I moved. I didn't come here to--you know, to pick up and go someplace else, because somebody changed their mind, because somebody is not buying their property based on their plan from whatever. Doesn't work that way. Thank you for your time. Appreciate you listening to me and that's all I got to say. McCarvel: Thank you, Mr. Buffham. Who do we have next, Adrienne? Weatherly: Madam Chair, next is Christian Jensen. Christian, one moment. Jensen: Good evening. Can you hear me? McCarvel: Yes. Please state your name and address for the record and the floor is yours. Jensen: Hi. Christian Jensen. I'm at 3833 West Daphne Street. I'm one of the -- the loops that would be -- that would abut the R-15 area that is dedicated. So, I appreciate all the comments my neighbors made and I would reiterate them. My house is one of the smaller houses in the neighborhood and my lot is 9,700 square feet. So, to go to 5,500 square feet, with all due respect to Joe Dodson, I don't agree with and I think that that would be a radical departure from the quality of our neighborhood. But I -- my real comments are asking for two bits of clarity. One, as I looked at the R-15 notes in -- on your website, that is -- as I understood those -- and I'm looking for clarification. That's not an apartment building, those are 2,500 square foot or larger and not more than 40 feet tall and so could I get some clarity on --on what that is? And I know we are not necessarily questioning that piece. And, then, secondly, there is -- at the top of the R-15 space is an area called neighborhood commercial I believe it was designated as and I'm not familiar with what that is and what would we expect there. That would seem a good place for greenspace, another pool, kids amenities, etcetera. But what exactly would neighborhood commercial be? Those are my questions. Thank you. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Weatherly: Madam Chair, next we have Curtis Dabb. Curtis, one moment. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F66 Page 62 of 84 McCarvel: Curtis, if you would like to unmute your mic and give your name and address for the record, the floor is yours. Dabb: Thanks. My name is Curtis Dabb. I'm at 4335 West Philomena Drive, Meridian. will be very brief. I am extremely concerned, as well as my wife, of having these smaller lots, specifically around the density and the population in our schools. We have three children that are currently attending Pleasantview Elementary, which was brand new this past year and my understanding is that they are already at capacity and -- or very near. I know at Ponderosa previously they were very much over capacity and we were excited about the new school, but as we continue to grow in this area, just shoving more and more -- whether it's apartment complexes or high density home areas, we are just very concerned about the strain that that's putting on already highly populated classroom sizes and, essentially, over -- reaching over capacity in our schools. So -- McCarvel: Okay. Thank you, Curtis. Dabb: Thank you. Weatherly: Madam Chair, next we have John Wycoff. John, one moment. McCarvel: Okay. John, if you would like to unmute your mic and give your name and address for the record, the floor is yours. John, if you are talking we are not hearing you. You need to unmute on your side. There you go. Then can give your name and address for the record. Mr. Wycoff, I'm sorry, we are still not hearing you. I know you are unmuted, but I wonder if your microphone is working. Oh. There we go. Mr. Wycoff, we are not hearing you. Yep. Okay. Sorry. Weatherly: Madam Chair, next we have Brian Lenz. Brian, one moment. McCarvel: Mr. Lenz, if you would like to unmute your mic -- there we go. And give your name and address for the record. Lenz: Brian Lenz. 5362 North Schio Way. I'm kind of learning on the fly a little bit tonight, because I wasn't privy to some of the previous meetings either, but I would just like to echo some of the sentiments of the previous neighbors. Largely agree with them. One extra thing I wanted to add about the -- the green space, the park. A lot of the space that's being encroached upon is the usable space of the park. Much of the park is hilly and sloped down to the pond. The area up there is where, you know, we go to play whiffle ball and my son will hit golf balls around where it's actually flat and that's what will be encroached upon. So, that's a consideration anyway, that like, yes, it's acreage and understand they can claim it, but it would be unfortunate that it is the most usable space that would be lost. I'm also a little bit concerned about drainage and runoff and the impacts that the new houses might have on that. The area is already very marshy. I don't know if it's due to overwatering or what it is, but that's something I would definitely want people to take a look at. The -- another concern is the traffic volume and just safety on San Vito. I would be curious about the --what types of intersections they are going to put Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F67 Page 63 of 84 in, particularly with Gondola. A light at McMillan would definitely help, but there is already a lot of speeding on that road and the volume is going to be over doubling. So, I -- that's a concern that I would want to make sure is considered and mitigated. And, then, just the general density and the character of the neighborhood is -- it matters; right? This is an extension of our current neighborhood and the HOA and I feel like this doesn't really fit what's proposed due to the density and the rural housing. The lack of amenities, like the lack of green space and parks and just overall busyness and traffic. So, that is my thoughts. Thank you for your time. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Weatherly: Madam Chair, next we have Richard and Chris Boyle. One moment. McCarvel: Richard and Chris, the floor is yours. It looks like you are unmuted, but if you are speaking we can't hear you. Boyle: Thank you. My name is Richard Boyle. We are 5430 North Botticelli Avenue. 83646. We would backup or do backup to what is the park currently. One of the -- one of the issues I have with reducing the size of the park -- when we purchased our block that we have built our custom home on, we paid an extra considerable amount in the neighborhood, probably 20,000 additional, to be backed up to the park area, which now they are trying to reduce in size. So, a little -- a little unhappy that that happened or that they are considering reducing it. As the gentlemen prior to me had said, it's really the only area that I see anybody use in the park is the corner that they are considering taking out. I would be -- yeah, plus the trees and -- and the fact that we have -- as homeowners we have all paid to maintain the whole park, not less one acre of it, however they want to slice it up. We do approve of the residential area behind us versus commercial. I would far rather have residential and assume that we would have residential behind us. That was what we were told, which is neither here nor there. The concern, as everyone else, is the density of it. I would like to see the larger block sizes, so the home values are maintained and, then, the rest of it has been covered pretty much by everybody else. will jump on the wagon that there has been very little communication, other than one e- mail and one meeting -- well, a meeting that went array and a second meeting and a single e-mail and no -- no real idea of where this pool might end up being. It's got to service an awful lot of homes and there is very little land left in this development to add a pool outside of this park. So, I would be very curious where they plan on adding this -- this pool in this extended area for open areas. C.Boyle: And we are very much opposed to commercial backing up to our home, because that's not what we purchased here for. Boyle: That is all I have. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Boyle: Thank you. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F68 Page 64 of 84 Weatherly: Madam Chair, next we have Jeff Deforest. Jeff, one moment. Deforest: Hello. Can you hear me? McCarvel: Yes. If you would like to give your name and address for the record, the floor is yours. Deforest: Perfect. Jeff Deforest. I'm at 3821 West Riva Capri Street, Meridian, Idaho. 83646. Yeah. I appreciate your guys'time here. I know there is a lot of discussion around a lot of common themes. I do second all those. I'm in the first phase of Vicenza here. It's that first loop and the entrance to my neighborhood would look east to the R-15 development. Now, some of the plot maps I have seen indicate that there is going to be a turn into that R-15 off of San Vito Way. I have an issue with that, just because of already the amount of cut-through traffic that we encounter on San Vito, we are only going to be adding to that traffic and, quite frankly, I think a lot of that cut-through through traffic is folks making their way to the south in the Bainbridge neighborhood where they do connect. So, I do take a lot of issue with where the -- how that R-15 is proposed with the -- and this one I don't know if it's showing it or not, the one looked at previously looked like there was a turn in off of San Vito Way there, so I apologize if I'm not up to date here, but the previous one I looked at was. Again, I think there just needs to be a lot of focus on the density. I know that's been said a few times here, but I think the thing I want to just, you know, communicate here the most is these drawings -- I know there has been amendments to them over the last, you know, 11, 12 years here since this land has been purchased, but it really feels like this new section of the neighborhood is taking a step back from what Bridgetower West looks like and feels like; right? It feels like the developer is trying to backpedal a bit and cover up selling that property to Walmart. I don't think the residents of Bridgetower West should pay for the developer selling that. Now, I do appreciate commercial businesses needing to have a home and having a place in our -- in our community. I understand that. But, you know, these layouts -- they don't go with the flow that Bridgetower West currently has and it just feels really poorly put together trying to just hide the commercial development that's on the other side. I don't know what the right answer is, to be honest with you, but I just want to keep that in mind -- have you guys keep that in mind that there is just no flow there compared to the rest of the subdivision and we shouldn't have to pay because there is a Walmart, you know, 300 yards away or across the field, so -- and, then, my last point here is because I'm right there at the corner of San Vito and McMillan, basically, I am very concerned about a light being put in at San Vito. That would shine directly into my master bedroom, into my dining room. The trees around this area there is -- there is plenty. We do appreciate the developer putting the amount of trees they did. However, they are not mature and that -- those lights are going to shine straight through my windows day and night. That's all I have got. Thank you so much for your time. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Weatherly: Madam Chair, Robin Moore. Robin, one moment. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F69 Page 65 of 84 McCarvel: Thank you. Robin, if you would like to unmute your mic and give your name and address for the record, the floor is yours. Moore: Hello. Can you hear me? McCarvel: Yes, we can hear you. Please -- Moore: My name is -- McCarvel: Okay. Moore: My name is Robin Moore and I live at 3604 West Balducci. I have never seen an HOA have a separate apartment complex in small housing. I don't understand why they are being included with the HOA, unless they are just trying to lump it all together. We don't have enough amenities as it is. The pool is already an issue. Communication is an issue. For an HOA this size there should be a monthly newsletter. Right now we don't have anything -- or any communication. The other thing about amenities and upkeep is there is not a single trash can anywhere. There is not a dog poop station. There is a lot of feces all over. There is a lot of trash all over from the construction. And the gardeners -- I don't know if they are responsible for it, but they just run the trash over. We are not getting what we have here maintained and I imagine it will be cheapened with the apartments. The traffic is out of control as it is and the schools. So, I don't think this seems well thought out. I think it needs to go back to the planning phase. McCarvel: Okay. Moore: But I thank you for your consideration. McCarvel: Thank you. Weatherly: Madam Chair, Shillington is next. McCarvel: Okay. Okay. Shillington, if you would like to unmute your mic and give your name and address for the record, the floor is yours. Shillington, your mic is still muted. I'm sorry, but we can't hear or see you. Adrienne, do we have everything done on our side? Weatherly: Madam Chair, I did ask Shillington to unmute. McCarvel: Okay. Weatherly: And that seems not to behaving an effect. I can transfer them back over and try again after we give -- McCarvel: Yes, please. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F70 Page 66 of 84 Weatherly: Okay. Grove: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yes, Mr. Grove. Grove: Could we remind the participants -- the attendees that if they have spoken once that they can't -- McCarvel: Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. Yeah. We are -- yeah. Attendees, if you have your hand raised and you have already spoken, that is your one time to speak. It's just one three minute shot here. Weatherly: Madam Chair, I'm going to try John Wycoff again. He did have technical difficulties earlier. McCarvel: Yes. Hi, Mr. Wycoff -- oh. No, we cannot hear you. So, your -- your mic is muted now. One more? No. Okay. All right. Thank you. Weatherly: Madam Chair, next would be an unidentified caller. McCarvel: Yeah. One moment. McCarvel: Let's try the number. Okay. 862-467-8784, if you could give your name and address for the record and I see your mic is unmuted, but we do not hear you. Guyer: Hello. McCarvel: There you go. Okay. My name is Bob Guyer. 4066 Philomena. And listening to the presentations here this evening, I wish there had been more of a participation provided to the community. Commissioner Holland brought up the point about the -- the large parcel behind the Walmart that in a perfect world it would have been a hospital or some sort of professional arts structure in there. I think that would be a great buffer in that area there, as opposed to going in that area. One of the neighbors commented about the marshiness coming from that downslope area down to the existing pool structure and it does get very very marshy in that area and as far as the school, just hearing from the neighbors and talking to grandkids and whatnot, it's getting pretty packed over there when you check the density in the classroom and that -- next to that -- or the access off of McMillan into the neighborhood, there should have been a light in there, because the -- the speed coming out of there -- somebody is going to get hit and there is just some very fast traffic coming through there. So, there is some things that don't need more density at this time, because there is some concerns and there is some improvements that just haven't been met yet and I have heard so many times from neighbors in the area about the lack of trash cans and whatnot in the area and so that neighbor lady, she hit the nail right on the head as far as that. So, there is things that have not been taken care of or ignored and to put more density in there right now is not headed in the right direction. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F71 Page 67 of 84 McCarvel: Thank you. And it looks like we have one more. Weatherly: Yes. We will give Shillington one more try. One moment. Shillington: Can you guys hear me? McCarvel: There we go. Shillington: All right. McCarvel: State your name and address for the record. Shillington: Yep. Scott Shillington. 4174 West Mazzeo Drive, Meridian, Idaho. 83646. So, I would like to backup what all my neighbors have already said, with the kind of going in the wrong direction and not being heard. Real quick, though, for my contribution I would just like to add a sample of what -- why I bought in the Bridgetower and it kind of goes with their mission statement and so I will just kind of share that with you now. Surrounding and contribute enormously to the lives of those who reside in a chosen place. Bridgetower West is a place of classic timelessness, reminiscent of Old World countryside living, bridged with the latest in smart home design, planned convenience and community connectivity, emphasizing the idea of a place to live, shop, and play. Bridgetower West is designed for you. To me we are not hitting the amenities or living up to this mission statement. That's personally why I bought here. The current model I bought under met those needs. After hearing they are going to start taking away from the park, bringing the potential apartment complexes and those kind of things don't mix -- meet the standard of what they are advertising online. I just want to add my input on that. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Okay. Adrienne, it looks like we have one more. Weatherly: Madam Chair, that would be Matthew Maschler. McCarvel: Yes. Weatherly: One moment. Maschler: Hi, there. Can you guys hear me? McCarvel: Yes, Matthew. Go ahead. Maschler: I just want to say thank you to all the neighbors that have stepped up and I agree with every single one of them, what they had said. It's all very true. For me my family and I moved here to escape overcrowded cities. We bought here just based on the space of the subdivision. If all this stuff happens there is going to be way too much noise, way too much disturbance. The roads, like everybody said, are not prepared for the traffic. This will cause -- it's just very unfortunate. I hope you guys have listened to everybody, what they have said, and taken it into account. A couple more things, though, Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F72 Page 68 of 84 1 want to add is -- is the R-15 going to be a part of our HOA? Is one question. And, then, also I think there was a mention of two other apartment complexes. Just curious to know why -- there is so much development here, why is it -- why is it so -- why do you have to make it so dense. And the last thing in closing about the park is that's where a lot of the kids -- we have three kids ourselves and that's where the kids go to unwind, go to play. You take that away from them, it's going to be really hurtful and, anyway, it's pretty emotional, but that's all I have for you guys. I want to thank you again, Madam Chair and the Commission, and thank you to all the neighbors for stepping up and being here tonight. I know it's late. So, thank you again. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. And it looks like we have no one left in the audience who is eligible to speak. Dodson: Applicant does -- just from the city side of things there were some questions there. McCarvel: You bet. Dodson: Thank you. Just to clarify for the public, the R-15 piece on this is -- well, first of all, this area's already zoned, so any proposed use that is allowed in those zones could be applied for without a public hearing and part of that would be a -- the multi-family, which is conceptually proposed on this R-15 piece, but there -- it is not part of this application. So, I just want to clarify that for the neighborhood. That would have to go through a conditional use permit and that is not part of this application. Secondly, with the McMillan Road, ACHD representatives did not -- they do not attend the Planning and Zoning Commission meetings, but they will be at the City Council and before the City Council I can ask to clarify if there is a planned light there. I don't know that for sure. At least that -- in regards to the road width of McMillan the applicant mentioned and other neighbors have mentioned -- McMillan is, from my understanding, is never going to be widened to be more than what it is because of the constraints of the canal and ditch and the power lines. So, that's a constrained corridor because of the increased density and increased number of homes in general out here. So, that's just unfortunately what is there. It just would be very very costly in order to widen that. In addition, the -- I guess I already touched on that. Yeah. Again, just want to reiterate that I understand the neighbors don't want commercial behind their homes, but the commercial zoning already exists and, therefore, with the certificate of zoning compliance, if it's allowed to use, it could already be built here. So, I just wanted to reiterate that. After that I -- the applicant should answer all the rest of the questions. McCarvel: Okay. All right. Bonnie, do you want to -- the floor is yours to answer -- respond to the public testimony. Layton: Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, Members of the Commission. Appreciate your time again this evening. I think there were a number of comments that we would like to touch on and I will just go through my list here, try to make it as quick as possible, so we can all get home here. First and foremost, the neighborhood meeting, yes, we did hold Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F73 Page 69 of 84 actually two neighborhood meetings. The first one we did have some technical difficulties. We -- we did notice that, a 500 foot radius, that was prior to the zone -- the ordinance changing from a 300 to a 500. So, we knew that the ordinance was changing. We sent out mailings to -- to that increased radius to try to capture people. We did have some technical difficulties. There were a handful of people that were on the call at that time. There was a lot of talking over each other and a lot of comments that were raised that were really HOA related issues and maybe frustrations with their HOA that didn't -- that weren't part of what we were holding the meeting for, which was to discuss this application, and so I had suggested that they reach out to their HOA. So, it was unfortunate. We submitted the information. Staff came back to us. I think it was in December and -- or November -- Joseph, I don't have the date right in front of me. We went ahead and we held this second neighborhood meeting. That lasted for over two hours. Both myself and Matt Munger were on that call with a number of the residents. So, we tried to our best to communicate that. Again, there were some issues and frustrations that were brought to light just as we have heard tonight from the neighbors that are HOA related issues that we suggested that they follow up with the HOA president and that we would do our best to pass those concerns on to the developer, which we have. In terms of the concerns about the park intrusion and the size of the pool and some of those amenities, we did address that with the owner and the developer. I would like to say that the pool is under contract to be constructed. The initial plan was to have it in the south side of the development. Staff has requested that we consider putting that in the north side of the development, which we are happy to do. The park intrusion -- and, again, I guess no good deed goes unpunished sometimes. When you are sold your home you are sold a copy of the plat. The park was over developed to try to maintain some of those weeds. We are not taking park space away. As Joseph mentioned in his report we are actually increasing the -- the park space, just going to be reconfigured a little bit. And, Joseph, I don't know if you could put that slide up on -- where we can see the line, if maybe you could bring that slide back up if you are there. Dodson: Sorry. Trying to. Give me a second. I don't know why it's not working. Layton: Joseph, if you can move the cursor to sort of where that line -- where that ground was over built initially. Dodson: Can everybody see this? Layton: Yeah. That exceeded the actual required area of the plat. So, we have heard those concerns. We are -- we are including the amenities in the open space. We are exceeding what we are required to do and doing our best to work with -- with the existing residents. I know that the owner has been in touch with -- there was one of the neighbors had started a petition about the pool and he had been -- he has been in direct contact with her and, again, as I mentioned, the pool is under contract to be constructed. So, hopefully -- hopefully that addresses that issue. I do want to also clarify -- there were some comments that we shouldn't have to pay for the developer selling property to Walmart. I do want to be very clear, in the history that I presented previously the Walmart property was sold long before -- it was sold in 2010. From the previous owner. Our client Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F74] Page 70 of 84 and the owner and developer of this project did not own the ground, did not sell it to Walmart. That had been purchased prior to him purchasing the rest of the property. So, just wanted to be clear on that. And, then, in terms of the rezone and the loss of commercial and, Commissioner Holland, to -- to your point -- and I know this is sort of your area of focus professionally. We did receive comments from staff about their concerns. We -- we looked at the staff report. Joseph did forward to me in an e-mail that ratio that you mentioned that -- I wasn't sure where the source came from, but it looks like you were referencing -- it's the same one, the nonresidential zoning for every hundred acres. So, we looked at that and, you know, from our client's standpoint this property was zoned commercial since 2008. So, that's been for 13 years and nothing has come and he likes commercial, he likes to own commercial and lease it out. That's -- that's what he does. But in this location it seems that there is -- there is no takers and so really what are we losing, but vacant ground that has not -- not had the demand of the market and so I looked at that and I said, well, you know, I want to understand this a little bit better. So, I pulled the 2017 existing conditions report from the City of Meridian and on page 2-18 it went through different square footages and vacancies and back in 2017 there was 3.2 million square feet of office available, according to the report that was information from Colliers. In 2019 in 2Q I found a Colliers report that had office at three point -- almost 3.6 million and, then, in Q4 now they have started splitting it out between south and north Meridian, but the total is right at about six million square feet. So, just from 2017 to Q4 of last year there has been a significant increase and yet this property has remained vacant and not for the lack of our client touring and vetting very competent high paying job type employers, but this is not where they want to locate. So, with that request we are saying it's -- it's vacant land, how much longer should he wait? It's been 13 years of trying to get somebody in place. That hospital went away. I think we saw earlier this evening some discussion on some commercial locating two mile radius from this site. One point three miles as the bird -- as the crow flies and so just really want to put that in -- into perspective. We still have the corner -- the southwest corner of the intersection that's open and our client is -- it's his goal to bring high paying, good quality jobs, not just develop a bunch of strip retail that's going to have a couple of tenants in it until they decide they need to move on or they move out of state and, then, it's -- then it's vacant space. He's incentivized to bring high quality tenants to those commercial properties as well. But that's just -- that just hasn't come to fruition. So, there is a demand for some residential. I appreciate Joseph clarifying for folks and for the Commission that the density of lots -- initially we had planned those to be 70 and 80 foot wide lots. Joseph, I think you have that original plan. And, then, upon feedback from staff is when we went to the plan that you see before you that has some 50 and 60 foot wide lots to increase the variety of -- of lots in the area and housing options for folks. I did want to touch on the schools. I think the Commission -- and I'm not sure folks on the call, but in this staff report it would appear that the school capacities are addressed on page three in the West Ada School District in terms of Pleasantview Elementary and currently the capacity of that school is 650 students and the number of students enrolled is 368. 1 can go down the list, but it's in your report to save time. The light at San Vito and McMillan, I just want to clarify -- I think Joseph touched on that as well. That was something our client initially had wanted to put an entry monument at that location and what he was told by ACHD was, well, that's great, you can build it, but when we want to put a light in there we will tear it out and so that area Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F75] Page 71 of 84 is reserved for a light, but that's per ACHD requirements. It's not something that our clients had intended on -- on having there and that was something that was part of ACHD's purview. And, then, also to clarify for folks that the R-15 is separate. It's not part of the HOA for this subdivision. It would have its own -- set up an HOA. It would have its own amenities that would be run save and separate from the rest of the community, as Joseph mentioned. Currently it's zoned R-15. Any type of use that would want to go in there would have -- depending on if it's approved or conditionally permitted would have to go through that approval process. At this time we are not requesting any change to that zoning and that's to remain as it was, as it has been rezoned that zoning designation since 2008. McCarvel: Okay. Layton: I think I have touched on most of the questions that folks had. If there is something that I have left out, I would stand for any last questions. McCarvel: Okay. Any questions from the Commissioners for the applicant? Dodson: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yes, Joe. Dodson: Sorry. One more -- my last interruption. I promise. I just wanted -- there was one last question that a resident asked regarding the neighborhood commercial and what that means. I didn't touch on it in my presentation either. So, I thank him for that question. I just want to clarify that that's intended to be a very walkable, pedestrian friendly type of commercial area with maybe food trucks here and there, some -- some plaza space, things like that that is very neighborhood friendly, not intended for a big box commercial or retail like that, just something smaller, more local kind of neighborhood. More of a Hyde Park feel, but, obviously, not on that scale. Just a condensed version of that with just pedestrian friendly, bicycle friendly. That's what that's intended to be. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Layton: If I may, Madam Chair, a couple things. Joseph, thank you for mentioning that. On page 52 of the staff report -- I don't know if you have that slide, that conceptual exhibit that we had put together in our presentation. It's -- it's the one that's got the elevations. It's in the staff report on page 52. And, really, again, that neighborhood commercial -- we understand that times are changing. There is a lot of folks that are working from home -- home offices. I think we had a gentleman testify, Mr. -- Mr. Buffham tonight, talking about owning a global company and working from his home in Meridian. Our owner and the builders -- the builder team in this community has seen the request for home offices even before the pandemic really be a strong -- strong desire of residents. We have a lot of folks who work from home. And so the neighborhood commercial was really envisioned to be a place that would be walkable, that would have outdoor plazas. Again, in your staff report we have got some examples of what that was envisioned and we really worked Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F76 Page 72 of 84 with staff to say how can we develop this to be kind of a center node for folks that they can go get an ice cream, it's close to the park, you know, maybe stop there on their way back from getting groceries or whatever other retail that might occur in the commercial zone that's adjacent to Ten Mile. So, it is intended to be that. It would complement both the single family residential, as well as the R-15 residential and really provide a good community hub and gathering place. Thank you all for your -- McCarvel: Bonnie, we lost you. Layton: Sorry about that. With that I just want to thank you all for your -- the time this evening. I know that the -- that our client is really -- really a desire to continue the quality development, the brick paver streets, and continue to add to the City of Meridian quality community for residents and for businesses in the area. So, thank you, again, for your time this evening. McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant? Grove: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Grove. Grove: I don't know if this is -- if we can ask this now or not, but I'm just kind of getting a sense that we could be headed towards a continuance, so before we close the public piece and, then, have to open it back up, can we ask if she's open to that as an option or is that -- McCarvel: Yes, I -- Grove: -- that time ask her or should I wait to do that? McCarvel: Yeah. I think there is just a lot here. I don't think we would send this -- just my feeling we wouldn't send this on to Council without having some definite drawings come back. I think it's a matter of how much time do we feel that staff and the applicant are going to need. If -- if it's the Commission's direction to continue this how much time would you like? Dodson: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yes, Joe. Dodson: Thank you for wondering and thinking of my busy schedule, but before we get to the continuance I just wanted to note that it -- me and -- well, staff and the applicant in general are -- don't agree on the amount of commercial. I think that's pretty clear. I don't know if having an extra two weeks or a month or six weeks to hash that out is really going to net anything. I don't know that for sure, but I definitely cannot guarantee that. McCarvel: Okay. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F77] Page 73 of 84 Dodson: Second to that, I think that some of the other issues brought up by the neighbors and everything else involving the overall DA, those aren't really on the table between the applicant and I, unless the Commission wants it to be so. So, if there is a continuance I would just ask that it be very precise and to what -- what needs to be revised and then -- just to give me some direction of where -- what parts of the project you do support or don't support, just to make sure that if it is continued I have that guidance with the applicant. McCarvel: Sure. Dodson: Thank you. Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I could save my comments towards when we close the -- the public hearing for comments, but I think it's -- it's worth having this discussion here. The way I see it where it sits right now -- I understand where the applicant's coming from and I understand some of what they are -- they are trying to propose here. But to me it -- I don't think it's the highest and best use of what we could do for this site and so at a minimum I don't think we could approve this tonight and I'm at the point where I would -- I would almost prefer recommending denial for what Joe just shared, that the applicant and staff don't agree on the amount of commercial needed here and I -- while I don't want to tell them that they need to stick with the original DA and try to come up with another site plan that -- that works better, I do think that going back to the drawing board at some level needs to happen for this project. I think that -- you know, I would encourage the applicant to reach out to the economic development staff at the city, if they haven't done so already, to try and market this property. But I'm really really concerned that -- if you look at the comprehensive plan for the city, this is really an area that we have planned for that -- higher occupations to go into and I know that they haven't had success selling that yet, but the Comprehensive Plan is a 20 year vision and so if we eliminate some of those opportunities now, we don't -- you don't get to remove houses later and the same thing with park space, it's -- it's almost a challenge and a detriment to them that they over built the park, because once you build a park and green space, if you try to take any of that back residents will always panic and not be content about losing some of the open space that was there, even if it was overbuilt from what was promised. It's -- it's hard to take away greenspace from people. So, I -- I'm really struggling with this, because I -- I would like to see it stay. I really like the original DA plan and would love to see if there is a way to help them accomplish the original intent of how that was designed, because I think all of the residential that came in around it was planned for the purpose of knowing that this had a significant portion of commercial plans that they did need it in other areas. So, I have some high concerns about the way this came forward and I -- looking at the way this residential is laid out, too, there is not a lot of special traits to it that made me look at it and say this is a desirable community to move into and I hate to say that to the applicant, Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F78 Page 74 of 84 but there is not a -- while they have got walkways and pathways and they are connecting to an existing development that has open space, there is not anything additional that they are really adding to create a desirable community within this area in my perspective and I know that might sound harsh. I will leave it at that for now. McCarvel: Okay. If there is -- I think that kind of gives us a direction as far as comments from the applicant and staff on continuance versus other options. So, I think if we are ready we can close the public testimony if someone would like to make a motion for H- 2020-0108 and move on to deliberation. Holland: I move we close public hearing -- Layton: Before you close the public hearing -- McCarvel: Oh, who is that? Layton: It's Bonnie. I'm sorry, Madam Chairperson. Before you close the public hearing I do want to say, you know, we -- we have worked with staff, we have been working back and forth. When we received the staff report just on -- on Friday, you know, we worked to revise the plan to try to address staff's comments and to come up with something that was more consistent with what those comments were -- trying to reflect what those comments were and I think we could get there with a little bit more time to fine tune the plan that you see on the left on the screen and, you know, work with Joseph and the rest of the staff to -- to -- to fine tune that. McCarvel: Okay. So, you would prefer a continuance over-- and some more time, rather than denial and move on to Council? Okay. Layton: Yeah. If -- yeah, if we -- if we can get some direction on that, yes. McCarvel: Okay. All right. We will take that under advisement. Commissioner Holland, did you want to continue with your motion? Holland: Well, that's a question for the Commission, if they want to continue the application. I -- McCarvel: No. I thought we were -- the motion to close the public hearing. Sorry. Holland: I would still be inclined to close the public hearing, because I -- I'm still leaning towards recommending denial at this point. I -- while I understand what Joe is trying to propose here and adding a little bit more commercial, I -- I still have challenges with the way that this -- this new concept looks. I don't think it solves some of the issues that we are looking at. So, in my mind I don't know that time is going to fix those challenges for me, but if others feel that no one has to second my motion. I'm still going to make the motion to close the public hearing. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F79 Page 75 of 84 Grove: I will second that motion. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2020-0108. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. McCarvel: Comments? Holland: I have made mine known. I'm going to be quiet, so -- McCarvel: Yeah. Okay. Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: Yeah, I'm right there with Commissioner Holland. I mean -- you know, I mean kind of had me at 65 percent reduction in commercial space. So, I mean if -- and if that's a sticking point to the whole thing, I just don't know that more time is going to overcome that. So, I mean this corridor right here is prime space for that. There are businesses popping up all over the place. So, I mean the notion that one big provider is going to come in here and buy this up and -- and make it viable is maybe not going to happen, but I think that there is plenty of space for other things to come in here that we are -- you know, will be good for our community as far as commercial use. So, I just -- I -- I can't get behind the overall reduction in commercial space. I just -- I mean I see where Joe's going with it to try and accommodate what they are trying to -- you know, what their vision of it is, but I just think the overall reduction in commercial space is way too much for this corridor that it's on. Grove: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yeah. Commissioner Grove. Grove: All right. I won't belabor the points too much, but we definitely have a -- on the same page as everyone in terms of lack of commercial. We have to maintain that. We don't -- we don't get -- we don't get another shot at this and there is not a lot of other opportunities. It's already in place with the comp plan for a reason, so -- and just looking at the -- if we even take it -- I have problems with it just looking at it from a residential layout standpoint. Even -- you know, if the commercial piece was taken out and we -- we left, you know, as is or whatever, which I don't agree with, obviously, but there is just a lack of open space, there is a lack of identity, kind of like as Commissioner Holland was saying in terms of the layout, it doesn't feel connected with the rest of the subdivision that it's, you know, supposed to be connecting to. It feels disjointed in that aspect and I think that is also kind of -- you know, I don't know. I have some other concerns that probably don't meet the standards of what we can discuss and not discuss, but I have a lot of concerns with this. I will say, though, that I -- I like the -- what they briefly touched on with Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F80] Page 76 of 84 the neighborhood commercial. It sounds like a great concept of integrating some commercial aspects into the fabric of the neighborhood. So, that -- that seemed great. But there is -- there is a lot of things that need to be addressed and some of them, you know, I think could be done with just some better communication and -- and having -- but for us we -- we need to have the long-term success of the community in mind and not the short-term success of the project I guess. Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: So, the -- the nice thing about annexations and rezones is it kind of gives us an ability to ask for what we want and my opinion, listening to the -- the homeowners, I think, you know, keeping the -- the park the way it is and size it is is something that we can ask for as part of the rezone. I do agree with Commissioner Holland that this -- this layout is not -- it doesn't fit and -- and I would -- I would actually be more inclined to continue this, because more than likely Council is going to remand it back down to us any wise is my guess and so why not give the developer -- give them some ideas of what we would like to see and the staff and see if they could come up with something that we can support. My personal opinion is I would like to see a little bit more open space, maybe remove some of those lots that are in the -- the current park zone right now and keep a portion of that park that's still there. Come up with a mix that we feel good for commercial and -- and I think -- I understand staff wanting to have a transition close to the general commercial, but I think we can actually just leave it as the exterior perimeter with the smaller lots and have the interior and adjacent to the bigger lots be bigger and have a shorter transition, instead of having just a row of -- or a sea of homes. So, that would be my recommendation to just continue this to allow them some opportunities to try to work together a little bit more and come up with something that -- that both of us -- that all of us could support. McCarvel: Yeah. I think we are -- you know, I think the general theme has definitely been consistent and if -- to continue the applicant needs to understand that we will stand firm on not having such a reduction in the commercial. Otherwise, we would recommend denial, so they need to work with that and, you know, I agree as the -- even the residential part of it that they have proposed in that original one it's not anything I'm excited about and it needs definitely its own open space and I would almost recommend, you know, some of that open space be in the form of the existing park and not taking the -- the existing area away and maybe expanding on it and creating, you know, what's left in the residential, something that we can support. Commissioner Fitzgerald or -- did we lose Commissioner Cassinelli? Fitzgerald: I'm here. I -- I think you want to -- I think I echo a lot of the -- the comments that -- I think you nailed it on the head. I think the theme is we are taking way too much commercial out of the -- out of the mix. That -- that reduction that Commissioner Seal mentioned is just huge and, you know, we -- this is a zoned property. It's already set up --this is what they thought was going to be there. The neighbors that built around it, that's -- we talked a lot about certainty in what they expected to be there and they are shifting Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F81 Page 77 of 84 gears significantly and I know that Bonnie's comment about no good deed goes unpunished, but when you build a park and people are using it and, then, they go and turn it into homes, they -- that is a bait and switch. I mean it is -- whether it's on a plat or not, the neighborhood feels like they got something taken away from them. So, unfortunately, that's the situation we are dealing with now and I think that's -- it's a rough gig. I understand it. But I do agree with the majority of your comments. I -- Commissioner Yearsley and I kind of-- we are on the same page. I think we have an opportunity to say exactly what we want and if they don't get that, then, I think the denial comes quickly following afterwards. It doesn't have very far leave to get there. But knowing that -- the feeling of the Commission probably would give them an impetus to try to work out the -- the balance that Joe is looking for. So, that would be my only comment. Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: Yeah. For me if we were going to continue it I would have to see a radically redesigned site plan and I don't know if it's better for them to just come back with a new application in that case or whether it's better to keep this moving forward and seeing if they could come back with something different for us, but I would agree that -- I think at a minimum they would need to keep the open space that was there, even though, again, their-- they over built the park, it's for the same reason that Commissioner Fitzgerald just explained. I think you can't really take that amenity away and I think you have got a great opportunity with where the commercial integrates with that open space that exists right now. You could do a really cool neighborhood commercial that would tie in with the open space. So, if you want to be a premier living community that does attract that other commercial user, have some really cool plaza spaces that open up into that open park and, then, you have got the walkability and the neighborhood connections that -- I mean I would be excited to live next to that if I could go play with my kids in the park and walk next door and have a cup of coffee and still be really close to my kids and be able to have that work-life integration. Or, you know, if they want to add some residential that's a great spot for that live-work unit where if they want to do a couple stories and have some apartments on top and have the -- the cool frontage. I know that that's a trendy thing and it's maybe a little more expensive to do, but I think they have a lot of opportunities still for this site. So, I'm still leaning towards denial a little bit, because I'm afraid that we are going to get back a rendition of what's in front of us right here and it's not going to be much better than what we are looking at and that's what I'm concerned about if we continue it. Grove: Madam Chair? Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Grove, go ahead. Grove: Okay. I'm kind of leaning towards what Commissioner Holland said. I feel like Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F82 Page 78 of 84 they have had really good resident feedback through this process, you know, tonight and with written comments, that they have an engaged group next to them and I feel like they could really harness some of that to --to build out like -- especially some of the, you know, neighborhood commercial pieces of this or the mixed use pieces that could potentially go in and make it into something that more people could get behind. McCarvel: Okay. Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Yes, I guess I was -- I was muted. I am -- I definitely want to see a continuance or-- or a denial, which I don't know which one is going to be the best, but just my thoughts and comments. I think this was -- I think this parcel was -- was -- was changed on the -- or updated on what I want to say on the future land use map based on the previous development agreement and plans that were submitted back in 2008 1 think was the date there. Prior to that it was -- it was leaning more towards residential, but so -- I don't want to penalize him for that necessarily, even though it is what it is. But in all actuality it's -- it's a mixed use community and I don't think that necessarily means that they have got to bring in a -- you know, some high tech employer, make this a tech center or something, I think we have got the Ten Mile interchange, we have got what we discussed earlier tonight of two medical centers across the highway from each other just a mile and a half away. But I do think they are missing the mark on -- on that -- the concept of mixed use community and I don't necessarily think that we have to tie them to a number of how much commercial we are losing or something, I just want to see -- I want to see something that's -- that with all that acreage that they have got there, something that will blow us away in terms of putting together a real neat concept. I don't want to say it has to look like El Dorado or -- or Silverwood -- I think it was Silverwood -- Silver whatever. It doesn't have to look like that, but it's got to be something that ties in the -- the components of a mixed use community, which is what it is. It does not have to -- I'm not -- I don't want a hard defined commercial area necessarily that says, okay, this is -- you know, we got a little tech center over here and we got -- got some retail here, whatever it is, but I just don't see it. And, then, I have an issue, too, with the -- that all the streets are -- they are parallel and perpendicular streets there. I want to see some like through Bridgetower and in the homes in the areas around it, I want to see some curvature in the streets and I want to see something a little -- a little different than just -- you will look at it and -- and it's kind of blah, especially when compared to what's next to it. And, then, the other comment -- and this has been brought up -- is definitely open space. I mean they are hitting it right now at ten percent and, you know, this many acres and I realized it's part of other developments, too, but I want to see more -- more open space in there, too. I mean -- I think I'm speaking for all of us here and several of you have made the comment, when you come in at the minimum we are not impressed. You know, give us more. Give us 12 percent, 14 percent, whatever it is. I guess the -- I guess the -- the minimum is ten percent, but, you know, let's have something more. I just -- with the acreage that's in there there is really I think some cool things that can be done with this --with this property. I don't necessarily share the same thoughts as far as having a hard line number with -- that X amount has to be commercial or something, but I do think that -- oh, you know, a lot of -- you got -- you got Walmart on one end and you got Costco on the other, let's -- there is just some -- I think there is some really neat things you could do that would make Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F83] Page 79 of 84 it a vibrant little center up there and it's -- this isn't it, so -- but I don't -- I don't have the answer. If it's -- I think Commissioner Yearsley said if we -- if we deny it Council is just going to remand it back to us and we are going to be in the same spot in -- in four months. So, I don't know what the answer is on that one, if it's continue or deny. But I -- it needs a lot of work. Holland: I think if we recommend denial and it goes to Council and Council thinks there is some saving grace with it and do remand it back to us, it's almost about the same as continuing it regardless. But it might give them more time to get some extra feedback from Council and direction. So, I'm going to throw out a motion and see if it goes somewhere. Madam Chair, I -- I -- after hearing all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend denial of the Vicenza North Subdivision, H-2020-0108, for the reason that it doesn't comply with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan in reducing the commercial, that there were concerns from the Commission about the integration of the residential and compatibility with the neighboring structures, that there was a loss in some of the existing open space and that the Commission would have liked to have seen better mixed use development in the plan and -- I think that's what I -- all I need to say. We will see if there was other things I needed to include in my reasoning. Cassinelli: I will second that. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to recommend denial of H-2020-0108. All those in favor of denial say aye. All those against denial say nay. Yearsley: Nay. Sorry. McCarvel: Motion to recommend denial is approved. Holland: Madam Chair, do we need to do roll call on that one? Pogue: Yeah. Just for the record was that Commissioner Fitzgerald? McCarvel: No. I believe it was Commissioner Yearsley that had the nay. Correct me if I'm wrong. Yearsley: That's correct. Pogue: That was Commissioner Yearsley? McCarvel: Yeah. I think -- Fitzgerald: I voted yes. McCarvel: So, one nay, the rest affirmative. Fitzgerald: I'm not going to be here to watch you guys deal either way. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F84] Page 80 of 84 Holland: Thanks, short timer. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE NAY. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yes, Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Just -- I know we have got one more on the docket. I need to -- I need to take care of something and probably will need to just mute my phone and walk away here for about ten minutes. McCarvel: Okay. I think at the minimum we are going to probably need to take a break, but I know there has been support of staff and this Commission to have an end time. So, do we want to take a break or do I have a motion to continue the next item to the next meeting? Holland: Madam Chair? Always my biggest concern whenever we get to 11 :00 o'clock is that if there were people who wanted to share public testimony by 11 :00 o'clock they stayed out and so I feel like we are not being as transparent if we start an application at 11:00 p.m. I would be in favor of continuing the application, but I know that the applicant's also hung with us probably through this point in time, too. So, I -- I sympathize with that as well. But I will do whatever the Commission wants and I will rally on if we decide to stay with it. Seal: Madam Chair? The question I would have to that, too, is when -- when is the next available if we do continue it, because it is late. McCarvel: Yeah. Joe, do you have -- I think the next -- is the next one pretty full? What have we got? Weatherly: Madam Chair, there are currently five hearings scheduled for February 4th. There are currently two hearings scheduled for February 18th. Dodson: Both those are mine already. McCarvel: Okay. So, Joe, are you comfortable with moving this one to the next meeting and, then if we have to bump whatever is last on that one to the following -- I mean I know it gets to be a vicious cycle, but -- Dodson: Madam Chair, I -- on that question I will default to my -- my boss man Bill. Mr. Parsons. I will say that the next application is not nearly as contentious. There was only one piece of public testimony provided. So, if we do move forward -- I don't-- I understand Commissioner Holland's point a hundred percent. I don't know if that would apply in this case, but, you know, I could be very wrong. Maybe there is a hundred people that want to testify. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F85 Page 81 of 84 Holland: Madam Chair, I just see 22 participants still in the attendee panel. That's what I worry about. Dodson: Yeah. I can't see that panel. That's not fair. McCarvel: Yeah. There is still quite a list and they -- a lot of them look like new names -- Dodson: Understood. McCarvel: -- from the last one. So, I would think it would be most fair -- I mean to -- if they -- if we did continue it to move it to the next meeting at the top of the agenda. So, I'm open to motions or suggestions on a five minute break or a motion. Holland: I think Commissioner Fitzgerald needs some practice making motions. Fitzgerald: I made a motion earlier. Holland: I'm just giving you your last opportunity. We are going to miss you. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, I -- this one -- it's always hard, because I don't want to have people who have hung with us for a long time, but I don't think this one's going to be as cut and dry as it may appear. So, I think we may be here until 1:00. Just -- and that's my concern for you guys and your families and everybody involved. We get a little punchy at -- when we hit about midnight and I'm not sure we make good decisions then or not. So, I would be -- I mean not because I'm not going to be here the next meeting, but I'm okay if we want to continue it, you put it at the top of the list the next meeting. I mean it makes sense. But it's completely up to the team that has to take it on, because I don't want to be the person who is deciding that. But I think long days start getting difficult. McCarvel: Yeah. Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: We have had a lot of support from staff to end them at a reasonable hour. Fitzgerald: Yeah. Holland: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I'm going to jump in and make a motion. McCarvel: Okay. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F86] Page 82 of 84 Holland: I move to continue the public hearing for Aviator Subdivision, H-2020-0111, by The Land Group, to the hearing date of February 4th for the reason that the hearing ran long and we want to make sure we get adequate opportunity to public to participate and make sound decisions and that we would put it as the first agenda item of that meeting. Grove: Second. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yes, Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Do we need to just get the applicant up and check and confirm that that date will work with them before we -- McCarvel: Andrea, do we need to do that or move forward? Pogue: You could do it if you would like. I don't know if the applicant is remote or in person. Dodson: Should be remote. Weatherly: Madam Chair, one moment. Brady, I'm going to transfer you over. Madam Chair, I'm transferring -- excuse me -- Brady Lasher and Kristen McNeill of The Land Group. McCarvel: We appreciate you guys hanging in with us, but we definitely want to give you the attention you are due and we hate to start this and have it need an hour or two. Our --the motion has been made and we would prefer to continue this to the top of the agenda on February 4th. McNeill: Madam Commissioner and staff and Members of the Commission, this is Kristen McNeill with The Land Group and, yes, of course we would love to present tonight, but we understand and we are available for the next date and appreciate being offered the opportunity to be the first on the agenda item -- first agenda item there. So, thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. It has been moved and seconded to continue Item H-2020-0111 to the hearing date of February 4th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. McCarvel: I believe before we have our last motion, Bill, did you have some announcements and things you want to say? Parsons: Well, I'm always willing to talk to all of you, but I did want to extend my appreciation to you, Ryan. Unfortunately, due to these -- this -- this COVID situation that Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F87 Page 83 of 84 we are all dealing with we couldn't have a formal -- a proper send off for you, but I did want to send my appreciation to you. I -- it just -- it seemed like yesterday you and I were in that conference room and I was there training -- Caleb and I were training you on your duties as a Commissioner and here we are several years later and it's time for you to retire as chairman and as a commissioner, but I want you to know that the team really appreciated your insight throughout the years and you are going to be sorely missed and I hope when we are done and past this I have your e-mail address, I will look you up and we will get caught up and send you off in a proper format. Fitzgerald: We will go have a beer at that time. Parsons: Yes. Dodson: I completely -- completely second that, Bill. Thank you again. Parsons: Yeah. We appreciate your service, sir. Fitzgerald: Well, it's been a pleasure. Thank you for everything. We greatly appreciate the opportunity and I will miss all of you. I will definitely come say hi. Dodson: Thank you, sir. Pogue: Is Adrienne on? Weatherly: I am. Pogue: Adrienne, do you wish to discuss the certificate of service for Ryan? Weatherly: Ryan, because of your years of service that you have given to the City of Meridian, the Mayor's office has prepared a certificate of service for you that we would like to give you. If you prefer that I mail it to you I'm happy to do that, along with your -- have your nameplate here, too. So, you might want to keep that for memory purposes. But I will have it in the City Clerk's Office, too. But if you prefer I mail it I'm happy to do that as well. Fitzgerald: I appreciate it. I can come by and grab it. Weatherly: That sounds good. We will have it for you in the clerk's office whenever you are ready to pick it up. Fitzgerald: Thank you. And thanks for all -- the team has been amazing. I can't tell you how much it's been a pleasure to work with everybody. So, Bill, Joe, Sonya, Andrea, Adrienne, thank you guys for everything. It's been a blast and, Chris, I know you are not on here, right? But you are probably somewhere. And tell Caleb we appreciate everything. So, thank you. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. January 21,2021 F88] Page 84 of 84 Pogue: Thank you, Ryan. Fitzgerald: The honor of the final motion goes to -- Parsons: Ryan. Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, I move we adjourn. Pogue: I like the fireworks. Cassinelli: I will second that. Fitzgerald: To my fellow Commissioners I love you all. Thanks for all the fun. It's been a blast. Carry on and do good work. McCarvel: All right. It has been moved and seconded to adjourn the meeting. All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. MEETING ADJOURNED 11:17 AT P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED 2 I 4 12021 RHONDA MCCARVEL - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK